Professional Documents
Culture Documents
M.H.E. Weippert
Editor-in-Chief
Thomas Schneider
Editors
VOLUME 35
The Worlds
Oldest Literature
Studies in Sumerian Belles-Lettres
By
William W. Hallo
LEIDEN BOSTON
2010
ISSN 1566-2055
ISBN 978 90 04 17381 1
Copyright 2010 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Despite our efforts we have not been able to trace all rights holders to some copyrighted
material. The publisher welcomes communications from copyrights holders, so that the
appropriate acknowledgements can be made in future editions, and to settle other permission
matters.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
printed in the netherlands
To Nanette
CONTENTS
Bibliographic References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Introduction: William Hallo and Assyriological, Biblical and
Jewish Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxiii
part i
programmatics
1. New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3. Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4. Toward A History of Sumerian Literature 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
5. Assyriology and the Canon 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6. Sumerian Religion 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7. The Birth of Rhetoric 2004. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
part ii
viii
contents
part iv
letter-prayers
1. Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition
1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
2. Letters, Prayers, and Letter-Prayers 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
3. Lamentations and Prayers in Sumer and Akkad 1995 . . . . . . . . . . 299
4. Two Letter-Prayers To Amurru 1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
part v
royal correspondence
1. The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: I. A Sumerian Prototype
for the Prayer of Hezekiah? 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
2. The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: II. The Appeal to Utu
1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
3. The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: III. The Princess and the
Plea 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
4. A Sumerian Apocryphon? The Royal Correspondence of Ur
Reconsidered 2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
part vi
historiography
1. Beginning and End of the Sumerian King List in the Nippur
Recension 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
2. Sumerian Historiography 1983 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
3. New Directions in Historiography (Mesopotamia and Israel)
1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
4. Polymnia and Clio 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
5. Sumerian History in Pictures: A New Look at the Stele of the
Flying Angels 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
part vii
contents
ix
proverbs
1. The Lame and the Halt 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575
2. Nungal In The Egal: An Introduction To Colloquial
Sumerian? 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
3. Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589
4. Proverbs Quoted in Epic 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 607
5. Proverbs: An Ancient Tradition in the Middle East 2004. . . . . . . 625
part ix
incantations
1. Back to the Big House: Colloquial Sumerian,
Continued 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 635
2. More Incantations and Rituals from the Yale Babylonian
Collection 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645
part x
contents
indexes
Ancient Near Eastern, Egyptian, and Classical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 729
Biblical and Rabbinical Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 739
Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 743
Personal Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 747
Divine Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 753
Geographic Names, Ethnica, and Names of Sanctuaries . . . . . . . . . . . . 755
Akkadian and Sumerian Words . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 759
BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES
I. Programmatics
New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature. Israel Exploration Journal 12 (1962):
1326.
The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry. Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Brussels, Belgium, June 30-July 4, 1969 [published
1970], 116134.
Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics. Perspectives in Jewish Learning 5 (1973):
112.
Toward a History of Sumerian Literature. In Sumerological Studies in Honor of
Thorkild Jacobsen, edited by S.J. Lieberman, 181203. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1975.
Assyriology and the Canon. The American Scholar 59 (1990): 105108.
Sumerian Religion. Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University 1
(1993): 1535.
The Birth of Rhetoric. In Rhetoric before and beyond the Greeks, edited by Carol
S. Lipson and Roberta A. Binkley, 2546; 231237. Albany: State University
of New York, 2004.
xii
bibliographic references
III. Royal and Divine Hymns
IV. Letter-Prayers
Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition. Journal of the
American Oriental Society 88 (1968): 7189.
Letters, Prayers and Letter-Prayers. Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of
Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, Israel: August 714, 1981, 1727.
Lamentations and Prayers in Sumer and Akkad. In Civilizations of the Ancient
Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 18711881. New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1995.
Two Letter-Prayers to Amurru. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 273 (1998): 397410.
V. Royal Correspondence
The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: I. A Sumerian Prototype for the Prayer
of Hezekiah? In Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, Kramer
Anniversary Volume, edited by Barry L. Eichler, 209224. Kevelaer: Butzon
& Bercker, 1976.
The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: II. The Appeal to Utu In Zikir Sumim:
Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday,
edited by G. Van Driel, Th.J.H. Krispijn, M. Stol, and K.R. Veenhof, 95
109. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982.
The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: III. The Princess and the Plea. Marchands, diplomates, et empereurs: tudes sur la civilization msopotamienne oertes
Paul Garelli, edited by D. Charpin and F. Joanns, 377388. Paris: Editions
Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991.
A Sumerian Apocryphon? The Royal Correspondence of Ur Reconsidered.
Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip (H.L.J. Vanstiphout),
edited by Piotr Michalowski and Niek Veldhuis, 85104. Leiden: Brill, 2006.
bibliographic references
xiii
VI. Historiography
Beginning and End of the Sumerian King List in the Nippur Recension.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 17 (1963): 5257.
Sumerian Historiography. History, Historiography and Interpretation, edited by H.
Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, 920. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1983.
New Directions in Historiography (Mesopotamia and Israel). Studien zur
Altorientalistik: Festschrift fr Willem H. Ph. Rmer, edited by M. Dietrich and
O. Loretz, 109128. Mnster: Ugarit Verlag, 1998.
Polymnia and Clio. Proceedings of the XLV e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
(2001): 195209.
Sumerian History in Pictures: A New Look at the Stele of the Flying
Angels. An Experienced Scribe who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies
in Honor of Jacob Klein, edited by Y. Sefati et al., Bethesda, MD: CDL Press,
142162.
VIII. Proverbs
The Lame and the Halt. Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical
Studies 9 (1969): 6670.
Notes from the Babylonian Collection, I: Nungal in the Egal: An Introduction to Colloquial Sumerian? Journal of Cuneiform Studies 31 (1979): 161165.
Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos. The Jewish Quarterly Review 76
(July 1985): 2140.
Proverbs Quoted in Epic. Lingering over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern
Literature in Honor of William L. Moran, edited by Tzvi Abusch et al., 204217.
Atlanta, Scholars Press, 1990.
Proverbs: An Ancient Tradition in the Middle East. Foreword to A Culture
of Desert Survival: Bedouin Proverbs from Sinai and the Negev, by Clinton Bailey,
ixxvi. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.
xiv
bibliographic references
IX. Incantations
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
PREFACE
In 1960 and 1961, while serving as instructor and then assistant professor of Bible and Semitic Languages at Hebrew Union College
Jewish Institute of Religion in Cincinnati, I spent two summers at the
Yale Babylonian Collection (YBC) in New Haven. My principal object
was to find unpublished texts illustrating my theory on the Sumerian amphictyony (the so-called bala-system) which I had presented
at the meeting of the American Oriental Society in Toronto in 1955
and was later to publish in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies (vol. 14,
1960). Opening drawer after drawer, I became so familiar with the typical physical appearance of the bala-texts that I ended up identifying
no less than twenty of them, plus the Hartford seminary textnow
at Andrews University in Terrien Springs, Indianawhich clinched
my whole argument. At the same time I learned to appreciate the
enormous extent and diversity of the YBC, or rather the various subcollections constituting the YBC. I also became acquainted with Ferris
J. Stephens, the Curator of the Collection and, to a lesser extent, with
Albrecht Goetze, the Laan Professor of Assyriology and Babylonian
Literature.
The following year, Professor Goetze invited me to Yale as assistant
professor of Assyriology and associate curator of the Collection, succeeding Stephens who was about to retire. Although my six years in
Cincinnati had been extremely happy, I knew I could not pass up this
opportunity to move into the big time (to quote T. Cuyler Young, Jr.,
whom by chance I encountered around then in New York). I received
warm congratulations from my assyriological colleagues, none more
meaningful than those of Samuel Noah Kramer. When you get there,
he told me, be sure to look into the Sumerian literary texts. He knew
whereof he spoke, for some years earlier he had been invited to the
Collection by Goetze to catalogue and identify its Sumerian literary
texts. This he did to perfection, leaving behind a hand-written checklist
in many pages enumerating and identifying some hundreds of literary
texts in Sumerian or, occasionally, Sumerian and Akkadian. Apart from
scattered publications in early volumes like BIN 2 (1920) and BRM 4
xviii
preface
(1923), none of these had been published, with the notable exceptions
of hand-copies prepared by Stephens and included by Kramer in his
editions of Gilgamesh and Huwawa (JCS 1, 1947), Inannas Descent
(JCS 4, 1950), and the Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur (1940),
and by Adam Falkenstein in his editions in Sumerische Gtterlieder (1959)
and Sumerische religise Texte (Shulgi A in ZA 50 for 1952). The
rest thus represented arguably the largest hoard of Sumerian literary
texts remaining to be published from any one collectionand more
than any one copyist could handle. For the record, I list here some of
the texts I did publish, as far as they are not included in the present
volume: The Exaltation of Inanna (YNER 3, with J.J.A. van Dijk, 1968);
Obiter dicta ad SET (Jones AV = AOAT 203, 1979); More Incantations and Rituals from the YBC (1999); A Model Court Case Concerning Inheritance (Jacobsen AV, 2002). Occasionally, I also prepared
copies for incorporation in editions being prepared by colleagues, such
as The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur by Piotr
Michalowski (1989, fig. 11).
Given my interest in literary texts with historical significance (see
my Polymnia and Clio, VI.4 in the present volume) in general, and
my specific involvement with royal hymns in particular (see my Royal
hymns and Mesopotamian unity, here: III.1), I decided to concentrate
on Sumerian royal hymns and related genres in the YBC, which
became the working title of the volume I embarked on, confident that I
could finish it in relatively short order. But as so often, it proved easier
to find a title for the volume than to complete it, and it was only my
retirement from forty years of teaching at Yale in 2002 which enabled
me to do so. In this, I was significantly assisted by Torger Vedeler,
(PhD., Yale, 2006) under a Mellon Research Grant arranged by Yales
Koerner Center for Emeritus Faculty, its director Dr. Bernard Lytton,
and its executive assistant Ms. Patricia Dallai. The texts in question
will be published or republished in that volume with the generous
permission of Benjamin Foster, my successor as Curator and Laan
Professor.
But even while concentrating on my chosen genres, I did not forget Kramers injunction. Though never formally my teacher, he was
inevitably a model and inspiration for me as for anyone with any interest in Sumerian literature. I therefore deliberately opened the Collection to former students and to other collaborators who had left behind
half-finished manuscriptsthat is another story, for which see briefly
for now my preface to Litkes An=Anum (TBC 3, 1998)but also to
preface
xix
my own students and to colleagues from all over who had never been
to the Collection but who seemed willing and able to prepare the handcopies so urgently called for. Their main reward was to be permission
to edit the texts they copied or to include them in the editions they
were preparing on the basis of duplicate texts or relevant parallels in
other collections. The following list of the results is not meant to be
exhaustive. It is based in part on the catalogue of canonical texts which
I prepared for the Collections forthcoming on-line catalogue under the
direction of Ulla Kasten, Associate Curator of the Collection. Lexical texts are generally not included here. Dates refer to publication
dates; undated texts remain to be published (AV = anniversary volume).
Alster, B., Disputation between two scribes (ASJ 15, 1993); Proverbs (1997);
Dialogue 7 (between two scribes) and other wisdom texts.
Beckman, G. and B.R. Foster, Assyrian Scholarly Text (Sachs AV, 1988).
Bodine, W., A Model Contract (RAI 40/1, 2001).
Civil, M., The farmers instructions (1994; pls. xiiif.); dialogue between two
women, disputation between bird and fish, disputation between pickaxe and
plow; Dialogue 3 (Enki-mansum and Girini-ishag); Dialogue 4 (The scholar
and his assistant) and other wisdom texts.
Cohen, M., Another Utu hymn (ZA 67, 1977); Balags (CLAM, 1988).
Cooper, J., The Curse of Agade (1983).
Farber, W., Lamashtu amulet (Kantor AV, 1989).
Honer, H.A., K.GAL = abullu (MSL 13, 1971).
Jacobsen, Th. and B. Alster, Ningishzidas boat-ride to Hades (Lambert AV,
2000).
Klein, J., Three Shulgi Hymns (1981).
Kutscher, R., a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha (YNER 6, 1975); Utu Prepares for Judgment
(Kramer AV = AOAT 25, 1976).
Michalowski, Sin-iddinam and Ishkur (Sachs AV 1988); Lamentation over
Sumer and Ur (1989); Hymn to Gibil, Kusu et al. (Hallo AV, 1993); The
Royal Correspondence of Ur; Fable of raven and goose.
Reisman, D., Hymn to Enlil (Two neo-Sumerian royal hymns, 1969); Nisaba
hymn.
Shaeer, A., hymn to Utu.
Sefati, Y., Love Songs (1998).
Sjberg, A., in-nin sha-gur-ra (ZA 65, 1975); A father and his perverse son
(JCS 25, 1973).
Van Dijk, J: A Ritual of Purification (Boehl AV, 1973); an en-ne (Kramer AV =
AOAT 25, 1976); lugal-e (1983); incantations and rituals (YOS 11, 1985).
Veldhuis, N., Elementary Education at Nippur (1997, HAR-ra V).
xx
preface
preface
xxi
introduction
WILLIAM HALLO AND ASSYRIOLOGICAL,
BIBLICAL, AND JEWISH STUDIES
xxiv
with his mother and sisters, in 1940 to the United States. There he continued his Hebrew and Jewish education during his high school years in
New York City, especially at the Jewish Theological Seminary, and then
in Boston, at the Hebrew College, while he was an undergraduate at
Harvard University concentrating in another area of antiquity, Roman
history.
Subsequently, Assyriology became Hallos major focus in graduate
study, first at the University of Leiden as a Fulbright scholar in 1950
1951, where he received the degree of Candidatus litterarum semiticarum, and then at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago
(M.A. [1953] and Ph.D. [1955]). His M.A thesis, The Ensis of the Ur III
Empire, was never published, but many have had access to it and it
remains an important contribution to this day; indeed one might say
that it has never been superseded, even if the large number of cuneiform tablets from the period that have been published in the subsequent half century require an updating of the data collection. Hallos
doctoral dissertation, subsequently published as Early Mesopotamian Royal
Titles: A Philologic and Historical Analysis,2 already demonstrated his deep
interest in synthetic historical work. And his many teachers at the Oriental Institute helped him hone his broad intellectual interests with a
concomitant focus on the analytical collection of data. Working under
the direction of I.J. Gelb, he combined his historical interests with the
study of administrative documents, leading him to explore their use in
the reconstruction of political as well as economic systems, and not simply as texts to be mined for lexicographical purposes.
Hallos first faculty appointment was at the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati (HUC) (19561962), where he taught a broad range
of subjects, covering Assyriology, Biblical and Jewish Studies. He now
began what would be a consistently abundant writing program that
has lasted to this day. His first publications naturally derived from his
thesis work; they centered on early Mesopotamian historical inscriptions and administrative texts, including pioneering studies of Ur III
administrative texts that sought to analyze their structure and purpose
and to elucidate their technical terminology. After six years at HUC,
Hallo was called to Yale, as successor to Ferris J. Stephens, where he
moved up the ranks from Associate through Full Professor of Assyriology and then, in 1976, to Laan Professor of Assyriology and Babylo-
American Oriental Series 43. New Haven: The American Oriental Society, 1957.
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
Piotr Michalowski, The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur: The Epistolary History of an Ancient
Mesopotamian Kingdom. Mesopotamian Civilizations 15. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, in
press; Nicole Maria Brisch, Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature
of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 20031763 bce). Alter Orient und Altes Testament 339. UgaritVerlag, 2007.
xxviii
xxix
xxx
Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo, and John B. White, eds., Scripture in Context:
Essays on the Comparative Method. Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 34; Pittsburgh: The Pickwick Press, 1980; William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue, eds., Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method. Winona Lake:
Eisenbrauns, 1983; William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly,
eds., The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III. Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8; Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press,
1990; and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., William W. Hallo, and Bernard F. Batto, eds., The
Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV. Ancient Near Eastern Texts
and Studies 11; Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1991.
7 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press) in three editions (1950, 1955, 1969).
xxxi
Characterizing all of this work, Assyriological sensu stricto and comparative, is its bibliographical thoroughness: nothing of the ancient
textual sources, and nothing of the voluminous and often widely dispersed modern scholarship appear to have escaped Hallos eye. Then,
too, Hallo has never been content with an older style of Assyriological investigation, which often could not venture beyond the philological examination of a text. As we have seen, even in his philological
investigationspainstaking in the best of the earlier traditionhe has
always asked larger questions, about literary form and tradition, and
cultural setting and profile, and done so very much aware of, though
not obsessive about, wider, non-Near Eastern scholarship in literature,
philosophy, history, and the like. This wider orientation has become
much more common now, as the earlier, basic work of decipherment
and organization of the field has been achieved, but Hallo, it may fairly
be said, was one of its early proponents.
Finally, whether it is a biblical text or a Mesopotamian that is a
later legendary composition, Hallo has wanted to be open and generous to the possibility that such texts can serve as historical witnesses
to the events, institutions, and the like which they describe. Of course,
Hallo is not oblivious of the distortions and even outright inventions
of Biblical and Mesopotamian texts in these instances. But he is just
as, even more, impatient with scholars who would easily dismiss the
historical footing of the texts or the chance for meaningful comparisons of texts and other artifacts across the cultures of the ancient Near
East, especially Biblical Israel and Mesopotamia. As he put it, at the
end of his Compare and Contrast article, What counts is that, in
the understandable revulsion against parallelomania, we not subject the
biblical data to an equally unbridled parallelophobia. In this regard,
as he himself noted in another of the papers reprinted in the present
volume, Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics (I.3),8 his work represents an eort to deal with the famous 1926 lecture/publication of one
of his Chicago professors, Benno Landsberger, on Die Eigenbegrifflichkeit der babylonischen Welt.9 Landsberger in that lecture called
8 Thanks to Bill T. Arnold for reminding one of us (Machinist) of Hallos remarks in his Problems article concerning Landsberger: see Arnold, Assyriology
and Biblical Studies: Time for Reassessment?, Bible and Interpretation [2005], on-line at
www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Arnold_Assyriology_Biblical_Reassessment.shtml.
9 Benno Landsberger, Die Eigenbegriichkeit der babylonischen Welt. Islamica II
(1926/reprinted 1974) (August Fischer Festschrift), pp. 355372. Reprinted: Landsberger-Von Soden, Die Eigenbegriichkeit der babylonischen Welt (Benno Landsberger); Leis-
xxxii
tung und Grenze sumerischer und babylonischer Wissenschaft (Wolfram von Soden) (Libelli 142;
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1965), pp. 118; Nachwort, p. 19. Translated: Benno Landsberger, The Conceptual Autonomy of the Babylonian World, trans. T. Jacobsen, B. Foster, and H. von Siebenthal, with introduction by T. Jacobsen (Monographs
on the Ancient Near East 1/4); Malibu: Undena, 1976.
i
programmatics
i.1
NEW VIEWPOINTS ON CUNEIFORM LITERATURE*
This paper was read to the Third World Congress of Jewish Studies held in
Jerusalem in 1961. The following abbreviations have been used in this article:
ANET
An.St.
AfO
Ar.Or.
Bi.Or.
BWL
HUCA
JCS
MDOG
RA
ZA
1
Cf. J.Ph. Hyatt: The Writing of an Old Testament Book, BA, 6, 1943, pp. 7180.
To these well-known schools may now perhaps be added the interesting new view
advanced by S. Sandmel: The Haggada within Scripture, JBL, 80, 1961, pp. 105122.
3 Almost the only attempt at source analysis in Akkadian of which I am aware
is P. Koschakers division of Codex Hammurabi into pre-Hammurabian and Hammurabian elements; cf. especially Rechtsvergleichende Studien zur Gesetzgebung Hammurabis.
Leipzig, 1923, and Beitrge zum babylonischen Recht, ZA, 35, 1924, pp. 199212, esp.
pp. 205 . For Sumerian, one may mention T. Jacobsen: The Sumerian King List. Chicago,
1939.
4 W.G. Lambert: Ancestors, Authors and Canonicity, JCS, 11, 1957, p. 1.
5 Latest edition by W.G. Lambert, BWL, ch. 3.
the unusual circumstances of the case that prompted him to break the
usual pattern of anonymity even to this extent, and, though we have
half a dozen further examples of acrostics in Akkadian literature,6 none
of the others include an authors name.
The Epic of Irra7 was composed by Kabti-ilani-Marduk. This we
learn from the final chapter of that book. But again the circumstances
under which this information is provided are exceptional. For we are
told that the presumed author received the text of the epic in its entirety
from the deity, and it is precisely in order to tell us this that his name
is included in the composition at all. Moreover, as Lambert has seen,8
the reference to divine inspiration is simply a way of denying Kabtis
authorship of the epic and implying that he received it from an earlier
authority.
In both of these cases, the evidence for authorship, such as it is, is
incorporated in the texts themselves. There is, however, new and additional evidence which we owe to the Akkadian penchant for drawing
up lists. We possess certain lists and catalogues of authors, or of literary
compositions and their authors, which have recently been studied by
von Soden and Lambert.9 It is from one of these that we know of the
author of the Gilgamesh Epic as Sin-liqi-unninni. Lambert has shown
that this name and a number of the others go back to Kassite times,
the earliest datable one being from the fourteenth century.10 True, in
(of ) the mouth of in these catalogues does not imply authorship in
the strict modern sense,11 for even if we date the canonical version
of Gilgamesh to the Kassite period, it is clear that it built on earlier
versions and that the Kassite author was in part simply an adaptor.
However, the far-reaching changes which we can trace precisely in this
composition in the passages where both the Old Babylonian and the
corpus were simply generated by the scribes, and that they displayed as
little originality in their creative work as they did in their slavish copying of older models.
New discoveries force a revision of this view. The British excavations
at Kalah have turned up, among other magnificent finds, an entirely
new category of cuneiform inscriptions: instead of clay tablets, the slime
at the bottom of a deep well had preserved intact wooden and ivory
writing boards covered with wax. These boards were then fastened
together in harmonica fashion to produce a true book. This book
contained, interestingly enough, the astronomical omen series, enuma
Anu Enlil. As the excavators saw, these omina were apparently recorded
from actual, patient observation of celestial phenomena night after
night. They therefore could not employ a writing surface like clay,
which hardens quickly and makes additions and alterations impossible.
The wax surface of the wooden writing boards was ideally suited for
keeping a cuneiform record over a prolonged period of time, and at the
same time entitles us to suppose that much, if not all, of the late omen
literature was likewise a creative, experimental venture, albeit directed
towards ends far from scientific.22
A similar conclusion can be reached in the case of the great lexical series, such as ana ittisu and HAR-ra = hubullu, which are increas
speculation. In this case
ingly recognized as based on observation, not
the object of observation consisted of the actual Sumerian of the neoSumerian and Early Babylonian periods, or at least its written survivals.23 Nor did the philological spirit die out thereafter, for the commentaries of the later and latest periods represent a scribal innovation
that took many dierent forms.24
22
For the writing boards from Kalah, see M.E.L. Mallowan: The Excavations at
Nimrud (Kalhu) 1953, Iraq, 16, 1954, pp. 94110 and D.J. Wiseman: Assyrian Writing
Boards, ibid., 17, 1955, pp. 313 and Margaret Howard: Technical Description of the
Ivory Writing-Boards from Nimrud, ibid., pp. 1420. For the general question, cf.
H.Th. Bossert: Sie schrieben auf Holz, Minoica (= Sundwall Anniversary Volume, Berlin,
1958), pp. 6719.
23 This conclusion was reached independently by H. Limet: Le Travail du mtal au
pays de Sumer. Paris, 1960, p. 190 (sub 1) and by J.B. Curtis & W.W. Hallo: Money and
Merchants in Ur III, HUCA, 30, 1959, p. 136.
24 Some of these mukallimatu themselves became parts of the canon, while others
have all the appearance of ad hoc aids prepared by or for private readers of the classical
texts. All show many striking similarities with the so-called synonym lists, and there may
be an organic connection between the two genres. On commentaries, see most recently
E.F. Weidner: Ein Kommentar zu summa izbu, AfO, 19, 19591960, pp. 151152.
25 Cf. O.R. Gurney: The Myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal (= The Sultantepe Tablets
VII), An. St., 10, 1960, pp. 105131.
26 MDOG, pp. 2425.
27 We can assess their historical value best when we have two or even three independent reports of the same event, as in the case of Sennacheribs siege of Jerusalem
or, to take a new example, the battle of Dr in 720; cf. W. Hallo: From Qarqar to
Carchemish, BA, 23, 1960, pp. 53, 59.
28 A.L. Oppenheim: The City of Assur in 714 bc, JNES, 19, 1960, especially pp. 143
147.
29 A.L. Oppenheim: A New Prayer to the Gods of Night, Oriens Antiquus (= Studia
Biblica et Orientalia, 3 = Analecta Biblica, 12, 1959), pp. 282301.
10
the sleeping city and countryside from the roof on which he is conducting his ritual, and paints this picture in an almost impressionistic
manner. The phrases used by the priestly poet are not in themselves
new. Indeed, Oppenheim has traced a number of them back in different combinations and contexts to Old Babylonian times. But their
employment here shows that some of the scribes, at least, had command of what Oppenheim calls topoi and could draw on them at will.30
Such topoi can be found also scattered through Sumerian31 and Akkadian32 literature, and at least one runs through both.33 The discovery
of the topos in Akkadian poetry thus reveals a situation not unlike one
sometimes associated with the biblical psalmsa stock of phrases, lines,
and even whole stanzas at the disposal of a school of poets who created
from them ever-new combinations.34
The reason why the evidence for the last point is relatively meagre is
to be sought in yet another factor, the last that can be considered in this
connection. The literary texts which are preserved for us tend to come
from palace or temple libraries and schools, and thus implicitly bear
the stamp of ocial acceptance. They are overwhelmingly dedicated to
30 Ibid., pp. 290298. As far as I can see, the term was first applied to the cuneiform
field by B. Landsberger: Jahreszeiten im Sumerisch-Akkadischen, JNES, 8, 1949, p. 281.
For a useful definition of the term, cf. G. Bradley: The topos as a form in the Pauline
Paraenesis, JBL, 72, 1953, p. 240.
31 Cf. the frequent topos of fertility to which A. Falkenstein has called attention in
ZA, 50, 1952, p. 78 and Sumerische and Akkadische Hymnen and Gebete. Zrich, 1953, p. 361.
32 Lambert, BWL, p, 315, finds lines 143147 of the Counsels of Wisdom paraphrased
in Harper, Assyrian arid Babylonian Letters, No. 614 Rev. 8 f.
33 The famous line, Who is tall enough to ascend to heaven, who is broad enough to
embrace the earth? occurs in more or less identical form first in the Sumerian wisdom
literature, then in the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living, then
in the Old Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, and finally in the neo-Assyrian poem of the
Obliging Servant; cf. ANET, p. 48, lines 28 f., p. 79, lines 5, and p. 438, lines 86 f.
In the last case, the quotation is dearly intended as the very type of a platitude; cf.
E.A. Speiser: The Case of the Obliging Servant, JCS, 8, 1954, p. 105, n. 21; dierently:
Lambert, BWL, pp. 140141, 148, 327.
34 Needless to say, the biblical topos is not limited to the Psalms. A comparison of
Hos. iv, 9 with Isa. xxiv, 2, for example, or of Gen. xix, 19 with Judges xix, 1425,
shows the same tendency to repeat or enlarge a given theme in a given manner. The
whole problem of such internal parallels in the various separate ancient Near Eastern
literatures is worthy of investigation. For some Egyptian examples, see W.K. Simpson:
Allusions to The Shipwrecked Sailor and the Eloquent Peasant in a Ramesside Text, JAOS,
78, 1958, pp. 5051. For the related question of citations, see R. Gordis: Quotations
as a Literary Usage in Biblical, Oriental and Rabbinic Literature, HUCA, 22, 1949,
pp. 157219 and Quotations in Wisdom Literature, Jewish Quarterly Review, 30, 1939
1940, pp. 123147. Cf. also n. 2 above.
11
35 Even apparently literary texts such as Adapa frequently end in practical incantations and probably owe their survival to this fact. Cf. Oppenheim, op. cit. (above,
n. 19), p. 413.
36 Oppenheim, ibid., p. 414, suggests that this literature may have been written in
Aramaic, or on perishable materials, or in palaces like that of Babylon which have
so far defied excavation. That there was ever a sizeable body of oral literature in
Mesopotamia seems unlikely; cf. J. Laesse: Literacy and Oral Tradition in Ancient
Mesopotamia, Studia Orientalia Ioanni Pedersen septuagenario. . . .dicata. Copenhagen, 1953,
pp. 205218.
37 Cf. MDOG, p. 15; E. Weidner: Die Bibliothek Tiglatpilesers I., AfO, 16, 1953,
p. 198; idem: Amts- und Privatarchive aus mittelassyrischer Zeit, V. Christian Anniversary
Volume (= K, Schubert, ed.: Vorderasiatische Studien. Wien, 1956), pp. 111118; W.G. Lambert: The Sultantepe Tablets: a review article, RA, 53, 1959, p. 121.
38 O.R. Gurney: The Tale of the Poor Man of Nippur (= The Sultantepe Tablets V),
An. St., 6, 1956, pp. 145162 and addendum, ibid., 7, 1957, p. 136; cf. E.A. Speiser:
Sultantepe Tablet 38 73 and Enuna Elis III 69, JCS, 11, 1957, pp. 4344.
39 For the Akkadian proverbs, cf. BWL, ch. 9, for the Sumerian proverbs, E.I. Gordon: Sumerian Proverbs (= Museum Monographs. Philadelphia, 1959) and previous literature
cited there, pp. 552553.
40 Cf. Especially H. Lewy: The Babylonian Background of the Kay Ks Legend,
Ar. Or., 17/2, 1949, pp. 28109, and Nitokris-Naqa, JNES, 11, 1952, pp. 264286. For
the Babylonian background of the book of Daniel, cf. W. von Soden: Eine babylonische
Volksberlieferung von Nabonid in den Danielerzhlungen, Zeitschrift f. Alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft, 53, 1935, pp. 8189.
12
13
of some only one.41 Much the same situation can be demonstrated for
the Old Babylonian copies of Sumerian texts: few discrete exemplars
of even the more popular compositions. It is true that, as Oppenheim
suggests, the methods of the scribal schools may have encouraged their
graduates to construct and maintain small libraries of their own, but as
far as the decisive public collections were concerned, i.e. those of the
temple, palace, or school, our evidence to date suggests a very limited
edition of complete literary texts at any given site in spite of their wide
geographical and chronological attestation.
The situation is dierent, however, when we consider the brief excerpts generally referred to as exercise tablets. These are indeed attested in great abundance. What interests us about them here is a
new type of exercise tablet which has recently come to light. Two
small tablets from Assur published by Lambert42 show extracts, not just
from two or three compositions,43 but from ten dierent series, all of
them identifiable as standard books in the neo-Assyrian stream of tradition. What is even more significant, the compositions are excerpted
in exactly the same order in both tablets, in fact in each case the
lines quoted in the one tablet follow immediately those quoted in the
other tablet when compared with the full version of the texts involved.
What this seems to imply is the existence of an accepted list of classical
texts, and the emergence or a standard order in which they were to be
read or studied.44 In keeping with this hypothesis is the fact that lexical
texts head the list and that omen texts make up the greatest part of
it.
41 W. von Soden: Zur Wiederherstellung der Geburtsomenserie summa izbu, ZA, 50,
1952, p. 182 (cf. on this series also P.C. Couprie, Bi Or., 17, 1960, p. 187). As von Soden
points out, the reconstruction of the separate exemplars of a given series is a neglected
but valid part of lower textual criticism in Assyriology. (Oppenheim, loc. cit. [above,
n. 19] counts up to six copies of some Nineveh texts.)
42 BWL, Pl. 73 and pp. 356357.
43 An interesting example of this variety of extract (Akkadian nishu) tablet is Baby the Lipit-Ishtar
loniaca, 9, pp. 19 f. and Pl. 1, which has, on the obverse, extracts of
hymn translated by A. Falkenstein, in Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. Zrich,
1953, No. 28, followed by Codex Hammurabi par. 7, and, on the reverse extracts of
paradigms. The tablet is now in Geneva; cf. E. Sollberger: The Cuneiform Collection
in Geneva, JCS, 5, 1951, p. 20 sub 6.3. Cf. also D.O. Edzard: Die zweite Zwischenzeit
Babyloniens. Wiesbaden, 1957, n. 463.
44 Akkadian id (NG.ZU) is the material to be known (i.e. by heart), and tamartu
(IGI.DU8.A) is the material to be glanced at for reference only. The latter term is
commonest in the colophons of Assurbanipals personal (?) library; both occur in the
curriculum of the incantation priest (below, n. 49).
14
15
Epic: a Babylonian History of Mankind, Bi. Or., 13, 1956, pp. 9899.
53 Cf. the divergent interpretations of the important colophon of Nazimaruttash
(c. 13131288) by von Soden, MDOG, pp. 2223, and Lambert, JCS, 11, 1957, pp. 8
9, or the colophon of the newly found catalogue of the series sa-gig (above, n. 48) by
Kinnier Wilson, op. cit., pp. 136 . and Lambert, ibid., p. 6.
54 Lambert, ibid., p. 7 considers the possibility that Kassite scribal schools descended
straight from Old Babylonian ones. It is true that, according to one tradition, the
scribes and learned priests fled to the Sealand at the end of the Old Babylonian period;
cf. B. Landsberger: Assyrische Knigliste und Dunkles Zeitalter, JCS, 8, 1954, pp. 68
69, n. 174. But the Sealand itself may have restored them to Nippur, for its kings
revived the tradition of Sumerian royal names (ibid., p. 69 and n. 175) and, possibly,
of Sumerian royal hymns (cf. below, n. 61). Lambert, op. cit., pp. 34 further holds that
scribal families [or guilds] were responsible for transmitting Akkadian literature from
the Kassite period onwards, i.e. after the demise of the old-style schools. For a similar
evaluation of Hittite scribal organization, cf. Laroche, op. cit., (above, n. 49), pp. 9
13.
55 The canonical order, in fact, reflects or represents the curriculum of the schools,
which may have begun with the texts mentioned in n. 52, then passed on to the primer
of Assyriology, the so-called Syllabary A, then to the other syllabaries and vocabularies
before turning to the connected literary and scientific texts; cf. n. 56 below.
56 For the Old Babylonian period see B. Landsberger: Babylonian Scribal Craft and
its Terminology, Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress of Orientalists, 1954, pp. 123
126. Interesting terms from the later period are to be found in the sa-gig colophon
(above, n. 53) and in the lexical series L-sa.
51
52
16
and studied among others by Kramer, Gadd, and van Dijk.57 But the
existence of comparable institutions and techniques in later periods and
at such diverse places as Assur and Hattusha is implied by the analysis
of their libraries.58 In the library of Assurbanipal at Nineveh, the scribal
traditions of Mesopotamia found a fitting climax, whether we can still
speak here of a school or not.
The schools, however, did not exist in a vacuum. Behind them stood
at all times some form of higher authority. Usually, this was the state,
in the form of the monarch; more rarely it may have been the temple.59
This can be demonstrated by a variety of indications from various
periods. Most obvious is the personal connection between school and
court: scribal training was, at least in some periods, the necessary and
sucient basis for any public career, administrative, priestly, or military,
and even royal princes were honoured to bear the title of scribe.60 For
the neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian periods, I have tried to establish
a link between successive Babylonian dynasties and the Sumerian poets,
probably of Nippur, which seems to have involved the honouring of
certain kings in the hymns in return for the patronage of the scribal
schools by royal favour.61 The antiquarian interest of certain of the
later kings is well known,62 and some of them were equally patrons
of literature. There can be little doubt that the scribal schools or guilds
existed with the active consent and support of the state. It seems hardly
too far-fetched to suppose that the work of canonization, if it really was
their work, reflected the needs of the monarchy.
S.N. Kramer: Schooldays, JAOS, 69, 1949, pp. 199 . (= Museum Monographs, 1);
C.J. Gadd: Teachers and Students in the Worlds Oldest Schools, London, 1956; J.J.A. van Dijk:
La Sagesse sumro-accadienne. Leiden, 1953, pp. 2127. Cf. A. Falkenstein: Der Sohn des
Tafelhauses, Die Welt des Orients, 1, 1948, pp. 172186.
58 Cf. Weidner, op. cit. (above, n. 37), pp. 197215; Laroche, op. cit. (above, n. 49),
pp. 723, and, for a very general survey, A.A. Kampman: Archieven en bibliotheken in het
oude Nabije Oosten. Leiden, 1942.
59 That the scribes came under the direct patronage of the temples from Middle
Babylonian times on as Lambert suggests (BWL, p. 14) may perhaps be questioned in
the light of the specific exclusion of the secret, i.e. more advanced, texts of certain
priestly techniques (the so-called nis. irtu; cf. R. Borger, Bi Or., 14, 1957, pp. 190195) from
the scribal canon. On the contrary, the omina, prayers, rituals, etc. are full of specific
applications to the kings.
60 Cf. already V. Scheil: Princes Scribes, Recueil des Travaux, 37, 1915, pp. 127128.
61 W. Hallo: Royal Hymns and Mesopotamian Unity, paper read to the 171st meeting of
the American Oriental Society, Philadelphia, 1961, here: III.4.
62 Cf. most recently G. Goossens: Les Recherches historiques lpoque no-babylonienne, RA, 42, 1948, pp. 149159.
57
17
i.2
THE CULTIC SETTING OF SUMERIAN POETRY
A. Introduction*
Three years ago I announced the identification, in the Yale Babylonian Collection, of a nearly complete hymn to the goddess Nisaba of
which only a few lines were otherwise known from duplicates, and I
promised to deal with it at a future date.1 This paper represents an
attempt to redeem that pledge. But an edition of the hymn with the
traditional philological apparatus no longer appears, to me, either a
necessary or a sucient approach to the task. It is no longer necessary
because the pioneering work of Adam Falkenstein and his disciples has
provided ample evidence for most of the textual, structural and lexical problems raised by the hymns to deities in general. It is no longer
sucient because we are now ready to raise some larger questions concerning this genre to see, if we can, what place it had in the life, and
particularly the religious life, of the culture that produced it. For reasons
that will become apparent, the hymn to be presented here contains
what may be some particularly valuable clues toward resolving these
questions.
The cultic setting of religious poetry is not, admittedly, a question of
interest solely to Sumerologists. It could be investigated with profit for
the first millennium when, indeed, elaborate ritual calendars explicitly
prescribe the particular festivals and other occasions for the recitation
of specific compositions.2 And of course criticism of the Biblical Psalms
has, since the days of Herrmann Gunkel, insisted on the determination
of the Sitz im Leben for each genre isolated by the so-called Gattungsforschung. In a recent study of Individual Prayer in Sumerian,
I attempted to apply similar form-critical criteria to Sumerian religious
* This portion of the paper was presented to the 17th Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, Brussels, July 2, 1969, and is reproduced here without change.
1 JCS 20 (1966), 91 n. 14.
2 JAOS 88/I (= AOS 53, 1968), 72 n. 7, here: IV.1.
20
21
22
are the adab and tigi, named after two kinds of musical instruments.14
These are structurally identical except for the short prayer (uru) appended to the adab.15 They seem to constitute prayers on behalf of the
king in a variety of situations and cannot necessarily be equated with
any one given ceremony. Purely as a hypothesis, it may be suggested
that they were commissioned for occasions such as the installation of a
high priest or priestess (who was often a son or daughter of the king) or
the presentation of a royal votive oering.16
But there are other genres where the cultic role of the king is clearer.
At least some of the balbal-e compositions cast him in the role of
Dumuzi, that is as the male partner in the sacred marriage,17 and such
compositions typically treat, or entreat, the nation-wide fertility that is
supposed to ensue.18 The kings real marriage is perhaps reflected in
another antiphonal genre, the lum-a-lam-a, if we may follow Buccellatis suggestion with respect to the so-called Marriage of Martu.19
The birth of the royal heir was no doubt a fit subject for hymnography
as was, demonstrably, the death and burial of the king.20
If we now consider all these literary reflections of the royal role in
and out of the cult, they will be seen to add up to a kind of hymnic
biography of the monarch. This can already be demonstrated for Ur
Nammu and Sulgi,
for whom we have a particularly impressive corpus
of royal hymns of all kinds. The same two kings also have left the
largest numbers of royal inscriptions from their dynasty, and both of
these facts can hardly be unrelated to the lengths of their reigns.21
There are striking and sometimes even literal parallels between the
date formulas and the royal inscriptions,22 between the date formulas
and the royal hymns,23 and between the royal hymns and the royal
14 Henrike Hartmanns doubts on this point (Die Musik in der Sumerischen Kultur, p. 197)
are now dispelled by Kramer, JCS 21 (1967 [1969]), 116, line 186.
15 BiOr. 23 (1966), 241, here: III.3.
16 Hartmann, p. 206, suggests that the adab belongs to the royal meal that followed
the processional of the gods and the sacred marriage of the New Years celebration.
The fixing of fate for king and country may have followed.
17 BiOr. 23 (1966), 244, here: III.3.
18 Ibid, 241 (4).
19 Amorites of the Ur III Period, p. 339.
20 Kramer, Goetze Volume = JCS 21 (1967 [1969]), 104122.
21 HUCA 33 (1962), 8.
22 Cf. eg. AOS 43 (1952), 92 (Amar-Sin).
23 Cf. eg. JCS 20 (1966), 139, here: III.2, and n. 80 (Ur-Nammu); Falkenstein, ZA
50 (1952), 82 f. (Sulgi).
Cf. also van Dijk, JCS 19 (1965), 18, who correlates, and in
part reconstructs, the date formulas of Nur-Adad of Larsa on the basis of VAT 8515
lines 195 .
23
inscriptions.24 I am therefore inclined to reconstruct an annual or biennial ceremony,25 perhaps related to the New Years celebration, in which
one and the same event was memorialized in three discrete formulations: at its most concise in the ocial proclamation of the date formula; more fully in an appropriate royal building or votive inscription; and at its most elaborate in the royal hymns.26 The nature of
the eventcultic or secularmay have determined the precise genre
of the hymn and the place of its promulgation.
While this recurrent cultic pattern must remain a hypothesis, there is
more solid evidence for the special and extraordinary occasions which
brought the kings to the temples. Kings and commoners alike could
address petitions directly to the gods, by means of letters deposited
at the feet of their statues.27 Sometimes the addressee was himself a
deceased and/or deified king, as in the case of the elaborate letterprayers of Sin-iddinam addressed to the statue of his father Nur-Adad
for transmittal to the sun-god.28 But the living kings were also invoked
as objects of prayer, and a whole category of such prayers has been
identified, characteristically ending each time in, Oh NN my king
(RN lugal-mu).29 In at least one case, such a prayer to Rim-Sin involved
a religious processional through the sacred precincts at Ur, with halts
for sacrifices at the locks and gates of each structure, and can be
directly paralleled by archival texts from Ur detailing the sacrificial
expenditures involved.30
It remains now to consider those genres which are wholly at home
in the priestly sphere and do not explicitly involve royal participation in
the cult. Here the clearest case is, perhaps, provided by the lamentation
(balag) for the destruction of a temple. As Jacobsen has seen, a classic
example of the genre such as The lamentation over the destruction of
Ur was not composed during the catastrophe, nor even in response to
24
it, but at the time of the reconstruction.31 It represented, in fact, a liturgical apology to the deity for completing the razing of the sanctuaries
as a necessary preliminary to their rebuilding.32 Much the same can be
said for other lamentations.33 The actual dedication of the completed
new temple was presumably the occasion for more joyous expressions,
speciflcally perhaps the class of poems generally referred to as temple
hymns. Their finest representative is certainly Gudeas hymn in praise
of the rebuilding of the Eninnu at Lagash. But the genre did not begin
with him, since the great cycle of hymns to all the temples of Sumer
and Akkad is attributed, on the strength of its own colophon, to Enheduanna, the daughter of Sargon.
Where, then, do hymns to deities fit into this picture? This is the
question which I posed at the outset, and which we must consider now.
Divine hymns are considerably more common than either congregational laments or temple hymns, and they are generally shorter. In
both of these respects they are, rather, more like the royal hymns of
all sorts. Thus the specific cultic events which occasioned them must
have occurred more frequently than the reconstruction of a temple
if indeed they were occasioned by such events. From all that has been
stated already, it should follow that they were, and it is here suggested
that the specific event involved may well have been the dedication of
a cult-statue of the relevant deity. In a significant number of divine
hymns, the deity is apostrophized precisely in terms of the characteristics associated with the statue, notably the tiara and cloak which radiated the divine splendor. This is true whether we view this splendor in
an abstract sense, as has recently been proposed by Elena Cassin,34 or
maintain the physical interpretation of such terms as n, su-zi, me-lm,
etc., as I am inclined to do, following Oppenheim.35 The latter scholar
has also drawn attention to the fundamental importance of the statue in
31 AJSL 58 (1941), 22 f. Cf. p. 221: It must have been written no more than seventy
or eighty years after the destruction.
32 This seems preferable to the suggestion that the Ur Lament was recited on the
anniversary of the destruction or on the return of the statue of Ningal, as suggested by
Yvonne Rosengarten, RHR 174 (1968), 122.
33 At least of the Old Babylonian period; cf. R. Kutscher, a-ab-ba-hu-luh-ha: The
1967),
History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament, Yale University Ph.D. Thesis (unpubl.,
pp. 110. For late and elaborate prescriptions in this regard, see e.g. A. Sachs apud J.B.
Pritchard, ANET 339342: Ritual for the repair of a Temple.
34 Elena Cassin, La Splendeur Divine (= Civilisation et Socits, 8, Mouton, 1968), 133 pp.
35 Akkadian pul(u)h(t)u and melammu, JAOS 63 (1943), 3134.
25
the Babylonian cult.36 In line with this importance, many if not all of the
neo-Sumerian hymns to deities were perhaps originally commissioned
together with statues, and first recited at their dedication. If so, they
anticipated the later techniques of endowing these man-made objects
with their supernatural powers by means of elaborate rituals known as
mouth-washing and mouth-opening37 (The latter concept was already
known at this time even if not in ritual form).38
The divine hymn was not, however, simply used at the dedication
of the statue, and then forgotten, any more than the statue remained
forever sheltered from general view in the niche of its sanctuary. On the
great festivals, the statue left its throne-dais and was carried in public
procession to be admired by all,39 and on these occasions, it may be
suggested, the mouth of the statue was once more formally opened40
and the hymn in its honor again recited.41 In this manner, a text that
began as a dedicatory inscription, of virtually monumental character,
was transformed into a canonical composition, copied and recopied in
temple and school.42
36 The golden garments of the gods, JNES 8 (1949), 172193. The care and
feeding of the gods, in his Ancient Mesopotamia (1964), 183198. Cf. also ANET 342 f.,
for the Program of the Pageant of the Statue of the God Anu at Uruk. But cf. also
note 76 below.
37 Cf. e.g. IV R 25: inim-inim-ma. . . ka-duh--da-kam and Ebeling, Tod und Leben
(1931), pp. 109122. Important new texts are in preparation by C.B.F. Walker of the
British Museum. Note also STT 2: 198201.
38 Cf. below, note 40 (ka-du -ha); note 56 (bursuma-gal 53: ka gl(a)-tag ); note 52 f
8
4
(nin-mul-an-gim 4: ka-ba-a). For washing of statues see Laesse. bit rimki, pp. 15 f. and
n. 20. Note that in the Irra-epic, the divine craftsmen (apkallus?) are needed to breathe
life into the divine statue; Reiner, Or. 30 (1961), 9 f.
39 Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 187 and below, Section D, comment to line 7. Cf.
also the hymn to Nintu (TMH n. F. IV 86 and duplicate) which I plan to edit elsewhere
cf. also note 36 above. Here: III.5.
40 Cf. M. Civil, JNES 26 (1967), 211, who lists Ur III texts from Lagash recording the
repeated mouth-opening of the statue of the deified (and deceased) Gudea.
41 New hymns and even myths may also have been composed when the statue visited
another city on special occasions; cf. v. Dijk, JCS 19 (1965), 21 f. and literature cited
there. For divine journeys in general, see now H. Sauren, Or. 38 (1969), 214236; .W.
Sjberg, RLA 3 (1969), 480483.
42 It may be noted in passing that the annual (or perhaps even monthly) recitation
of enuma elis (at the annual New Years festival) was addressed to the statue of Marduk
(Lambert, JCS 13, 1968, 106 f.). Given its epilogue (ib. 107 f.) this text has a better claim
to be regarded as a hymnic exaltation of Marduk (YNER 3, 1968, 66 f.; cf. already
v. Dijk, Sagesse, 1953, 39 n. 47) than as an epic of creation (a title better reserved
for Atar-hasis). Thus it constitutes late evidence for the perpetuation of the cultic life
situation here suggested for the divine hymns.
26
46 Cf. most
recently J.J. Finkelstein, RA 63 (1969), 2527.
47 R. D. Biggs, AS 17 (1968) 14 f. ad no. 49.
48 It has been suggested for Isme-Dagan *11 (= SRT 13 Rev.) by Rmer; cf. SKIZ
p. 18. On the contrary Finkelstein, JCS 21 (1969), 42 n. 5 now suggests the possibility
that the prologue [of CH] was an adaptation of an already known Hammurapi hymn
for the monumental purpose of the stela.
49 Cf. also the designation 4 na-r-a, 4 steles, at the end of the Louvre Catalogue
of literary texts. For Kramers latest proposal regarding this enigmatic colophon, see
WZJ 6 (1956/7). 393 n. 3.
50 JCS 20 (1966), 91.
43
44
27
28
2. Catalogue Entries
g
h
61 Whether the tablet was once intended to be placed in the statues mouth (cf. n. 28
above) by way of giving it life in anticipation of the later mouth-opening ceremonies
cannot be answered here. My student, Miss Tikva Frymer, suggests the analogy this
would have in the mechanics of the Golem. A nearer parallel may be provided from
the ancient Egyptian cult of the deceased king, a main feature of which consisted
of rituals performed in front of his statues to make them live and partake of food
oerings (W.K. Simpson, unpubl. MS). Cf. also the references in A.L. Oppenheim
Ancient Mesopotamia (1964), 364 n. 10; van Dijk, Falkenstein Volume (1967), 239 n. 33.
62 The physical join was confirmed and eected during a visit to the British Museum
in July, 1969.
63 I am grateful to Dr. Shaer for allowing me to study his copy in advance of
publication.
64 D and E are dealt with briefly by . Sjberg, Or. 37 (1968), 239 f.
29
3. Distribution of Exemplars
A
B
C
D
E
F
complete (157)
18 (omits 7)
16, 5257
ii (obv.): 18; iii: 2829; iv (a): 3235; v (b): 4047; vi: 5154
4147
120, 4357
4. Transliteration
I
i (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
II
(7)
(8)
(9)
ii (10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
ki-gar a-sedx(MUS.DI)-d/
s-ks-
kur hi-nun-ta/m-zi/du11-ga
gist-gar
? /kur-gal-e /tu-da
m-zi dub-sar-mah-an-na/sa12-sug5/dEn-ll-l
III
(14) ab-sn-na /se-gu /m-m-d
(15) dasnan/nam-en-na/u6-di-d
(16) bra-gal/imin-e /m-zi-dam
30
(18) eburx(SIBR)
ezen-gal/dEn-ll-la-ke4a
[i-na e-bu-ri-i]m/[. . . P]A.A
iii (19) nam-nun /-gal-la-n /bSU ! nam-mi-in-su-ubb
(20) tg-ma6-k /s-ge /nam-mi-in-lc
D: a. kam
F: a. kam (!) b-b. [su-su-ub nam]- mi -in-di (?) c. mu4
IV
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
en-gal/mu-un-hun-e/ezen mu-unhun-e
en-gal/kalam-ma /m-ma-hun-e
ki-sikil dNisaba/sudx(KAxSU)-d
mu-un-r
V
(29) -GEST.
/dNISABA-ke4/gl nam-mi-in-tag4
bi-[it . . .]
[30] dub-za-gn /du10-na /nam-mi-in-gar
[31] dub-mul-an-k-ta/s im-ma-ks-
(32) arattaki/-za-gn-na/ su -ni- s mu-un-gar
i-na [. . .]/bi-tim [. . .] /q-ti-i-sa i[s-kun]
(33) ereski / hi-nun-na /mua-d--nam
nu!-[uh-si-im]/i-pi-i[s]
e-ri-is i-na
D: a. mu-un-
VI
(34) sig4-NISABA /du13-du13-l /ki-gar-ra
i-na li-bi-it-t[i . . .] /el-le-tim a-na a[s-ri]ta-sa-ak-ka-a[n]
(35) gist /nama-galam-ma /sag-e-es /rig7- ga
ru-bu [
]
(36) abzu men ?-gal/eriduki/s-hal-ha-la
v [37] n[un. . . . . .] nun-hal-ha-la
[38] engar-gal nam-nun-na/-n-gr-ru/nagar
eriduki-ga
[39] lugal su-luh-luh-ha-ke4/en-ms-en-gal-la/dEn-ki-ke4
D: a. nun ! (over eras ?)
31
VII
(40) -engur-ra /ki-tus-a-n
[-en-g]u-ur i-na wa-sa -bi-su
(41) abzu eriduki-gaa/d-d-a-n
[ap]-zab-amc de-ri-dud /i-na ee-pe-si-i-su
(42) hal-laf-k/s-ks--da-n
ha-al g-la-an-kuh /i-na mi-it-lu-ki-su
i-na
skarin(KU)/tn-bar-ra-n
(43) -gistu
bi-it ti i-is-kaj-ri-in-ni-im /i-na su-pe- el -ti-i-su
(44) NUN.ME /sg-bar-ra-du8-a-n
ab-gal-lum sak pe-re-et-zu /a-na wa-ar-ki-i-su /i-na wu1-usm-su-ri-im
(45) n- gist -gao/gl-tag4-a-n
(46) gis -ig- gist -gap sila-ba gub-baq-n
(47) lilis ?-gal/giserin-a rti-las-n
[li]- li-is ra-bi-is /[. . .-e]l-li
(48) xt gisgismmar /su-du8u-a-n
(49) bv-bav[. . .]/KU.[. . . ?]PA sg-[ga]-a-n ?
A: v-v. balag ? ?
D: a. omits f. an h. BA k. omits n. lines 4546 followed line 47 (?) r. new.
line s. la!-a
E: b. [z]u c. um d-d. NUN.KI e. omits f. an g. omits i. di j. ga l.
m. omits? n. lines 4546 followed line 47 (?)
F: n. lines 4546 follow line 47 o. KA.[x] p. ka q. a t. lilis?-DU?? u. du7
VIII
vi (50) dNisaba/um-me- gal ?-gal-la/ x -7 mu-una-na-du11 b
(51) dNisaba/m-zi/m- sa6 -ga/m kur-ree tu-da
(traces)
(52) dNisaba /tr-rad h-me-en /eamas-af ga h-me-en
si-im/ lu- sa-am-nu-um
at-ti/[i-na] su-pu-ri-im/
[dNisab]a i-na ta-ar-ba.
lu- l]i-is- du -um /a[t-ti]
(53) -n-gag-ra /kisib-glh h-me-en
[. . . . . .]-im/[. . . . . .]-su/[at-t]i
(54) -gal-la / agrig ]-zi h-me-en
i
(55) gur7-du6/gur7-mas-a/gur
7-gur -gur h-me-en.
Doxology
(56) nun-e /dNisaba-ra /m-du11-ga
(57) a-a dEn-ki/z-m-zu/du10-ga-m
Colophon in A
u4 ]-[x-kam]
iti-se-kin-kuru6
traces of a Samsu-iluna (??) date
32
5. Translation
I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Oh Lady colored like the stars of heaven, holding the lapis lazuli tablet,
Nisaba, born in the great sheepfold by the divine Earth,
Wild kid nourished (as) on good milk with pure vegetation,
Mouth-opened by the seven flutes,
Perfected with (all) the fifty great divine attributes,
Oh my lady, plenipotentiary of Ekurra
II
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
33
VI
34. She is created out of pure little bricks,
35. She is granted wisdom in highest degree.
36. In the Abzu, the great crown (?) of Eridu, (where) sanctuaries are apportioned.
37. [In
], (where) oces (?) are apportioned,
38. The great princely plowman of the resplendent temple, the craftsman of
Eridu,
39. The king of lustrations, the lord of the mask of the great high-priest,
Enki
VII
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
C. Literary Parallels
Line 1: In her votive inscription (note 54), Nisaba is called the brilliant
woman (munus mul-mul-la). She consults with her lapis lazuli tablet
in her temple hymn (note 59), in Hymn C (note 57), and in the Enlil-
34
bani hymn (line 53) (note 60). Note also the holy (or silver) tablet of
Nisaba in a list of divine symbols (PBS 13:60:11). Cf. also below, ad
lines 3031.
Lines 25: Note what appears to be a progression of metaphors in these
analogous lines: birth, suckling, weaning, perfecting. The repertoires
of royal epithets compounded with divine names follow comparable
patterns; cf. Hallo, Titles (1957), 132142.
Line 3: This familiar theme is applied with variations to both gods and
kings. Thus, Ningirsu, for example, is a fawn nourished on good milk
by a deer (TCL 8, pl. LIV 5 ii 4; SGL 1:116); Lulal (= Latarak)65 is the
fawn of a deer who feeds on the good milk of the mountain beasts
35
Line 12: These epithets recur in whole or in part in the votive inscription (note 54)66 and in the Lipit-Istar hymn *24 (Rmer, SKIZ p. 24),
line 19.
Line 14: For grain and vegetable in parallelism, cf. e.g. JNES 18 (1959),
55 f. and 60 f. With the reduplicated verb grow they recur in a-ab-ba
hu-luh-ha (note 33) line *220 = CT 42:26:32 (and duplicates) and in CT
36:27:6.
Line 16: For nam-en-na as a qualification of plants and animals, cf.
CAD s.v. bitr (adj.).
Line 17: See ad line 14.
Line 18: The identical line recurs on the lower edge of HAV 16 (reference courtesy T. Jacobsen).
Line 1920: For the periodic cleansing of the divine statue, cf. note 40.
For its daily washing and dressing ceremony, cf. Oppenheim, Ancient
Mesopotamia (1964), 193. For su-ub-(su-ub), to cleanse, and thenot
surprisingsequence of ritual washing and dressing, cf. van Dijk, Falkenstein Volume (1967), 246 ., and UET 6:101:18.
Line 20: Cf. e.g. VS 10:199 iii 19, cited by Falkenstein, ZA 44 (1938),
7: tg-ma6-k kus-m mu-ni-in-l. For the priestly (elsewhere royal)
character of the ma6-garment, cf. Renger, ZA 58 (1967), 127.
Line 22: For nisag (first fruits, etc.) see in detail van Dijk, JCS 19 (1965),
1824; for ne-sag as a possible phonetic spelling of the same word, ib.
24. For ne-sag with d (pour, libate) cf. Rmer, SKIZ 194.
Line 24: Kusu and Asnan are virtual personifications (or deifications) of
the grain, and appear together in a number of passages; cf. Bergmann,
ZA 56 (1964), 25 f.; Falkenstein, An. Or. 30 (1966), 80 n. 5; Krecher, SKly
( 1966), 132134. At other times, k-s(g) is an epithet of Asnan (ib.).
66 Restoring lines 12 f. as [sa ]-su !-mah [ d]En-l[l-l] (collated). She is thus not the
12
5
sister of Enlil (Falkenstein, An. Or, 30, 1966, 110 and note 7 on the basis of this passage)
but, to judge by our text (cf. lines 11 and 51), his daughter.
36
67
I am indebted to Professor Jacobsen for this extract from 3 N-T 299 (unpubl.):
4. dNIDABA
5. dAN.NIDABA
6. dHA.NI
68
ni-s-ba
na-ni-ib-gal
ha-a-a-um
For this translation of ms or ms cf. the study announced above, note 39.
37
38
62; An. Or. 30 (1966), 131. It also occurs in bursuma-gal (note 56)
line 40 and in the Code of Lipit-Istar xix 51 (cf also UET 6:192:1). The
variant spelling should be added to those noted by Krecher, SKly (1966),
128, n. 384. For kisib-gl as a professional name in Old Babylonian
economic texts cf. e.g. UET 5:191, 535 f.; as a divine title it occurs in
UET 6: 101:7 (Haia).
Line 55: This common topos recurs with Nisaba in Hymn C (note 57)
and CT 42: 4 iii 3; cf. Kramer; PAPhS. 107 (1963), 501503. Cf. also
Falkenstein, ZA 56 (1964), 51; CAD B s.v. bitr.
Lines 5657: That a hymn to one deity address another in the doxology
is paralleled not only by UET 6:101 (cf. Kramers comment ib., p. 10
and n. 36) and perhaps by the Sumuqan hymn (UET 6: 75) with its
doxology for Nungal, but also in a sense by all those adab, tigi and
other royal hymns in the wider sense where the blessings for the king
are invoked in the context of a prayer to the deity. The parallels suggest
that in divine hymns like ours, the doxology to the greater deity invokes
his blessings on the lesser deity.
D. Cultic Setting
We may now attempt to reconstruct the cultic setting of our hymn on
the basis of its own allusions and of its literary parallels with other
compositions. But in this attempt, we should distinguish between the
original Lagash version and its later duplicates. To some extent the
latter simply updated the theological conceptions of the former. Thus in
line 1, for example, there is a change from metaphor to simile, and from
the relatively crude anthropomorphism of holding the tablet (in this
case still employed also in the Yale version) to the vaguer perfecting
of it.69 In line 2, an apparently paternal Earth70 becomes maternal
69 Note the same substitution (?) of the more or less homophonous su-du for su-du
7
8
in passages like JCS 4:138 (= SGL 2:108):17.
70 Before tu-da, born, the postposition -e normally identifies the mother, rarely
the father as in Gudea Cylinder A ii 28: (Gatumdu) nin-mu dumu an-k-ge tu-da; cf.
also above, comment to line 11. The postposition -s identifies only the father, to judge
by SLTN 89 iii 16: a-zi kur-gal-la-s (variant: kur-gal-e) dNin-ll-le tuda, (Ninazu) good
39
seed born to the Great Mountain (Enlil) by Ninlil; cf. van Dijk, SGL 2 (1960), 16 and
77 for a slightly dierent translation. (It hardly seems possible that in the earliest version
of our text, uras-s is a kind of syllabic spelling for uras-e.) For Uras as a male deity see
most recently Gadd, UET 6/2 (1966), p. 7 n. 34.
71 For the fluctuation between uras and duras, cf. Falkenstein, ZA 52 (1957), 72 f., SGL
1 (1959), 57.
72 Note that in UET 6:101, the very similar doxology (lines 56 f.) is in fact labeled
ux-rux-bi-im. But for its one line antiphone, this composition is exactly as long as ours.
It even may have had the same number of stanzas, if the figure 8 inserted over the
line count means anything!
40
the temple hymn of Gudea of Lagas,79 and to hymns and myths relating the visit of one deity to another to receive his blessing, as well as
allusions to priests, festivals and ceremonies usually associated with the
divine statue. Thus the cultic setting of our hymn may have been, originally, the building of a temple, the dedication of a statue, a journey
from Lagas to Eridu to obtain the blessing of Enki for Nisaba or her
royal devotee, or even the installation of her high priest. Its subsequent
setting may have been a harvest festival of Enlil or some other festive
occasion which, at least for the time being, must remain hypothetical.
Addenda
To p. 27 n. 52: Another text with a similar (?) hole for attachment is the Fall
of Lagash; cf. E. Sollberger, International Congress of Orientalists 22 (1957) 32.
To p. 32, line 3: Jacobsen suggests that segbar here is simply a misreading of
the earlier GI. Van Dijk compares gisseg9, which varies with gissinig in Wilcke,
Das Lugalbandaepos (1969) 126 f., line 402, and is thus here coordinate with naga
-k-ga. For segbar as a mythical monster, cf. now van Dijk, Or. 38 (1969) 544 f.
41
To p. 32, lines 8f: Translate perhaps rather: . . .chatting with the clay, taking
counsel with the earth . . . and cf. MSL 12 ( 1969) 122: 33: inim-du11-du11(=
i-nim-du-ut.-t.u) = a-ma-nu-; note also AHw s.v. mustam (ref. court. van Dijk).
To p. 33, line 50: Cf. the seven blessings which Gudea bestows (silim . . .
sum) on the newly built Eninnu in Cylinder A xx 24-xxi 12. Restore here
perhaps silim . . . du11/e for which cf. most recently YNER 3 (1968) 89 s.v.
i.3
PROBLEMS IN SUMERIAN HERMENEUTICS
44
45
46
and against those who would relate any significant part of Biblical literature to its Ancient Near Eastern setting, particularly Mesopotamia.
First I investigated two aspects of cuneiform literature in general
creativity and canonization i.e., the mechanics by which a traditional literary creation was put into the ancient equivalent of a published book. These two aspects can be investigated profitably on the
cuneiform side, where the evidence is ample, and applied with caution
on the Biblical side, where it is almost nonexistent.6 Subsequently, I
reversed the equation and used the form-critical method, which has
scored so many notable successes in the study of Biblical literature,
to investigate cuneiform literature, where it rarely has been invoked.
The method seemed fruitful with at least two cuneiform genres. The
first I chose to call Akkadian apocalyptic,7 and the second individual prayer.8 From this point it was only a short step toward applying
another cardinal tenet of Biblical and more particularly of Psalm exegesis to the cuneiform corpus, namely, the investigation of the cultic
or other setting of the various poetic genres, or their so-called Sitz im
Leben. Even without definitive proofs, a deeper understanding of the
texts seemed to emerge when they could be tentatively assigned to a
setting in palace or temple respectively or to a specific cultic occasion
such as the dedication of a divine statue, or to a ceremonial occasion of
state e.g., the naming of a new year.9
These illustrations of the potential value of applying methods of Biblical scholarship to the cuneiform corpus and vice versa, raised anew
the possibility of the actual interdependence between the two literatures. For a long time, the academic battle-lines had been clearly
drawn on this fundamental issue. On one side stood the phalanx of
the comparativists, armed with all the weaponry of, to them, almost
self-evident parallels between the vocabulary, the topoi, the very stories in cuneiform and Hebrew respectively. On the other side, there
were a smaller but no less passionate band of skeptics, challenging
the comparativists to prove that these parallels between two cultures
47
10 Morton Smith, The present state of Old Testament studies, Journal of Biblical
Literature 88 (1969) 1935.
11 Ibid. 26.
12 Lord William Taylour, The Mycenaeans (1964) 175; C.H. Gordon, Ugaritica 6 (1969)
278; Studies and Texts I (1963) 4.
48
analogy here, for I have done so elsewhere13 and I will admit that not all
the mechanics, dates and directions of literary borrowings are now, or
may ever be, amenable to conclusive demonstration. In a recent paper,
I have tested these criteria with respect to a particular set of common
traditions; namely, those concerning the antediluvian kings, patriarchs,
culture-heroes, and particularly cities.
My conclusion is that the antediluvian traditions are native to Mesopotamia. They appear to have begun with the antediluvian cities of
Mesopotamia, of which only traces are preserved in the Biblical version. The growth of this tradition to include antediluvian kings and
culture-heroes also took place in Mesopotamia while the Biblical recasting of these individuals into patriarchal figures took place in the context of Amorite sedentarization early in the second millennium, when
genealogical interests reshaped Mesopotamian historiographical conceptions. Since of all conceivable genres, the genealogical record is
most obviously a medium of oral historiography, and since comparable
cuneiform sources of the Amorite period (the Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, the Assyrian King List, etc.) likewise betray a fluid,
oral background, it is reasonable to assume they then moved westward,
in oral form.14
To return from this particular example to the more general issue: I
do submit that both Israel and Mesopotamia each had its own highly
developed techniques for preserving those texts which were central to
their separate traditions with more or less fidelity and that this provides
one of the necessary pre-conditions for arguments in favor of literary
inter-connections. In Israel, these techniques (known best from later
times) include the Masorah, the Midrash, the liturgical use of the text,
the refusal at first to translate the text and perhaps most important, the
ultimate willingness to change the meaning of the text either by interpretation or by interpretive translation precisely in order to preserve the
integrity of a received text while accommodating it to the needs of a
constantly changing world view. These are the distinguishing features
13 William W. Hallo and William K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East: a History (New
York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971) esp. pp. 113117 (The Emergence of Assyria);
W.W. Hallo, article Mesopotamia, Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 16(1971) 14831508; esp.
1500 f.
14 William W. Hallo, Antediluvian Cities, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23 (1970) 57
67.
49
that constitute what I have described elsewhere as the Jewish perspective in Biblical studies.15
On the Mesopotamian side, too, there are a number of very distinct
and well documented patterns of literary survival or preservation. Each
of them deserves brief attention if we are to meet the chronological
challenge to the comparative method.
The most obvious, and in some ways most remarkable kind of literary preservation in the cuneiform tradition, is the case of direct survival. A most telling example of this sort is provided by the famous
laws of Hammurapi. This celebrated code (which is not really a code
at all) actually began as a monument, but its literary merits quickly
became evident to the Mesopotamians themselves. They incorporated
it in the curriculum of their scribal schools, and copied it faithfully, not
to say slavishly, for over a thousand years after its promulgation even
though its legal contents had long since become a dead letter. This
example is taken from Akkadian, a language which remained alive in
Mesopotamia all during that millennium. Even more instructive is the
situation concerning Sumerian which became a dead language soonafter Hammurapi, though it continued to survive as a learned and
sacred language (like Latin in the Middle Ages and today). There are
numerous examples of Sumerian literary texts whose composition dates
back to the neo-Sumerian period (the end of the third millennium)
which were learned and copied out in the schools of Hammurapis
time early in the second millennium, with careful attention to liturgical
notations (even when these, as in the Biblical psalms, were no longer
understood), and to Masoretic details such as variant readings or the
numbers of lines. When the Old Babylonian schools came to an end,
the traditional texts and the surviving Sumerian-speaking scholars are
thought to have found refuge in extreme southern Mesopotamia where
(even to this day) one may find many curious survivals of ancient Sumerian patterns of living among the so-called Marsh Arabs. Be that as it
may, the Kassite conquest of the southern Sealand late in the second
millennium reunited it with Babylonia and retrieved the old learning.
Then, the newly formed scribal guilds of this feudal age took up where
the earlier scribal schools had left o. They selected a portion of the
surviving Sumerian literary corpus, provided it with a literal translation
into Akkadian and preserved the ancient learning for both Babylonia
15 Id. Biblical Studies in Jewish Perspective, in Leon A. Jick, ed., The Teaching of
Judaica in American Universities, (Association for Jewish Studies, 1970) 4146.
50
and Assyria well into the first millennium. Much of the original corpus
was lost in the process, and what survived was often badly misunderstood, so that the modern scholar can often demonstrate that the translation into Akkadian is too liberal or simply wrong. But the Sumerian
text itself was preserved.
A familiar example of this process is provided by the great myth
of the warrior-god Ninurta, called Lugal-e. This example can be multiplied by many other myths about and hymns to the great gods of
the Sumerian pantheon, whose worship continued without interruption even after Sumerian ceased to be a living language of daily intercourse in all but (at most) the extreme south of the land. Indeed,
the survival of Sumerian as a learned religious language was in some
part surely connected with the desire to describe and apostrophize the
Sumerian deities, so to speak, in their native tongue. On the linguistic level, however, an important distinction must be added. While the
myths about and incantations to the gods continued to employ the
main dialect of Sumerian after the Old Babylonian period, the surviving hymns addressed to the gods, in common with individual prayer
resorted almost exclusively to the Emesal dialect.16 By the same token as
the second millennium wore on, the kings of Mesopotamia increasingly
favored the more intelligible Akkadian as a vehicle for royal encomiums
and self-predications. Next to the gods these kings were the favorite protagonists of cuneiform literature as well as its principal patrons. (The
two factors are, again, apt to be related.) The recent discovery that
King Shulgi of Ur is the hero of an Akkadian prophecy (or apocalypse as I would prefer to call it) shows that royal taste even dictated the resurrection of Sumerian predecessors in Akkadian format.17
But not exclusively! The classical Sumerian epic cycle dealing with the
lords of Uruk and Aratta survived intact into the libraries of the neoAssyrian kings in some cases, for example the Lugalbanda Epic. True,
the late exemplars of this text are accompanied by an interlinear Akkadian translation; they represent only two out of the forty exemplars
used in the latest reconstruction of the composition, and one of these
two has been known since 1875!18 But Wilckes edition plainly shows
51
how closely the late text adhered to models a thousand years older19
and also provides precious evidence for the durability of epic literature
in Mesopotamia. When and if a history of Sumerian literature is written, that will surely be the occasion to revert to this neglected point.
In this hurried survey, I can pause only briefly to consider the socalled wisdom literature. It is the most durable of all the genres, and
probably also the most genuinelyand literallypopular one. It centers less on gods and kings than on mortals and commoners, particularly on the scribe or, more generally, the wise man. It owed some of
its longevity to oral transmissionin this respect again diering from
the ocial canons of temple and palaceand thus survived not only
the transition from Sumerian to Akkadian but also from Akkadian to
Aramaic, as evidenced by the figure of the wise vizier Ahiqar, and from
Aramaic to Arabic, as was shown by O.R. Gurney in his edition of
The Poor Man of Nippur.20
The very first examples of intelligible Sumerian literary eorts belong to the wisdom genre and date from the Fara period in the middle of the third millennium. They are proverbs, and among them are
a number which were still being written out in the first millennium.
This is true not only of the old saw about celibacy to which a brief
note by W.G. Lambert first called attention,21 but also of others with
enough Old Babylonian bilingual versions to indicate at least part of
the process of transmission.22 More recently, the Abu Salabikh discoveries have opened an entirely new vista on the Sumerian literature of the
Fara period.23 Among these striking finds is a piece of Wisdom called
the Instructions of Shuruppak, (i.e. the Sumerian Noah, or his son)
whose name is identical to, or confused with, the ancient Sumerian
name of the city of Fara. Published fragments of this composition now
include an Old Sumerian version, a neo-Sumerian one of Old Babylonian date, and an Akkadian one of Middle Assyrian date.24 It is too
early to characterize the last as a literal translation. If it proves to be
Claus Wilcke, Das Lugalbandaepos (1969) pp. 90 and 92, and his comments p. 23.
Anatolian Studies 6 (1956) 145164.
21 Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 169 (1963) 63 f.
22 M. Civil and R.D. Biggs, Revue dAssyriologie 60 (1966) 57.
23 R.D. Biggs, The Ab
u Sal
abkh Tablets: a preliminary survey, Journal of Cuneiform
Studies 20 (1966) 7388; idem., An archaic . . . hymn from Tell Abu Sal
abkh, Zeitschrift
fur Assyriologie 61 (1972) 193207.
24 Cf. the latest (partial) translation by R.D. Biggs apud J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient
Near Eastern Texts 3 (1969) 594 f.
19
20
52
so, it would constitute almost the only exception to the curious, but
little-noted fact that such translations otherwise never appear except in
the form of bilinguals, i.e., in the company of their Sumerian originals. The other chief exception to this rule is the twelfth tablet of the
canonical Gilgamesh Epic. But this truly proves the rule, given the special circumstances operative there. A late redactor, not satisfied with the
eleven tablets or chapters of the Akkadian epic, though they formed a
harmonious whole, felt compelled to add a twelfth and for this purpose resorted to straight translation of one of the Sumerian Gilgamesh
episodes which had not been employed in the Akkadian adaptation at
all.
This leads me to the second and somewhat less obvious manner in
which cuneiform literature survived over the centuries; namely, through
organic transformation and creative adaptation. In the case of the Gilgamesh Epic, the vehicle for these processes was translation into Akkadian, though I am not yet prepared to say in just what order the
various steps proceeded. It has usually been assumed that the Sumerian Gilgamesh episodes were received in disjointed form and that
the creation of a unified epic composition was first achieved in Old
Babylonian times, together with the creation of an Akkadian version
which drew freely upon Sumerian models rather than slavishly translating from them. It is further assumed that the Middle Babylonian
period produced the expansion of the Akkadian text which we know (so
far) mostly in neo-Assyrian copies.25 These presuppositions have been
briefly examined by Hope Nash Wol 26 and at greater length by Jerey
H. Tigay, who concludes that the character and role of Enkidu constitute the integrating factors in the epic; that these factors are lacking
in the extant Sumerian episodes but are conspicuously present in the
Akkadian versions of the same (Old Babylonian) date, as now known
in substantial numbers; and that the integration was presumably, if not
demonstrably, contemporary with the process of translation.27
In any case, translation was not the only vehicle for the creative
adaptation of Sumerian literature. Knowledge of Sumerian was preserved and transmitted at the schools by the professors of Sumerian
25 Cf. e.g. L. Matous, Les rapports entre la version sumerienne et la version
akkadienne de lpope de Gilgames, apud P. Garelli, ed., Gilgames et sa Lgende (1960)
8394.
26 Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the heroic life, JAOS 89 (1969) 392398, esp. 393 n. 2.
27 Literary-Critical Studies in the Gilgamesh Epic, (University Microfilms) (Yale, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis 1971) esp. pp. 8496: The Origin of the Integrated Epic.
53
28
29
54
his neo-Babylonian successors, Assurbanipal had just as lively an interest in Mesopotamian antiquities as modern Assyriologists. Therefore,
one should not be surprised that there was an active search for ancient
monuments and clay tablets, especially in the old land of Sumer, in the
south, and that these royally inspired searches were often crowned with
success. Thanks to some recent publications, one such success story can
now be told.
The story begins with a cliche of cuneiform literary history. For
some twenty-odd years it has been considered axiomatic that certain
genres of Sumerian literature disappeared from the canon in the course
of the second millennium because they had become irrelevant to the
ideologies of a new age. Prominent examples of this process of attrition
were the hymns to deified kings and hymns to gods with prayers for
the deified kings. These genres are obviously more suitable to an age
in which mortal kings were still worshipped. In the native hymnic
terminology such hymns were typically classified as adab or tigi-songs,
depending upon the musical instrument used to accompany them.
Some two dozen dierent compositions so classified were identified
among the then known (1949) examples of Sumerian literary texts
by Adam Falkenstein.30 Though often composed much earlier, all of
them came from Old Babylonian copies, dating approximately from
Hammurapis time. Almost as many more were known by title from
a Middle Assyrian literary catalogue; i.e., a document listing various
compositions by their opening words and then classifying them by their
literary genre.31 But these titles, though dating from the late second
millennium, remain just that: titles. Not one of the compositions so
catalogued has yet turned up in its own right. One suspects, therefore,
that the catalogue is the product of a learned antiquary of the library
of Tiglath-Pileser I (c. 11151077) rather than a true reflection of the
literary tastes of the turn of the millennium, at least at this point
(col. iii).32 As has recently been shown, other sections (col. viii) may
have a much more living status.33 This is in contrast to a catalogue
composed some four or five centuries earlier which includes half a
30
31
32
*18).
33
382.
55
dozen identifiable compositions among its thirty-odd tigi and adabhymns.34 Indeed, when one returns to Falkensteins list, one finds that
the two genres mentioned have completely disappeared from the neoAssyrian corpus and all the vast literary treasures of the library of
Assurbanipal, now mostly housed in the British Museum, have not a
single example to oer; rather, they have only a single example.
The sole example cited by Falkenstein was a drum-song (tigi) to the
god Ninurta of which little more was preserved than the colophon (the
equivalent of our title-page though it comes at the end of the composition) and pitiful remnants of the last five lines of the hymn. Still, even
this tiny fragment was tantalizing, for the colophon could be restored
on the basis of parallels to read (copy?) of Nippur written out according to its old prototype and (checked against the original.) Now Nippur had been precisely the center of Sumerian learning in the Old
Babylonian period, and the place where royal hymns were composed
whenever the local priesthood deemed a king worthy of the honor. It
was therefore with some interest that I opened a new volume of Sumerian literary texts from the Old Babylonian period at Nippur only to
discover a nearly complete drum-song the last line of which was literally identical with the last and only well-preserved line of the neoAssyrian fragment.35 My interest thus aroused, I searched for additional
fragments of the neo-Assyrian version among the publications of the
British Museum and located no fewer than five others. All six of them36
exactly corresponded to the Old Babylonian prototype, and I was convinced that they would join to form a single tablet. My curatorial colleague in London confirmed my suspicions and wrote me the following:
Congratulations on a brilliant join. The six fragments join exactly as
you predicted, although the shape of the fragments is not quite what
Langdons . . . copies made them appear. As you say, it would be very
nice to find the missing fragments, and Walker is going to have a go
at it. You will be receiving the photographs as soon as they can be
made.37
34 TMH n.F. 3:53. For the identifications sec I. Bernhardt and S.N. Kramer, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift . . . Jena 6 (19561957) 392 f.
35 S.N. Kramer and I. Bernhardt, Sumerische Literarische Texte aus Nippur 2 (1967)
No. 86.
36 S. Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies (1913) Nos. 95, 97, 102, 107, 111 and 127. Four of
these fragments were identified also by . Sjberg, Orientalia 38 (1969) 355 in his review
of op. cit. (n. 35).
37 Letter of February 26, 1969 from Dr. E. Sollberger.
56
The missing fragments were never found (it would be easier to find
a very small needle in a very large haystack), but the photographs
arrived. I have read the original in London and will make a handcopy of it for publication in due course. In the meantime, a German
colleague collated the old Nippur text, which was located at the University of Jena in East Germany, for me. All this careful review has
disclosed that the hymn is addressed not to the warlike god Ninurta but
to the goddess Nintu, patroness of childbirth. She is apostrophized here
for putting her talents at the disposal of Enlil the chief executive of the
gods, by giving birth to the king and the high priest, oces which it is
the function of Enlil to assign to his favorite mortals. [Here: III.5.]
The content of the hymn however, is of less interest than the fact
that the Old Babylonian prototype from Nippur, dated at perhaps
1750 bce, is as faithfully reproduced as the colophon claims in a neoAssyrian copy made more than a thousand years later. In the interval,
the ideology which inspired it had completely disappeared and with it
the genre which was its vehicle. It is therefore all the more impressive
that the text was resurrected intact, with as much devotion to accuracy
and objectivity as a modern copyist would bring to the task. It allows
us to infer a more general principle: the rediscovery of lost texts may
be added to the preservation or adaptation of surviving texts as means
whereby the literary heritage of the Bronze Age passed into the Iron
Age within Mesopotamia. Thus the comparative approach to Biblical
studies, by which I mean a restrained and disciplined application of the
cuneiform parallels, can stand up to the challenge which the skeptics
have raised on the issue of chronology.
Authors Note
The substance of these remarks was originally presented in the series Perspectives in Jewish Learning, Spertus College of Judaica, Chicago, April 18, 1971.
The printed version oered herewith incorporates a considerable number of
stylistic changes by the editor, and was not reviewed by the author either in
manuscript or proof. For appropriate addenda and corrigenda, the reader is
invited to consult my forthcoming article, Toward a History of Sumerian Literature. [Here I.4.] The point of departure for the original version was provided by James Muilenberg and others, Problems in Biblical Hermeneutics,
Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (1958) 1838; cf. ibid. 3951, 197204; 78 (1959)
105114.
i.4
TOWARD A HISTORY OF SUMERIAN LITERATURE
To Thorkild Jacobsen, with warmth and respect
58
For all that, it is not too early to assay a history of Sumerian literature on strictly literary grounds, not only for the sake of a better appreciation of Sumerian literature, but also in the service of the history of
literature. For Sumerian literature meets the criterion of basic linguistic
unity which has now been reinstated as a principle of literary history.8
But beyond that it can claim distinction on the basis of three remarkable superlatives: it leads all the worlds written literature in terms of
antiquity, longevity, and continuity.9 Its beginnings can now be traced
firmly to the middle of the third millennium bc.,10 and native traditions
would have it that it originated even earlier, with the antediluvian sages
at the end of the fourth millennium.11 Its latest floruit occurred at the
end of the pre-Christian era, and at least one canonical text is dated
as late as 227 of the Seleucid Era and 163 of the Arsacid (Parthian)
Era (or 85 bc.).12 And in the long interval between these extreme terminals, much of it was copied and preserved with a remarkable degree of
textual fidelity.
A single linguistic and literary tradition spanning two and a half or
even three millennia surely deserves to be studied in terms of its own
history. Moreover, it should be fairly easy to avoid some of the major
pitfalls of conventional literary history13 in connection with Sumerian
literature. We are not tempted to use it for the reconstruction of national or social history given the fact that the last two millennia of Sumerian
literature were produced in the admitted absence of a Sumerian nation
or society and that, even before that time, the very existence of a
59
60
61
62
63
33
Sal
. abkh, ZA, Vol. 61 (1971) pp. 193207.
37 Ibid., p. 195 f.; cf. . Sjberg and E. Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple
Hymns (TCS III [1969]) p. 6.
34
64
65
back to the time of Abi-eshuh in the late Old Babylonian period.45 But
its extant exemplars date from the seventh to the fourth centuries bc.46
and show little evidence of pre-Kassite origins.
At best; but the suggestion just oered is much better illustrated
in another instance. If we have so far dealt with the two extremes of
textual preservationslavish fidelity and total obliterationwe must
consider now the large intermediate area within which preservation
was achieved by means of a greater or lesser degree of adaptation. We
may begin with The Curse of Agade, since this composition, like the
cycles already considered, arose out of a specific historical context. It
too dealt with the Sargonic dynasty; it too formally constituted a hymn
of praise to Inanna; it too dates back to Ur III times on the evidence of
several of its exemplars47 and then enjoyed considerable popularity in
the Old Babylonian curriculum. Beyond that, its history ran a middle
course between the extremes illustrated above. It was neither totally
eliminated from the canon nor simply perpetuated. Instead it was
creatively transformed to meet the ideological requirements of a new
age, the vehicle for (or at least concomitant of ) the transformation
being, in this case, translation into Akkadian. Specifically, the historical
viewpoint and major outlines of the plot of the original composition
(which seem most at home in a neo-Sumerian milieu) are reproduced in
the fragmentary Weidner Chronicle, with certain significant alterations.
Notably they substitute Babylon and Marduk for Nippur and Enlil as
the aggrieved city and its avenging deity respectively.48 But both agree
that Naram-Sin was the victim of the divine retribution (though in
point of historical fact he probably was not), and the Gutian hordes
its instrument.
66
67
long after the events described, most likely in the Ur III period, and
very conceivably on the basis of a pre-existing oral tradition. It is
this feature that best accounts for the considerable range of variation
in dierent Old Babylonian recensions of given epics52 and for their
preservation, beyond Old Babylonian times, in much the same variety of ways as already detailed for the mythology. Specifically, these
ways include: (1) more or less literal transmission into neo-Assyrian
times together with a verbatim interlinear translation into Akkadian
(Lugalbanda epic);53 (2) scattered allusions in later Akkadian and classical sources (Enmerkar cycle);54 (3) organic transformation of the original
Sumerian episodes into components of new Akkadian compositions on
the same themes. This last characterization applies in the first instance
to the bulk of the material dealing with Gilgamesh.55 A special case is
represented by the twelfth chapter (tablet) of the canonical Akkadian
Gilgamesh epic, which is a literal translation of one of the pre-existing
Sumerian episodes, and as such the principal exception to the general
rule that straightforward Akkadian translations of Sumerian originals
(outside the area of wisdom literature)56 appear only in the form of
bilinguals, that is, in combination with their Sumerian originals.57
It is debatable whether any of the Dumuzi material fits into this
category. In the first place, it is not certain whether Dumuzi reflects
52
Notably, e.g., in the case of Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living. See in detail
H. Limet, Les chants piques sumriens, Revue belge de philologie et dhistoire L (1972)
324, esp. 89.
53 CT XV, Pls. 4143, edited by Wilcke, Das Lugalbandaepos, pp. 9098. See pp. 2328
for the textual history of this epic.
54 See the references collected by T. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (AS, No. 11
[1939]) pp. 8687, n. 115. For the apkallu text cited there, see more recently E. Reiner,
The Etiological Myth of the Seven Sages, Or. n.s., Vol. 30 (1961) pp. 111.
55 The classic study on this subject is Kramers The Epic of Gilgames and Its
Sumerian Sources, JAOS, Vol. 64 (1944) pp. 723. Since then the material has been
reviewed by Aaron Shaer, Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgames
(Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1963), and by J.H. Tigay, Literary-Critical
Studies in the Gilgames Epic (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1971).
56 Cf. e.g., E.I. Gordon, A New Look at the Wisdom of Sumer and Akkad, BiOr
XVII (1960) 127, n. 46, and 129 f., n. 57.
57 This rule has been generally overlooked, except by W. von Soden (Zweisprachigkeit
in der geistigen Kultur Babyloniens [Graz, 1960] p. 9), who noted that the Akkadian translator die bersetzungen in der Regel nicht fr sich allein, sondern zusammen mit dem
68
the Urukian ruler of the King List tradition or the antediluvian king of
Bad Tibira. Second, the bulk of the Dumuzi texts are generically cultic
songs according to their subscripts. Only The Descent of Inanna ends,
like the epics, with the z-m notation, and this is addressed, not to
Dumuzi, but to Eresh-kigal.58 At best we can regard the Akkadian myth
of The Descent of Ishtar (and possibly that of Nergal and Eresh-kigal)
as preserving elements of a Sumerian tradition which may have dealt
in epic fashion with the exploits of a historic ruler of Uruk.
We have so far dealt with hymns of praise (z-m), which can be argued
to have recast recent history into cosmological terms (myth) or more
remote events into heroic ones (epic), in both cases inextricably interweaving the human and divine realms of experience. But this is not
intended to deny that the hymnic genre was equally capable of concentrating on either one of these realms in its own right. As long ago as
1944, Kramer collected and classified Sumerian mythology into myths
of origins, myths of Kur (the netherworld), and miscellaneous myths.59
As he interpreted them, these myths took place almost entirely in the
divine sphere, though of course often with an etiological motive, that
is, to account for a continuing situation observed in the human condition, preferably in terms of its origins. From the point of view at issue
here, what is most striking about these and similar myths is that almost
without exception they have no literary history at all. They appear in
fixed form in copies (sometimes numerous copies) datable to a relatively
short span of time, normally within the Old Babylonian period,60 occasionally earlier.61 Only rarely are the themes of these myths taken up
in recognizably similar forms in Akkadian; in the most striking case,
that of the Flood Narrative, it has even been implied that the Sumerian
UET VI/l, No. 10 rev. 14 f.; cf. Kramer, in PAPS, Vol. 107 (1963) p. 515.
Sumerian Mythology (Philadelphia, 1944; rev. eds., 1961, 1972).
60 Notably the myths of Enlil and Ninlil, Enki and Ninhursag, Enki and Inanna, and
The Marriage of Martu. Note, however, that the last text is, generically speaking, an
antiphonal poem (lum-a-lam-a) and may reflect a princely wedding or other historic
event; cf. Hallo and Van Dijk, Exaltation, p. 84, and G. Buccellati, The Amorites of the
Ur III Period (Naples, 1966) p. 339.
61 For the Old Sumerian myths of Enlil and Ninhursag (MBI, No. 1) and Enlil and
Ishkur (S.N. Kramer, From the Tablets of Sumer [Indian Hills, 1956] p. 106, Fig. 6A), see
Sjberg and Bergmann, TCS III 7 with notes 7 and 8. For the mythical fragment
Urukagina 15, see most recently Hallo, Antediluvian Cities, JCS XXIII (1970) 65 f.;
Wilcke, Das Lugalbandaepos, p. 132; B. Alster, En-ki nun-ki: Some Unobserved Duplicates, Ni 4057, etc., RA LXIV (1970) 189190.
58
59
69
70
political situations, it is a tribute to the literary taste and cosmopolitanism of the Old Babylonian schools that they tradited the royal
hymns at all, regardless of their current dynastic aliation.68 It should
cause little surprise that later ages, with their wholly new ideologies
of kingship, ceased to preserve these compositions.69 Even the genre as
such can at most claim a remote successor in the Akkadian poems celebrating the achievements of the Middle Assyrian kings.
It was somewhat otherwise with the royal hymns in the wider sense
(Rmers Type A),70 that is, the liturgical hymns of various genres. Two
of these, the adab- and tigi-genres, were particularly favored vehicles
for incorporating prayers on behalf of the reigning king in the context
of hymns to deities. These genres survived at least to the extent of occupying a prominent place in two literary catalogues of Middle Babylonian and Middle Assyrian date (ca. 1500 and 1100 bc.), respectively.71
The earlier catalogue listed by title (incipit) and deity up to eleven
tigi-hymns (the individual entries are, however, largely lost) and fifteen
adab-hymns; among the latter, three titles72 can be identified with reasonable assurance as the opening words of adab-hymns for Nanna in
honor of the city of Ur,73 for Nergal in honor of Shu-ilishu of Isin,
and for Ninurta in honor of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin.74 The later catalogue75
listed at least four collections (is-ka-ra-a-tu) comprising numerous tigisongs (za-ma-rumes te-ge-e) (though the eighteen incipits actually preserved
remain so far unidentified) and five Sumerian adab-songs (forming)
Pennsylvania, 1969] pp. 3940), who regarded hymns of type B (including some addressed to deities without explicit reference to any king) as also belonging to the temple
cult, though perhaps used at royal coronations and the like.
68 Hallo, in JCS XVII 117 with notes 9599, here: III.1.
69 Daniel Reisman, Kramer Anniversary Volume (AOAT, in press) has identified
OECT I, Pls. 3639 (and duplicates) as a royal hymn of the z-m type (though in
some respects intermediate between types A and B) dedicated to Ishbi-Irra of Isin,
and M. Civil has identified 4R, Pl. 35, 1. 7 as a duplicate (see Reisman). But in spite
of its Kuyunjik number (K. 4755), it may be questioned whether the fragment is neoAssyrian.
70 SKIZ, pp. 5 f., Cf. my review in BiOr XXIII 240 f. Here: III.3.
71 Hallo, in JAOS, Vol. 83, p. 169, Nos. 9 and 10, here: II.1.
72 TMH NF III (1961) No. 58, 11. 62, 70 and 67; see the edition by I. Bernhardt and
S.N. Kramer, Gtter-Hymnen und Kult-Gesnge der Sumerer auf zwei KeilschriftKatalogen in der Hilprecht-Sammlung, WZJ, Vol. 6 (19561957) p. 392.
73 SLTNi, No. 58, edited by Sjberg, MNS I 3543. Add now ISET I 157, Ni. 4467.
74 Nos. *4 and *26 in SKIZ, ch. 3 and pp. 69, respectively.
75 KAR, No. 158; see the partial edition by A. Falkenstein, Sumerische religise
Texte, ZA, Vol. 49 (1949) pp. 91 and 103.
71
76 SKIZ, No. *31, edited on pp. 1017, and see p. 58, n. 16; Falkenstein, ZA, Vol. 49,
p. 88, No. 2 and n. 2; Hallo, in BiOr XXIII 242 and n. 44, here: III.3.
77 There is, for example, no trace of the Laws of Lipit-Ishtar in copies of post-OldBabyionian date. The only Isin kings recalled in the late historical tradition are Irraimitti and Enlil-bani.
78 Hallo, The Road to Emar, JCS XVIII (1964) 67, n. 11. Add possibly the spelling
Sa (for Samsu-iluna) in a literary catalogue (UET V, No. 86, entry No. 6) according to
Bernhardt and Kramer, in WZJ, Vol. 6, p. 394, n. 4.
79 SKIZ, No. *18, edited on pp. 2129.
80 Hallo, in BiOr XXIII 244245, here: III.3.
81 Ibid., p. 242 with notes 35 f., referring to S. Langdon, BL, No. 97.
72
BL, Nos. 95, 102, 107, 111, 127: my letter of February 17, 1969, to Dr. Sollberger,
who confirmed the joins by letter of February 26, 1969.
83 TMH NF IV (1967) No. 86; cf. Sjberg, in Or, n.s., Vol. 38 (1969) p. 355, who
independently identified this text with four of the Langdon fragments.
84 Assuming that lagal/lagar is a mistake for lugal in the Old Babylonian version;
so Gertrud Farber-Flgge, Der Mythos Inanna und Enki (StP, Vol. 10 [1973]). The neoAssyrian copyist mistook the sign for si; see my forthcoming edition of the text.
85 An edition of the combined text is in preparation. Here: V.3.
86 For the unique addition of a prayer for the ruling king at the end of a late bilingual
su-l-la composition, see J.S. Cooper, A Sumerian su-l-la from Nimrud with a Prayer
for Sin-sar-iskun, Iraq XXXII (1970) 5167, For other late bilingual and Akkadian
hymns, prayers and rituals of various kinds with blessings for reigning (neo-Assyrian)
kings, see, e.g., W. von Soden in Falkenstein and Von Soden, Sumerische und akkadische
Hymnen und Gebete (Zurich, 1953) passim; more recently R. Borger, Baurituale, in
M.A. Beek, et al., eds., Symbolae. . . de Liagre Bhl (Leiden, 1973) pp. 5055.
87 On the implications of this principle, also for comparative biblical studies, see my.
Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics in Byron L. Sherwin, ed., Perspectives in Jewish
Learning V (Chicago, 1973) 112, here: I.3. See also below, note 96, for an example of
an Old Babylonian literary text rediscovered and copied (according to its colophon) in
neo-Babylonian times.
82
73
The literary histories we have traced to this point, selected from the
hymnic genres, already point to at least one useful generalization: although the original creative impulse most often arose out of and in
response to a specific historical situation, the long process of canonization (that is, the incorporation of the text in fixed form in the generally
accepted curriculum of the scribal schools) tended to suppress allusions
to these situations. If a composition resisted such sublimation or ideological updating, it tended to disappear from the canon. Thus, the
history of Sumerian hymnography repeatedly illustrates the conversion
of history into myth or, more generally, the triumph of religious over
historical interests. The same process can be seen at work in the various kinds of prayer in Sumerian. This is not the place to repeat the
long history of individual prayer in Sumerian, which has been traced
elsewhere,88 nor that of collective prayer as illustrated by the congregational laments.89 Suce it to say that both histories involve the
transformation of specific petitions or celebrations of particular onetime occasions into recurrent cultic services or commemorations. Consistent with the increasingly cultic orientation of Sumerian literature in
the first millennium, the corpus of laments and prayers, both individual (r-s-hun-g) and collective (balag, r-sem-ma, su-l-la), tended not
only to preserve material dating as far back as the very beginning of the
second millennium90 but also to grow by imitation and new additions to
the very end of the first.91
Nor is this the place to review the arguments recently advanced
in favor of the oral prehistory of much of Sumerian literature, based
inevitably, as they largely are, on a combination of hypotheses and
analogies from later, in part much later, world literature.92 Rather, the
object here, while remaining within the limits of the written evidence,
is to extend the scope of the inquiry beyond the confines of canonical
literature in order to gain a fuller picture of both the creative impulse
and the process of canonization. Elsewhere, I have already assembled
74
75
76
In order to fit the Sumerian component into this framework, one must
also take into account the bilingual and dialectal (Emesal) traditions,
which directly reflect Sumerian models, and the unilingual Akkadian
tradition, which often reflected them indirectly. Nor should one lose
sight of the possible existence, at all times, of an oral tradition. All these
traditions deserve fuller study in their own right.105 I have previously
suggested four distinct canons of cuneiform literature, of which three
involved Sumerian;106 the examples given above may now be used as a
starting-point to elaborate on the suggestion.
105
Dialectal Sumerian has been studied in some detail by Krecher: SKly; in HSAO,
pp. 87110; in ZA, Vol. 58, pp. 1665; Die pluralischen Verba fr gehen und stehen im Sumerischen, WO IV (1968) 252277; Verschlusslaute und Betonung im
Sumerischen, Lisan mithurti (AOAT, Vol. 1 [1969]) pp. 157197. On Sumero-Akkadian
W. von Soden, Zweisprachigkeit in der geistigen Kultur Babyloniens
bilingualism, see in general
(Vienna, 1960). For the earliest Akkadian literary originals, see Hallo and Simpson, The
Ancient Near East, p. 62, n. 68; and add now the alleged prototype of A Naram-Sin Text
Relating to Nergal edited by W.G. Lambert, BiOr XXX (1973) 357363. For what may
be the earliest monumental text in Akkadian, see Sollbergers remarks on UET VIII,
No. 2 (p. 1). The text AO 5477, described by F. Thureau-Dangin (RA VIII [1911] 139) as
the oldest bilingual, is a copy of a Sargonic monumental text, probably of Old Babylonian date; see H. Hirsch, Die Inschriften der Knige von Agade, AfO XX (1963) 13,
sub Rimus b 12 (2).
106 Hallo, in JAOS, Vol. 88, p. 72, here: IV.1 and JAOS, Vol. 83, p. 167, here: II.1.
77
The Old Sumerian canon drew on the literature created from the
Fara period to the end of the high Sargonic age (ca. 25002200 bc).
This period included the pre-Sargonic dynasties of Lagash (Lagash I),
where the literary dialect achieved an early flowering as a vehicle
not only for monumental inscriptions but also for mythology and wisdom.107 This first canon was adapted in neo-Sumerian times which,
for literary and linguistic purposes, includes the late Sargonic or
Gudea period (Lagash II), the Ur III period, and the early Isin period
(ca. 22001900 bc.). The process of adaptation may be illustrated by the
expansion of the Cycle of Temple Hymns to include references to structures built under the Ur III kings (above). In Old Babylonian times
(ca. 19001600 bc), the portions of the Old Sumerian corpus deemed
fit to survive were given their final fixed form in the schools, that is,
the corpus became a canon in the limited sense in which the latter
term is employed here. In the process, some texts were already provided with translations into Akkadian. These early examples of (noninterlinear) bilinguals, notably from the realm of wisdom literature,
include both proverbs and instructions (na-ri-ga) going back to Fara
and Abu Sal
. abkh. They are also (apart from lexical texts) the only Old
Sumerian materials that survived in any form after their canonization
in Old Babylonian times. The Kesh Temple Hymn, though of equal
antiquity, and the cycles of hymns attributed to Enheduanna in the
high Sargonic period are more typical of this corpus in that they did
not survive.
The neo-Sumerian canon preserved the creations of the neo-Sumerian period (as defined above). Again some of the finest literary Sumerian
of the period originated at the court of Lagash, but Shulgi of Ur,
who claimed the founding of the great scribal schools at both Ur and
Nippur, was also a devoted patron of literature and the arts. In this he
was emulated by his successors both at Ur and among the early kings of
Isin. The rich materials of this neo-Sumerian corpus provided the bulk
of the curriculum for the Old Babylonian schools, which freely adapted
them in one of two ways. Either a received tradition, conceivably still
in oral form, was modernized to make it more congenial to the
current Nippur theology, as has been argued above for the myths about
Ninurta. Or, if the text was already received in fixed, written form, and
yet needed updating, as in the case of The Curse of Agade/Utu-hegal
107 Above, n. 61; see now Biggs, Pre-Sargonic Riddles from Lagash, JNES, Vol. 32
(1973) pp. 2633.
78
79
scene. But the new texts are so completely cast in the familiar neoSumerian molds that they represent the epigone of that canon rather
than the herald of a new one. The Old Babylonian period deserves
instead to be regarded as the source of the principal Akkadian literary
canon. Previously Akkadian had been considered fit only for administrative texts, for royal monuments (chiefly translations or imitations
of Sumerian prototypes), and for the merest handful of literary fragments (see n. 105). Now, however, a whole new literary dialect was created for Akkadian, and its products freed from excessive dependence
on Sumerian models.111 The resulting corpus probably followed a pattern not unlike its Sumerian precursors, being adapted and greatly
enlarged in Middle Babylonian and especially Middle Assyrian times
and organized by fixed text and sequence in the great libraries of the
neo-Assyrian kings.112
There was, however, a final flowering of Sumerian literature, or
rather of bilingual texts. This is the corpus which Falkenstein has
described as post-Old-Babylonian (see n. 5) and which I prefer to
label simply post-Sumerian (see n. 106). It is readily distinguished from
the earlier canons by both form and content. Its language violates
many known standards of classical Sumerian and often reflects the
native Akkadian speech of its author when it is not in fact actually
a secondary translation from the Akkadian. It displays an increasing
tendency to employ dialectal (Emesal) Sumerian, even substituting it for
the main dialect of the ancestral text-type, as when the earlier letterprayers were replaced by the r-s-hun-g laments. Religious texts in
general and cultic texts in particular assumed a dominant place in this
canon, with congregational laments especially prominent. This corpus
presumably originated after the fall of the Old Babylonian dynasty of
Babylon, when Sumerian scholars and scholarship apparently fled to
the Sealand, and the great scribal schools of Nippur and Babylon were
closed. But the Kassites, determined to assimilate the ancient culture
that they conquered, encouraged the new scribal guilds to take up the
111 See most recently Rmer, Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-epischen Texten, HSAO, pp. 185199, JAOS, Vol. 86 (1966) pp. 138147, WO IV (1967) 1228.
112 Merely to illustrate the constant additions to this dossier: the Middle Assyrian
laws have hitherto been known only in copies from Assur of Middle Assyrian date
(ca. 1100 bc), but a fragmentary duplicate, presumably from Nineveh and presumably
of neo-Assyrian date, has now been discovered and demonstrates, for the first time, a
historical dimension for this particular tradition; see J.N. Postgate, Assyrian Texts and
Fragments, Iraq XXXV (1973) 1921.
80
task, and the result, though inferior, kept some knowledge of Sumerian
alive for another millenium and a half. Although the intervening stages
are not clearly attested, it is this late bilingual corpus which served as
the canon of the very latest surviving cuneiform scriptoria in Uruk,
Babylon and perhaps other Babylonian centers of the Seleucid and
Arsacid periods.
With all due allowance for the shortcomings of such a schematic
representation, the above may be charted as a point of departure for
future refinements (Fig. 1).
100
400
700
1000
1300
1600
1900
2200
2500
Late Babylonian
canonized
canonized adapted
Neo-Babylonian
created
created
canonized adapted
adapted
adapted
created
Neo-Assyrian
canonized
adapted
Middle Assyrian
canonized
Old Babylonian
created
canonized
adapted
Neo-Sumerian
Middle Babylonian
created
Bilingual
Old Sumerian Neo-Sumerian Akkadian (Post-Sumerian)
Literature
Literature
Literature Literature
Old Sumerian
Approximate Cultural
Date (bc)
Period
82
a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha
adab-hymns
ana ittisu
An-gim dm-ma
bal-bal-e hymns
Curse of Agade
Descent of Inanna
Descent of Ishtar
Dumuzi texts
Enki and Inanna
Enki and Ninhursag
Enki and Ninmah
Enlil and Ishkur
Enlil and Ninhursag
Enlil and Ninlil
Enlil and Sud
Enmerkar cycle
Exaltation of Inanna
Exaltation of Ishtar
Exploits of Ninurta (lugal - e)
Flood narrative
Gilgamesh
Gudea cylinders
Gudea statue inscriptions
Inanna and Ebih
in-nin s-gurx-ra
Kesh temple hymn
Laments
lexical texts
Lipit-Ishtar laws
Love songs
Lugalbanda epic
lullabies
Marriage of Martu
Message of Lu-dingira
Model contracts
Nanshe hymn
Nergal and Eresh-kigal
nin-mah usu-ni gr-ra (see Exaltation of Ishtar)
Ninurta and the Turtle
Pushkin Elegies
Rim-Sin letter-prayer
royal correspondence
Rulers of Lagash
scribal letters
Temples of Sumer and Akkad
tigi-hymns
triumphal inscriptions
Tummal history
Ur-Nammus death and burial
Utu-hegal inscription
Weidner Chronicle
Bibliography
A useful survey of Sumerian literature, with some attention to historical considerations, is provided by D.O. Edzard and Claus Wilcke in the sixteen articles
on as many dierent genres listed below; an earlier survey, by M. Lambert,
recognized fifteen major, but only partially comparable, genres. In English,
the material has been assembled at regular intervals by S.N. Kramer, notably
in the articles listed below. The standard chronology of Sumerian literature is that of Falkenstein, and I have dealt with various aspects of the subject.
Edzard, D.O. Der Leidende Gerechte. Kindlers Literatur Lexikon IV, col. 1176
1177. Zurich, 19651971.
. Sumerische Beschwrungen. Kindlers Literatur Lexikon VI, col. 2109
2110. Zurich, 19651971.
83
84
i.5
ASSYRIOLOGY AND THE CANON
86
87
88
89
The reasons why, in this usage, the concept of canon is the subject
of so much current discussion are at least twofold. One is that the common consensus has broken down. The canon may be equated with an
ideal curriculumbut the real curriculum, at least of the typical American college, has left it far behind. Critics of American higher education, such as Allan Bloom, regard this discrepancy as an unmitigated
disaster. He would like nothing better than to see the curriculum once
more equated with the canonand both of these equated with the
Great Books. By this he seems to mean essentially the great philosophers, from Plato to Nietzsche, or to Heidegger. In spite of the wide
appeal of Blooms critique, it is unlikely that many universities will buy
his prescription, either in its general or its particular form. From the
Assyriologists point of view, it suers from a double irony. For one,
it advocates the very technique of education that was the essence of
scribal training in the cuneiform traditionthat is, the close reading
of a common core of classical textswhile at the same time excluding
from this core every component of the cuneiform tradition. Secondly,
it implies the primacy of philosophy in education, when this is the one
humanistic discipline that truly had few or no antecedents in the preclassical world. Yet we have much to learn from the Ancient Near East
in such diverse disciplines as history, literature, religion, art, and even
science. One cannot deny a general disenchantment with philosophy
in its modern guise as one discipline among many, not in its original
sense of the love of learning as such. The restoration of a canon or
curriculum limited to Plato and his epigones would not restore the
enchantment.
But disenchantment with the particular curriculum advocated by traditionalists does not necessarily entail a rejection of canon as such. On
the contrary, another school of critics of the current academic scene is
attacking the canon precisely because, presumably, it is worth reforming and saving in their eyes. That is the second reason why the canon is
under siege today. The canon must in this view be changed, expanded,
opened in order to survive. It must cease to be exclusively Western,
male, elitist, and start to admit components of third world, feminist,
and black literature. From the vantage point of the Ancient Near East,
more ironies! The Near East belongs to the Western traditionindeed
it is ancestral to that tradition, yet with the exception of the Bible is
routinely omitted in surveys of Western civilization or, what amounts
to much the same thing, is passed over quickly in the opening pages
of a survey or the first hour or two of a course. Assuredly pre-classical
90
91
remains: if the curriculum is expanded to include a proper representation of Ancient Near Eastern literature, it can by that very fact begin to
open up to non-Western (or at least pre-Westem), feminist (or at least
feminine-authored) and black (or at least African) components.
In fine, for all its apparent and splendid isolation, Assyriology (along
with Egyptology) can contribute some suggestions for helping to resolve
the paradoxes with which we began. It can help open the study of the
biblical canon to the literary approach. It can help liberate the curriculum from a too exclusive preoccupation with Greek philosophy and its
interpreters. And it can expand the canonnot only in ethnos, gender,
and race but also in time, providing the perspective of a continuous
literary and linguistic tradition that was already as venerable in Platos
time as Plato is today.
i.6
SUMERIAN RELIGION
The following study was originally presented to the annual meeting of the
American Oriental Society (Atlanta, Georgia, March 26, 1990). It was oered
for the panel on Sumerology organized by Jack Sasson in honor of the 100th
birthday of Benno Landsberger. It is here dedicated to the memory of Raphael
Kutscher, whose life was committed to religion and Sumerology in extraordinary measure, but cut short far too soon after his 50th birthday. I am proud
to have been his teacher, and humble to have been his friend. (See Addenda,
pp. 110111, for further updates).
1
2
94
95
that I too will seek to tracenot, however, ab ovo, but beginning at the
point where Sumerian religion can conceivably be distinguished from
Akkadian. I therefore pass over the archaeological and textual evidence
through Early Dynastic times, however suggestive it may be, and commence with Sargon and the Sargonic period.
The founder of the Sargonic dynasty was at pains to wed Sumerian
and Akkadian traditions, including religious traditions. To this end he
equated his Semitic patron deity, the warlike goddess Ishtar, with the
Sumerian goddess of love and fecundity, Inanna of Uruk, and exalted
her to equal status with An, patron deity of Uruk and head of the
Sumerian pantheon.17 He also honored the shrines of all the great
deities, Akkadian and Sumerian, north and south. His programme was
spearheaded by his daughter Enheduanna for whom he newly created
the post of high-priestess of the Sumerian moon-god Nanna at Ur and
who, if her mother was in fact a Sumerian priestess as suggested in
the reconstruction of Enheduannas life and works, was well situated to
advocate her fathers programme in her mothers language.18
The harmonization of Sumerian and Akkadian religious traditions
thus aimed at did not long survive Enheduanna. Although she apparently lived and served as high priestess into the reign of her nephew
Naram-Sin, this grandson of Sargon had other aspirations. He was the
first Mesopotamian king to be deified. According to a revealing passage on the inscribed statue of Naram-Sin newly discovered in Bassetki
in northern Iraq, this deification took place in direct response to the
expressed wishes of the city of Akkad.19 But it brought two unexpected
religious consequences in its train. One of these was the disaection of
Enlil who, as eective head of the Sumerian pantheon, issued a command or word from his shrine of Ekur in Nippur which, according
to a recent study by D.O. Edzard, led Naram-Sin, first, to a sevenyear suspension of all activity and, ultimately, to his fateful decision
to raze Ekur, thus bringing down the curse of Agade on his own
city.20 This succession of events, associated in the Sumerian literary tradition with Naram-Sin himself, probably telescopes matters which took
17 For Inanna as lady of battle (nin-m) in Gudea, see Steible 1989: 512. For new
evidence of the elevation of the goddess see Sjberg 1988, esp. p. 166.
18 Hallo and Van Dijk 1968: 111. The full extent of Enheduannas life and works
has recently been characterized by Joan Goodnick Westenholz 1989.
19 Jacobsen 19781979: 12 and n, 45; cf. Hallo 1980: 190 and n. 18.
20 Edzard 1989; dierently Jacobsen 19781979: 14.
96
21
22
23
1989.
24
25
97
98
of the gods34 became an elaborate charade of presenting these oerings to their statuesand then distributing to the king, the clergy and
the favored worshippers what the statue graciously deigned to leave
uneaten. Both literary35 and archival36 texts aver that the deity consumed the best part of the oerings, but we may doubt this. That the
oerings brought in and the distributions brought out of the cella bore
an uncanny resemblance to each other is not only inherently probable
but has been mathematically demonstrated, at least for Old Babylonian37 and Neo-Babylonian times.38
Although now focused on the divine statues, the sacrificial cult was
readily extended to other physical elements of the temple precincts,
which acquired divine status in their own right as evidenced not only
orthographically (they began to be written with the divine determinative) but also by the naming of years after their construction and
the composition of hymns commemorating their dedication. Beginning
with the throne39 of the seated statue and proceeding to the deitys
chariot,40 boat,41 bedstead and temple as a whole, the whole physical apparatus of the religious establishment thus participated in the
cult. Nowhere is this development more dramatically illustrated than
in oerings made not just at but to the temple gates of Ur, more particularly to their bolts.42 The evidence for this particular rite comes from
Old Babylonian times, in the form of descriptive rituals, as we call
the genre of archival texts which attests to the practice,43 but no doubt
reflects earlier usage as well.44
A second consequence of the emergence of the cult statue was its
employment in the so-called journeys of the gods. Such journeys involved a kind of courtesy-call by one deity on another, perhaps
on an annual basis, either to receive the host-deitys blessings on the
1964:183198.
Hallo 1983b: 176 II.375 f. (ng-su-du11-ga . . . dulo-ga-bi), here: VII.1.
36 Birot 1980: 146 (res srim).
37 Sigrist 1984; previously 1981, esp. 179 f.; cf. Hallo 1979b: 104 f.
38 McEwan 1983. Cf. now Beaulieu 1990 for the royal share of the divine left-overs
(rehtu) in the first millennium.
39 Sigrist 1989: 501 seems to imply that only the deceased kings throne received
sacrifices, but the gods throne clearly did; cf. Schneider 1947.
40 Cf. e.g. Civil 1968.
41 Cf. e.g. the hymn Shulgi R, for which see now Klein 1990.
42 Levine and Hallo 1967.
43 Hallo 1990b, nn. 3944, with previous literature, here: X.2.
44 Cf. e.g. Sigrist 1989: 501 and n. 4.
34
35
99
visiting deity and that deitys city, or for other reasons.45 They were
recorded in descriptive rituals and celebrated or commemorated in
such compositions as The Blessing of Nisaba by Enki (nin-mul-angim).46 Glyptic and other art also recorded the events.
Finally, the cult-statue became a natural addressee for petitions deposited at its feet or put in its mouth for transmittal to an even higher
deity. The literary genre which evolved to serve this purpose is the
letter-prayer, and I will not here enlarge on my extensive publications
of and about the genre,47 except to note that this function of the divine
(and royal) statue has now been traced as far back as Gudea.48
As the last-mentioned observation indicates, the royal statue shared
some of the emerging function of the newer divine statue. This is most
conspicuously so in the case of the statues of deceased kings. Deceased
royalty, including not only kings but their wives and progeny, had been
the objects of cultic oerings and other marks of veneration throughout
the Early Dynastic period, almost certainly in the form of statues,49 but
also of some of their accoutrements such as, notably, their thrones.50
But now the statues of deceased rulers were themselves deified, thus
conferring a kind of posthumous apotheosis even on kings who had laid
no claim to divine status in their lifetimes. Thus we find oerings to
the deified statues (lammassatu) of both Sargon and Naram-Sin as far
away as Mari in the Old Babylonian period51 and as late as the NeoBabylonian period in Sippar.52 A broken statue of Sargon was carefully
repaired and given oerings when recovered by Nabonidus.53 Similarly,
Gudea of Lagash, i.e., presumably, his deified statue, enjoyed oerings
under ocial auspices during the Ur III dynastyeven though that
dynasty had conquered his dynasty.54
How, then, are we to evaluate the Ur III dynasty in regard to the
questions raised here today? Did it in fact usher in a neo-Sumerian
renaissance as long averred but never adequately demonstrated and
Sauren 1969; Sjberg 1969; Al-Fouadi 1969.
Hallo 1970a, here: I.2.
47 Cf. Hallo 1982 with previous literature, here: V.2.
48 Klein 1989, esp. p. 295 (C2); cf. Winter 1989: 581.
49 Hallo in press a.
50 Sigrist 1989: 501 with n. 7.
51 Birot 1980; cf. van de Mieroop 1989: 400 with nn. 55 f. For Manishtushu see Hallo
1980: 190 and n. 16.
52 Kennedy 1969.
53 Lambert 19681969: 7 11. 2936.
54 Cf. most recently Winter 1989: 575 f. and n. 7.
45
46
100
Becker 1985.
Hallo 1957: 60 f.
57 Cf. below, p. 103. For the chronological assessment of the late Akkadian (or
post-Akkadian or Gutian) period see Hallo 1971: 713 f.
58 Hallo and Simpson 1971: 83. With reference to this concept, Wilcke 1974: 188
n. 30 wrote Worauf sich die Ansicht W.W. Hallos . . . sttzt, da die Priesterschaft von
Nippur es Sulgi
gestattet habe, die Gttlichkeit zu beanspruchen, wei ich nicht. The
answer (for now) is the evidence of the royal hymns; see Hallo 1963b, esp. p. 113.
59 Hallo 1966: 136, here: III.2; cf. now also Wilkinson 1986; Sigrist 1989. For the
critique of my position by Civil 1980: 229 see for now Hallo 1990a: 187.
60 Hallo 1966, esp. p. 135, here: III.2.
55
56
101
Gudea.61 More recently, it has been shown that not only the genre as
such but numerous details of its structure, contents, diction, and even
orthography were indebted to Gudea.62 But the neo-Sumerian kings of
Ur (and their successors at Isin) certainly developed both kinds of royal
hymn to their fullest potential. Partly to this end, they and in particular Shulgi patronized the scribal schools of both Nippur and Ur.63 In
addition, they created a unique system whereby all central provinces of
their Sumero-Akkadian empire assumed responsibility for the upkeep
of the Nippur shrines on a rotational basis tied to the calendar such
that each month was assigned to one or more provinces on the basis
of their ability to contribute from their agricultural wealth. That this
system can be aptly described as a Sumerian amphictyony64 I would
maintain against the recent reinterpretation by Piotr Steinkeller.65
Thus we can almost speak of a concordat by which religious and
secular interestsor, if one prefers, Sumerian religious traditions and
Akkadian political traditionswere kept in balance during the neoSumerian period. As if to seal the entente, Ur-Nammu revived the
ancient Sumerian cult of the sacred marriage between the king representing the god Dumuzi and the queen representing the goddess
Inanna, and rededicated it to the end of conceiving the royal heir.66
This at least is the testimony of the royal hymn, Shulgi G, commissioned by that heir to assert his own claim to divine status as the
ospring of a union consummated in the temple at Nippur in which
his earthly parents represented the divine couple.67 This particular
hymn, whose interpretation has exercised the ingenuity of half a dozen
Sumerologists, is soon to be definitely edited by Klein.68
A new threat to the entente was posed by the death of the aged
king and the succession of one of his numerous sons which may have
Hallo 1963b: 115, here: III.1. Note references to Gudea also in 11. 3638 of the
great Nanshe-hymn for which see Heimpel 1981: 84 f.; Jacobsen 1987: 129 and n. 11.
62 Klein 1989. For another example of such intertexuality, cf. Gudea Cyl. A xii if,
( u4-d ma-ra-ab-d-e, gi6-e ma-ra-ab-m-m) with the myth of the Pickaxe 1.36
(u4-d al-d-e gi6-(a) al-m-m) (ref. courtesy T. Frymer-Kensky).
63 Hallo 1989: 237 with n. 9, here: III.5; Klein 1989: 299 f. with n. 67.
64 Hallo 1960; cf. Tanret 1979.
65 1987, esp. 2729.
66 Hallo 1987a, here: III.4.
67 The notion that he was already deified as (crown-)prince was refuted already in
Hallo 1957: 61 f. and n. 1.
68 See for now Klein 1981: 40 n. 72.
61
102
involved assassination of the former and usurpation by the latter according to scattered clues in the later historiographic tradition.69 The
rightful heir, Shu-Sin, claimed divine status from birth in the later
literature70 if not in the contemporary inscriptions.71 He had already
served as vice-roy of Uruk and heir apparent in his fathers lifetime;
when he finally took the throne in his own right, he demanded more.
Hitherto deification of the king had meant only partial assumption of
divine status: the royal name was preceded by the epithet divine and
sometimes followed by a title such as god of his country;72 in the
iconography, the king and his kin were represented as wearing either
the horned cap or the flounced garment, but never both these hallmarks
of divinity.73 Above all, there was no worship of the living king as there
was of the statue, throne, and other memorials to the deceased king.
Shu-Sin, however, demanded just that. At least four temples were built
in his honor, in Lagash, Adab, Ur and Eshnunna, as we know from
their building inscriptions.74 These have exactly the form of building
inscriptions for temples to the gods, except that the deitys name and
epithets are replaced by those of the king, and the name and titles
of the royal builder are replaced by those of the local governor! In
one case, moreover, we have more than just the building inscription:
at Eshnunna, the Shu-Sin temple itself survives. Its floor-plan perfectly
illustrates the accommodation of temple architecture to the earlier style
of palace architecture.75 It is probably no coincidence that Shu-Sin is
of all neo-Sumerian rulers the one most abundantly documented in the
literature of the sacred marriage and of erotic poetry generally.76
The fall of Ur at the end of the second millennium, and the succession of Isin to the hegemony of Sumer and Akkad did not at once
alter the terms of the concordat. But Sumerian was beginning to die
out as a spoken language. The unity of Sumerian religious traditions,
hitherto assured by the supremacy of the scribal school at Nippur and
its curriculum, became harder to maintain as the possession of Nippur
Michalowski 1977; Hallo in press b with nn. 7994.
ANET 496.
71 Hallo 1957: 61 and n. 8.
72 Ibid. 5662.
73 Cf. already Porada 1948: 35; van Buren 1952: 93, 101.
74 Hallo 1962: 18 with nn. 152 f.
75 Frankfort, Lloyd and Jacobsen 1940.
76 See e.g. Jacobsen 1987 Part Two: Royal Love Songs, esp. pp. 8589, 93, 95 f.;
previously Kramer, ANET 496, 644; 1969: 9295.
69
70
103
passed from Isin to Larsa and back again in the dizzying competition
between these two dynasties.77 As the long peace78 of the twentieth
century bc gave way, about 1897 bc, to the period of the warring kingdoms and of maximum political turmoil79 in the nineteenth, at least
three distinct ideologies or theologies began to compete in the SumeroAkkadian sphere.
I delineated these ideologies briefly in my presidential address to the
American Oriental Society, and more fully in the published version of
my remarks,80 so a summary may suce here. The dominant ideology
remained that of Nippur, and was espoused especially by the first
dynasty of Isin, which considered itself the legitimate successor to the
third dynasty of Ur, as that regarded itself the heir to the first five
dynasties of Uruk. Since Uruk and Ur were the southern, or Sumerian,
counterparts to Kish and Agade in the Akkadian north, and since
Nippur formed the hub of Sumer and Akkad (in the words of the
Temple Hymns line 28 your right and your left hand are Sumer and
Akkad), this Nippur theology thus incorporated the traditions of all
four cities and claimed that they all merged in Isin. This viewpoint
is expressed most explicitly in the Nippur recension of the Sumerian
King List,81 and somewhat more subtly in the rest of the Nippur scribal
curriculum, replete as it was with myths about and hymns to all the
deities of the Sumero-Akkadian pantheon, beginning with Enlil, with
epics about the early rulers of Uruk and Kish, with copies of the royal
inscriptions of Akkad,82 and with compositions in honor of the kings of
Ur and Isin.
But as Isins control of Nippur was challenged by Larsa throughout
the nineteenth century, so too a rival ideology can be detected at Larsa
to challenge that of Nippur. Because it drew heavily on the traditions
of Lagash, Larsas ancient neighbor, it may be called the Lagash
theology. In this scheme, the deliberate omission of both Lagash and
Larsa from the Sumerian King List was made good in one of two
ways. Either an antediluvian section was prefixed to the Nippur version
and made to include a wholly spurious dynasty of Larsa,83 or a virtual
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
104
parody was created in the style of the Sumerian King List but limited
entirely to the rulers of Lagash.84 Myths and hymns were composed
in honor of such southern deities as Ningirsu and Bau of Lagash,
Nisaba and Haia of Umma, and Utu and Sherda (Aya) of Larsa.85 In
addition to royal inscriptions and royal hymns, a new subgenre of royal
letter-prayers was associated with the kings of Larsa.86
In the end, however, both the dynasties of Isin and Larsa bowed to a
third power, that of Babylon. And with them, the theologies of Nippur
and Lagash yielded to a third, that of Babylon. Marduk, the chief deity
of Babylon, became the son of Enki, the traditional rival of Enlil at the
head of the Sumerian pantheon, as his city Eridu was the ancient rival
of Nippur.87
We may therefore regard this third and latest ideology as the theology of Eridu. In its conception of the King List, Eridu was the first
of all cities. In its mythology, Enki played the major role.88 More importantly, he became the patron of the age-old tradition of incantations,
which was taken over almost intact by later Babylonian tradition. It
may thus be said that, while the Nippur theology survived Old Babylonian times only selectively, and Lagash theology not at all,89 the millennial Sumerian tradition of incantations and conjurations passed via
the Eridu theology into the Akkadian tradition of divination to provide these twin bases of the later Mesopotamian Weltanschauung.90
And with this merging of the surviving Sumerian religion into Akkadian tradition I beg rest my case.91
References
Al-Fouadi, A. Enkis Journey to Nippur: The Journeys of the Gods (PhD. Thesis, U. of
Pennsylvania, 1969).
Allen, James P. Genesis in Egypt: The Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation Accounts
(= Yale Egyptological Studies 2, 1988).
Sollberger 1967.
On the last of these divinities, see now Powell 1989.
86 Cf. most recently Hallo 1982, here: V.2.
87 Cf. especially Kramer 1970.
88 Cf. now Kramer and Maier 1989.
89 Except as it was reshaped to fit the Nippur point of views; cf. e.g. Hallo 1981.
90 Cf. most recently van Dijk, Goetze and Hussey 1985.
91 For a comparable situation in Egypt, with its successive (if not competing) theologies of Heliopolis, Memphis and Thebes, see most recently Allen 1988, esp. pp. 62 f.
84
85
105
106
107
Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Mesopotamian temple plan and the Kittum Temple, Eretz Israel 20 (Yadin Volume, 1989), 7992.
Kennedy, Douglas. Realia, RA 63 (1969): 7982.
E., ed. State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East 12 (= Orientalia
Lovaniensia Analecta 56, 1979).
Loding, Darlene, A new chronological source for the Isin-Larsa period, AfO
24 (1973): 4750.
McEwan, Gilbert J.P. Distribution of meat in Eanna, Iraq 45 (1983): 187198.
108
Rosengarten, Yvonne, Le rgime des orandes dans la socit sumrienne daprs les
textes prsargoniques Lagas (Paris: E. de Bocard, 1960). (= 1960b)
Rowlands, Larsen and Kristiansen. Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World. Ed,
by Michael Rowlands, Mogens Larsen and Kristian Kristiansen. (Cambridge U.P., 1987).
Sauren, Herbert. Besuchsfahrten der Gtter in Sumer, Orientalia 38 (1968):
187213.
Schneider, Nikolaus. Gtterthrone in Ur III und ihr Kult, Orientalia 16 (1947):
5665.
Sigrist, R. Marcel. Nippur entre Isin et Larsa de Sin-iddinam Rim-Sin,
Orientalia 46 (1977): 363374.
Sigrist, R. Marcel. Le travail des cuirs et peaux Umma sous la Dynastie
dUr III, JCS 33 (1981): 141190.
Sigrist, R. Marcel. Les sattukku dans lEsumesa durant la priode dIsin et Larsa (=
Bibliotheca Mesopotamia 11, 1984).
109
Abbreviations
James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament (Princeton University Press, 1950; 2nd. ed., 1955; 3rd
ed., 1969).
AV
Anniversary Volume
CAD
The Assyrian Dictionary (Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago, 19651989).
IRSA
Edmond Sollberger and Jean-Robert Kupper, Inscriptions
Royales Sumriennes et Akkadiennes (Littratures Anciennes du
Proche-Orient 3), 1971.
Kantor AV
Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor, ed. by
Albert Leonard, Jr., and B.B. Williams (= SAOC 47, 1989).
Kramer AV 2 Studies in Literature from the Ancient Near East. . . dedicated to Samuel
Noah Kramer, ed. by Jack M. Sasson (= AOS 65, 1984).
Kraus AV
zikir sumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus . . ., ed.
by van Driel et al. (= Studia. . . Scholten 5, 1982).
Pope AV
Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin
H. Pope, ed. by John H. Marks and Robert M. Good (Guilford,
Ct., 1987).
PSDB
The Sumerian Dictionary (University Museum of the University
of Pennsylvania, 1984), volume B.
RAI
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale.
RLA
Reallexikm der Assyriologie.
RGTC
Rpertoire Gographique des Textes Cuneiformes (Wiesbaden: Dr.
Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 1977 .).
SIC 2
Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method, ed.
by William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer and Leo G. Perdue
(Winona Lake, In., 1983).
SIC 3
The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform Literature: Scripture in Context III,
ed. by William W. Hallo, Bruce William Jones and Gerald
L. Mattingly (= Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 8,
1990).
Sjberg AV
DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A: Studies in Honor of ke W. Sjberg, ed.
by Hermann Behrens et al. (= Occasional Publications of the
Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11, 1989).
Speiser AV
Essays in Memory of E.A. Speiser, ed. William W. Hallo (=
American Oriental Series 53 and JAOS 88/1, 1968).
ANET
110
TSS
UET III
U.P.
Addenda
p. 94 n. 13 Cf. now also Herbert Sauren, Trois tablettes . . ., OLP 20
(1989) 8 for a measure called sla-eme-gi7.
p. 95 n. 25 For an extensive discussion of the issues, see now Gebhard J. Selz,
sa: ein Beitrag zum
Eine Kultstatue der Herrschergemahlin Sa
Problem der Vergttlichung, Acta Sumerologica 14 (1992) 245268.
p. 97 n. 27 Cf. now also Martha Haussperger, Die Einfhrungsszene (=
Mnchner Vorderasiatische Studien 11, 1991) esp. pp. 69 f.
p. 97 n. 31 Cf. now A. Wendell Bowes, The basilomorphic conception
of deity in Israel and Mesopotamia, in The Biblical Canon in
Comparative Perspective: Scripture in Context IV, ed. by K. Lawson
Younger, Jr., William W. Hallo and Bernard F. Batto (= Ancient
Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11, 1991) 235275.
p. 97 n. 32 For a measured endorsement of this interpretation, see now
C. Wilcke, Lugalbanda, RLA 7 (19871990) 117132, esp.
pp. 122 f.
p. 98 n. 34 Akkadian formulations of the conception, late but telling, are
preserved in the Instructions of Shube-awilim (Hallo 1979:
upe-ameli
105 f.; cf. now M. Dietrich, Der Dialog zwischen S
und seinem Vater, Ugarit-Forschungen 23 (1991) 3368, esp.
pp. 48 f. top) and in the hemerologies the king should set his
food oering (kurummassu.) before his god (and) goddess, and it/he
will be accepted, his prayer will be answered (CAD I 273c, CAD
K 579c).
p. 98 n. 38 Moshe Eilat reminds me that the remainder of the meal
oering (e.g. Lev. 2: 3, 10) and what remains of the blood
(and meat oering) (Lev. 5: 9) are functional equivalents of the
rehtu in the Levitical legislation of the Bible.
a new edition of the relevant texts, and a critique of ours,
p. 98 n. 43 For
see Dominique Charpin, Le clerg dUr au sicle dHammurabi
(Genve/Paris, Droz, 1986) 307318.
p. 98 n. 44 On deified temples, cf. most recently D.T. Potts, Notes on
some horned buildings in Iran, Mesopotamia and Arabia,
RA 84 (1990) 3340.
111
i.7
THE BIRTH OF RHETORIC*
* This is an updated version of the chapter by the same name in William W. Hallo,
Origins: the Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions (Studies in
the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 6) (Leiden/New York/ Kln: Brill,
1996), 169187. For details of documentation, the reader is referred to this book, cited
hereinafter by short title (Origins), page and footnote number. (The original version of
this paper was presented to the First African Symposium on Rhetoric: Persuasion and
Power, Cape Town, July 12, 1994, Yehoshua Gitay presiding.)
1 Dozeman and Fiore 1992. Add especially Jackson and Kessler 1974.
2 Gitay 1981; 1991.
3 Michael V. Fox, Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric, Rhetorica 1 (1983), 922; John Baines,
Feuds or Vengeance: Rhetoric and Social Forms. Pp. 1120 in Studies Wente (below,
p. 236) (1999).
4 Origins 169170.
5 Ibid. 144148.
6 Ibid. 262270.
7 Pearce 1993.
8 Barbara N. Porter, Language, Audience and Impact in Imperial Assyria, in
S. Izre"el and R. Drory, eds., Language and Culture in the Near East (Israel Oriental Studies
15) (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 5172.
114
For this patronymic in the inscriptions see previously David Diringer, Three
Early Hebrew Seals, Archiv Orientln 18/3 (1950), 6667; Emit G. Kraeling, The Brooklyn
Museum Papyri (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953), No, 13:6.
10 Origins 146147, n. 12 and 268; J.H. Tigay in COS 2 (2000) 197198.
11 Above, n. 2.
12 Cf. above, n. 1.
13 Watson and Hauser 1993.
14 Greenstein 1996.
15 Greenstein 1981; 1982.
16 Berlin 1986; 1994.
17 Sternberg 1983; 1985.
18 Savage 1980.
19 Rabinowitz 1993.
20 Hallo and van Dijk 1968. Latest translation by Hallo in COS 1 (1997), 518
115
116
explored shared rhetorical features in biblical and Sumerian literature.30 She was not concerned with any one composition or genre,
but with the whole gamut of Sumerian poetry, and particularly with a
feature it shares with biblical poetry, namely parallelism. Within this
broader technique, she noted especially two rhetorical features, one
the particularizing stanza and the other an ABAB word order pattern.
In his 1980 dissertation, Robert Falkowitz chose to define rhetoric
still more widely. Rather than the prevalent classical definition of rhetoric as the art of persuasion in oratory, he preferred the medieval conception in which rhetoric formed a trivium, with grammar and dialectic, within the seven liberal arts, and as such applied to poetry and
epistolography as well as to preaching. It was, in short, intended to
inculcate the ability to communicate in a lofty idiom distinct from common parlance, let alone colloquialism,31 and was therefore a proper
subject of instruction in the schools. By this criterion, the curriculum
of the scribal schools of Old Babylonian Mesopotamia could likewise
be described as an exercise in rhetoric. That curriculum first required
the Akkadian-speaking students to master the intricacies of cuneiform
writing and the basic vocabulary of Sumerian by means of primers constituting syllabaries and vocabularies. But it then went on to connected
texts in Sumerian and these typically began with the proverb collections, which Falkowitz accordingly renamed The Sumerian Rhetoric
Collections.32
Piotr Michalowski uses rhetoric almost synonymously with stylistics
in discussing negation as a rhetorical and stylistic device.33 Historians
of Mesopotamian art have expanded the definition even more, freeing
rhetoric of its verbal associations entirelyfor better or worseand
extending it to the realm of nonverbal communication.34
More recent studies have tended to return to a narrower definition
of rhetoric and to its epistolary setting. Thus Jack Sasson has singled
out the emissaries of Zimri-Lim, the Old Babylonian king of Mari
from Tyre, Orientalia 42 (1973), 162177. For some of these models, cf, Moshe Held,
Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew, Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), 7179.
30 Berlin 1978.
31 See below at notes 3944 and 129.
32 Falkowitz 1982.
33 Piotr Michalowski, Negation as Description: the Metaphor of Everyday Life in
Early Mesopotamian Literature, Aula Orientalis 9 (1991), 134.
34 Winter 1981.
117
(ca. 17801760 bce) for reporting to their sovereign individually, massively, and often. Their letters contain dozens of long lines and, in
rhetoric, can match the best of biblical prose, full of vivid phrasing,
lively pacing, and a terrific sense of structure.35 Richard Hess has studied the longest letter of the many sent by the Egyptian pharaoh at
Amarna to his restless vassals in Asia during the Amarna period, He
concludes that its elaborate argument and stylistic sophistication constitute a creative use of rhetorical persuasion in order to counter the
arguments of a vassal and set forth the pharaohs case.36 He has also
applied rhetorical standards to the Amarna letters from Shechem and
Jerusalem.37
Kirk Grayson has termed Assyrian rhetoric a conquering tactic,
citing both biblical and Assyrian evidence.38 Moran documents the
classical preference for the plain style or what in Greek is called
ho ischnos charactr and in Latin subtilis oratio or genus tenue to signal its
use in an Old Babylonian prayer to the moon-god.39 This plain style
should not, however, be confused with colloquialism. Moran regards
the justly famous letter of a schoolboy to his mother (Zinu) as probably
showing colloquial speech in Akkadian.40 It has also been detected
in Sumerian, both in wisdom literature41 and in an incantation,42 in
Akkadian depositions in court,43 and in biblical Hebrew.44
The most recent attempt to apply the canons of classical rhetoric to cuneiform literature is also the most massive one. In a doctoral
35
Jack M. Sasson, The King and I: a Mari King in Changing Perceptions, Journal
of the American Oriental Society 118 (1998), 458; For an example from the third millennium,
cf. Benjamin R. Foster, The Gutian Letter Again, N.A.B.U. 1990:31, No. 46.
36 Hess 1990.
37 Richard Hess, Smitten Ant Bites Back: Rhetorical Forms in the Amarna Correspondence from Shechem, in J.C. de Moor and W.G.E. Watson, eds., Verse in Ancient
Near Eastern Prose (AOAT 42, 1993) 95111; idem, Rhetorical Forms in the Amarna
Correspondence from Jerusalem, Maarav 10(2003), 221244.
38 A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rule of Conquered Territory in Ancient Western Asia,
CANE 2 (1995), 961; for the parallel see already H.W.F. Saggs, Iraq 17 (1955), 47; 18
(1956), 55; Hallo, From Qarqar to Carchemish: Assyria and Israel in the Light of New
Discoveries, BASOR 23 (1960), 59.
39 Moran 1993; cf. Origins 173, n. 155.
40 ANET 629.
41 Hallo 1979, here: VIII.2; cf. Ibid., n. 157.
42 Hallo 1985, here: IX.1; cf. Ibid., n. 158.
43 Hallo, The Slandered Bride, in R.D. Biggs and J.A. Brinkman, eds., Studies
Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim (Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1964), 9697. For b innam as a
colloquialism or an idiomatic locution see CAD A/1:377d and B 216 f. respectively.
44 Below, n. 130.
118
119
50
51
52
120
121
his pains in what van Dijk described as an anticipation of the enigmatic qesi.tas and gold rings awarded to Job at the end of his disputation.60
It seems, then, that the disputations have a stronger claim than the
proverbs to be regarded as true exercises in rhetoric. In the view of
H.L.J. Vanstiphout, one of their principal current interpreters, they
developed out of the abstract and neutral debate situation primarily as an exercise in rhetorical skill . . . the debate, as a literary and
rhetorical form, is in itself and as such the primary reason for being.61
And in most cases the victor wins on rhetorical points: he is the cleverest debater.62 Hypothetically, we can reconstruct a kind of dramatic
presentation in which two speakers (or actors or rhetors) assumed the
respective roles. The preserved texts represent the libretti; their contents consist almost entirely of spoken parts, and the narrative interpolations constitute little more than stage directions.
Much the same could be said of some of the other genres that
followed the wisdom literature in the scribal curriculum and which,
unlike that literature, focused on kings and gods. What then are some
of the rhetorical and stylistic devices that can be detected in these
genres? I will confine myself to epic (including myth), not only because
it is evidently omitted from Wassermans aforementioned thesis (though
included in his book), but also because, of all cuneiform genres, this is
the one that, even in translation, continues to have the widest appeal.63
Who has not heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?
What is perhaps less familiar is that to this day we still do not
have any complete recension of the epic! Its rediscovery began in
1872 with the publication of The Chaldaean Genesis by George Smith,
which included much of the story of the Flood in what proved to be
Tablet XI of the epic; it created so much excitement in England that
the Daily Telegraph supplied Smith with the funds to return to Kuyunjik
(which turned out to be a part of ancient Nineveh, and included the
royal libraries) and find many more fragments of the epic. But in
60 Job 42: 11; cf. van Dijk 1957. For later survivals of the genre, see G. J. Reinink and
H.L.J. Vanstiphout, eds., 1991: Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near
East (OLA 42); S. Brock, The Dispute Poem: from Sumerian to Syriac, Journal of the
Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 1 (2001), 310.
61 Vanstiphout 1991: 24, n. 5; previously H.L.J. Vanstiphout, On the Sumerian
Disputation Between the Hoe and the Plough, Aula Orientalis 2, (1984) 249250.
62 Vanstiphout 1990: 280.
63 Origins 177, n. 174.
122
spite of more than 130 years of additional discoveries, the epic remains
fragmentary. Even its very first line is broken and subject to dierent
restorations and translations. The latest suggestion is based on a join
made in 199864 that yields the first significant new evidence for the
opening of the Epic of Gilgamesh to appear since . . . 1891 65 and
leads to the translation: He who saw all, (who was) the foundation
of the land66 or, alternatively, He who saw the Deep, the countrys
foundation.67 Earlier renderings included: Let me proclaim to the
land him who has seen everything68 and Him who saw everything,
let me make known to the land,69 thus inviting the audience to listen.70
And indeed here and in the next four lines, the audience is tempted
by the inducement of sharing in the knowledge of someone who had
travelled widely in the world and experienced muchlike Odysseus
polutropon hos mala polla . . . (I) (1). In the next line, this geographical
breadth is matched by chronological depth, for Gilgamesh is said to
have brought back information from before the flood.71
But Gilgamesh is not alone among Akkadian epics in thus anticipating classical epic by attempting to attract the attention of a presumed audience at the outset. Claus Wilcke has studied the exordia
of Akkadian epics and identified at least four other examples in which
the poet steps forward to announce in the first person (typically in the
cohortative mood) his intention to sing of a certain subjecta veritable arma virumque cano (Aeneid I) (1)often followed by exhortations to
the audience to listen.72 Among them are Old Babylonian examples
thought to be hymnic-epic celebrations of Hammurapis campaigns
123
against the north73 and the south,74 and a hymn to Ishtar as Agusaya,
the mad dancer in battle.75 Only one example dates from the late
period, namely the canonical Anzu Epic).76
Still others of the later compositions substitute for this exordium
a circumstantial temporal clause that sets the stage for the narrative
to follow, a kind of fairy tale beginning with once upon a time.
The Akkadian conjunction is enuma/inuma/inumi, when, which breaks
down etymologically into in umi, on the day that, and as such is a
throwback to the Sumerian u4...a-a, on the day that; when, which
is such a standard incipit of Sumerian epic and other genres that it
became the preferred form of the personal names that identified the
antediluvian sages with the works of literature attributed to them.77 In
its Akkadian form it is most familiar from the incipit of the so-called
Epic of Creation, enuma elish.78 Other examples include the muchdebated incipit of the (Late) Old Babylonian flood story of Atar-hasis,79
and the Middle Babylonian myth of Nergal and Ereshkigal.80
A third rhetorical solution to introducing epic is to begin with a hymnic apostrophe to the royal or divine protagonista useful reminder
that myth and epic do not constitute separate genres in cuneiform but
only a subset of hymns to kings or gods.81 With Wolfram von Soden
(inspired by Benno Landsberger), it has therefore become customary to
describe the Akkadian of early examples of the subset as the hymnicepic dialect.82 The Epic of Erra and Ishum, for example, begins with
a hymnic apostrophe to Ishum.83 Rarest of all is the epic that begins in
medias res, as in the case of the story of Etana, both in its Old Babylonian and its late recensions.84
Origins 178, n. 178.
Ibid, n. 179.
75 Ibid., n. 180.
76 Wilcke 1977: 175179; most recent edition Hallo and Moran 1979; latest translations by Foster 1993: 469485, 1995: 115131.
77 Hallo 1963: 175176, here: II.1.
78 Wilcke 1977: 163175; latest translation by B.R. Foster in COS 1 (1997), 390402.
79 Wilcke 1977: 160163. Latest translation by Foster in COS 1 (1997), 450453.
For the incipit see B. Groneberg, Archiv fr Orientforschung 26 (19781979), 20 (with
previous literature); M.-J. Seux, Atra-hasis I, I, 1,: RA 75 (1981), 190191; von Soden,
Mottoverse, 235236.
80 Wilcke 1977: 159; latest translation by Stephanie Dalley in COS 1 (1997), 384389.
81 Cf. above, n. 63.
82 Origins 179, n. 186, and above, notes 7375.
83 Origins 179, n. 187; latest translation by Dalley in COS 1 (1997), 404416.
84 Origins 179, n. 188; latest translation by Dalley in COS 1 (1997), 453457.
73
74
124
125
126
noted earlier and to which Berlin has given the label of particularizing
parallelism.102 It is a device much favored at the beginning of Akkadian
and especially of Sumerian poems.
What this rapid survey of the evolution of the Akkadian Gilgamesh
Epic suggests is that it involved such essentially rhetorical devices as
self-introduction of the speaker, invitation to the audience, hymnic
apostrophe to the protagonist, partial repetition of the proemium to
achieve a frame eect and closure, and mechanical addition of an
extraneous addendum to arrive at a preferred length. The evolution of
the composition thus proceeded, at least in part, by successive expansions at its borders. This is a process with possible analogues in the
evolution of the biblical corpus, notably in the case of literary prophecy
as proposed by David Noel Freedman.103 I have similarly advanced the
notion of a central core of Deuteronomy which gradually grew by
accretion at both ends in what can almost be described as concentric
circles.104 Of course it was not the only means of expansion. A comparison of Old Babylonian and neo-Assyrian recensions of Gilgamesh
and other compositions shows expansion likewise in the interiornot
always with an equally happy result from a modern esthetic point of
view105 as well as juxtaposition of originally discrete compositions to
form a greater whole.106
But we have not yet traced the evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic back
to its earliest stages. In fact the unified epic was preceded by a series of
discrete, episodic tales not, as yet, organized around the central theme
of human mortality. Whether these discrete episodes were already unified in the earliest Akkadian recension remains a matter of debate, with
Tigay favoring this view of matters107 and Hope Nash Wol questioning
it.108 What has hitherto been beyond dispute is that the earlier Sumerian episodic tales were not integrated. The new evidence from MeTuran raises the possibility that they were beginning to be.109 We have
already encountered one-half of one of them pressed into service for
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
127
Tablet XII of the Akkadian epic.110 But with the exception of Gilgamesh and Agga and The Death of Gilgamesh,111 the others too
were bequeathed to the Akkadian poet, not in the form of mechanical
or slavish translations but creatively adapted to fashion an entirely new
composition.
The technique of blending discrete compositions into a larger cycle
did not necessarily involve adaptation of a Sumerian original in a
new Akkadian context, nor did it begin with Gilgameshthough it is
easier to recognize it there. But let us return where we began, to the
princess-poetess Enheduanna. She is said to be the author of, among
other compositions,112 at least three hymns to the goddess Inanna, each
with its own theme. We have already encountered The Exaltation
of Inanna, which commemorates the earthly triumphs of her father
Sargon over his enemies within Sumer and Akkad, and sublimates
them into cosmic terms. The poem Inanna and Ebih does the same
for Sargonic triumphs over enemies on the northeastern frontier as
symbolized by Mount Ebih (Jebel Hamrin).113 Finally, the poem StoutHearted Lady (in-nin s-gur 4-ra) tells of the submission of the whole
world to Sargonic hegemony as symbolized by its acknowledgement of
Inannas supremacy in every field of endeavor.114 In this sequence, we
move from Sumer and Akkad to the frontier and thence to the whole
world. If we reverse the sequence, we can see the action coming ever
closer to home, in a manner worthy of an Amos.115 And it is precisely
this reverse order in which all three compositions are listed together at
the beginning of a literary catalogue of Old Babylonian date.116
If, then, the three great hymns by Enheduanna in honor of Inanna
are taken as forming an integrated cycle, then they constitute a thematic counterpart to her other principal work: the cycle of short hymns
to all the temples of Sumer and Akkad.117 For while the former may be
said to celebrate the theme of the king at war, the latter reflects the
king at peace, solicitously caring for the temples of all the country in a
Origins 182, n. 213.
Ibid., n. 214.
112 For the Enheduanna texts not further treated here, see Origins 263266.
113 Ibid. 182, n. 216. Cf. now Pascal Attinger, Inana et Ebih, ZA 88 (1998), 164195.
114 Origins 182, n. 217.
115 Ibid. 183, n. 218.
116 Mark E. Cohen, Literary Texts from the Andrews University Archaeological
Museum, RA 70 (1976), 131132, lines 13.
117 Origins 183, n. 220. For a dierent view, see now J.A. Black, En-hedu-ana not the
composer of The temple hymns, N.A.B.U. 2002:24.
110
111
128
major attempt to satisfy the traditional requirements of Sumerian religion.118 It achieves in exalted poetry what the Standard of Ur, found
by Sir Leonard Woolley in the Royal Cemetery, had achieved in pictorial terms some three centuries earlier. This precious object, variously
interpreted as a wooden box,119 a desk or lectern120 or, most recently, as
the sound-box of a harp, has four inlaid panels, of which the two largest
show the king at war and at peace respectively, presiding over battle on
one side and over libations on the other.121 It thus shows the king at
war and in peace or, to put it another way, the ruler as king (lugal) and
high-priest (en), his two principal roles,122 and one could claim for the
beginning of the Mesopotamian record, as Irene Winter has said of the
end, that royal rhetoric embraced art as well as literature.
In conclusion, it must seem somewhat audacious to defend the notion of the birth of rhetoric in Mesopotamia, given that the more
conventional view looks for the origins of rhetoric in classical Greece.123
And indeed, I admit that this notion, or at least this title, was Professor Gitays, not mine.124 But I am prepared to defend it, along with the
related notion that the idea of humanitas goes back to Sumerian precedent. It has been said that the humanities were born in a rhetorical
manger. The first recorded use of the word humanitas is in the Rhetorica ad Herrenium, a text roughly contemporaneous with Cicero.125 But
Latin humanitas may fairly be described as a kind of calque or loan
translation of Sumerian nam-l-ulu6, an abstract noun formed from the
Sumerian word for man, human being (l) perhaps via its Akkadian
129
126 Van Dijk 1953; cf, Henri Limet, Peuple et humanit chez les Sumriens,
G. van Driel et al., eds., zikir sumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F.R. Kraus . . .
(Leiden: Brill, 1982), 258267.
127 For this genre see above, n. 54.
128 Origins 184, n. 228.
129 Steiner 1992.
130 Origins, n. 230.
130
Brock, S., 2001: The Dispute Poem: From Sumerian to Syriac. Journal of the
Canadian Society for Syriac Studies 1, 310.
Cole, Thomas, 1991: The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece (Baltimore/London:
Johns Hopkins University Press).
Dozeman, Thomas B, and Benjamin Fiore, 1992: Rhetorical Criticism,
Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York etc.: Doubleday) 5:712719.
Edzard, Dietz O., 1990: Selbstgesprch und Monolog in der akkadischen
Literatur. In T. Abusch et al., eds., Lingering Over Words: Studies. . . in Honor of
William L. Moran (Cambridge: Harvard Semitic Studies 37), 149162.
Falkowitz, Robert S., 1982: The Sumerian Rhetoric Collections (Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms).
Foster, Benjamin R., 1993: Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (2
vols.). (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press).
, 1995: From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient Mesopotamia
(Bethesda, MD: CDL Press).
Fox, Michael V., 1983: Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric. Rhetorica 1:922.
Freedman, David N. 1991: The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan).
, 1994: The Undiscovered Symmetry of the Bible. Bible Review 10/1
(February) 3441, 63.
, and Jerey C. Geoghegan, 1999: Quantitative Measurement in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. In R. Chazan et al., eds., Ki Baruch Hu: . . . Studies in
Honor of Baruch A. Levine (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), 229249.
George, Andrew, 1999: The Epic of Gilgamesh: A New Translation (New York:
Barnes and Noble).
Gevirtz, Stanley, 1973: On Canaanite Rhetoric: The Evidence of the Amarna
Letters from Tyre. Orientalia 42:162177.
Gitay, Yehoshua, 1981: Prophecy and Persuasion: A Study of Isaiah 4048 (Forum
Theologiae Linguisticae 14) (Bonn: Linguistica Biblica).
, 1991: Isaiah and his Audience: The Structure and Meaning of Isaiah 112.
(Studia Semitica Neerlandica 30) (Assen/Maastricht: van Gorcum).
Greenstein, Edward L., 1981: Biblical Narratology. Prooftexts 1:201216.
, 1982: An Equivocal Reading of the Sale of Joseph. In Kenneth
R.R. Gros Louis, ed., Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives, vol. 2 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon), 114125 and 306310.
, 1996: A Forensic Understanding of the Speech from the Whirlwind.
In M. V. Fox et al., eds., Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem
Haran (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), 241258.
Hallo, William W., 1963: On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature, Journal of
the American Oriental Society 83:167176, here: II.1.
, 1979: Notes from the Babylonian Collection, I. Nungal in the Egal: An
Introduction to Colloquial Sumerian? Journal of Cuneiform Studies 31:161
165, here: VIII.2.
, 1985: Back to the Big House: Colloquial Sumerian, Continued. Orientalia 54:5664, here: IX.1.
131
, 1996: Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western
Institutions (Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 6)
(Leiden/New York/ Koln: Brill).
, and J.J.A. van Dijk, 1968: The Exaltation of Inanna (Yale Near Eastern
Researches. 3) (Repr. New York: AMS Press, 1982).
, and W.L. Moran, 1979: The First Tablet of the SB Recension of the
Anzu myth. JCS 31:65115.
Held, Moshe, 1969: Rhetorical Questions in Ugaritic and Biblical Hebrew.
Eretz-Israel 9:7179.
Hess, Richard, 1990: Rhetorical Forms in EA 162. Ugarit-Forschungen 22:137
148.
, 2003: Rhetorical forms in the Amarna correspondence from Jerusalem. Maarav 10:221244.
, 1993: Smitten Ant Bites Back: Rhetorical Forms in the Amarna Correspondence from Shechem. In J.C. de Moor and W.G.E. Watson, eds., Verse
in Ancient Near Eastern Prose (ATOT42), 95111.
, 1998: The Mayarzana Correspondence: Rhetoric and Conquest Accounts. Ugarit-Forschungen 30:333351.
Hunger, Hermann, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone. (AOAT 2).
Jackson, Jared J., and Martin Kessler, eds., 1974: Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in
Honor of James Muilenburg (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press).
Jacobsen, Thorkild, 1987: The Harps That Once. . . : Sumerian Poetry in Translation
(New Haven/London: Yale University Press).
Kilmer, Anne D., 1982: A Note on an Overlooked Word-play in the Akkadian
132
Porter, Barbara N., 1995: Language, Audience and Impact in Imperial Assyria. In S. Izre"el and R. Drory, eds., Language and Culture in the Near East.
(Israel Oriental Studies 15) (Leiden: Brill), 5172.
Raaflaub, Kurt, ed., 1993: Anfnge politischen Denkens in der Antike. (Schriften des
Historischen Kollegs, Kolloquien 24).
Rabinowitz, Isaac, 1993: A Witness Forever: Ancient Israels Perception of Literature and
the Resultant Hebrew Bible. (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press).
Reinink, G.J. and H.L.J. Vanstiphout, eds., 1991: Dispute Poems and Dialogues in
the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East. (OLA 42).
Sasson, Jack M., 1998: The King and I: A Mari King in Changing Perceptions. JAOS 118:453470.
Savage, Mary, 1980: Literary Criticism and Biblical Studies: A Rhetorical
Analysis of the Joseph Narrative. In C.D. Evans et al., eds., Scripture in
Context. (Pittsburgh: Pickwick Press), 79100.
Sjberg, ke, 19711972: He is a Good Seed of a Dog and Engardu, the
Fool. JCS 24:107119.
, 1973: Der Vater und sein missratener Sohn, JCS 25:105169.
Steiner, Richard C., 1992: A Colloquialism in Jer. 5:13 from the Ancestor of
Mishnaic Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies 37:1126.
Sternberg, Meir, 1983: The Bibles Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric, and
Poetics in Sauls Fall. Hebrew Union College Annual 54:4582.
, 1985: The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of
Reading. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Van Dijk, J.J.A., 1953: La Sagesse Sumro-Akkadienne. (Leiden: Brill).
, 1957: La dcouverte de la culture littraire sumrienne et sa signification pour lhistoire de lantiquit orientale. LAncien Testament et lOrient.
(Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia, 1) 528.
Vanstiphout, Herman L.J., 1984: On the Sumerian Disputation between the
Hoe and the Plough. Aula Orientalis 2:239251.
, 1990, 1992: The Mesopotamian Debate Poems. Acta Sumerologica (Japan) 12:271318; 14:339367.
, 1991: Lore, Learning and Levity in the Sumerian Disputations: A
Matter of Form, or Substance? In Reinink and Vanstiphout 1991:2346.
, 1996: Disputations and School Dialogues. COS 1:575593.
Von Soden, Wolfram, 1982: Mottoverse zu Beginn babylonischer und antiker
Epen, Mottostze in der Bibel. Ugarit-Forschungen 14:235239.
Vulpe, Nicola, 1994: Irony and unity of the Gilgamesh Epic JNES 53:275
283.
Walker, C.B.F., 1981: The Second Tablet of Tupsenna pitema. JCS 33:191195.
Wasserman, Nathan, 2000: Sweeter than Honey and Wine. . .: Semantic Domains and Old Babylonian Imagery. RAI 44/3: 191196.
, 2003: Style and Form in Old Babylonian Literary Texts. (Leiden/Boston:
Brill/Styx).
Watson, Duane J. and Alan J. Hauser, 1993: Rhetorical Criticism of the Bible: A
Comprehensive Bibliography with Notes on History and Method. (Biblical Interpretation Series 4) (Leiden: Brill).
Wilcke, Claus, 1977: Die Anfnge der akkadischen Epen. ZA 67:153216.
133
, 1993: Politik im Spiegel der Literatur, Literatur als Mittel der Politik
im lteren Babylonien. In Raaflaub 1993:2975.
Winter, Irene, 1981: Royal Rhetoric and the Development of Historical Narrative in Neo-Assyrian Reliefs. Studies in Visual Communication 7:238.
Wol, Hope Nash, 1969: Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Heroic Life. JAOS 89:
392398.
Zgoll, Annette, 1997: Der Rechtsfall de En-hedu-Ana im Lied nin-me-sara. (AOAT 246)
(Mnster: Ugarit-Verlag).
Abbreviations
BASOR
CAD
CANE
COS 1
COS 2
JAOS
JCS
JNES
N.A.B.U.
OLA
RA
RAI44
ZA
ii
catalogues and other scholia
ii.1
ON THE ANTIQUITY OF SUMERIAN LITERATURE*
In setting up a chronological scheme for Sumerian literature, Falkenstein1 distinguished two major periods of creativity which we may describe as neo-Sumerian (ca. 21151815 bc)2 and as late or post-Sumerian (ca. 15001100 bc) respectively. The assumed floruit of postSumerian creativity can be supported by a number of arguments. It
was contemporary with a very flourishing period of Akkadian literary
activity;3 it is attested by nearly contemporary copies as well as by later
copies which continue almost to the beginning of the Christian Era;4 it
coincides with a posited revival of Sumerian learning after the sack of
Babylon and the end of the Babylonian Dark Ages.5
But the presumed date of neo-Sumerian creativity precedes both the
assumed date of the first major period of Akkadian literary output and
the attested date of nearly all copies of neo-Sumerian literature hitherto
published,6 for both of these categories can be dated approximately
to the period 18151665 bc,7 particularly to the time of Hammurapi,
Samsu-iluna and Abi-eshuh of Babylon.8 By contrast, such evidence as
The substance of this paper was presented to the 173rd meeting of the American
Oriental Society, Washington, D.C., on March 27, 1963.
1 A. Falkenstein, Zur Chronologie der sumerischen Literatur, Compte Rendu de
la seconde Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (= CRRAI ) 2 (1951) 1227; Mitteilungen der
deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (= MDOG) 85 (1953) 113.
2 Or 20501750 in the low chronology employed by Falkenstein, ibid., 1.
3 Ibid., 12. Cf. also W. von Soden, Das Problem der zeitlichen Anordnung akkadischer Literaturwerke, ibid., 1426, esp. p. 22.
4 Falkenstein, ibid., 2 and notes 46.
5 Cf. W. Hallo, New viewpoints on cuneiform literature, Israel Exploration Journal
(= IEJ) 12 (1962) 24 f., note 54 and, for the problems of literary creativity in cuneiform
generally, ibid., 1421, here: I.1.
6 Some copies of incantations may be dated to the Ur III period on the basis
of their script; cf. e.g. J. Nougayrol, Conjuration ancienne contre Samana, Archiv
Orientln 17/2 (= Symbolae Hrozny 2, 1949) 213226; Falkenstein, LSS nF 1 (1931) 2, note 1
and CRRAI 2 (1951) 19. Cf. also F.R. Kraus, ZA 50 (1952) 49 ad SLTN 48 and 138, and
E.I. Gordon, Bibliotheca Orientalis 17 (1960) 124, note 19.
7 17501600 in Falkensteins terms; he refers also to some copies dated under Ammis.aduqa (16461626).
8 It may be noted in passing that at least some Old Babylonian copies are dated
*
138
139
of these and other hymnic compositions, which some hitherto unpublished copies from Ur and Nippur will eventually confirm. Meanwhile,
however, it is possible to add to this evidence the testimony of a neoSumerian inventory of forty-two hymnal incipits found in the course
of cataloguing the Yale Babylonian Collection. Of these incipits, some
may, with more or less certainty, be identified with titles of compositions
previously known from Old Babylonian copies or Old Babylonian catalogues, or both. The inventory in question is thus by some two or three
centuries the oldest witness of its kind to the antiquity of any major
works of neo-Sumerian literature. It is inscribed in four columns on a
large, well-preserved tablet18 which was thoroughly baked, apparently
in antiquity. In outward appearance it resembles an Ur III name list,
and its signs have precisely the form current in Ur III economic texts.
A terminus post quem is provided by two of the titles which apostrophize
the deified Shulgi.
The subscript of the new catalogue also supports an Ur III dating.
The last line reads, in eect: p-da n--rum. Although one might interpret this as personal name (Pada)19 +title,20 a more likely rendering is
(tablets) found (or recovered) by Ni"urum. The verb p(d) is used in
apparently this sense in another Ur III catalogue,21 in the court judgments,22 and in accounts23 of the Ur III period. Ni"urum is, moreover,
attested as a personal name in Ur III texts,24 interestingly enough at
least once as an archivist.25
We are dealing, then, with the oldest example yet found of what
is by now an impressive number of Sumerian literary catalogues and
inventories. I have been able to count in all seventeen lists of this type,
eight of them identifying works of neo-Sumerian literature and nine
chiefly those of the post-Sumerian group (see the Table). We owe our
YBC 3654 (80 132 mm.).
In Ur III texts, Pada almost always occurs as a merchant; cf. N. Schneider,
Orientalia o. s. 23 (= Das Drehem- und Djohaarchiv 4/1, 1926 f.) 175 f.
20 For n--rum (variant: n-u -rum) DN as a royal epithet, cf. most recently A.
4
Kapp, ZA 51 (1955) 86; Jacobsen, ZA 52 (1057) 131 f., note 90 (6).
21 Below, Table, No. 2. Though as old as our text, this inventory includes no titles
that can, as yet, be identified with known compositions.
22 Falkenstein, Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden 3 (1957) 151.
23 Ibid. 2 (1956) 392 top; cf. A.L. Oppenheim, Catalogue of the . . . Eames Collection (=
AOS 32, 1948) 132 and 249 (ad S 1).
24 Cf. e.g. Schneider, op. cit. (note 19), 38, s.v. Gar--as.
25 M.L. Hussey, Harvard Semitic Series 4 (1915) 23 iii 3 (Shulgi 48). For sa (G)-dub-ba
x
= sandabakku, archivist, see Falkenstein, op. cit. (note 22) 159.
18
19
140
Date
Present
Provenience Location
Place of Publication
YBC 3654
Ur III
Yale
Published herewith
2. HS 1360
Ur III
Nippur
Jena
3. ?
Old Babylonian
Ur
Kramer, RA 55 (1961)
169176
4. ?
Old Babylonian
Ur
Baghdad
5.
Old Babylonian
Nippur
Jena
Old Babylonian
Nippur
7.
Old Babylonian
Louvre
8. VAT 6481
Old Babylonian
Berlin
9. HS 1477
Jena
1.
HS 1504
AO 5393
26 TMH nF 3 (1961) pp. 19 f. (No. 2); RA 55 (1961) 169176 (No. 3); WZJ 6 (19561957)
389395 (Nos. 49, with I. Bernhardt); cf. also Kraus, OLZ 50 (1955) c. 518 on No. 4.
27 OLZ 21 (1918) cc. 116119 (Nos. 1116).
28 E.g. T.J. Meek, JBL 43 (1924) 245252 and previous treatments there cited. For the
Sumerian entries, cf. Falkenstein, ZA 49 (1949) 91, 103.
29 S. Langdon alluded to it in Babyloniaca 3 (19091910) 248 and, more recently,
M. Weitemeyer in Archive and library technique in ancient Mesopotamia, Libri 6
(19551956) 237, note 65.
30 On these see most recently Hallo, IEJ 12, 23 f. and notes 4749, here: I.1; W.G.
Lambert, A catalogue of texts and authors, JCS 16 (1962) 5677. For an Akkadian
inventory of texts, cf. e.g. Langdon, RA 28 (1931) 136 (Rm. 150).
Date
Present
Provenience Location
Place of Publication
141
Middle Assyrian
Assur
Berlin
Neo-Assyrian
Nineveh
London
IV Rawlinson (1875)
60 = IV R2 (1891) 53
+ Langdon, Babylonian
Liturgies (1913) 103a
12. K 2
Neo-Assyrian
Nineveh
London
Nineveh
London
Langdon, Babylonian
Liturgies 151
14. K. 9618
Neo-Assyrian
Nineveh
London
15. K 3141
Neo-Assyrian
Nineveh
London
16. K 3482
Neo-Assyrian
Nineveh
London
Neo-Babylonian
31 In some cases it is even conceivable that our inventory identified compositions not
by their opening but by their concluding lines, their so-called u r ux (EN), for which see
last Falkenstein, ZA 52 (1957) 6972.
* This copy is not included here, but in the original article: pp. 171172, and in the
forthcoming Sumerian Royal Hymns (see above, Introduction).
142
1) an-edin-zi-da dar-a
2) den-ll-l [d]u11-ga-ni nu-kr
3)
4)
5)
6)
6a)
7)
8)
9)
10)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
nin me-e-h-du7
en inim-nun-zu
ds
ul-gi hi-li-s
d
sul-gi dingir-zi
en gal-zu-an-na
lugal-mu hi-li-gru
lugal inim-sa6
ur-sag s-k-ta
lugal a-ma-ru
lugal me-lm-hus
ur-sag n-gal-gru
en-an-ki-a
lugal u4-g-di
lugal gis-tg-dagal
ur-sag sul-zi-tu-da
nin hi-li-s
agrig! ?-zi-ukkin-na
32 SGL (1959) No. 1. The Yale Babylonian Collection has at least three more unpublished exemplars (YBC 4618, 4651 and 9858).
143
Reverse
iii 29) usum-hus-an-na
30) lugal-me s-ta ur-sag-me-en
No. 2: Enlil, his command is far and away the loftiest, a thing
unchanging. For the interpretation of the subscript of this part of our
inventory, it is important to note that this hymn, while it contains no
actual mention of any specific king, is nevertheless characterized by
allusions to an unnamed king (lines 8495), and possibly refers to his
coronation.33
No. 8: en-su-l-im, Oh lord, awesome splendor, This reading is offered, with all due reserve, on the basis of the Middle Babylonian
catalogue from Nippur at Jena. In the last section of this catalogue,
there are listed fifteen adapu-songs (a-da-ab-me-es), five of which, alone
among the hymnal incipits of this catalogue, can be identified with titles
known from Old Babylonian copies or catalogues. Among them is a
single one to Su"en which the editors render as en-su-si-gr-ru (l. 77).
The reading su-lim is here proposed on the basis of su-lim-ma in a
33
144
34 Thureau-Dangin, SAKI 214 f.; cf. Hallo, Bibliotheca Orientalis 18 (1961) 9 sub WaradSin 6, and Deimel, SL 2, 7, 157.
35 For the values NI = l and SI
= lim in early Sumerian, cf. Sollberger, ZA 54 (1961)
27, 146 and 42, 261. For su = salummatum, cf. B. Landsberger MSL 2 (1951) 133 vii 51; for
su-zi = salummatum cf. Falkenstein, ZA 48 (1944) 98 and CAD I/J 43b s.v. igisus. ill.
36 Falkenstein, ZA 49 (1949) 88 No. 3 restores [n u n].
37 SGL 1 No. 4.
38 ZA 50 (1952) 63 .
145
146
and translation of these previously unattested terms48 present some difficulty. The spelling sa-DU invites comparison on the one hand with
the group ad-sa4 = nissatum, ur-sa4 = rimmum and se-sa4 = damamum, all
expressions for vocal action, on the other with n-DU = zamaru, song.
The reading n - sa4 for this last word49 seems ruled out by the phonetic
or variant spellings en-du,50 n-di-a-ni = zamarsa,51 and n-da-ka-mu.52
The parallels thus favor, though they do not prove, a tentative reading
and rendering as sa-du-lugal, royal hymns, a category which, it has
sometimes been argued,53 was represented by Sumerian a-da-ab.
The significance of the second summary is harder to determine.
While igi-mu-s, igi-zu-s, etc., is attested in the sense of on behalf
of myself, yourself, etc., igi-s can hardly be explained in this way. It
occurs, for example, in Rim-Sin 6 and 754 in the expression du11-ga-ni
igi-s-gin which Thureau-Dangin already translated by dessen Wort
vorangeht (allen anderen),55 For igi-s in a trial document, Falkenstein proposes a translation zuerst, ohne dabei aber sichere Belege
bieten zu knnen.56 My translation former hymns attempts to parallel royal hymns in the other summation, and takes into account that
the only reasonably certain identification in this group of titles (No. 41)
is with a hymn to what is most probably a pre-Ur III ruler of Lagash.57
So far we have undertaken to date Sumerian literature from without. The Babylonians themselves, however, were not indierent to the
same problem. Indeed, a startling new document which has just been
published permits us not only to trace the Mesopotamian tradition of
147
literary catalogues down to the very end of cuneiform writing and even
beyond, but also to reassess the notions which the Babylonians themselves held as to the antiquity of their literature. In the current report
of the excavations at Uruk, van Dijk has presented a late Seleucid text
in which, for the first time, the names of all the seven ante-diluvian
sages are given in their full cuneiform version, and linked with, or even
dated to, the seven ante-diluvian kings known from certain versions of
the Sumerian King List.58 These entries are followed by others in which
a selection of post-diluvian sages and scholars are similarly dated to
the reigns of more historical kings.
This unique document, when considered in combination with the
catalogue of authors and their works recently published by Lambert,59
serves to show that, in the late native view, at least three series were
thus as it were dated to the neo-Sumerian period. They were, oddly
enough, Etana,60 Irra,61 and a series known by the name of its author
as Enlil-ibni or si-d.62 These bibliographical notices are not, of course,
to be taken literally. The Babylonians regarded not anonymity (as was
once thought) but antiquity of authorship as a measure of authority.63
They therefore were not above attributing texts or versions of obviously late date to impossibly early authors or, conversely, associating a
patently late author with the time of an early king. But in this process of tendentious bibliography, they were perhaps not entirely indifferent to objective considerations of historical and literary fact. If Sinliqi-unninni could be dated to the time of Gilgamesh,64 it should not
Van Dijk, UVB 18 (= Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft, Abhandlungen 7, 1962) 4452.
That the link implies an attempt to date these authors follows from the plausible
restoration [ina tars. i] at the head of each entry by van Dijk (cf. especially p. 46). For the
ante-diluvian king list section, see the articles by Finkelstein and Hallo, JCS 17 (1963)
3957.
59 Above, note 30.
60 Lu-Nanna is, according to Lamberts catalogue (vi 11), the author of the Etana
series; elsewhere he is linked to Shulgi (Lambert, note 14a). For Shulgis role as a patron
of literature, cf. e.g. van Dijk, Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (1954) 87, note 44 = Hallo, HUCA
33 (1962) 29, note 214.
61 Kabti-il(ani)-Marduk, who is known as the author of the Epic from its own text,
and whose name can reasonably be restored in Lamberts text (iii 1 f.), is linked to [Ib]iSin in van Dijks text.
62 Cf. vi 13 of Lamberts text with line 14 of van Dijks text, where Sidu, otherwise
(known as) Enlil-ibni is dated to the reign of [Isbi]-Irra. Lambert (p. 72) conjectures
that his series may identify the Atra-hasis Epic.
63 IEJ 12, 16, here: I.1.
64 van Dijk, line 12, restored.
58
148
149
73
Ibid.
E. Reiner, Orientalia 30 (1961) 6.
75 Ur, Nippur, Eridu, Kullab, Keshi, Lagash, Shuruppak.
76 Cf. e.g. CAD I/J 160be, s.v. inuma.
77 Kramer, WZJ 6, 390 ad HS 1504, 7.
78 P. 48 ad No. 4.
79 For the identification of u -an with Oannes, see now conclusively Lambert, JCS
4
16, 74 and van Dijk, UVB 18, 47 f. But whereas van Dijk takes u4-an as an abbreviation
of u4-an-(na)-ad-da-p, Lambert cogently argues that u4-an is, as in Berossos, the full
name, and Adapa the epithet. In fact, the equation of the loanword adapu with -tua-ab-ba (literally born of the sea) which Lambert cites in this connection suggests
that the epithet be understood as recovered from the water (for this meaning of
p cf. above, notes 2123 and the name Tl-ta-p-da cited by Falkenstein there) and
thus linked with Berossos notices about Oannes rather than with those preserved in
the Middle Babylonian myth of Adapa, as van Dijk suggests, or with those in the
Etiological myth of the Seven Sages (Reiner, above, note 74).
80 This equation is clinched by Lamberts catalogue (i 6) and parallels there cited.
81 Lambert, p. 70 ad i 5; cf. Hallo, IEJ 12, 16 and note 15. Here: I.1.
74
150
u4-SAR, lunar disc.82 His name also recurs in Rm. 618 at the head
of a catalogue of Akkadian literary works beginnings precisely with u4an-den-ll-l.83 It is thus easier to suppose that the scribe of the Verse
Account erred in his rendering of Oannes/Adapas chief work than
that he attributed to the first sage a totally obscure one. In Lamberts
list of authors, the astrological series is even attributed to Ea himself,
and both forms of the tradition thus agree in according to it the highest
possible antiquity (cf. above, note 63). That this is not solely a tendentious attribution is clear from the fact that at least one forerunner of
the series has been found on an Old Babylonian copy,84 and that its title,
in both Sumerian and Akkadian, has turned up on the Old Babylonian
catalogue from Ur published by Kramer.85
Probably the second apkallu-name in the new list, u4-an-du10-ga, also
conceals an incipit in u4 = enuma, when. The third name, en-me-du10ga, actually occurs in the neo-Assyrian catalogue of texts and authors,
oddly enough in the midst of the section of human scholars (um-mea), as author of two otherwise unknown Sumerian series.86 The last
apkallu, -tu-abzu, born of the deep, seems strangely reminiscent of
Adapa again.87 In sum, it would not be surprising if all the apkallunames turned out eventually to identify known cuneiform series. This
would vindicate the long held view of classical scholars that in Berossos
version of them they are none else than the revealed writings of the
Babylonians.88 The excerpts of Berossos preserved by later historians
may then be regarded in a sense as the last of the Sumerian literary
catalogues as the newly found Yale inventory represents, so far, the
first.
82 Lambert, ibid. On lunar discs and related matters, cf. my review of Limits Travail
du Mtal in Bibliotheca Orientalis 20 (1963) 141 f.
83 Cf. A.H. Sayce, The literary works of ancient Babylonia, Zeitschrift fr Keilschriftforschung 1 (1884) 190 f. and C. Bezold, Catalogue 4 (1896) 1627. Note also in HABL 923: 8
apkallu (NUN.ME) UMUN.A.DA.P, the sage Umun-Adapa, (not the sage and [u]
Adapa as translated in ANET 450).
84 E. Weidner, Archiv fr Orientforschung 14 (1942) 173 f. and note 7; T. Bauer, ZA 43
(1936) 308314.
85 RA 55 (1961) 172, lines 49 f.
86 Lambert, JCS 16, 74 ad iv 11.
87 Ibid. and above, note 79.
88 H. Gelzer (1885) apud P. Schnabel, Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Literatur
(1923) 27, 175.
ii.2
ANOTHER SUMERIAN LITERARY CATALOGUE?
152
OBVERSE?
Line 10: ga-sa-an-mu d-gu[r] = entry 9 in Rm. 2, 220 (RA 22: 123).
Line 13: dUtu -ma = ersemma for Utu, listed in Cat. 11 (IV R2 53) ii 26
REVERSE?
Line 2: an nam-[ . . . ]: cf. an-ne(var.: -n) nam-nir-ra (var.: gl) = Summer and Winter, catalogued in Cats. 3, 6, and 7 (RA 55:169 .;
BASOR 88:12; and TCL 15: 28 respectively) as Entries 22, 29 and
31 respectively.
Line 3: a-ba-a mu-un-ba-a[l-e] = The Coronation of Ur-Nammu as
reconstructed in my edition) JCS 20 (1966) 139, here: III.2.
Another, now erased, may have once been mistakenly inserted after line 9.
153
F (HeimLine 11: [...]-x gu4 -gim: cf. perhaps the opening line of Sulgi
pel, Tierbilder, No. 5.68).
Granted the above identifications, the order of entries in STVC 41
would be: (obverse?) individual lament, congregational laments;
(reverse?) disputation, royal hymn, divine hymns. It would seem,
moreover, that a number of entries are shared in common by Old
Babylonian and neo-Assyrian catalogues, though these are separated
from each other by more than a millennium.
ii.3
HAPLOGRAPHIC MARGINALIA
Scribal mistakes call for scribal corrections. In the vast genre of archival
texts, scribes often erred in their arithmetic and then corrected themselves by the time-honored device of an (intentional) compensating
error to arrive at a proper total.1 In literary texts, a common lapsus
calami consisted of omitting an entire poetic line. In such a case, probably detected when the scribe counted his lines and entered their total
in the colophon, a simple corrective was available; the left edge of the
tablet. This was normally blank except where the scribe had used up
the obverse, reverse, and bottom edge of the tablet and still needed
more space for additional lines.2 Otherwise he could use it to enter the
missing line, normally (as far as can be seen from the published copies)
in a downward direction relative to the point of insertion. When possible, a straight line before the entry indicated where on the obverse
or reverse of the tablet it was to be inserted. The practice in question
is already attested in Old Babylonian copies of Sumerian literary texts,
where it was discovered by Kramer a quarter of a century ago. He
wrote:3
Line 59, as the copy shows, was written on the left edge, since it was
accidentally omitted by the scribe who indicated by means of a short
horizontal line the exact place where it belongs. This interesting scribal
practice was relatively simple to figure out in the case of the Yale tablet
as a result of a comparison of the passage beginning with line 54 with the
parallel passages beginning with lines 30 and 45, not to mention the presence of the line in the duplicate, cf. line 327 of the restored text. There is
at least one other example of this scribal device in the published Sumerian literary texts which has remained unrecognized hitherto because of
lack of duplicating material. Thus in the all-important deluge tablet
published in PBS V 1, the signs written on the left edge are preceded
by a short line just as in the case of the Yale tablet; it is therefore
1
156
Commenting, on the line from the Sumerian Flood Story, Civil stated
in 1969: Kramers suggestion to insert here the line from the left
edge of the tablet is in probability correct,4 but he assigned it the
line number 255a as an index of his hesitancy on this point.5 The
hesitation no longer seems necessary in view of the large number of
additional examples of the identical practice now available. They are
catalogued here in the context of the discussion of scribal errors in
cuneiform, the topic of the Assyriological Colloquium at Yale for
December 16, 1975.6
Kramer himself noted a third instance in CT 42 (1959) 1: the fifth
of the seven familiar heroic epithets of Enlil having been omitted
inadvertently after line 6 of the obverse, the scribe inserted the missing
line in the right edge.7 The switch to the right edge in this case may be
a function of the late date of the exemplar (on which see presently) or it
may have been prompted by the enigmatic musical notations which
pre-empted the left margin (edge?).8
The text in question is a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha, now edited by Kutscher.9
The exemplar involved is said to be Neo-Babylonian in date.10 Kutscher
called attention to a second example of the practice in the same composition, for the Old Babylonian scribe of the Yale text YBC 4659
accidentally omitted line *155 and inserted it on the left edge, with a
straight line pointing to line *156.11
The fifth example is provided by the Nippur text Ni. 4552, published by Kramer in 1963 and re-edited by Jacobsen as The Sisters
M. Civil, The Sumerian Flood Story, apud Lambert-Millard, Atra-hass (1969)
Congregational Lament, YNER 6 (1975) 68.
10 YNER 6 11 (quoting E. Sollberger).
11 YNER 6 107 f.; cf. the hand-copy on plate 7 (!).
4
172.
157
Message.12 The text can be reconstructed with the help of an unpublished Yale duplicate.13 The omitted line is line 27 in Kramers edition
and line 11 of the restored text; it occurs at the indicated point of insertion in the Yale text as well as in the published duplicate (UM 29-16-8).
The sixth example occurs in another Nippur tablet, Ni. 4233, published on p. 74 of ISET (1969), as pointed out in my review of the
volume.14 The text is a hitherto unknown hymn to Nin-imma.
But the practice was not confined, even in Old Babylonian times, to
texts from Nippur and whatever site was the provenience of the Yale
texts. It was noted in a literary text from Ur by Kramer15 and in one
of unknown provenience by Limet.16 These examples are particularly
illuminating, the former because the omission occurred at the very end
of the obverse and before the inscribed lower edge,17 the latter because
the insertion, coming as it does at line 26 of an obverse of 34 lines, had
to continue along the bottom edge of the tablet.
A dierent solution was adopted by the scribe of MLC 1207, likewise
of unknown provenience. Here the scribe squeezed the omitted line
into two lines running down the left edge before the point of insertion
which, as usual, was marked by a straight line. That line then follows the
insert rather than preceding it.18 A simpler, if less traditional, approach
was employed at Kish, to judge by the only example from that scribal
center in which the insert comes near the end of the obverse: here the
12 S.N. Kramer in Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts, PAPS 107 (1963) 524; The Sacred Marriage Rite (1969)
p. 103 f.; T. Jacobsen, The Sisters Message, The Gaster Festschrift, ANES 5 (1973)
199212.
13 NBC 10923 This text shows that our bal-bal-e began at line 17 of the published
editions with di-da-mu-d di-da-mu-d. Line 16 should, with the photograph and
against the editions, probably be restored as [bal-bal-e-dInanna]-kam; to judge by the
Yale text, it was probably preceded by Kramers text no. 11.
14 W.W. Hallo, review of g, Kzlyay and Kramer, Sumerian Literary Tablets and
Fragments in the Archaeological Museums of Istanbul 1 (1969), in JCS 18 (1971) 39
n. 1.
15 See his remarks apud C.J. Gadd and S.N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts:
First Part, UET 6 (1963) 35 (p. 5).
16 H. Limet, Le pome pique Innina et Ebih, Or. NS 40 (1971) 14. For the
158
scribe simply reversed the usual direction of the omitted line and wrote
it up the left margin above the line of insertion.19
That the practice continued unabated into the first millennium, as
demonstrated by the third example (above), was clearly recognized
by C. Bezold long ago, as is amply demonstrated in his Kouyunjik
Catalogue (footnotes to pp. 543, 554 and passim thereafter). It has
been less explicitly stated in more recent treatments. Thus Lambert
noted that a Babylonian copy of a late Assyrian fire incantation adds
a whole line (III 27) in the left margin, while the duplicates have it
in the text. But, he adds, in this case it is not clear if the line was
lacking from the basic copy used by the scribe.., or if the scribe of [the
Babylonian copy] accidentally omitted it at first, but later discovered
the fact when checking the work.20 Even though the copy in question
has other scribal notations in the form of textual variants, it seems clear
that we have here another simple case of scribal correction comparable
to the Sumerian precedents from the second millennium. Note only
that, in distinction from those, the present tablet has two columns on
each side and therefore the scribe availed himself of the space between
the columns for his insertion. Moreover, his line runs up, rather than
down this space. But it begins, as usual, at the point of insertion, and
this point is clearly marked by a wedge, comparable to the straight line
in the Old Babylonian convention.
Finally, the practice can be traced even beyond Mesopotamia as far
west as Ugarit. The famous snake charm RS 24.244, first published
by Virolleaud,21 has three lines of text running down the left margin
underneath a straight line which constitutes a simple extension of the
line dividing the fifth and sixth stanzas of the text.22 Virolleaud did not
know what to make of these three lines of text,23 but Astour, who first reedited the composition, described them as a summary of an omitted
or additional incantation strophe; with it, the number of repetitions
would amount to twelve.24 More specifically, he compares the twelve
pairs of deities in the related text RS 24.241 and says the scribe of
19 Alster, Dumuzis Dream p. 165 pl. 18. Alsters note, p. 55 line 23, seems unaware
of the nature of the scribal practice involved.
20 W.G. Lambert, Fire Incantations, AfO 23 (1970) 39.
21 Ch. Virolleaud, Les nouveaux textes mythologiques et liturgiques . . . , Ugaritica
5 (1968) 567 no. 7.
22 This fact was called to my attention by David Wortman.
23 Ugaritica 5 574.
24 M.C. Astour, Two Ugaritic Serpent Charms, JNES 27 (1968) 15.
159
Appendix
The Assyriological Colloquium at Yale was conceived by J.J. Finkelstein in 1966. It continued to function under his leadership until his
death, and in his spirit since then. The original conception of the Colloquium remains as stated in the invitation of September 15 1986:
a forum for informal and extended discussion of topics and problems in Assyriology which interest any of the participants . . . limited to Assyriologists within short rail or automobile travel distance
to New Haven (and) Assyriologists from abroad or elsewhere in this
country present in the area at the time of the meetings. Finkelstein
sent invitations to A. Goetze, W.W. Hallo, T. Jacobsen, S.N. Kramer,
W.L. Moran, O. Neugebauer, A. Sachs, . Sjberg, and F.J. Stephens.
All but one (Neugebauer) of these ten attended the first Colloquium,
which since then has grown to include numbers of additional, and especially younger, participants without sacrificing its informal and intimate
character. After a decade of meetings, it seems appropriate to list briefly
the formal topics of each Colloquium in a volume dedicated to the
memory of its founder.
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
25
26
no set topic
W.W. Hallo, Classification of the Lexical Texts
T. Jacobsen, Comments on Oppenheims Mesopotamian Religion
A.J. Sachs, Astronomical Diaries
.W. Sjberg, Examination Text A
W.L. Moran, Peripheral Akkadian
J.J. Finkelstein, The Goring Ox
JNES 27 (1968) 21.
JNES 27 (1968) 22. Cf. now also T.H. Gaster, ANES 7 (1975) 3351.
160
1973
1974
1975
ii.4
OLD BABYLONIAN HAR-RA1
1 See JCS 31 (1979) 161165, here: XIII 2 for the first installment in this series.
A copy of YBC 9871, the subject of the first note, has meanwhile been prepared by
Randall McCormick and is appended to this note: the copy of YBC 16317 included
here is also his work. The substance of the present remarks was presented to the 191st
meeting of the American Oriental Society, Boston, March 16, 1981.
My thanks go to Stephen J. Lieberman and Miguel Civil for reading and commenting on this paper. They do not necessarily endorse all of its conclusions.
162
10
ii
[lugal-me]- en
lugal-m-du11
en-e ng
nin-me
bur-su
dumu -
dumu-
dumu-
nam?
dInanna?
s-ga?-an?
in-nin
u6
a
an
gis-taskarin/gigir?
gi-NUN.ME.TAG
[?] udu
na4-ka-gi-na
ms? [?]- du8 ?
l- x
NE ? bi
X
X
X
10
Reverse uninscribed
163
Phil.
Louvre
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
15
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
10
11
12
13
UET
5 86
Andrews
Univ.
incipit
4
5(!)
7
8
9
3
8
2
24
47??
UET
6 123
33
23?
25?
[6]??
IIa??
lugal-me-en (s-ta)
lugal-m-du11(ga)
en-e ng-(du7-e)
nin-me-(sr-ra)
bur-su-(ma-gal)
dumu--(dub-ba-a)
dumu--(dub-ba-a)
dumu--(dub-ba-a)
nam-(lugal?), nm-(nun-e?)
d
8
44?
49??
8,34??
40??
31??
10?
26?
13?
36?
21??
5?
Inanna
s-ga-AN
in-nin
u6
164
EAH 197
i
ii
writing exercise
Syllabary A 111
Syllabary A 329340
Syllabary B I 111
Syllabary B II 111
Weidner God List 19
HAR-ra I 17
writing exercise
Syllabary A 18
Syllabary A 329343
Syllabary B I 18
Syllabary B II 113
Weidner God List 16
HAR-ra I 19
iii
iv
165
These two tablets, which D.C. Snell has undertaken to study and
re-edit, have an unusual appearance, but one that is paralleled by
other neo-Babylonian exercise tablets (unpublished), as S.J. Lieberman
assures me.
The general order: syllabariesgod-listsvocabularies was already
followed in the Old Babylonian scribal schools according to an edubba"a-essay cited by Sjberg.21 And this order also appears in the second
column of YBC 16317. Specifically the next six entries may be compared, with varying degrees of probability, to the incipits of the Old
Babylonian forerunners to HAR-ra (better: ur5-ra) = hubullu tablets III,
of the foreVIII, XIII, XVI, XX, and XXV (L).22 The absence
runner to HAR-ra I (and II) from this list calls for some comment.
Long ago I suggested that just as ana ittisu IVI seems intended for,
or derived from, the contract literature of neo-Sumerian and Early Old
Babylonian times, so HAR-ra = hubullu, though it appears today like a
may originally have been intended
veritable cuneiform encyclopedia,
for or derived from the numerically vaster account literature of the
same periods. The character of the first two tablets of HAR-ra is
not out of keeping with this interpretation; instead of the names of
products, places, and professions, these introductory chapters seem to
explain the standard ledger entries of the account texts.23
Since this view was expressed, however, it has become clear that
in fact the first two tablets of HAR-ra may have to be regarded as
a separate composition from the rest of the series in Old Babylonian
times. Civil stated as much, albeit without documentation, in 1976:
The series HAR-ra started originally with the tree list (Tablet III of
the canonical recension). The late Tablets I and II derive from a list
of legal terms, phrases from the old collection of model contracts,24
and excerpts from Proto-Izi, but were first compiled in Old Babylonian
times. The oldest dated forerunner to HAR-ra III is from the fifteenth
year of Samsuiluna.25 Actually an unpublished Louvre forerunner (that
21
22
ix f.
A. Sjberg, The Old Babylonian Eduba, Studies Jacobsen (AS 20 [1976]) 162 f.
On HAR-ra XXV see Civil, MSL 12 (1969) 90 and 223 f.; Reiner, MSL 11 (1974)
23 J.B. Curtis and W.W. Hallo, Money and Merchants in Ur III, HUCA 30 (1959)
136; see also Hallo, New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature, IEJ 12 (1962) 18 and
n. 23, here: I.1.
24 See on these Hallo, Toward a History of Sumerian Literature, Studies Jacobsen
pp. 195 f. and n. 98, here: I.4.
25 Civil, Lexicography, Studies Jacobsen pp. 127 f.; see also M.T. Roth, Scholastic
166
is, Sumerian only) dates from the first year of Samsu-iluna, according
to Arnaud (AO 7012).26 But in any case, the example of AO 779627
shows that the later HAR-ra III could constitute a single tablet in Old
Babylonian times. The fact that none of the forerunners of HAR-ra I
and II continue with excerpts from III lends weight to Civils assertion
that they constituted a discrete series.
Further grounds for Civils view may be found in his earlier remarks
on school tablets of type II/2, described as relatively long extracts on
the reverse of tablets of type II/1, each side devoted to a dierent
series,28 or at least a dierent part of the same series.29 In this connection, Civil stated, in 1971: a large number of exercise tablets of the type
II/2, emanating from the uncertain hand of beginners and containing
the opening lines of the list, typically mark the beginning of a lexical
compilation. Thus . . . the hundreds of fragments of type II/2 tablets
inscribed with the Forerunner to HAR-ra III found in Nippur clearly
show that HAR-ra started with the third tablet of the canonical series
in the OB schools.
These hundreds of fragments are as yet unpublished, and the Old
Babylonian forerunners to HAR-ra IIIV remain unedited.30 (From V
on, most of these forerunners are reconstructed separately in MSL.)
But we can already form an impression of their appearance from the
texts catalogued by Landsberger in 1957.31 It is clear that the incipit of
the Old Babylonian recension, as of the canonical HAR-ra III, was gistaskarin; see, for example SLT 149 and especially SLT 194, a II/2-type
tablet with an extract of HAR-ra XI on the obverse and a doxology
to Nisaba followed by a double dividing line and HAR-ra III 1 . on
the reverse. (In passing, it may be noted that one of the newly found
tablets from Ras Ibn Hani, the North Syrian coastal site which has also
yielded tablets in Ugaritic script and language, contains precisely HARTradition and Mesopotamian Law: A Study of FLP 1287 (Ph.D. diss., University of
Pennsylvania, 1979) 13 and nn. 31 f.
26 Arnaud, RA 69 (1975) 88. Stephen J. Lieberman, who plans an edition of HARra III, kindly informs me that AO 7012, which he is to publish, is in fact dated to
Samsu-iluna 15. He notes that it lacks a catchline to HAR-ra III or anything else.
27 C.-F. Jean, Prototype de la premire tablette HAR-ra:hubullu AO 7796, RA 33
(1936) 8590.
28 Civil, MSL 12 (1969) 27.
29 Civil, MSL 14 (1979) 5 and below ad SLT 194. Compare also, for example,
SLT 128 (HAR-ra III and X) and BIN 2 67 (HAR-ra III and Vlllf.).
30 Meantime note the compilation by Borger, HKL 3 (1975) 103 f.
31 MSL 5 (1957) 90 f.
167
ra III 130.)32 Thus our new catalogue would bear out Civils hypothesis
if the third entry of column ii could be read as gis-taskarin. But even
if it must be read gis-gigir, it would point to Old Babylonian HAR-ra,
for that was the incipit of the second tablet in some Old Babylonian
recensions, replaced in the canonical HAR-ra V by the synonymous
gis-mar = narkabtum.
At this point it is necessary to pause and attempt to reconstruct the
structure of Old Babylonian HAR-ra as far as this is possible with
the aid of a reasonably careful survey of the grouping of passages as
revealed in MSL 511. The recensions with the largest tablets seem to
have encompassed the entire series in five tablets as follows (Roman
numerals refer to the tablets of the later, canonical recension):
(1) IIIVII, represented by LTBA 1 78 f. and possibly by Ist. Si. 53 (Sippar)
(2) VIIIXII: SLT 191 + 89
(3) XIIIXV: Copenhagen 10098; N 5547; UM 29-16-571; UM 29-16-207+;
SLT 37+SLT 46+N 5491.
(4) XVIXIX: CT 6 1114 (Sippar); AO 4304 (Telloh); SLT 233 + 234?;
SLT 217+(?)
(5) XXXXIV: N 6252.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
168
Finally it may be noted that the grouping of the HAR-ra tablets in the
late commentary series HAR-gud was quite dierent from all of the
above.34
Given these observations, it seems safe to conclude that our inventory records the 5-tablet recension of HAR-ra as standardized in the
Old Babylonian schools and their middle Babylonian successors.35 It is
therefore the more interesting that the next entry is l, for some sort
of l-list followed HAR-ra in the canonical sequence.36 In the earlier
canon, proto-l was followed by proto-izi and proto-diri37 and that may
conceivably be the case here as well.38
Any attempt to assess the over-all significance of the new inventory
is necessarily risky. Yet one wonders whether there is not a significance
in the rough juxtaposition of literary texts in column i and lexical texts
in column ii (admittedly the columns are not precisely aligned with
each other). Civil suggested as much when he wrote me (in reference to
YBC 16317): In the introduction to the revised edition of proto-Ea in
MSL 14 . . . , I show that there is a clear relationship between what is on
the obverse of the type II exercise tablets and what is on their reverse.
I wonder if your list of lexical series reflects this situation.39 Could it
be, in other words, that our list described (or prescribed) the pairing of
33 Cf. MSL 6 144153, 7 177208. Note that Landsberger describes IM 51144 as a
dierent recension from the Nippur series (MSL 7 197). Civil also calls my attention
to two unpublished forerunners from the Oriental Institute (A 7895 and A 7896) which
follow a divergent order (XX[?], XIV, XIII and XVII [?], XIV, XIII, XI respectively).
34 Landsberger, MSL 7 (1959) 5761.
35 For tablet XX, our MS
(for ZI?). [x]-du3 diverges from the (reconstructed) a.
sa-du8 of MSL 11 97, but that may need review.
36 Civil, MSL 12 (1969) 90.
37 Civil, MSL 12 (1969) 90.
38 In ii 9, read perhaps ib(b)i bi (=qutru, smoke, incense) following MSL 13 16:7,
x
36:10, and 160 f.:15 f.
39 Letter of March 4, 1977.
169
BE 31 9
OB
recension
NA
recension
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
12
34
5
6
7
8
9
10
416?
435?
448
463
479
487
497
513
X1
XI 1
XII 1
interval
19
13
15
16
8
10
16
12
Hallo, IEJ 12 (1962) 1326, here: I.1; cf, Sjberg, Studies Jacobsen pp. 162 f., and,
for a restatement of some of my views, see J. Olivier, Schools and Wisdom Literature,
Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 4 (1975) 4960.
41 MSL 14 (1979) 5 f.
42 S.J. Lieberman points out, however, that in his experience the only literary texts
occurring in more than one or two-line excerpts together with lexical texts on exercise
tablets are proverbs and Lipit-Istar B (24*), for which see n. 54 below.
43 Based on a manuscript of Lugal-e which I owe to the courtesy of J. van Dijk. Note
that only in a limited sense can the text therefore be said to catalogue Einzeltafeln of
the composition as suggested by Wilcke, AfO 24 (1973) 50 n. 2.
40
170
No.
BE 31 9
OB
recension
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
11
12
13
14
1516
17
18
19
20
2122
23
24
525
532
547
557
568?
581?
595?
603
612??
622
637
641
NA
recension
XIII 1
IV 1
interval
7
15
10
11
13
14
8
9
10
15
4
[14]
While there may be special reasons for this choice of lines,44 the intervals thus established fall within the typical range of length of extracts
from literary texts which was regarded as the daily pensum at a certain
level of instruction as indicated by the existence of numerous tablets of
this length (Civils Type III).45 This level was presumably intermediate
between the primary stage, represented by lenticular tablets with 25
line extracts (Civils Type IV) and the advanced stage, represented by
extracts of 30 or more lines (Civils Type II/2).46 That 1030 lines were
the daily pensum is confirmed by im-gd-da or long tablets (to us they
mostly look wide because we read them at a dierent angle)47 which
carry a specific date (year, month, and day); when successive portions
of a single composition are copied on these extract-tablets by one and
the same scribal pupil, we can get an accurate estimate of his typical
daily assignment. Thus, for example, a certain Qisti-Ea copied lines 1
44
Civil notes: The lines from Lugal-e have been chosen by the scribe as the points
where the sections about particular stones start; the fact that there is an interval of
about 12 lines simply reflects the length of these thematic sections. I prefer to see in
BE 31 9 a mnemotechnic list to help remember the order in which the stones are
confronted by Ninurta. (Letter of 7-28-81.)
45 MSL 12 (1969) 28, 152; 14 (1979) 5. See also Hallo and van Dijk, Enheduanna
(1968) 39 (5).
46 MSL 12 (1969) 27 f., 152; 14 (1979) 5; Hallo and van Dijk, Enheduanna pp. 38 f. (3
and 4).
47 But some, like UET 6 33 with 30 or more lines per side, look long even to us. Cf.
H. Hunger, Babylonische und Assyrische Kolophone (AOAT 2, 1968) p. 7; CAD L s.v.
liginnu.
171
172
YBC 16317 and its analogues (above, Table 1), serve as further evidence to this eect. As Civil has seen,58 items 13 in the new catalogue,
and perhaps the Kesh-hymn (see item 9) and the Enlil-hymn (dEn-ll
s-r-s) are the only ones (with the exception of proverbs and certain short tales) which are found in type II/2 exercise tablets. Moreover, they were apparently studied in this order, given the discovery of
exemplars of item 1 with the incipit of item 2 as catchline, and of the
Enlil-hymn with the incipit of the Kesh-hymn as catchline,59 precisely
the sequence found in the catalogues from Philadelphia, the Louvre,
and Andrews University.60 But YBC 16317 is, apart from UET 5 86, the
only catalogue to include lexical genres, and it is the first one to list
them in some kind of systematic association with the standard literary
texts of the (intermediate) scribal curriculum.
iii
royal and divine hymns
iii.1
ROYAL HYMNS AND MESOPOTAMIAN UNITY1
176
time, the prerogative of just one dynasty, though the authority which
the title implied might be quite as fictitious as the unity it was supposed
to suggest. Thus the title King of Ur, or epithets like supporter/husbandman/herdsman of Ur were claimed by the kings of Isin from the
collapse of Ur III through the early years of Enlil-bani, that is some
eighty years after Isin had, perhaps peacefully,5 ceded actual control of
Ur to Larsa. Nor was this claim, so far as is known, challenged during
that time.6 Other titles, too, had a character that lifted them above local
significance and were held by only one city or dynasty at a time7 and,
what is equally revealing, some altogether unexpected epithets recur in
totally dierent dynasties.8
Third, the amphictyonic league which I have tried to reconstruct
for the Ur III period9 implies a specific kind of ideal unity far antedating the establishment of Urs hegemony under Ur-Nammu and
Shulgi,10 and outlived it at least in the sense that the members of the
amphictyony also constituted, by and large, the separate kingdoms of
the Early Old Babylonian period, kingdoms which, it can be argued,
preserved the internal peace of the Ur III period for more than a century.11 Fourth, the installation of his daughter as high-priestess of the
moon-god Nanna at Ur seems to have been the prerogative of whatever king controlled the city of Ur at the time. At least five dynasties
succeeded each other in the almost unbroken succession of these royal
appointments that has now been established for the interval from Sargon of Akkad to Rim-Sin of Larsa12 and, whatever the basis of the
prerogative may have been, there is no evidence for rival claimants to
it even during periods of political upheaval. Indeed, the uniformly long
tenures of these high-priestesses, from Enheduanna13 to Adad-guppi of
5 E.I. Gordon, Lipit-Ishtar of Isin, Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin (Oberlin, Ohio) 14/1 (1956) 20 f.
6 Hallo, AOS 43 (1957) 1618; JNES 18 (1959) 57.
7 AOS 43: 150155.
8 Ibid., 156; note especially the early Lagash epithet kur-g-gar-gar DN revived by
Nur-Adad of Larsa (ibid., 137).
9 JCS 14 (1960) 88114.
10 Cf. especially Thorkild Jacobsens arguments for an early Kengir league in
ZA 52 (1957) 99109.
11 Hallo, Bibliotheca Orientalis 16 (1959) 238.
12 Edmond Sollberger, AfO 17 (19541956) 2329, 45 f.
13 The special case of this daughter of Sargon must be considered separately in the
light of her hymns to Innin; cf. for the present Adam Falkenstein, RA 52 (1958) 129131.
177
Harran,14 can only be explained on the assumptionmost clearly validated in the case of Enannatumma15of their immunity to dynastic
change.
Finally, we may briefly mention certain significant indications of
national consciousness. There is, on the literary level, the perpetuation
of the historical tradition,16 including the historical allusions in the
omen literature,17 both serving to unify the separate traditions of the
individual city-states. On the political level, there is the tendency to
revive traditional royal names such as Sharruken and Naram-Sin. And
on the religious level, the worship of the deified Gudea of Lagash in
Ur III18 and of the deified Ur III kings in the Isin period19 attests
to a feeling of temporal unity and implies a sense of spatial unity in
Mesopotamian political thought.
To this fairly impressive array of arguments, I would like to add
another, from the so-called royal hymns. The term will be used here
somewhat loosely to include all those Sumerian hymns which honor,
pray for or otherwise commemorate specific kings, as well as certain
related Sumerian texts such as laments, letters to gods and political
correspondence mentioning kings. A significant number of these compositions expressly or indirectly attest to a kind of cosmic conception of
Mesopotamian unity or, following Jacobsens analysis, they picture the
assembly of the gods at Nippur as conferring supreme executive power
(illilutu) on one of their number so that this deity might then confer its
earthly equivalent on the king or e n s of his or her city.20 That city was
thus recognized, at least by the religious poetry, as prima inter pares and
it should therefore be of interest to see which cities and dynasties were
thus honored.
The royal Sumerian hymns, in the narrower sense, have lately received a great deal of attention, and as a result we now know of over
a hundred examples of this genre, though the number may decrease
14 Cf. most recently C.J. Gadd, The Harran inscriptions of Nabonidus, Anatolian
Studies 8 (1958) 3592.
15 Gordon, loc. cit.
16 H.G. Gterbock, ZA 42 (1934) 1 .
17 Albrecht Goetze, JCS 1 (1947) 253265.
18 Nikolaus Schneider, Orientalia 9 (1940) 1724, with the reservations of Sollberger,
AfO 17 (19541956) 33, note 124 and Falkenstein, Neusumerische Gerichtsurkunden 1 (1956) 6,
note 7. Admittedly all the evidence comes from Lagash itself so far.
19 TCL 15: 18 (AO 5374); cf. Falkenstein, ZA 49 (1949) 83.
20 Apud H. and H.A. Frankfort, Before Philosophy, 207213; ZA 52 (1957) 105 f. In other
cases, supreme power is withdrawn in the same manner.
178
slightly as fragmentary passages are shown to belong to single compositions. Seventy-three separate compositions were identified by Falkenstein in a survey of the genre in 1952.21 Some thirty additional examples
can already be added to the list, chiefly from more recent publications.
These are indicated in the ensuing footnotes which may serve as a provisional complement to Falkensteins list and to Lamberts survey of
Sumerian literature22 in which the royal hymns receive only scant attention.23 The bulk of these 100-odd compositions may be assigned to four
major dynasties, with Ur and Isin boasting some forty each, and Larsa
and Babylon up to ten each. Of these dynasties, only Ur is represented
by all its kings, and these in rather divergent numbers, though the
proportions are comparable to those established for the Neo-Sumerian
royal inscriptions.24 Thus for Ur-Nammu, at least seven separate compositions can now be identified,25 for Shulgi some thirty,26 and for ShuSin four.27 Although Falkenstein no longer regards BE 29:1 iii f. as a
ZA 50 (1952) 6163 with notes 210 (p. 61) and 17 (p. 62).
M. Lambert, RA 55 (1961) 177196; 56 (1962) 8190.
23 Ibid., 81. Cf. also the brief notice by S.N. Kramer in The Bible and the Ancient Near
East (= Albright AV, 1962), 263 f., notes 6670.
24 Hallo, HUCA 33 (1962) 8.
25 The published texts listed by Falkenstein, ZA 50:61, note 2 have now been edited
by G.R. Castellino, ZA 52 (1957) 1757; 53 (1959) 106131. ke Sjberg has identified
TCL 15:38 as a syllabically written duplicate to SRT 11; cf. Orientalia Suecana 10 (1961)
311. Add CT 44 (1963) 16, previously published by Stephen Langdon, PSBA 40 (1918)
45 . and unpublished texts from Istanbul (cf. Orientalia 22 191) and Jena (cf. WZJ 5
761, Nos. 3, 24, 89, 116).
26 Using Falkensteins sigilla (ZA 50: 62 f.), Shulgi A can now be augmented by
J.J.A. van Dijk, Sumer 13 (1967) 79B, and Shulgi D by Kramer et al., Orientalia 22
(1953) pls. xlviiif. (1st. Ni. 4571; cf. Falkenstein, Iraq 22 [1960] 146 f.). Shulgi I (BE 31: 54)
belongs to the genre of royal correspondence; cf. Kramer, JAOS 60 (1940) 253, note 60,
and note 1A-wi-il-la-sa in 1. 16the name is frequent in this genreand the concluding
catchline or colophon dI -bi-dEN.ZU lugal-mu-[ra -na-a-du11(?)]. Shulgi S (STVC 58) is
not a hymn either; cf. below, note 32. Van Dijk, SGL 2 (1960) 1315 has shown that
Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies (1913) 195B is a hymn (a - d a - a b) for Shulgi, while
Erica Reiner, Orientalia 30 (1961) 10, holds likewise for the bilingual text PBS 1/1 (1911)
11. New are CT 42 (1959) 40 (with duplicate SLTN 52) edited by Falkenstein, Iraq 22
(1960) 139160, and TLB 2 (1957) 2, edited by van Dijk, Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (1954)
8588. Finally, at least two hitherto unknown titles of Shulgi-hymns appear in a Yale
catalogue of royal hymns to be published by the writer; here: II.1. Among unpublished
pieces are one each from Jena and Philadelphia (cf. Bernhardt and Kramer, WZJ 5 762
No. 33not a hymnand 6 393, note 2 ad no. 26) and 11 from Istanbul (cf. Orientalia
22 191).
27 To Falkensteins list, ZA 50 61, note 4, add now Kramer et al., Belleten 16 (1952) pl.
lxvi and pp. 360363 = University Museum Bulletin 17/2 (1952) 3133 (Ni. 2461). Like
21
22
179
SRT 23, this text is really a love-song rather than a hymn; both texts carry the native
designation b a l - b a l - e, dialogue (?). Three other Shu-Sin pieces are signalized
from Istanbul and Jena.
28 Below, note 43.
29 Orientalia 22, pl. xl (Ni. 3803).
30 At present still largely unpublished; cf. most recently F.R. Kraus, AfO 20 (1963)
153.
31 Kramer and Falkenstein, Orientalia 23 (1954) 4051 and pls. ivvii.
32 Van Dijk, Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (1954) 83, note 1 and 87, note 44.
33 Id., La Sagesse (1953) 46 f. (Summer and Winter).
34 Above, note 27.
35 See especially Edzard, AfO 19 (19591960) 132 and pls. iiv. For other late copies
of Ur III inscriptions, see HUCA 33: 24 . sub Ur-Nammu 7 iii, 27 ii, 37; Shulgi 4 ii, 54;
Amar-Sin 3 ii; Shu-Sin 20 ii; Ibbi-Sin 910.
36 ZA 50 61, note 5.
37 Ibid., note 7; add one unpublished piece each from Yale and Istanbul (Orientalia
22 191).
38 Ibid., note 8.
39 Ibid., note 9. To the famous sacred marriage text, add now Kramer et al.,
Orientalia 22 (1953) pls. xliiixlvi (Ni. 9802 + 4363) and Turk Arkeoloji Dergisi 8 (1959)
pl. vii (Ni. 9635). Cf. also below, notes 96 f.
40 ZA 50 61, note 10. Add: Langdon, Babylonian Liturgies 196 (cf. van Dijk, SGL 2
15 f.), HS 1594 (unpublished), Orientalia 22 (1953) pl. li (Ni. 4105, Ni. 4391) and three
other texts (ibid., p. 191). Note that SEM 112 duplicates TCL 15: 9 (Edzard, op. cit., 80,
note 391). SRT 36 has now been edited by Castellino, RSO 32 (1957) 1330.
41 ZA 50 62, note 1. Add: HS 1557 (unpublished); Kramer et al., Belleten 16 (1952)
pls. lixf. (Ni. 9695), whose incipit recurs in the catalogue TMH n. F. 3 (1961) 53 67,
and eight other Istanbul fragments copied by Mme. Kizilyay (Orientalia 22 191). With
TCL 16: 48, lines 77 f., cf. the school-text Babyloniaca 9 (1926) 19, lines 1 f. (cf. Hallo,
Israel Exploration Journal 12 22 f., note 43, here: I.1). To TCL 16:87 etc. (cf. Falkenstein,
SAHG No. 27) add Kramer, University Museum Bulletin 17/2 25, fig, 12; the schooltext UET 1:296 duplicates TCL 16:87 v lines 6 f. (= lines 120 f. in SAHG 27). Note also
the letter PBS 13:46 ii. Cf. also below, note 96.
42 ZA 50:62, note 2. VAT 9205 has now been edited by Falkenstein, ZA 52 (1957)
5875. Add: van Dijk, Sumer 11 (1955) 110, no. 9 (with duplicate SLTN 137); VAT 8212
(cf. Falkenstein, ZA 49 149), and VAS 10:199 ii-9iii 7 following Kramer, Belleten 16
(1952) 358, note 10 and Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (1954) 172, note 19. The incipit of the
latter composition recurs in the catalogue TMH n.F. 3 (1961) 54, line 11.
180
Bur-Sin: 2.43 These are the very same Isin kings as are memorialized
in certain Dumuzi liturgies between the kings of Ur III and an as yet
unidentified dynasty or dynasties.44 The tradition resumes, and then
just as abruptly stops again, as noted by Edzard,45 with Enlil-bani (2
hymns).46 Interestingly enough, it is precisely to the time of Enlil-bani
that we may date the first royal hymn in honor of a king of Larsa,
an unpublished one to Nur-Adad;47 for the last eleven years of NurAdads reign coincide with, the first eleven of Enlil-banis. The kings
of Larsa continue to monopolize the poets attentions, though in much
smaller measure than their predecessors, with Sin-iddinam represented
by at least four compositions,48 Sin-iquisham by one,49 and Warad-Sin
by one.50 Rim-Sin is the subject of a letter to a god51 and of a hymnlike incantation.52 Then the poets focus shifts to Babylon, where not
only Hammurapi, the conqueror of Rim-Sin I,53 but also his first two
successors, Samsu-iluna54 and Abi-eshuh,55 are found in this context.
and during these four hundred years, there is no evidence that more
than one dynasty successfully competed for the poets attention at any
one time even while they frequently succeeded in winning a share of the
political hegemony. Admittedly this is an argument from silence. But it
43 BE 29:1 iii 37-iv 38 should be assigned to Bur-Sin of Isin; cf. Falkenstein apud
Edzard, op. cit., 137, note 724. Another text of the same king is at Yale (unpublished).
Here: III.3.
44 Cf. Edzard, ibid., 138140 and above, note 19.
45 Ibid., 142 top.
46 ZA 50 62, note 3. OECT 1:1012 has now been edited by A. Kapp, ZA 51 (1955)
7687.
47 ZA 50 62, note 5; Edzard, op. cit., 145.
48 CT 42 (1959) 45; UET 5:86 (catalogue of hymns includes one to Sin-iddinam),
and two Yale texts (unpublished).
49 VAT 8531 (unpubl.), translated by Falkenstein, SAHG 23; photo of obverse ibid.,
pl. 9.
50 The catalogue UET 5:86 lists one hymn to Warad-Sin.
51 TCL 15:35, edited by Raymond Jestin, RA 39 (19421944) 9194. On this genre,
see Falkenstein, ZA 44 (1938) 125; Analecta Biblica 12 (1959) 6977; Kramer, ANET
(1955) 382.
52 Gadd, Iraq 22 (1960) 157165.
53 ZA 50 62, note 7. Add Orientalia 22 (1953) pl. lii (Ni. 4225) and one other
Istanbul text (ibid., p. 191). Sjberg has shown that TLB 2:3, hymne autolaudatoire
de Hammurabi, is a copy of part of a bilingual stele of which numerous fragments
have been published as UET 1:146 and YOS 9: 3961; ZA 54 (1961) 5170.
54 ZA 50 62, note 7. Add PBS 10/2:11 (Falkenstein, Archiv Orientalni 17/1 214).
55 ZA 50 62, note 7. Cf. now also CT 44 (1963) 18.
181
is worth pursuing, for we have not yet exhausted the roster of royal
compositions and must now consider five somewhat isolated examples
which do not or may not belong to the dynasties already mentioned.
The first is a hymn to Ba"u56 which Falkenstein translated in Sumerische und Akkadische Hymnen und Gebete as No. 9.57 It is designated as an
a-da-ab hymn, a category that almost always includes references to a
king, and indeed a king appears several times in it. But this king, in
Falkensteins translation at least, is nameless, and all that can be said
with some certainty is that he was a ruler of Lagash. It is possible that
the poem is incomplete in its present form.58 For the ur-bi prayer which
otherwise always closes the a-da-ab compositions (and only these) and
which always includes the kings name, is missing from this particular
text, an omission which may be due to lack of space.59 On the other
hand Kramer has found the kings name in this text too, for he regards
the lum-ma occurring repeatedly in it not as an epithet but rather as
the well-known Tidnum-name of Eannatum.60 There is no need to
choose here between the two positions, except to point out that there
is nothing in the present text to suggest any extraordinary antiquity.61
It resembles the standard royal hymns in both form (except as noted)
and content,62 and if it really refers to Eannatum it may be simply a
late attempt to create a hymn in the new style for the long-deceased
ruler.
The first ruler definitely known to have been honored in a royal
hymn in this style is Gudea of Lagash, and it is to him that I would be
inclined to date the origin of the genre. The reference here is not to
the Cylinders of Gudea, which may be regarded as the climax of a long
182
183
dynasty, he chose a Sumerian name for himself 70 and for Irdanene his
son,71 and the solicitude of both rulers for the citizens of Nippur72 may
also betoken a special predilection for Sumerian traditions.
The last text to be considered is a small fragment from Nippur
copied by Mme. Cig73 and described by Kramer.74 It mentions Damiqilishu and has therefore been assigned to the last king of the Isin
dynasty by Edzard.75 Since there is little doubt of the hymnic character
of the fragment, this attribution, if correct, would tend to disprove my
argument from silence, and to show that a dynasty could re-enter the
orbit of the Sumerian national poetry even after its preeminence
had already passed to another city. Now it is true that Isin unfolded
considerable strength in its last years, and Damiq-ilishu himself sparked
a resurgence that led to his recapture of Isin for over ten years.76
However, the possibility also exists that we are dealing with a hymn
to the Damiq-ilishu, not of Isin, but of the Sealand Dynasty. True,
this kings name is spelled Damqi-ilishu in the date formulas of Ammiditana which are the only contemporary indices for the writing of his
name.77 But this is equally true of the Isin king in some Larsa date
formulas,78 and is in any case not a compelling argument as was shown
by the case of Sin-kashid of Uruk (above). On the other hand, there
is some reason to believe that the Sealand did indeed consider itself
the heir of the defunct Isin dynasty79 and of Sumerian traditions in
general.80 Damiq-ilishus successors all took ever more ponderous and
archaizing Sumerian names,81 and the presence of a separate professor
of Sumerian at the Nippur schools of Hammurapi and Samsuiluna82
implies some ignorance of the language by the general run of students
Falkenstein, Baghdader Mitteilungen 2:35, note 155.
This relationship is now revealed by a date formula, ibid., 19,.
72 Ibid., 37.
73 Orientalia 22 (1953) pl. lii (Ni. 4428).
74 Ibid., 193.
75 Op. cit., 142, note 747.
76 Hallo, JNES 18 (1959) 58 f.; Bibliotheca Orientalis 16 (1959) 238.
77 Benno Landsberger, JCS 8 (1954) 69, note 178. Cf. also Barbara Morgan, Manchester Cuneiform Studies 2 (1952) 52.
78 Cf. e.g. YOS 5:223.
79 Schmkel, Geschichte des alten Vorderasien (1957) 112.
80 Ibid., 5. For a general estimate of the history and culture of the Sealand, see
R.P. Dougherty, The Sealand of Ancient Arabia (= YOSR 19, 1932).
81 Landsberger, JCS 8:69 f. and notes 175180.
82 Idem, International Congress of Orientalists 23 (1954) 125; Gadd, Teachers and
Students (1956) 18.
70
71
184
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
185
93 So the Ur-Nammu hymn TCL 15:12 according to Falkenstein, Iraq 22 (1960) 147,
and the Ishme-Dagan hymn SRT 13 according to Sjberg, ZA 54 (1961) 70.
94 Above, note 53.
95 Lambert, RA 56 (1962) 81; but the case in point cited there illustrates the hazards
of this line of reasoning, for the discovery that SLTN 137 duplicates the new Ur-Ninurta
hymn Sumer 11:110 (above, note 42) invalidates the contention that pour une raison
qui reste dterminer, Nippur a probablement banni de ses rayons le nom de ce
prince.
96 Falkenstein, Baghdader Mitteilungen 2:42, note 190.
97 Ibid., 41 f. and note 190.
98 Above, note 41.
99 Above, note 41. Cf. also Falkensteins conclusion dass damals im Kreise der
sumerisch gebildeten Priesterschaft, und generell aller literarisch Gebildeten, die alten
Knigshymnen gelufiger geistiger Besitz gewesen sind, Archiv Orientln 17/1 (1949)
214.
186
breach of the long peace between Isin and Larsa after 1897.100 Yet, at
the same time, there is no certain case of contemporaries from dierent dynasties being honored simultaneously by what may be regarded
as the canonical tradition of hymnography, although the century of
maximum political turmoil (ca. 18651763) may perhaps be reflected by
a temporary breakdown in the hegemony of the canonical tradition.
It is this relatively brief period, including as it does the upheavals further north and involving also Eshnunna, Assur and Mari, which can
truly be described as the period of warring kingdoms101 or even, if
one wishes, as an intermediate period. For the rest, the Early Old
Babylonian hymnography supplies a powerful argument in favor of the
theoretical concept of Mesopotamian unity, recognizing a single dynast
as the earthly holder of a divinely granted primacy over his fellowrulers, be these kings or enss, in times of imperial unification as well
as of petty-statism. Whether this recognition depended on the possession of Nippur102 or on some other factor is a question which cannot be
answered here. But this much seems clear: the Early Old Babylonian
period was not a departure from the norm, but as true an expression of
the amphictyonic ideal as the age of Shulgi that it followed or the age
of Hammurapi that it ushered in.
100
101
102
iii.2
THE CORONATION OF UR-NAMMU
comparable to Sulgi
A and other royal hymns of self-praise which share
a common absence of liturgical classification (other than z - m ) and
are therefore attributed by Falkenstein to the courtly ceremonial rather
188
than to the temple cult.5 The following paraphrase is based on the Yale
version, with restorations from the Ur versions.6
In the introduction, the poet (or chorus) asks; Who will dig the
canal which purifies the reservoir and cleanses the ditches?7 and answers: Divine Ur-Nammu, the wealthy one, will dig it, the eective
youth,8 the rich one, will dig it. He (or it) then turns to Ur-Nammu
and acclaims him king by Enlil (and) the lord Asimbabbar.
The body of the hymn begins with Ur-Nammu describing his election to kingship in Nippur by Enlil: I am chosen in Sumer and Akkad,
in Nippur, the mountain of life, he has made my fate good for me, I
have looked upon his shining forehead, kingship has been given to
me. Next, the king describes his investiture in Ur, ticking o the standard regalia:9 throne, crown,10 scepter, sta and crook. The third step
in this process, preserved only in the Yale text, is a fragmentary reference to confirmation by the divine triad of Sin (Asimbabbar), Enlil and
Enki.11
The rest of the self-predication consists entirely of a variation on the
theme of royally inspired fertility.12 Ur-Nammu, having dug a canal of
abundance for Ur, and given it a name, now boasts of his city as one
whose watercourses13 are fish and whose overflow is fowl, whose canals
ZA 50 (1952) 91.
For complete transliteration and translation, see appendix.
7 i -pa (B: p ? ) - b i - l u h. Actually this is a name rather than an epithet (cf. line 24).
7
5
It recurs in CT 15: 16: 13930: 6 in parallelism with Tigris and Euphrates; cf. A. Falkenstein, Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete (1953) 81:56 and . Sjberg, Der Mondgott
Nanna-Suen (1960) 46:6, where line 3 can perhaps be restored as i 7 - [ ( g i s ) k e s d a - k - g ] e
etc.
8 S
u l - z i. This epithet, which is also applied to Ur-Nammu in SRT 11: 43, was converted by the Ur scribe into d s u l - g i in a mistake which, however, tends to confirm the
189
produce grass and honey, and are filled with carp, whose cows eat in
the canebrake and whose fields grow grain like a forest. He concludes
with the hope that his canal may continue to produce. Now the chorus
replies to Ur-Nammu in a somewhat obscure couplet which mentions
Eridu, and then concludes with a mosaic of royal titles and epithets, a
reference to the kings brilliance,14 and the usual closing doxology: Oh
divine Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, your praise is sweet.
So much for the Yale version. Space prevents me from detailing all
its divergences from the Ur versions.15 But they may be illustrated by
the concluding stanza, for this has a particular significance. Of the five
titles and epithets attributed to Ur-Nammu in this passage, only the
first, king of the four quarters, survives more or less intact in the
Ur version. The rest are wholly or largely changed. They thus may
legitimately serve to date the Vorlagen of the respective exemplars, at the
same time that they underline the danger of using Sumerian literary
texts to reconstruct the history of the Mesopotamian titulary.16 Let us
look first at the Yale version, which reads: King of the four quarters,
who satisfies the heart of Enlil, divine Ur-Nammu, provider of Nippur,
sustainer of Ur.
The divine determinative was used, in their lifetime, by all the kings
of Ur and Isin except Ur-Nammu, while the title king of Ur was
borne by all the kings of the Third Dynasty (ca. 21112004 bc), passed
190
its Sumerian and Akkadian forms, no less than four times for Su-Sin
23
of Ur, and for no other king in the late third or early second millennium. But it does not appear to be original here, following as it
does on the Enlil epithet of the preceding line. It would therefore be
rash to conclude that the prototype of the Ur exemplars dates back
19 Hallo, Titles 5254, where the reference to Isme-Dagan 9 (YOS 9: 25 and Sumer
13:182), implied on p. 152, should be added.
20 Ibid. 147, note 2.
21 Ibid. 139 f. (LIH 100).
22 Its substitution for provider of Nippur in the Yale text is interesting in the light
of the conclusion that the possession of Nippur was the basis of the title king of Sumer
and Akkad; ibid. 8385, 126 f.
23 Cf, Su-Sin
191
192
193
alone,43 figure in our hymn and each of them under two names or
aspects: Enlil of Nippur also as Nunamnir, Sin of Ur44 also as Asimbabbar, and Enki of Eridu also as Nudimmud.45 The association between
Enlil and Sin (Asimbabbar) is particularly stressed,46 reflecting the common hymnic conception according to which Enlil, as chief executive
of the divine assembly at Nippur, confers a portion of his Enlilship
(illilutu) on the god of a particular city (in this case the moongod of Ur)
so that the latter may in turn pass it on to the mortal he has chosen as
king.47
What, then, does the new hymn add to our knowledge concerning
the circumstances of Ur-Nammus accession? To answer this question,
we must first review what is already known on this subject from the
other literary sources, and also from the monuments and archives. As
is well-known, the inscriptions of Ur-Nammu after his accession are so
laconic that they reveal next to nothing directly about his rise to power
except that, early in his reign, he declared Urs independence48 by the
classic device of building the walls of the city49 and, a little later, occupied himself, more than any other neo-Sumerian king,50 with irrigation.51 Indirectly, Ur-Nammus royal inscriptions demonstrate his close
connection with Uruk, as does the evidence of the literary texts. Thus,
Ur-Nammu invokes Ninsun of Urukor, more precisely, of Uruk-
43
If Utu occurs in UET VI/1:77:12, it is only in the sense of daylight like i t i x (UD.
for moonlight in the corresponding line of the Yale version.
44 Note that the moongod does not appear as Nanna in the text.
45 Note that the Ur versions again lack this structural virtuosity.
46 Lines 7 f., 18 f.
47 Cf. JCS 17:113 and note 21, here: III.1.
48 On the pattern of usurpation, cf. my remarks in JNES 15 (1956) 221, 18 (1959)
55; Bi. Or. 16 (1959) 237 f. Still another element in the pattern is the change of theo
phoric names like Puzur-Sulgi
to Puzur-Numusda at Kazallu, i.e. from such as honor
the sovereign to ones honoring the local deity; cf. Gadd, CAH I2 fasc. 28 (1965) 21.
49 Cf. the date formula of RTC 269 and ITT IV 7547 (Sollberger, AfO 17:12) and
the inscription Ur-Nammu 9 (SAKI 186b etc.). For the early date of these bricks, cf.
Hallo, Titles, pp. 79, 82.
50 The only other inscriptionally attested project of this kind in Ur III is the reservoir
(g i s - k s - d u) of Sulgi
at Adab (Sulgi
8 = OIP 14:3739). Cf. also J. Nougayrol, RA 41
(1947) 2326, for the reservoir of Ugme of Lagas.
51 Cf. Ur-Nammu 2224, 2728 (HUCA 33:26 f.) and the date formulas g (=
Sulgi
2 or 3 according to Kraus, Or. 20 [1951] 392394, but against this hypothesis cf.
now, in addition to Sollbergers arguments, also Goetze, Iraq 22 (1960) 156 iii) and h;
Sollberger, AfO 17 (19541956) 12 f. Cf. also Hallo, Titles, 82, and on the whole question,
Th. Jacobsen, The waters of Ur, Iraq 22 (1960) 174185 and pi. xxviii.
dNANNA)
194
Sulgi:
Meslamtaea
(Sulgi
37)
Ibbi-Sin: Meslamtaea (Ibbi-Sin 4)
Gungunum: Dagan (Gungunum 2)
Hammurapi: Martu (Dussaud, Monuments Piot 33 [1933]1)
Note that Ninsun is the only goddess in the above list, and that Ur-Nammu elsewhere
(cf. the next note) refers to her as his mother. It thus seems possible to extend the
concept of the personal deity to goddesses referred to, in the inscriptions, as mother
of the king and, by extension, to widen the above list by regarding the royal d u m u
DNx epithet as identifying DNX as the personal god or goddess of the king. (For these
deities see Hallo, Titles, 134136.) Note also that, in Sin-kasid 8, the expressions Lugalbanda his god and Ninsun his mother stand in parallelism.
53 Falkenstein, ZA 50 (1951) 7377 ad Sulgi
195
from the late and almost hymnic versions of his fight against the Gutians, these inscriptions are all clay cones commemorating what appears to be a single event: the revision of the boundary between Ur
and Lagas in favor of Lagas.60 The longest version refers to the ruler
or governor of Ur as the man of Ur, but this need not have been
Ur-Nammu, as Gadd insists.61 It could have been the Lusaga whose
boundary cone62 seems to have tried to assert the independence of
Ur by the more modest device of acknowledging only the Moongod
of Ur,63 not Utu-hegal or any other sovereign, as his king, rather than
by claiming the royal title for himself;64 this Lusaga, in turn, may or
may not have been identical with the donor of a private ex-voto to Bau
UET I 30 f.
Ibid., p. 7.
57 The Sumerian King List (= AS 11, 1939) 202, note 31.
58 Sollberger, AfO 17 (19541956) 12, note 8. Cf. also Hallo, Titles, 105, where note 2
should be corrected to read YOSR IV/2: 31 and note 2; 33 and note 3, and BIN V
316 added to the documentation.
59 To the evidence adduced in Hallo, Titles, 420, one may possibly add the cases of
Kuruda and Ur-Utu, two rulers of the Fourth Dynasty of Uruk in the King List who
may or may not have been identical with, respectively, a priest of Innin at Ur (YOS IX
10) and an e n s of Ur under Naram-Sin (RTC 83; cf. Sollberger, AfO 17:30; H. Hirsch,
AfO 20:24, note 256).
60 These clay cones exist in three versions; to the exemplars listed by Sollberger,
AfO 17:12, note 7, add now Edzard, Sumer 13 (1957) 175: 2 (8 and 9 line versions). Note
also YOS IX 112 and B. Schwartz, New York Public Library Bulletin 44:807 .:16 f.
61 CAH I2 fasc. 28 (1965) 4.
62 Edzard, Sumer 13 (1957) 181.
63 Even the governor of another city (Enlila-isag, ens of Nippur) dedicated an
inscription at Ur to Nanna, king of Ur, presumably at this time (UET I 87).
64 For this practice, cf. the references above, note 49, especially Bi. Or. 16:237. For
the Florentine parallel there cited, and others, see now M. Treves, Velus Testamentum 10
55
56
196
archival text66 and who, in his turn, may or may not be identical with
the homonymous governor ( e n s ) of Umma in the time of Iarlagan of
Gutium67 and with the Nammah(a)ni, governor ( e n s ) of Lagas, whose
Lagas.74
Summing up, then, we may say that Ur under Ur-Nammu was heir
to a long history of dynastic and administrative union with both Uruk
and Lagas, a partnership in which Ur had fallen to a low estate vis(1960) 430 f. For another Old Babylonian example, cf. S. Simmons, JCS 14 (1960) 26,
- a (early neoSumerian).
67 YOS 113. Cf. C.H. Johns, PSBA 38 (1916) 199 f.
68 According to Burrows, Antiquaries Journal 9 (1929) 340, on a brick Nam-mah-ni of
Lagash is for the first time represented at Ur.
69 Sollberger, AfO 17: 31 f. Note, however, that a slight revision of the genealogy
proposed there seems required on the combined evidence of Golenishev No. 5 (see next
note) and SAKI 62: 13, as follows:
197
Uruk during that kings short reign of seven and a half years when
Sumer as a whole was occupied with the expulsion of the Gutians. But
at Utu-hegals death, if not before (see above), he asserted his complete
198
Ur-Nammu launched two great building programs, the irrigation projects around Ur and the reconstruction of the temples of Nippur. In consequence he was crowned king of Sumer and Akkad in a ceremony
which symbolized and constituted the definitive transfer of national
allegiance to the new dynasty. On the testimony of the date formulas, this ceremony can hardly have taken place earlier than his fourth
year,79 and there is on the face of it no reason to doubt the possibility
that our hymn or its prototype was originally composed for it. Indeed,
the correlation between neo-Sumerian regnal years on the one hand
and royal hymns on the other is a high one both in terms of numbers80
and in terms of content.81 It almost leads one to suppose that all the
hymns were originally commissioned annually (or biennially) for such
occasions as were also commemorated in the date formulas. The conclusion, at any rate, imposes itself: the literary tradition can be used to
fill the lacunae of Sumerian history, but only where the contemporary
monuments and archives have provided the framework.
Appendix
Transliteration of YBC 4617 (= A)
Variants from UET VI/1: 76 (= B) and UET VI/1: 77 (= C)
1) [ a - b a - a m u - u n - b ] a - a l - e a - b a - a m u - [ u n - b a - a l - e / i 7 ]
a-ba-a mu-u[n-ba-al-e]
23) [ i 7 - k e s d a - k ] a - b a - a m u - u n - b a - [ a l - e ] / i 7 a - b a - a
mu-un-ba-al-e
4) [ i 7 - p a 5 - B I ] - l u h a a - b a - a m u - u n - b a - a l - e / i 7 a - b a - a b
mu-un-ba-al-e
5) d U r - d N a m m u a k - t u g m u - u n - b a - a l - e b
6) s u l - z i a n - t u g m u - u n - b a - a l - e b
7) l u g a l - m u b r a - z a d e n - l l - l e e n - d a s - m - b a b b a r
8) s u l - d s u e n b r a - z a d e n - l l - l e e n - d a s - m - b a b b a r
9) l u g a l s - z i - t a a n a m - t a r - r a n a m - n i r - r a s a g - l
10) d U r - a N a m m u a s u l - i g i - l - l a k u r - [ g a l ] b d e n - l l - l e
79 According to Sollberger, AfO 17:14, the fourth year date semble consacrer la
royaut dUr-Nammu sur Sumer-Akkad.
80 JCS 17:113 and note 24, here: III.1.
81 Cf. e.g. ZA 51 (1952) 91. Is it too daring to suggest that each date formula was
formally introduced together with a new hymn?
199
11) d n u - n a m - n i r - r e a k i - e n - g i k i - u r i - a b g - e c m u - u n suh-end
12) n i b r u k i - a a h u r - s a g n a m - t i - l a - k a n a m - m u b
i m - m i - i n - d u 10 c
13) s a g - k i z a l a g - g a - n i m u - u n - s i - i n - b a r n a m - l u g a l
ba -an- s
14) u r m k i - m a a - m u d - k u r - r a - k a b
15) g i [ s - g u - z ] a - m a s u h u s - [ b i i m - m i - i n - g ] i - e n b
15a) ( a g a - m e - l m m e - t s n a m - l u g a l - l a s a g - m i m - m i - g l )
16) g i d r i a - k u k - s [ r s i s i - e - s s u - m i m - m i - i n - s ]
17) s i b i r - b u r u x ( s i b r ) u k - d a g a l - l u - a . . . h [ - l a h 4 - l a h 4 e]
18) e n - d a s - i m - b a b b a r a - k e 4 z i - u 4 - s - [ . . . ]
19) d e n - l l - l e - b i - d a i - b a - e ! - [ n e ]
20) m u - d a - r m u - d u 11 - g e - d [ u 7 . . . ]
21) d e n - k i - k e 4 g i s - t g g e s t u g - d a g [ a l . . . s ] a g - e - e s
m[u-rig7]
22) g - e u r u k i - m i 7 - [ h - g l - l a m ] u - b a - a l / i 7 - k e s d a k mu-sa4
23) [ u r ] m k i - m a i 7 - h - g l - l a m u - b a - a l / i 7 - k e s d a k
mu-sa4
24) m u - d a - r d u 11 - g e b a - a b - d u 7 - m i 7 - p a 6 - B I - l u h
m u s e
25) g - e u r u - m a - r - a - b i k u 6 - m d i r i - b i m u s e n - m
26) u r m k i - m a a - r - a - b i k u 6 m d i r i - b i m u s e n - m
27) g - e i 7 - m - l l - e m u - u n - d s u h u r k u 6 - e m - s i - e
28) u r m k i - m a - l l - e m u - u n - d s u h u r k u 6 - e [ m ] - s i - e
29) g - e u r u - m g i - z i - b i l l - m [ ? ] / b - e h a - m a - k - e
30) u r m k i - m a g i - z i - b i l l - [ m ? ] / b - e h a - m a - k - e
31) g - e [ . . . ] - x k u 6 h u - [ ]
32) u r m k [ i - m a ]
33) g - e i 7 - m a - [ r - a - b i h u - m u ] - u n - [ t m ] / g i s - d u s u - e
hu-mu-un-na-l-e
34) u r m k i - m a i 7 - m a - r - a h u - m u - u n - t m / g i s - d u s u - e
hu-mu-un-na-l-e
35) l u g a l - b i l u g a l - e r i d u k i - g a p a - a - z u s u d - m
36) d n u - d i m - m u d l u g a l - e r i d u k i - g a p a - a - z u s u d - m
37) l u g a l a n - u b - d a l i m m u - b a s d e n - l l - l d u 10 - g e - e n
38) d U r - d N a m m u - a n i b r u k i s a g - u s u r m k i - m a
39) i t i x ( U 4 - d N A N N A ) - s k a l a m u r m k i - m a - s
40) s i l 5 - a u 4 m i - n i - i b - z a l - z a l - l e - d
41) d U r - d N a m m u l u g a l - u r m k i - m a z - m - z u d u 10 - g a - m
Variants
4) aB: i 7 - g i s - B I - ( . . . ] ; bB: a - b a .
5) aB: U r - d N a m m u ; bB: + a - b a m u - u n - b a - a l - e .
200
12)
13)
14)
15)
15a)
16)
19)
21ad)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
2730)
3134)
34a)
3536)
37)
38)
3940)
41)
B: d s u l - g i ; bB: + a - b a m u - u n - b a - a l - e .
B omits.
B omits.
aB: - d a .
aB: U r - d N a m m u ; bB: + - z a l a g .
aB: d n u n - n a m - n i r ; bB: u r i - e ; cB: m e - m ; dB:
m u - u n - RI - e
aB: - e ; bB: n a m ; cB: m i - i m - m i .
B omits.
aB: - e ; bB: - k a m .
aB: - a - n i ; bB: omits - e n .
from B; A omits.
aB: g i
s!-gidri-.
restoration from B; rest of B obverse lost.
B reverse 16 inserts a four-line stanza here as follows:
[ - k i s - n ] u - g l s a g - g e g l - l [ a ? ]
[ - t e m e n - n - g ] r - r u k i - t u s s - h l - l a / [ . . . ] - d a r - b i
im-mi-in-gi
[ g i s n ? - g i ? - r i n ? - n ] a - k a m g - d a - a m b i - l ? !
[ . . . k ] - g i ! (C!) k - b a b b a r - r a g u b - b a - m / i m - m i - i r - m i re
B, C: n a r i - m u u d - h - g l - l a b a l a - u b - b a / i 7 - k e s d a - k
m u - s e
B and C omit.
B, C: m u - d a - r i d u 11 - k e d u - a - b a i 7 - p - B I - l u h
m u - s e
B, C: g u r u k i - m a - r - b i k u 6 - a b / t e - l i - b i
m u - s e - n a
B, C: i 7 - k e s d a - k u r u k i (c omits) - b i k u 6 - a b / t e - l i - b i
m u - s e - n a ( C : m u - s i g 5 )
i 7 - p - B I - l u h a - r - b i k u 6 - a b / t e - l i - b i m u - s e - n a ( C :
mu-sig5)
Cf. B rev. 14 = C rev. 8: g - g - b i ( C : - m u ) . I T 4 ( C :
i t i ! t s - a )
l-a (C: -) -ll-e k-e
Cf. B rev. 13 = C rev. 7: h - g l - b i k u 6 h u - m a - r a - a b - t m
- k i s - n u - g l - s
B and C add: a - g r g a l - b i s e - g u - n u m - m g i s - t i r - g i m
lam!-lam!- ma-x
B and C omit.
B (breaks o here) and C: l u g a l a n - n u b - d a l i m m u - b i
s e - g a d e n - l l - l
C: [ U r ] - d ! N a m m u ! - a k i - e n - g i k i - u r i - e k i - g a
den-ll-l
C: [ g ] a - n a - g a r u r m k i - m a - k e 4 i t i s i l - a d u t u
mi-ni-in-[?]/za-e-en-za-e-le za-e-me-en
C: U r - d N a m m u l u g a l - m u - d a - a - r i z - m - z u d u 10 - g a
201
Translation
1)
23)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
15a)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
Who will dig it, who will dig it, the canalwho will dig it?
The Keshdaku-canalwho will dig it, the canalwho will dig it?
The Pabiluh-canalwho will dig it, the canalwho will dig it?
Divine Ur-Nammu, the wealthy one, will dig it.
The true youth, the prosperous one, will dig it.
Oh my king, on your throne by Enlil (and) the lord Asimbabbar!
Oh youth of Suen, on your throne by Enlil (and) the lord Asimbabbar!
I, king from the true womb (on), (whose) destiny (is) lifting the head
proudly in leadership,
(I,) Ur-Nammu, the youth who is pleasing to Enlil the great mountain.
Am chosen in Sumer and Akkad by Nunamnir.
In Nippur, the mountain of life, he has made my fate good for me.
Looked upon me with his shining forehead, given me the kingship.
In Ur, in the Mudkurra-temple,
He has made the foundation of my throne firm for me.
He has placed the crown peculiar to kingship on my head,
Has pressed the holy scepter for guiding all the people in my hand,
The sta and crook for directing the numerous people.
The Lord Asimbabbar a life of long days
Together with Enlilthey bestow.
Enduring years worthy of praise
(And) extensive wisdom Enki has donated.
As for me, in my city I have dug a canal of abundance, have named it
the Kesdaku-canal.
In Ur I have dug a canal of abundance, have named it the Kesdakucanal.
An enduring name worthy of praise, the Pabiluh-canal I have named
it.
As for me, my citys watercourse is fish its overhead is fowl.
Urs watercourse is fish, its overhead is fowl.
As for me, in my canal one produces honey plants, it is filled with
suhur-fish.
In my city one produces honey-plants, it is filled with suhur-fish.
As for me, my citys zi-reeds are honey, the cows will surely eat it.
Urs zi-reeds are honey, the cows will surely eat it.
As for me, my citys . . . may. . . fish,
Urs . . . may. . . fish,
As for me, my canals watercourse will surely bring it, will suspend it
for him from a carrying-board,
In Ur, my canals watercourse will surely bring it, will suspend it for
him from a carrying-board.
Its king is king of Eriduyour oce is long,
Nudimmud is king of Eriduyour oce is long.
202
iii.3
NEW HYMNS TO THE KINGS OF ISIN*
* W.H. Ph. Rmer, Sumerische Knigshymnen der Isin-Zeit. Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1965 (8vo,
XII + 292 pp.).
1 Cf. W.W. Hallo, On the Antiquity of Sumerian Literature, JAOS 83 (1963) 167, here: II.1.
2 Cf. Hallo, Royal hymns and Mesopotamian unity, JCS 17 (1963) 112118, here: III.1.
3 Cf. MDP 27 (1935) 220222 for three exemplars of Sulgi
A not utilized by
A. Falkenstein in his edition of the text in ZA 50 (1952) 6391.
204
hymns of Sulgi
of Ur. This is to be regretted, since the latter system provides for
additions to the corpus, and reserves Arabic numerals for royal inscriptions while citing
royal hymns by capital letters. As to whether *34 (Damiq-ilisu) belongs in the list, cf. my
reservations, JCS 17: 116 f, here: III.1.
9 Pp. 655 (transliteration and translation only); pp. 77278 (full editions). The apparatus criticus could have been relieved of numerous notations of the type [duplicate
exemplar]: wohl auch so, etc.a judgment of the textual evidence which is really selfevident. It would have been more to the point if the passages in questionindeed all
the principal textshad been collated, but apparently this was feasible only in the case
of those from the Louvre (p. [IX]).
4
5
205
Hethitisches Wrterbuch. The author thus found himself under the necessity of defending nearly every line of his translation either by reference to the latest studies of the relevant idioms by his colleagues, or by
extended collections of Belegstellen assembled by himself. It is fair to
say that perhaps 90 % of his commentary is thus largely lexicographical. An extensive index of Sumerian words, prepared by M. Dietrich
and H. Hunger, (pp. 279287) helps the reader to find his way to the relevant discussion; indeed, this index will remain an indispensable tool in
the absence of the much-desired glossary. The separation of text, commentary and footnotes renders the process somewhat cumbersome, and
one might almost have wished that the author had assembled all his lexicographical discussions in one simple alphabetical order at the end of
the book.10 But such methodological observations should be understood
as detracting in no way from the truly monumental extent or the substantive philological contributions of Rmers work, which is singularly
free from errors of omission or commission.11
On pp. 5 f., Rmer proposes a classification of royal hymns which
represents a refinement of Falkensteins system.12 The latter, in basic
accord with the native designations, distinguished between hymns to
gods described in their own colophons as adab of D(ivine) N(ame)
or tigi of DN and containing, as it were, incidental allusions to the
reigning (?) king, on the one hand, and royal hymns proper on the
other. The latter are addressed to the king throughout, or are spoken
by him, and carry no native designation, though they usually end in
a doxology, your/my praise (z-m) is sweet/good/exalted, which
almost has generic force.13 It may be useful to correlate the native
designations, as far as preserved, with Rmers classification in tabular
form.
10 It might even be desirable in future treatments of this kind if the passages cited to
establish the meaning of a word were more often quoted in full, even when they have
been located and cited by previous investigators, whose contributions would not receive
any the less credit by this procedure.
11 Of the neglible typographical errors not already noted in the corrigenda appended to the volume, only a few are worth noting here: p. 60 n. 96: Der numinose
Begri . . . ; p. 104 line 10: z-til-(la); p. 204 n. 59: SLTNi 71, 3, p. 283 m-(m): 194 f.:
p. 286 uk-ta--a: 69296; umus: 69290.
12 Falkenstein, ZA 49 (1949) 1481 f.; 50 (1952) 91.
13 For EN (S)-du-lugal(a)
206
Native
designation
Rmers
classification
Isbi-Irra
*1
*2
*3
*3a
[. . .]
(ki-ru-g composition)
[. . .]
tigi of Nan
Su-ili
su
*4
*5
adab of Nergal
[adab of An]
A Ia
A Ia(?)
Iddin-Dagan
*6
*7
*8
sr-nam-ur-sag-g of Ninsianna
adab of Ninezen
A IIa
BI
A Ia
Isme-Dagan
*9
*10
*11
*12
*13
*14
*15
*16
*17
*18
*19
*20
*21
*22
*22a
adab of Baba
(ki-ru-g composition)
(copy of royal inscription?)
[. . .]
[. . .]
[adab of Nergal?]
[adab] of Enlil
bal-bal of Inanna
[. . .]
[. . .]
bal-bal-e of Enki
[. . .]
[. . .]
A Ib
(?)
A IIa
B II
A Ia
A Ia
A IIb
A III
A Ia
A IV
(?)
(?)
A Ia
A Ia
(?)
Lipit-Istar
*23
*24
*25
*26
*26a
*26b
*26c
(z-m-mu du10-ga-m)
RN z-m
adab of An
adab of Ninurta
[. . .]
sr-nam-gala of Ninisina
[. . .]
B II
BI
A Ic
A Ia
BI
(?)
(?)
Ur-Ninurta
*27
*28
*29
*30
*31
*31a
*31b
(ki-ru-g composition)
tigi of Enki
adab of Ninurta
adab of Inanna
adab of An
[adab of Iskur]
A Ic
A Ia
A Ia
A Ia
A Ic
(?)
(?)
Bur-Sin
*31c
*31d
adab of [Ninurta]
[adab of Enlil?]
A Ia
see below
King
Native
designation
Rmers
classification
Enlil-bani
*32
*33
(z-m composition?)14
[. . .]
BI
(?)
Damiq-ilisu
*34
[. . .]
A Ia(?)
King
207
Note that the classification A I includes: all adab and tigi-hymns as well
as some of the bal-bal and ki-ru-g compositions.
On pp. 655, Rmer illustrates the structure of the various subtypes of royal hymnsas classified by himby extensive transliterations and translations of well-preserved examples. In this analysis, he is
chiefly guided by the content of the poems rather than by their formal
structure, relying for the latter on the pioneering discussions by Falkenstein in 1949 and subsequently.15 Since the Isin texts are particularly
rich in classificatory and structural notations, and since the available
material has grown somewhat in the interval, a review and recapitulation of Falkensteins conclusions may be attempted here on the basis of
the Isin material.
1. The adab16 structure in its fullest form consists of:
a.
b.
c.
d.
2. The tigi in its most complete form diers from this scheme only in
the absence of the urubi-section and, so far, of the antiphone to the sagar-ra.18 More often than the adab, it also lacks the initial bar-sud/sba-tuk stanzas,19 but the case of *3a (see below) now shows that this was
14 Read the closing doxology as: dub-sar umn?!-aka -dubba-a -na-ri-kalamma-ka z-m-zu g-la nam-ba-an-dag-ge and cf. Falkenstein, Welt des Orients I (1947)
185.
15 ZA 49 (1949) 85105; SAHG (1953) 2028; ZA 52 (1957) 58 f. Cf. also the useful
summary by Henrike Hartmann, Die Musik der Sumerischen Kultur (1960) 197244 which,
however, does not seem to go beyond Falkensteins conclusions.
16 Already in Falkensteins survey, ten out of sixteen adab-hymns can be shown to
belong to the Isin dynasty; cf. ZA 49: 8791.
17 Cf. e.g. *31c and Falkenstein, ZA 49: 92 and 98(b) against SAHG p. 20. Cf. now
also *31d (below).
18 Cf. however the fragmentary lines following the sa-gar-ras of *14 and *17, and the
12 unlabelled (so Falkenstein, ZA 49: 104) lines which conclude *28.
19 Present in eight out of fourteen well-preserved adabs, in one out of six tigis.
208
and he is inclined to
bal-bal-e of Inanna, also in honor of Su-Sin,
connect at least two other bal-bal-es of Inanna with this same king.28
In the light of Isme-Dagan *18 and *21, the genre must now be given
a definite place among the royal hymns of Isin as well. The former is,
according to the Yale duplicate (see below) a bal-bal of Inanna, while
the latter is described as a bal-bal-e of E[nki].29 Poems of rather diverse
ZA 49:104; SAHG pp. 20 f., followed by Hartmann, 204 f.
*6 after ki-ru-g 1, 8, and 10 (= last); *2 after ki-ru-g 5; *26b after k. 3 and 4 (=
last); *27 after k. 2, 3, and 7.
22 *6 (= Rmer, p. 132), line 131; *26b, line 2.
23 Cf. VS II 68 = A. Sjberg, Nanna-Suen No. 7.
24 SLTN 61; VS II 65; CT 42: 13; ib. 22; KAR 15 f.; JCS 16:79: HSM 3625.
25 For a balag-DN in ki-ru-g form, cf. CT 36: 3538.
26 SRT 23, translated by Falkenstein, Welt des Orients (1947) 4350 and SAHG
No. 25, by Kramer, ANET (1950) [496] and by Jacobsen, JCS 7 (1953) 46 f.
27 PAPhS 107 (1963) 508 and 521.
28 Ibid. 508 f., No. 9 and 510, No. 11.
29 The restoration of the divine name is based on the context.
20
21
209
210
211
*3a.
*18.
*23.
212
213
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
D. Translation
I
1) Lady of the princely attributes, emerging brightly like the day (light),
eternally summoned in appropriate beauty,
2) Nan, ornament of Eanna, created for the goddess (Inanna),
214
The hero, the righteous shepherd, the son of Nu-namnir (Enlil), has . . .,
Isbi-Irra . . .,
Nan for length of days his prayers like liquor. . . (2nd sabatuk)
Isbi-Irra, ceaseless povider of Eanna (sagida)
Summoned in song (?), your Nan who is beloved by the nation and the
Hierodule (Inanna),
22) Isbi-Irra, eternally may you be the one who makes her words good.
(Its antiphone)
III
23) Great queen, created in the place of sustenance, counseled (?) by the
Hierodule (Inanna),
24) Luxurious attributes have been generously given to you by the Hierodule,
25) Nan, great queen created in the place of sustenance, counseled (?) by
the Hierodule.
26) Of (!) the people, oh Isbi-Irra, you are their king (and) shepherd,
27) Nan, you are the queen of all the countries [by Ans] spoken command.
28) In the chapel, in Kullaba,. . . he verily declares it,
29) The people turn their hearts towards you, you verily address them,
30) Nan, righteous woman, you are the. . . of the blackheaded ones.
31) Your wise word is brightly made good for the goddess (Inanna),
215
32) The hero summoned in beauty by the Hierodule, the son of Enlil (IsbiIrra).
33) Nan, the goddess has verily caused your holy attributes to grow . . . for
you.
IV
34) You have verily opened the righteous eye of life upon (his) bedstead,
35) Isbi-Irra (is) the hero summoned in beauty. (sa-gara)
Drum-song of Nan
216
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
8a)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
II
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
III
34)
35)
36)
37)
217
33. a-a; b-bh-s. 34. a-a dIs-me-dDa-gan; bomitted. 35. a-au8-e sil-b m-zi-did. 36, Omitted. 37. a-a26.
E. Translation of B.
I
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
8a)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
218
34)
35)
36)
37)
This composition was clearly the most popular in the whole repertoire,
attested in copies from Kis (M, N) and Ur (R, S) as well as Nippur, and
employed at an early stage of instruction as shown by a brief extract on
a practice tablet (Q) containing also quotations from other texts, and by
its presumable occurrence in the Ur curriculum.55 The new exemplars
oer numerous variants from Rmers edition, but many of these are
purely orthographic and do not aect the sense of the hymn. Only the
more significant revisions in the translation, as suggested by the new
variants, will therefore be mentioned here.
56. T, U, V: inim-sa6-sa6-ge (T: -gim?) den-ll hun-g-me-en, I am
appointed/installed (according) to the favorable dictates (of ) Enlil.
62. U, V: MURUB-tm -babbar nu-ub-dab-b-me-en, I am one who
does not carry o the . . . brought into Ebabbar.
54 For two of these (O and P), only the notes of Kramer, BiOr 11: 17636 were available
to the author.
55 Cf. my review of UET VI/1 in a forthcoming JCS.
219
T: US-tm
g! nu-dg-bi-me-en, by conflation with l. 66 (T: [eridu]ki
-ta g nu-dg-ge-bi-me-en); cf. also l. 58 (T: g la nu-dg-ge dnusku
gub-ba-me-en).
69. T, W: zi-s-gl uruki-ni-s al-di(T omits)-me-en, I am the one who
desires sustenance for his city, or I am the sustenance desired for his
city.
71. T, U, W: lugal m-s ku-kur-du7-du7-me-en, I am the king who
charges into battle (like) a flood. Cf. now A. Sjberg, AS 16 (1965) 66.
78. W: ur-sag igi-zalag-ga ka-kesda-ge-na-me-en, I am the hero with
the shining eyes, the firm regiment. For ka-kesda in parallelism with
ugnim (cf. l. 77), cf. Enheduanna A (nin-me-sr-ra) 46 f.: ugnim-bi nibi-a ma-ra-ab-gin-gin-e / ka-kesda-bi ni-bi-a ma-ra-ab-si-il-le. For kakesda with ge-na, cf. RA 12 f. 73 f. (Exaltation of Istar) 11 f.: ka-kesda-ma ge-ne-da-zu-d = ki-s. ir ta-ha-za ina kun-ni-ka!- (ref. courtesy van Dijk).
Ts reading (ur-sag igi-zalag-ga ka-kesda nu-du8-a-me-en) is based on
conflation with 1. 72.
79. W: dLi-pi-it dumu dEn-ll-l-me-en. For such abbreviations of the royal
name in hymns and elsewhere, cf. my remarks in JCS 18 (1964) 67 and
notes 11 f.
zi-d-es KAL-me-en;
80. T: kus-eden a-sedx(MS.DI)-d
W: kus-a-eden-l a-zi KAL-a-me-en, I am the one who . . . the
waterskins eectively with cold water (var.: with eective water). For
the life-giving water of W (so also A?!), cf. e.g. Emes and Enten (van
Dijk, La Sagesse 49) 297; for a-zi-(da) in the sense of good seed, cf.
Rmer p. 249.
81. T, W: igi-gl-kaskal-la (T: -e) an-dl ern-na-me-en, I am the observer of the campaign, the protection of the soldier. For the king as
protector, cf. van Dijk, La Sagesse, p. 82 ad Dumuzi and Enkimdu 73.
83. T, W, X: s-dugud-da inim-s-gl-la-me-en, I am the heavyhearted (i.e. serious-minded) one available for / at the word. For
this variant, cf. already S. For the construction, cf. Rmer p. 124 ad *4:
62. The line thus properly excludes any reference to justice.
220
s-daa u4-ul-bl-a-asb cg-dac hu-mu-dni-ld / ki-ne n-du10 nf-s-hl-lagkah, For length of days she embraces me (var. ever lies . . . with me) / On
the bed (var. seat) of pleasure and rejoicing. a-aK: s(d)-r. b-bSo X; T:
d-dSo A; T: un-n-n
221
[
a]n-ki-s as(a)-ni-s
sag -[rib s-a]s-sa4 da-nun-ke4-ne
ka-t[a]--a-ni sg nu-[?]
dnu-nam-nir e
s-bar-du11-ga nu-kr- ru
sag-k-gl n-su-zi-ri-a
as-a-ni-s sag-il nun-gal-e-ne
s -nibruki dur-an-ki-a-ka
-kur -nam-tar-tar-re-da
[?] ku-za-gn-na dr b-in-[gar]
[k]-dnin-ll kur-gal-da z-[?]
[ ] g-da -mu-ni-in-l.
[
]-du11-ge
rest of obv. and beg. of rev. lost
uru- -g -[
]
ka-kesda-bi [
]
den-ll-me-en du -ga-[zu ma]h-m
11
dingir na-me nu-mu-e-da- br -re
[na]m i-ri-tar pa- ga-mu-ra-ab-diri
[na]m-ti-zu nam-ti ga-mu-ra-ab-dah
d utu-gim u -zu ga-ra-ab-s-s-ud
4
[k]ur-kur-ra dingir-bi za-e-me-en sa-gar-ra-m
en-nam-tar-re . . . -me-en
dbur-dEN.ZU gi
skim- lugal mu-e-ti-le-en gis-gi4-gl-bi-im
n- zi ni-gi-na pa b A- kus-kalam-ma mu- su-ub
222
12) [
]-utu--ta utu-s-us-e
mu-zu h-im- hl
13) [
s]ag-zu h-ni-in-l
14) [
s]ag-bi-s h-p
Left edge
uru
D. Translation.
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
R. 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
iii.4
THE BIRTH OF KINGS*
224
225
the matter was injected into the antediluvian traditions, perhaps under
Amorite influence, in their biblical recasting in Genesis 4 (Adam to
Naama) and Genesis 5 (Enosh to Noah).
After the flood mankind was vouchsafed a second chance. Once
more, according to native Mesopotamian historiography, kingship was
lowered from heaven and this time it was entrusted to a single city,
Kish. We may therefore call the period after the first dynasty of Kish,
and I equate it, in archaeological terms, with the First Early Dynastic Period (ca. 29002700).5 A dozen names of kings are recorded in
one form of the native traditions but they are of no importance
mere names without associations (other than thosee.g., animals or
totemsconjured up by the meanings of the names themselves) and
without family connections to each other. But another tradition is more
significant: it begins kingship with a certain Etana of Kish, and weaves
a long legend around his lengthy eorts to secure an heir. This legend is known in fragments of neo-Assyrian, Middle Assyrian and Old
Akkadian date. Thus it represents one of the most persistent, not to
say perennial concerns of Mesopotamian arts and letters: how to insure
male issue.6
Recent discoveries of new fragments have made a somewhat better
understanding of the epic or legend of Etana possible. As interpreted
by an Assyriologist who is also a historian of medicine, the new fragments are said to show that Etana married a certain Mu-dam, whose
very name is pregnant with meaningto wit she is the one who gives
birth (mud-m)!7 But her first pregnancy ended badly, almost disastrously.8 Fortunately, the queen had a dream which revealed the means
needed to overcome her obstetrical problems: Etana had to get her the
plant of life. Unfortunately that was easier said than done and the next
ANEH 41 (fig. 7).
Ibid. 40, note 29, for literary allusions to Etana, to which add M.E. Cohen, ZA
65 (1977): 3, note 6 (ad 14, line 78); G. Komorczy, Acta Antiqua 23 (1975): 46 f. and
notes 2734.
7 J.V. Kinnier Wilson, Some Contributions to the Legend of Etana, Iraq 31 (1969):
817; idem, Further Contributions to the Legend of Etana, JNES 33 (1974): 240. This
reading and interpretation is, however, far from certain in any of the three fragmentary
passages involved (Sm 157+, first and last lines; K9610, last line), nor is the attribution
of either of the fragments to Etana conclusively proven, according to W.G. Lambert,
JNES 39 (1980): 74, n. 1.
8 Kinnier Wilsons restorations and translations of the fragmentary passage (JNES
33:239) are, however, quite problematical and it is not even clear that the two fragments
on which they are based belong either to each other or to Etana; cf. Lambert, ibid.
5
6
226
three chapters (or tablets) concern Etanas complicated and adventurous quest for this rare pharmaceutical, including one or more flights
to heaven on the wings of an eagle, the theme most often illustrated in
the Old Akkadian Etana seals.9 But despite at least one crash landing, his eorts were crowned with success, or so we may surmise. For
one thing the Sumerian King List preserves the name of Balih, Etanas
son and successor, together with the royal descendants of his successor.
For another the newly identified fragments of the legend describe just
how a shoot from the plant of life was used, like a poultice, to relax the
uterus at the first signs of labor-pains; and a painless delivery followed.10
The legend I have just excerpted has many other interesting features
and can be understood on many levels. A recent interpretation, for
instance, regards it as an elaborate astral allegory.11 The portions I have
quoted might lead one to consider the tale as a paradigm for obstetrical complicationsindeed, it may owe its long survival and apparent
popularity to the fact (demonstratable in other myths and epics, though
not here) that its recitation was prescribed as a prophylactic measure
against the illness or other evil narrated in it. And the device of attaching the paradigm to the figure of a king would be of a piece with the
vast majority of Sumerian and Akkadian belles-lettres generally.
That still entitles us to ask why this particular legend was attached
to this particular king, the first king of all (after the Flood) according
to its own version of history. My answer would be that the ancient
author was deliberately trying to explain the origin of royal succession,
and in the process to give it the highest possible antiquity and therefore also authority. Even heaven was not too far to go when it came
to facilitating the birth of the royal heir, and this was established by
the very first king. Nor was it possible to substitute a concubine for the
proper queen (although admittedly the passage in question is very fragmentary). Much the same theme inspired the Ugaritic epic of Keret,
sometimes thought to be the Kirta who was regarded as the founder or
eponymous ancestor of the royal house of Mitanni. Depending on how
the text is interpreted, Kerets diculties began when a succession of
9 For one of many examples, see Andr Parrot, Sumer: the Dawn of Art (New York:
Golden Press, 1961): 188 (fig. 226).
10 Iraq 31 (1969): 15 f.
11 Sauren (N 3).
227
disasters wiped out either all his children12 or all his intended brides.13
Here the main quest is for a new wife of royal blood, but the birth of
the heir is again the goal of the exercise.14
But for all assurances of the legend, neither hereditary kingship nor
Mesopotamian unity was securely established by Etanas alleged precedent. For as we move into the Second Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2700
2500 bc), we see the rule of the country divided between several competing city-states, and the succession passing from father to son only
intermittently.15 In fact, this is the heroic age of Mesopotamias early
history, enshrined forever in the Sumerian epics about Gilgamesh16 and
the other lords of Uruk in the south and their antagonists at Kish in
the north and in Aratta far to the east The charismatic leader, chosen
for his prowess in battle or his skill in diplomacy, characterized this age,
and immortality (if we credit Gilgamesh and the land of the living as
well as the later Akkadian epic of Gilgamesh) was sought not through
progeny but by heroic and memorable exploits leading to lasting fame
(zikir sumi). Election to kingship was by vote of an assembly of armsbearing citizens, and royal birth was evidently neither necessary nor
sucient to secure that election.
This pattern changed by the middle of the 3rd millennium, in what
archaeology likes to describe as the 3rd (and last) of the Early Dynastic periods (ca. 25002300).17 Actually it is only now that we are really
entitled to speak of true dynastiesat least if we mean by that term a
succession of kings who claimed the right to rule by virtue of birth (or,
occasionally, of marriage) into a given family. This was achieved by a
new alliance of royal and ecclesiastical interests: the king endowing ever
more lavish temples and their growing complements of priests and tenants, and in return having his claims to the reins of government legitimized by the priesthood. Already in the heroic age, some rulers had
claimed divine descent: Meskiaggashir and Enmerkar of Uruk from
Utu according to the Sumerian King List and the epics respectively,
12
228
229
230
231
33 Cf. Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: Chicago Univ. Press, 1948):
301, who grapples with the Eannatum pasages (above, note 19) in this connection.
34 ANEH 84 and Hallo, The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: a Typology, HUCA 33
(1962): 18. For other possible indications of emperor-worship in Ur III times, see
Claus Wilcke, RAI 19 (1974): 179 f. with notes 3058 (pp. 188192).
35 J. van Dijk, BiOr 11 (1954): 84, note 9, at least raised the question: It is not at all
certain that the sacred marriage had any relation to procreation (translation mine). Cf.
also Rengers reference to children of an en-priestess who (at least in part) sprang from
the union in the sacred marriage, ZA 58 (1967): 131 (translation mine). Sjberg ponders
whether the royal ospring could have been engendered in the sacred marriage, and
Inanna thus regarded as divine mother as specified (only) in the case of Anam of Uruk;
see Or 35 (1966): 289 f.
36 Cf., e.g., S.N. Kramer, RAI 17 (1970): 140: And who, finally, played the role of the
goddess throughout the ceremony? It must have been some specially selected votary of
the goddess, but this is never stated . . . .
232
respectively, but other pairs were possible depending on local circumstances.37 The prayers also suggest a variety of symbolic meanings for
the act: as the basis for the royal partners own claim to divinity,38 as a
guarantee of fertility for the country as a whole,39 as a ritual enactment
of an astral myth, as proof (or refutation) of the belief in a seasonal resurrection of Dumuzi, as a possible part of the annual new years ritual40
or, alternatively, as a unique element in the coronation ritual once at,
or near, the beginning of each reign.41
Apart from the obvious lack of clarity in the sources themselves
reflected in these partly divergent interpretations as to the significance
of the sacred marriage, it must be emphasized that they all confine
themselves to its symbolic level. They ignore the real act and its reality level. If we stop to consider what actually transpired, it was, after
all, the consummation of a sexual union. This is explicitly stated in the
texts, and may be deduced also from innumerable artistic representations, if not in quite the measure that earlier interpretations suggested.42
I would like therefore to propose that on the real, as against the symbolic level, the sacred marriage in the classical phase served to engender the crown prince, thus bridging the gap between the cosmic and
the earthly which had been left open by the earlier ideology. For the
king, this is expressed tellingly by substituting for his name the name
37 A novel illustration of such local variations comes from Emar, where the sacred
marriage was consummated in an annual (?) seven-day ritual between the high priestess
(entu) and the storm-god (Baal); see for now D. Arnaud, Annuaire de lcole Pratique des
Hautes tudes (Ve section) 84 (19751976): 223 f.
38 So especially Frankfort, Kingship (N 33): 295299.
39 Here as elsewhere (see below, note 41), one interpretation is not necessarily mutually exclusive with another. According to Kramer, the very purpose of Ninsuns giving
birth to Shulgi was to assure the fertility of the country; see RAI 19 (1974): 165.
40 See especially van Dijk, La fte du nouvel an dans un texte de Sulgi,
BiOr
11 (1954): 8388; W.H.Ph. Rmer, Sumerische Knigshymnen der Isin-Zeit (= DMOA 13,
1965): cf. IV.
41 Renger, RLA 4 (1975): 257. In fact, the coronation may have been scheduled
to coincide with the New Years ritual, but previous commentators seem to have
overlooked this possibility.
42 Frankfort, Sculpture of the Third Millennium bc from Tell Asmar and Khafajah (= Oriental
Institute Publications 44, 1939): pl. 112, fig. 199. Line drawing by Johannes Boese,
Altmesopotamische Weihplatten (= Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie . . . [ZA Suppl.] 6,
1971): pl. IV, fig. 1 (AS 4). This, together with some half dozen seals, is the only
representation of an erotic scene considered a remotely possible candidate for a sacred
marriage depiction by J.S. Cooper, Heilige Hochzeit. B. Archologisch, RLA 4 (1975):
259269, esp. p. 266.
233
of Dumuzi (or another god) in certain sacred marriage texts;43 for the
priestessif the feminine partner was a priestessit is explicit in her
very title (or one of them: nin-dingir) which means the lady who is a
deity (not the lady of the god),44 a point underlined by the statue of
a high priestess of the moon-god at Ur which has attachments for the
horned cap symbolizing divinitywith this attachment (now lost), the
statue represents the moon-gods heavenly consort (Ningal), without it
the priestess who dedicated the inscription to her.45 And just as mortal king and human priestess are god and goddess in the rite, so the
product of their union emerges as divinely born without forfeiting his
essential humanity. A solution has been found for uniting a transcendent conception of divinity with an immanent conception of kingship,
and the solution is congenial to the Mesopotamian world-view.
But if this solution is so genial, it may be asked why it has not been
proposed before. One reason may be the ambivalent role of Inanna,
whose multifarious roles conspicuously minimize the maternal one,46
another the relative silence of the sources. They seem to dwell in loving
detail on the physical aspects of the sacred marriage on the one hand,
and on the divine birth of the royal heir on the other, without ever
linking the two events explicitly. It would not be dicult to account
for the silence: marriage and birth were sacraments of the royal lifetime which were celebrated in an elaborate liturgy, but the gestation
period which intervened was not. It therefore was not the cultic stimulus for commissioning a textual genre. Moreover, the silence of the
texts is more apparent than real. Besides the frequent references in
Hallo, BiOr 23 (1966): 244 f., here: III.3.
Falkenstein, Inschriften Gudeas (N32): 2, note 8; cf. Renger, ZA 58 (1967): 134 f., 144.
45 L. Legrain, Museum Journal 18 (1927): 223229. Hallo, Women of Sumer, apud
D. Schmandt-Besserat, ed., The Legacy of Sumer (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 4, 1976): 32 f.
and fig. 16.
46 F.R. Kraus, WZKM 52 (1953): 53 f. She is invoked as mother only by two or three
minor deities, notably Lulal (Kramer, JCS 18 [1964]: 38, note 13; but elsewhere Lulal
seems to be regarded as son of Ninsun: Sjberg, Or. Suec. 21 [1972]: 100 and note 1),
Sara
(Su-Sin
9; otherwise only in Anzu I iii 77, for which see Hallo and Moran, JCS
31 [1979]: 84 f.), and Sutitu (BRM 4:25:44; but in An-Anum IV 135, Sutitu is herself
a manifestation of Inanna), and only by one king (above, note 35). In the Descent
of Inanna, Shara and Lulal are both spared by Inanna but not identified as her
sons; Kramer, JCS 5 (1951): 13:312330. Curiously, the logogram for mother-goddess
(protective goddess) is AMA.dINANNA, but here dINANNA has its generic sense of
(any) goddess; cf. CAD s.vv. amaltu, istartu; J. Krecher, HSAO (1967): 89, note 2. The
frequent reference to Inanna as kiskil (ardatu) refers to her youthfulness and (relative)
childlessness, not to her virginity.
43
44
234
235
57 S.N. Kramer, CT XXXVI. Corrigenda and Addenda, Iraq 36 (1974): 9395; idem,
RAI 19 (1974): 165 f.
58 Kramer, The Sacred Marriage Rite (Indiana University Press, 1969). Cf. idem, The
Dumuzi-Inanna Sacred Marriage-Rite: Origin, Development, Character, RAI 17
(1970): 135141.
59 Kramer, Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: the Sumerian Sacred
Marriage Texts, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107 (1963): 485527; idem
apud J.B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (3rd ed.; Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press,
1968): 637645.
60 Wilcke, RAI 19 (1974): 181 and 195, note 76.
61 Renger, Heilige Hochzeit A. Philologisch, RLA 4 (1975): 258.
62 Ibid.; cf. idem, Daughters (N 30): note 16.
63 Falkenstein, Inschriften Gudeas (N 32).
64 Hallo, Royal Titles (N 21): 140 f.; cf. idem, JNES 31 (1972): 88.
65 Renger, Heilige Hochzeit (N 61): 258 f.; Wilcke, RLA 5 (1976): 80 f., even wants
to extend the usage back to Mesannepada.
66 Hallo, Royal Titles (N 64); similarly Sjberg, Abstammung (N 19): 90, and Sollberger
and Kupper, Inscriptions Royales Sumriennes et Akkadiennes (= Littratures Anciennes du
Proche-Orient 3, 1971): 55.
236
237
warfare,72 his service in the administration as viceroy of the ancestral domains,73 his own (earthly) marriage, his coronation,74 his actual
reign,75 his death,76 and his afterlife in the cult77 and memory78 of the
people.
Here there is time only for a short look at what became of the concepts I have already discussed after the classical phase. The phase I
have described included (in one sense indeed climaxed in) the reign
of Hammurapi of Babylon.79 For after him a period of decline set in
terminating with the sack of Babylon about 1600 and the ushering in
of the Babylonian Dark Ages or Middle Ages. One often characterizes
the period beginning with Hammurapi as marked by a gradual breakdown of the older religious values, more specifically as a time of secularization.80 But that is not entirely fair. More to the point may be again
Jacobsens characterization of the late second millennium in terms of
the rise of a personal religion, as a period, that is, in which the individual turned directly toward his own personal deity rather than, through
the mediation of priests and kings, to the awesome great gods of the
older pantheon.81 And he approached them, not as subject to ruler,
238
82 On some of the problems involved, such as the number, gender, and character of
the personal deities, see Achsa Belind apud Yvonne Rosengarten, Trois Aspects de la Pense
Religieuse Sumrienne (Paris: de Boccard, 1971): 156159. See now in detail H. Vorlnder,
Mein Gott (= AOAT 23, 1975).
83 For Middle Assyrian notions of divine parentage (of the king) see Peter Machinist,
Literature as Politics: the Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible. CBQ 38 (1976): 455
482, esp. 465468. For the sacred marriage in the first millennium, see CAD and AHw
s.v. hasadu; dierently Renger, RLA 4 (1975): 258 24.
iii.5
NIPPUR ORIGINALS
ke Sjberg, who has devoted so much of his scholarly eort to Sumerian literature, has also provided an authoritative description of the Old
Babylonian scribal schools which created and transmitted it.1 He was
puzzled by the ancient designation of the scribal school as -dub-baa, a problem only made thornier by van Dijks reading of the gloss
to it as e-pe-s-ad-bu2 Perhaps he will accept the etymology house of
the A-tablet, which I proposed a quarter of a century ago, and now
bring out of its obscurity in his honor.3 The reference is presumably to
one of the three primers with which instruction in the scribal schools
began, i.e. either Proto-Ea = naq, whose incipit is = A, or the socalled Silbenalphabet B whose incipit is a-a, a-a-a.4 The importance
of the latter primer was proverbial for, in Sjbergs translation, an old
saw held that a fellow who cannot produce (the vocabulary beginning
with) a-a, how will he attain fluent speech?5 The further notion that
a-a was in exclusive use at Nippur, and replaced outside Nippur by the
Silbenalphabet A (incipit me-me, pa4-pa4)6 seems less likely in view
of the reference to both series together in an Edubba-essay known in
240
exemplars from Ur7 as well as Nippur.8 That the Nippur school set the
standards in scribal education is, however, indisputable, and it is to it
that I wish to turn.
The great scribal school at Nippur was founded by Shulgi of Ur if we
may interpret lines 272332 of his hymn B to this eect,9 and it was here
that the neo-Sumerian corpus of literature was adapted10 and shaped to
the needs of the scribal curriculum. The preeminence of Nippur in this
enterprise was a corollary of the prestige of the temple of Enlil and
its priesthood. It was the ambition of successive or rival kings to rule
Nippur, to win the allegiance of this priesthood, and to commission
hymns in their honor from the graduates of the scribal school.11
The curriculum thus developed at the scribal school of Nippur became normative (perhaps even in its most elementary stages)12 for scribal schools of Old Babylonian date wherever found and it influenced
those of Middle Babylonian date in the periphery as well. Much of
the belletristic in Sumerian and even in Akkadian dealt with high life
and low life at Nippur, be that vignettes of aristocratic life associated
with figures like Ludingirra13 or the House of Ur-meme,14 or more
popular entertainments like The Poor Man of Nippur.15 As far as
the personal names mentioned in them can be identified with historical
personages, they can be firmly dated to the (later) Ur III and (early) Isin
periods (ca. 20501900 bc.); this lends some semblance of credibility to
the tradition that attributes a late medical text to an apkallu of Nippur
in the time of Enlil-bani of Isin.16
Sjberg, AS 20, 162 f. (UET 6/2, 167:14 f.); cf. already D.O. Edzard, review of
UET 6/2 in AfO 23 (1970) 93.
8 Sjberg, review of UET 6/2 in OrNS 37 (1968) 232241, esp. p. 235 (Nr. 167).
9 Hallo, JCS 20 (1966) 92, n. 33, here: III.2; The Ancient Near East: A History 83;
241
What was the floruit of the Nippur school? The answer to this question is not as simple or obvious as might be expected. To my knowledge, there is not a single dated literary or school text from Nippur
among the thousands already published, a fact not previously remarked
upon. There are, however, half a dozen other lines of evidence that can
be drawn upon. The first is paleography. Broadly speaking, the bulk
of the Nippur canonical texts belong in the Old Babylonian period to
judge by their writing, with only occasional survivals in neo-Sumerian
script and, thus, presumably of Ur III date.17 Secondly, literary texts
from other sites often enough do carry Old Babylonian dates, ranging
from the reign of Rimsn to that of Ammis.aduqa,18 i.e., at a maximum, from 18221626 bc. in the middle chronology. But the second
half of this two-century span can eectively be eliminated from consideration in light of a third factor, the evidence of dated archival texts
from Nippur. These occur more or less continuously throughout the
neo-Sumerian and Early Old Babylonian periods,19 but cease abruptly
in 1720 bc., the thirtieth year of Samsu-iluna.20 Fourthly, while a royal
hymn,21 and perhaps one other composition,22 was still written in Sumerian for and under Abi-esuh, the immediate successor of Samsu-iluna
17
E.g., two joining fragments of e2-u6-nir; cf. Sjberg, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns, TCS 3, 6 and 16, and pls. xxxvii f. Among the Nippur texts
assigned to Yale (3 N-T, 4 N-T and 5 N-T) are a number of Ur III exemplars of literary
texts; they were copied by A. Goetze and will be published by the Oriental Institute.
For 6 N-T texts of Ur III date, cf. M. Civil, OrNS 54 (1985) 33 f.
18 Sjberg, TCS 3, 6.
19 See e.g. for the interval from Lipit-Enlil of Isin to (the twenty-eighth year of ) RimSin of Larsa (18731795 bc) R. Marcel Sigrist, Les sattukku dans lEsumesa durant la
priode dIsin et de Larsa, BibMes 11, esp. p. 7.
20 Elizabeth C. Stone, Economic crisis and social upheaval in Old Babylonian
Nippur, in L.D. Levine and T.C. Young, Jr., eds., Mountains and Lowlands: Essays
in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia, BibMes 7, 267289, esp. 270 f.
21 TCL 16, 81, for which see J. van Dijk, Lhymne Marduk avec intercession pour
le roi Abi-"esuh, MIO 12 (19661967) 5774.
for which see Hallo, JCS 17 (1963) 115 n. 55, here: III.1 and JCS 19
22 CT 44, 18,
(1965) 57, here: III.1, has now been edited by B. Alster and U. Jeyes, A Sumerian Poem
about Early Rulers, Ac.Sum. 8 (1986) 111, but col. rev. i line 5 which E, Sollberger
apparently read igi A-bi-e-su!-u[h...], parallel to igi dUtudx [...] in the preceding line,
edition.
242
reunited to Babylonia,23 presumably under the Kassite king Ulamburiash (ca. 1420 bc.).24 Finally, the general pattern of cuneiform archives
and libraries is that they are best preserved from the century (or half
century) immediately preceding their destruction. Combining all these
lines of evidence, we may tentatively assign the bulk of the Sumerian
literary texts from Nippur, and hence the floruit of its scribal school, to
the century from 18201720 bc.
In the three hundred years that followed (17201420 bc) under the
rule of the Sealand Dynasty, Nippur was unoccupied.25 Under Kassite
rule, it became the seat of a gu2-en-na (= sandabakku,26 or gu"ennakku27),
with or without special privileges.28 Whether its scribal school reopened
is not known, for there are few if any copies of Sumerian literary texts
that can unambiguously be dated to the Kassite period and attributed
to Nippur.29 What is apparent is that its literary heritage was not
lost entirely. Already in the reign of Nazi-maruttash (ca. 13071282),
a collection of hemerologies copied at Assur includes one with the
famous colophon which, in W.G. Lamberts translation, reads30 Dies
fas according to the seven a[pkall?], originals(s) of Sippar, Nippur, Babylon, Larsa, Ur, Uruk, and Eridu. The scholars excerpted, selected,
and gave to Nazi-maruttas, king of the world etc. Although Lambert
and Hermann Hunger31 dier on the significance of this colophon for
the history of canonization in cuneiform,32 both agree that it provides
23 Hallo, JCS 17 (1963) 116 f, here: III.1. Dierently J.D. Muhly, JCS 24 (1972) 179,
who questions the assumed migration of the scribal tradition from Babylon to the
Sealand in the 28th year of the reign of Samsuiluna.
24 J.A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History 1, 31 and 318 f.
25 McGuire Gibson apud Stone, BibMes 7, 270 n. 9.
26 B. Landsberger, Das Amt des sandabakku (GU .EN.NA) von Nippur in Lands2
berger Brief 7577, Brinkman, The Monarchy of the Kassite Dynasty, CRRAI 19,
395408, esp. 406 f.
27 So CAD G s.v.; cf. MSL 12, 97:135, and John F. Robertson. The Internal Political
and Economic Structure of Old Babylonian Nippur: the Guennakkum and his House,
JCS 36 (1984) 145190.
28 Brinkman, CRRAI 19, 408, and n. 83.
29 For the alleged case of PBS 10/2, 3 see now P. Michalowski, JCS 39 (1987) 42, who
considers it neither Kassite nor from Nippur. For PBS 10/4, 12 (Hunger No. 40) see
below, n. 81. For Rimut-Gula and Taqis-Gula as Nippur scholars and authors at this(?)
time cf. Lambert, JCS 16 (1962) 75 f.
30 JCS 11 (1957) 8. S.J. Lieberman informs me that, according to collation, the text
but not 7 ap-[kal-li] (forthcoming).
can be restored as 7 um-[ma-ni] or 7 DUB.[MES]
31 Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone, AOAT 2, 6 and no. 292.
32 Cf. Hallo, The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and Biblical Literature: A
Comparative Appraisal, (in press), here: X.3.
243
early evidence for the recovery of literary texts from Nippur in Kassite
times.
The same may be argued for Tukulti-Ninurta I (12441208 bc.), who
plundered the libraries of Babylonia and kidnapped their scholars to
begin some kind of renascence of learning in Assyria33and no doubt
Kassite Nippur was one of his targets. (Note that after Adad-sumaus.ur [12181189], no major restorations were undertaken at Nippur
until the time of Assurbanipal.)34 Certainly the library founded at Assur
by Tiglath-Pileser I (11151077) incorporated copies of actual Nippur
originals, as their colophons testify. These have been conveniently catalogued by Hunger and include exemplars of ana ittisu tablets III35 and
VI36 as well as two exemplars of a bilingual sir-nam-sub to Nin-Isina,37
which Hunger describes as the oldest examples of originals attributed to
a private owner.38 What is particularly noteworthy about this composition is that it is duplicated by an Old Bablonian exemplar (presumably
in Sumerian only) to which Mark Cohen has called attention in his edition of the text.39 It oers at most only one variant of more than trivial
significance, but since it is fragmentary and unpublished, it is not the
best candidate for my argument.
For this purpose I prefer to move on to the neo-Assyrian period,
when under royal auspices the public and private libraries of Babylonia
were again searched in order to stock the royal libraries of Assyria,
this time at Nineveh. This was true in particular of Assurbanipal (668
627 bc), who is widely regarded as the author of the well-known rescript
to the governor of Borsippa ordering the confiscation of all kinds of
literary works both from temple and private libraries for inclusion in
the Ninevite libraries.40 As Lieberman has pointed out, the text is not
a letter but a school text in two (identical) copies; if at all the word
33
Peter Machinist, Literature as Politics: The Tukulti-Ninurta Epic and the Bible,
CBQ 38 (1976) 455482. The plunder of the libraries is detailed in vi rev. B 29
(p. 457); the kidnapping of the scholars remains for now a hypothesis on my part. Cf.
Machinist, The Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I (unpub. Ph.D. diss., Yale Univ., 1978), 128 f.,
366373.
34 Maximilian Streck, Assurbanipal, VAB 7, lxiv.
35 Hunger Kolophone No. 58.
36 Hunger Kolophone No. 43A.
37 Hunger Kolophone No. 44.
38 Hunger Kolophone 7.
39 JAOS 95 (1975) 611 n. 20.
40 Simo Parpola, JNES42 (1983) 11, based on CT22, 1.
244
41 S.J. Lieberman, Why Did Assurbanipal Collect Cuneiform Tablets?, paper read
at AOS meeting, March 20, 1988.
42 Assyrian Library Records, JNES 42 (1983) 129.
43 JNES 42 (1983) 14.
44 P. Michalowski, JCS 39 (1987) 38 f. and nn. 49.
45 Hallo, AS 20, 183185, 198, here: I.4; JAOS 101 (1981) 253257.
46 TuM n.F. 4, 86; collations in Wilcke Kollationen 85.
245
246
of the last four lines to make a complete restoration possible. The first
line clearly reads: Copy of Nippur, written and collated according
to its original.58 The next six lines can be restored on the basis of
one of the standard colophons of Assurbanipal59 though the precise
form restored here recurs only once more, on the inscription of Agumkakrime,60 as follows: tablet of Assurbanipal, king of the universe,
king of Assyria, who relies on Assur and Ninlil. He who trusts in you
will not be shamed, oh king of the gods, Assur! Whoever carries o
(the tablet) (or) writes his name (on it) in place of my name, may
Assur and Ninlil angrily and furiously overthrow him and destroy his
name (and) his seed in the land! In my article of fifteen years ago,
I cited this example to elucidate one of the problems in Sumerian
hermeneutics, namely the survival of Sumerian literature from Old
Babylonian times to neo-Assyrian times and beyond, when they could
conceivably have exercised some influence, however indirect, on other
literatures, including the Bible. By the side of direct survival and what I
called organic transformation and creative adaptation including but
not limited to translation into Akkadian, I saw our text as testimony to
the Mesopotamians rediscovery of their own past,61 and concluded
the rediscovery of lost texts may be added to the preservation or
adaptation of surviving texts as means whereby the literary heritage of
the Bronze Age passed into the Iron Age within Mesopotamia.62 The
preservation of traditional texts and the degree to which their wording
was respected in later versions has often been studied, most recently by
Mark Cohen in connection with the lamentations.63 Adaptation can be
studied, e.g., by means of the evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic.64 But
rarely has any attention been paid to the case of the recovery of literary
texts in antiquity in this connection.
At this time, I would like therefore to consider the extent to which
the late copy of our composition did or did not adhere to the Nippur
247
Cf. e.g., MLC 2075, noted in Hallo, Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A Typology,
HUCA 33 (1962) 143 sub Ur-Nammu 7 iii; other examples HUCA 33 (1962) sub
248
in KAR 168, rev. ii 33.) It is hard to make sense of his substitution; the
best I can do is suggest that he conceived of en and si as somehow the
constituent parts of the oce of ensi.71
Figure 1
Item Stanza
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Echo
Line(s) Line(s) OB Original
[1]
2
3
B
7
8
9
C
13
14
15
D
2023
E
28
29
3031
F
36
37
38
39
(subscript) 45
4
5
6
10
11
12
16
17
18
2427
32
33
3435
40
41
42
43
NA Copy
e2-kes3-a
tu-[da]
kur-kur-ra- ka
si-mi-in-e3
lagar
bi2-in-u3-tu
sag-bi-se3-e3-a
sa-mu-ni-inb-gal2
c
d[ur2-ku3 gir]i4-zal-la
ama-dnin-tu
KU3.GI
NAR.BALAG
[dn]in-tu-ra-kam
a. 7 only.
b. 17 only, 14 omits.
c. Restore e2-gal (with Sauren) or tug2-ma8(ME)
with RlA 4, 257. But note traces of sign.
e2-kes3ki-a
u3-tu-da
kur-kur-ra-ke4
si-mi-in-e3-SAGa
si
bi2-in-tus
sag-bi-se3-e3-a-me-en
mu-ni-in-gal2
mu-na-ab-be2
nu-und-na-an-du12-a
[NA]R.BALAGti-gi
dnin-urta
d. 29 only, 33 omits:
ee. 36 only, 40 omits.
f. 37 only, 41 ama.
g. 38 only, 42 omits.
71 For a similar suggestion in another context see S.N. Kramer, ANET3 (1969) 574
n. 12, but see on this B. Alster, Sum. nam-en, nam-lagar, JCS 23 (1978) 116 f., esp.
n. 1213. For another possible explanation, see Hallo, AS 20, 193 n. 84, here: I.4. In
the discussion, M. Civil pointed out that LAGAR is routinely written like SI in late
texts.
72 Cf. Sjberg, OrSuec 21 (1972) 97 for Nintu-Ninhursaga in this connection, notably
a clue to the date of our text?
as the mother of Hammurapi and Samsu-iluna. Is this
Cf. also Sjberg, TCS 3, 142 f.
249
In item 8, the late scribe may have been unfamiliar with the asseverative preformative, and simply omitted it. Its occurrence in late texts is,
at best, rare.73
The most significantindeed surprisingvariant is the final item.
Where the original describes the composition, quite properly, as a
drum-song (tigi) of Nintu, the copy calls it a drum-song of Ninurta.
Now it is true that we know of no other tigis to Nintu, while we
already have recovered five to Ninurta. In addition to the four listed
by Wilcke,74 see now what must be a tigi for Ishme-Dagan;75 admittedly the rubric is lost, but the presence of the notation sagiddarev.
2and its gis-gi4-galrev. 3and the absence of barsud and sabatuk
makes that seem likelier than an adab.76 And it is also true that Ninurta enjoyed particular veneration in Assyria beginning with TukultiNinurta I in Middle Assyrian times.77 But our poem is so obviously
about the goddess and her obstetric role that it is hard to account for
a confusion with the warlike Ninurta. Moreover, the literature about
Nintu as Aruru was also extensive, and much of it survived into the late
period. It deserves treatment in its own right; here I will content myself
with cataloguing it. (See Appendix.)
Thus the goddess Nintu in the guise of Aruru was no stranger to the
late scribes, even though more often in the context of laments than of
hymns. The subscript of the Nineveh exemplar presumably represents
an outright error in comparison with its Nippur original.
Assyrian access to the surviving literary heritage of Nippur may have
been eased somewhat by that citys role as a haven of pro-Assyrian loyalty in the tumultuous last decades of the empirea loyalty for which
Nippur paid dearly even before the empire fell,78 and probably even
more thereafter. Nevertheless, Nippur continued to furnish originals,
now for Babylonian copyists, including another hemerology of uncertain provenience.79 By Achaemenid times, it had certainly regained
its commercial, if not its religious or cultural prominence, as is clear
from the records of the house of Murashu and similar enterprises, and
A. Falkenstein, ZA 48 (1944) 73.
AS 20, 290 f.
75 Sjberg, OrSuec 2324 (19741975) No 2.
76 Cf. Hallo, BiOr 23 (1966) 246, here: III.3; Wilcke, AS 20, 258.
77 Cf. H.W.F. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon 336.
78 Cf. Oppenheim, Siege Documents from Nippur, Iraq 17 (1955) 6089; Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (2nd ed.), 161.
79 CT 4, 6; cf. Hunger Kolophone No, 480; Jensen, KB 6/2, 42 .
73
74
250
251
iv
letter-prayers
iv.1
INDIVIDUAL PRAYER IN SUMERIAN:
THE CONTINUITY OF A TRADITION1
I. A Sumerian Psalter?
Since the first Psalm studies of Hermann Gunkel at the beginning of
this century, the exegesis of the Biblical Psalter has accorded an ever
more prominent place to the comparison of the hymns and prayers
of the cuneiform tradition of ancient Mesopotamia.2 As early as 1922,
Stammer ventured to point out numerous Sumero-Akkadian parallels
to the structure of Biblical psalms3 in a study which, admittedly, found
little favor with Assyriologists.4 In the 1930s at least three dierent
monographs reverted to the theme, Cumming comparing The Assyrian and Hebrew Hymns of Praise, Widengren the Akkadian and
Hebrew Psalms of Lamentation,5 and Castellino both The lamentations and the hymns in Babylonia and in Israel.6 All these studies
retain their usefulness but, with the exception of Castellinos, they suer
from a common defect: they tend to exempt the Mesopotamian material from the very Gattungsforschung which, following Gunkel, they
accept as axiomatic for Hebrew psalmody.
This is the more strange since the Akkadian material comes provided
with its own generic classifications, and with specific indications of its
cultic Sitz im Leben. Often enough, it is cited by title only, and incorporated within elaborate cultic calendars or ritual prescriptions and
1 Originally presented, under the title of The Psalter of the Sumerians, to the
Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University, November 2,
1966.
2 For exhaustive bibliographies of current psalm exegesis, cf. the periodic surveys
in Theologische Rundschau n.F. 1 (1929, by M. Haller), 23 (1955, by J.J. Stamm). For a
comprehensive historical survey, cf. K.-H. Bernhardt, Das Problem der Altorientalischen
Knigsideologie (= VT Supp. 8, 1961) chs. 13.
3 Bernhardt, op. cit., 83 n. 5.
4 Cf. the review by B. Landsberger, OLZ 28 (1925) 479483.
5 Bernhardt, loc. cit.
6 Le lamentazioni individuali e gli inni in Babilonia e in Israele (1939).
256
No adequate study of literary types in the vast Akkadian liturgy has yet appeared although as compared with the Psalter, the Babylonian texts promise a
much larger body of definite results, as in many cases not only the liturgical texts are
preserved in writing, but also the order of the ceremony in which they were sung or
recited, W.G. Lambert, AfO 19 (19591960) 47. Cf. already S. Langdon Calendars of
liturgies and prayers, AJSL 42 (1926) 110127.
8 cf. e.g. Gunkel-Begrich, Einleitung in die Psalmen (1933) 1.3 1.5.
9 Cf. now D.R. Ap-Thomas, An appreciation of Sigmund Mowinckels contribution to Biblical studies, JBL 85 (1966) 315325.
10 Bernhardt, loc. cit.
11 Ibid.
12 (Leiden, 1962), with notes by A. Falkenstein. Cf. the review by Castellino, VT 15
(1965) 116120.
13 Op. cit. (note 2).
257
258
and Isin I, was organized into a scholarly curriculum in the Old Babylonian period. It attained a high degree of literary excellence and to
some extent survived the destruction of the Old Babylonian schools to
influence, as I think, also the literary products of later ages. Up to now,
this neo-Sumerian literature has been almost completely neglected by
comparative Biblical studies, at least as far as the comparative study
of the Psalms is concerned. Yet I hope to show that we now know it
well enough to attempt to compare it, not only with the Akkadian and
bilingual religious poetry of later Mesopotamia, but also with Biblical
psalmody.
In order to do so within the bounds of the methodology already
set forth, it is necessary in the first place to essay a generic classification of neo-Sumerian religious poetry. Only then will it be possible
to match the resulting categories with the corresponding genres in the
later material, whether Babylonian or Biblical. Finally, a single genre
from the several canons will be subjected to closer scrutiny in order to
weigh specific comparisons and contrasts in the balance.
The concise bibliography of neo-Sumerian literature compiled by
Maurice Lambert may serve as a starting-point for our classification.16
His survey recognizes fifteen separate genres. Two of these, myths and
epics, fall outside the purview of religious literature in the narrow
sense at issue here, i.e. hymns and prayers. This is also true of the
three types of wisdom literature which Lambert distinguishes17 even
though, of course, a few examples of wisdom compositions may be
found among the neo-Sumerian hymns just as they found their way
into the Hebrew Psalter. A similar ambiguity surrounds the so-called
love-poems on the one hand, and on the other the catalogue texts
which have an analogue in Ps. 68 if Albrights interpretation of the
latter text18 is correct. Finally, we must eliminate from consideration the
genre of Learned and Scientific Texts which are largely or wholly
prose in form and non-literary (i.e. monumental or archival) in origin.
That leaves us with seven genres of neo-Sumerian religious poetry, to
wit: lamentations, hymns to gods, hymns to temples, liturgies, royal
hymns, compositions devoted to the philosophy of history, and those
on religious philosophy,seven prima facie components of an assumed
neo-Sumerian psalter. Let us see whether they warrant the label, first
16
17
18
259
260
261
262
objects were, then, considered as taking the place of the suppliant, and
relieving him of the need to proer his prayer in his own person, orally
and perpetually. This is stated in so many words by many of the votive
inscriptions, and is implied also by the fact that the most expensive
type of votive, the statue, clearly depicts the worshipper, not the deity.
Other types of votive objects such as steles, bowls, and replicas of tools
and weapons from the petitioners daily life, were simply more modest
means to attain the same end. But even such objects were made of
semi-precious stones or precious metals and thus beyond the means of
most worshippers, and there was consequently the need for a less costly
method of written communication with the divine. Apparently, then, it
is out of this essentially economic context that there gradually arose a
canonical literary genre as a vehicle of individual prayer. At first it took
a form which was less literary, or canonical, than economic, or archival.
For the formal choice fell upon the letter, a form abundantly familiar
to the neo-Sumerian scribes for straightforward economic purposes.
Presently, the bare outlines of the archival letters were elaborated to
create what constituted, in content if not in form, true prayers, albeit
in prose, and ultimately they freed themselves entirely from the style of
the letter to develop into poetic parallels of the Biblical laments of the
individual. It will be my purpose to examine this particular genre, its
literary history, and its later anities, more closely.
Cf. below, (V), for a bibliography of the genre and previous treatments.
For an Ur III example of a lapus lazuli sphinx cf UET 3:415:2.
263
This brief but fairly representative example may suce for the moment
to indicate that, formally, our genre belongs to the category of Sumerian letters. As such, its literary analogues are of several kinds. There
are, first of all, the preserved examples of royal correspondence in
which the reigning king (not, as here, the statue of the deified king)
is addressed by, or addresses himself to, one of his servants. Such letters are known to us so far only in the form of literary imitations of
assumed originals allegedly emanating from the chancelleries of Ur and
Isin.27 As such they share some of the flourishes and other stylistic characteristics of our genre. Secondly, the school curriculum has preserved
a small number of private letters, in Sumerian as well as Akkadian, as
mundane in style as in content, which served as models of everyday
correspondence for apprentice scribes.28 Their purely fictional character may be judged by the fact that one of them is supposedly written by
none other than a monkey.29
If, however, we wish to find the origin of our genre in the real
world, we have to go back of all these literary letters of the Old
Babylonian period to the archival documents of the neo-Sumerian
period. Several hundred Ur III letters are known, and in their most
characteristic form they constitute drafts, or orders to pay in kind,
drawn on the great storage-centers of the royal economy in favor of
the bearer, usually the representative of the king or of some high, royal
ocial.30 Such documents, while letters in form, are orders in function,
and have therefore been aptly designated as letter-orders.31 The texts
27
Cf. F.R. Kraus, Altmesopotamische Quellensammlungen zur altmesopotamischen Geschichte, AfO 20 (1963) 153155.
28 See below (V), sub B , M, O, and P for Sumerian examples. For Akkadian
19
examples, cf. F.R. Kraus, Briefschreibbungen im altbabylonischen Schulunterricht,
JEOL VI/16 (19591962) 1639. To all appearances, the pitifully executed Akkadian
examples come from a much more rudimentary stage of the curriculum.
29 Below, V, sub B .
14
30 Cf. E. Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur [=
TCS 1, 1966).
31 A.L. Oppenheim, AOS 32 (1948) 86 ad H 24 et passim; Hallo, HUCA 29 (1958)
264
265
(2) protests (3) prayers and (4) formal reinforcements of the appeal,
though not necessarily in that order.
The conclusion of the letter-prayers (when preserved) may occasionally consist of a vow to repay the kindness besought in the body of
the text. More often it consists of a brief stereotyped formula either
borrowed from the language of secular letters or peculiar to the genre
itself. We will consider the various formulations in due course. For now,
let us turn to the contents of the various letter-prayers, following the
structural outline already presented.
To begin with the addressees, they include five of the great gods, and
two goddesses. No discernible principle governs the choice of the male
deities, but two of them appear to be from the circle of Nergal, the
lord of the netherworld, if not Nergal himself (C, G), which seems to
bespeak a special concern with the threat of death. The others are Utu
(D2), Nanna (E), Enki (H), and Martu (J). The goddesses invoked can be
described more consistently. They are both healing goddesses, in one
case (B17) Nintinuga, and in two or three others (F, D4) Ninisina.38 In at
least two of these cases, the choice of addressee is clearly dictated by the
contents of the letter, for they are petitions for relief from sickness.
The letters addressed simply to my god (I)39 or (my) king (B1,
B6, B8, K) pose more of a problem since, on the one hand, gods
were sometimes addressed as my king even within the context of the
letter-prayers (J) and, on the other hand, the deified (and/or deceased)
king could be addressed as my god. In at least one case, it is clear
266
his son, the other from a scribe to his relative or colleague (gi-me-aas). Both are stylistically identical with the authentic letter-prayers, and
not with the simple literary practice-letters between private persons
(B19, M, O, P). Perhaps they represent an intermediate stage in the
development from secular letter-order to letter-prayer.41
The epithets applied to the various addressees in all these letterprayers are drawn freely from all the rich storehouse of attributes available for embellishing Sumerian religious and monumental texts in general. But the choice was not wholly a random one, for in most instances
there was a decided emphasis on those qualities of the addressee which
were crucial for the substance of the petition that followed in the
body of the letter. Thus the letters which prayed for the restoration
of health praised the healing goddess for her therapeutic skills (B17, D4,
F); one which asked for legal redress stressed the unalterableness of the
divine command (B6); one of those concerned with scribal problems
(H) addressed Enki as the lord of wisdom. In one of the two private
letter-prayers, a father apostrophizes his son, among many other things,
as the son who is available for his god, who respects his father and
mother (var. mother and father) (B16).42
Our next question concerns the character of the presumed writers
of the letter-prayers, as far as these may be identified by their personal
names or professional titles. This is not always possible, for a name like
Ursagga in B6 (above) is common enough, the virtual equivalent of our
Goodman or Everyman. Whether the Gudea of I is a private person
or one of several city-rulers of that name is not clear. Here as in other
cases (J), there is only indirect evidence for the question. However, by
far the largest number of letters are clearly written by scribes (C, F, G,
H, K, L). Even where the writer claims a more specialized title in the
salutation (B1), he may still refer to himself as a scribe in the body of the
text. This state of aairs is readily explained when we remember the
origin of the letter-prayers genre in the context of the scribal schools.
As in the case of the school essays, the scribe found in his own life
and circumstances the materials for exercising his stylistic talents.
One of these scribal letter-prayers (C) is even penned by a woman
scribeand thus becomes, incidentally, a rare bit of evidence for the
existence of such women at this time. It is not the only letter-prayer
41 Note that some of the same personal names occur in dierent kinds of literary
letters. Cf. B16 and B7,8 B16 and B19, K and M.
42 dumu dingir-ra-(a)-ni-ir gub-ba/a-a-ama-a-ni (var. ama-a-a-ni)-ir n-te-g.
267
from a woman (cf. B17) but it is the only one which reveals her status,
not only professionally but socially, for it seems (the passage is however
broken) that she is further identified as a daughter or retainer of Sinkasid, king of Uruk. As a matter of fact, we possess one example of
a letter-prayer written by a king himselfin this case Sin-iddinam
of Larsa, a later contemporary of Sin-kasid (D4). It may be noted
in passing that the Akkadian tradition of (royal) letter-prayers is first
attested, at Mari, only a generation or two after this.43 So much for the
writers, real or fictitious, of the letter-prayers. Let us now consider their
actual messages: the petitions which were the subject of the letters, and
the sentiments employed to convey them.
The complaint with which the body of the letter often begins may
refer to either the causes or the consequences of ones suering. One of
the favorite stylistic devices is to describe ones life as diminishing
(B1)44 or as ebbing away in cries and sighs (B17).45 One petitioner
seems already to foresee his bones carried o by the water to a foreign
city (K).46 Another form of complaint is to stress the loss of friends and
protectors: those who know me, my friends, are on a hostile footing
with me (B17);48 those who know me no longer approach me, they
speak no word with me, my own friend no longer counsels me, he
will not set my mind at rest (H below).49 The loss of protection or
patronage is expressed both plainly: I have no protector (B17, B1, L)50
and metaphorically: like a sheep which has no faithful shepherd, I am
without a faithful cowherd to watch over me (I);51 I am an orphan
(lit, the son of a widow, B1)52 which recalls Gudeas moving plaint to
Gatumdu: I have no motheryou are my mother; I have no father
you are my father.53
43 G. Dossin, Syria 19 (1938) 125 f. Cf. also Van Dijk, Sagesse 13 f.; E.A. Speiser,
Omens and Letters to the Gods, AOS 38 (1955) 6067 = Oriental and Biblical Studies
(1967) 297305; and below nn. 96 f.
44 zi-mu ba-e-tur; the variant (YBC 6458) has, however, ba-i.
45 im-ma-si im-ma-diri-ga-ta zi al-ir-ir-re. For a slightly dierent translation, cf.
Rmer, SKIZ 113, end. Cf. also H 23 below.
46 gr-pad-du-mu s-uru-kr-ra-s a nam-ma-an-tm.
48 zu-a kal-la-mu gr-kr mu-da-an-gin; var, ba-an-db-b-es (cf. Civil, Iraq 23:167).
49 Cf. the same topos in the individual laments of the Psalter, e.g, Ps. 31:12, 38:12,
41:10, 55:1315.
50 l-n-tar-(re) la-ba-(an)-tug (nu-un-tug).
51 udu-gim sipa-gi-na nu-tug na-gada-gi-na nu-mu-un-tm-tm-mu. Cf . Sjberg,
Bi. Or. 20 (1963) 46 f.
52 dumu-nu-mu- (un) -zu-me-en.
53 Cyl. A iii 6 f.; cf Ps. 27:10.
268
269
speak hostile (foreign) words (I),64 perhaps even that he has not sworn
by a foreign king (G).65 On the contrary, he asserts, I am a citizen of
Ur (B6)66 or I am a scribe (H, B1).67 One letter lists the past military
and other service of the writer in detail (B1). Apparently the recital of
past achievements or present rank is supposed to qualify their bearer
for future favors.
To persuade the deity to act on his behalf, however, the penitent
does not rely solely on his own past merits and present status. Rather,
in time-honored fashion, he seeks to persuade the deity or king to act,
as it were, for the sake of thy name, as well as to sway him by promise
of future benefits. The element of suasion is typically (and somewhat
provocatively) phrased as the protasis of a conditional sentence: If my
queen is truly of heaven (B17, D4); if my king is truly of heaven
(B6).68 Note that the latter expression also occurs in the letters to living
kings.69 The vows of the letter-prayers are even less subtle: if his or
her petition is granted, the writer says, I will surely be your slave-girl,
will serve as court sweeper of your temple, will serve in your presence
(B17)70 or dwell in your gate and sing your praises . . . and proclaim
your exaltation (H; cf. D4: J),71 preferably in public.72 Perhaps the most
persuasive oer that the petitioner can dangle before the deitys eyes
is to endow him or her with yet another epithet, based on their latest
kindness: When I have been cured, I will rename my goddess the one
who heals (?) the cripples (B17, cf. also G 46).73
So much for the body of the letter-prayers. Their conclusion is much
briefer, but it includes, in at least two instances, another important clue
to the cultic situation of the entire genre, for reference is made there to
(my) letter which I have deposited before you (H [variant], G). This,
together with the fact that it is a statue which is actually addressed (B6)
shows clearly that our letters reflect a practice of leaving petitions in the
dingir-mu l-kr-di nu-me-en (Falkenstein, OLZ 1962:373.)
lugal-kr-ra mu-ni nu-mu-un-p-d.
66 dumu urKI-ma-me-en.
67 dub-sar-me-en.
68 Falkenstein, ZA 44:22.
69 E.g. Sulgi
270
temple, at the feet of the cult statue or at least in its own cella.74 But
the brief concluding formulas are also crucial for assigning the genre its
proper place in Sumerian literary history. For of these formulas some,
like may my king know it75 (B6), it is urgent (B10)76 or do not be
negligent (O),77 are clearly borrowed from the older clichs with which
the secular letter-orders and royal letters of Ur and Isin closed. Others,
as befits our genre, are more florid: at the command of Enlil may
(my) eyes behold your face (B17).78 But the most common conclusion:
may the heart of my god (or king) be appeased (B1, G, H, I) helps
to identify our genre as the lineal antecedent of the post-Sumerian
penitential psalms, to which we may now turn.
After hearing the present paper at its original presentation (above n. 1), Prof.
Jacobsen pointed out that the excavations in the Diyala region uncovered a clay
tablet in an unopened envelope lying near the base of a cult statue. As he recalled,
the envelope bore only the ascription to DN, Note also that the late (?) copy of a
votive inscription of Sin-iddinam published by van Dijk, JCS 19 (1965) 125 includes
two letters confided by the king to the statue of his father for transmittal to Utu.
75 lugal-mu h-en-zu; cf. BIN 2:53:3 which, according to Falkenstein, ZA 44:24 and
Anal. Bibl. 12:70 n. 2, is also (an extract from) a letter to a god, although that seems hard
to prove.
76 a-ma-ru-kam. For the expression, cf. Sollberger, TCS 1, p. 99 (49).
77 g-zu na-an-sub-b-en. With this closing cf. za-e nam-ba-e-se-ba-e-d-en-z-en in
the Ibbi-Sin correspondence: CADE 48b and Honer, JAOS 87 (1967) 302.
78 du -ga dEn-ll-l-ka(var. -kam!) ms-me-zu igi h-bi-du (var. ba-ab-du ). Cf. UET
11
5
5
6: 173 iv 6 f.: du11 dnin-in-si-na ms Iugal-m-kam igi-bi-ib-du8, which thus is clearly
also the conclusion of a letter (in spite of Kramers reservation, ib., p. 4), presumably to
a king.
79 Cf. S. Langdon, OECT 6 (1927) pp. iiix; RA 22 (1925) 119125. The Akkadian
2:579:392), ersahung (AHw 245 f.) or sig
equivalent is given variously as unnnu(?) (SL
(see refs. Dalglish, op. cit., 34 f.).
80 PBS 10/2:3, ed. by B. Bergmann, ZA 57 (1965) 3342.
74
271
expanded form, also the typical ending of the earlier letter-prayers, but
since the Middle Babylonian example is not otherwise cast in the form
of a letter, we may see it as an early example, or at least a forerunner,
of the ersahunga.81 Its significance for our purpose lies, then, in the
fact that it provides the missing link between the neo-Sumerian letterprayers of the Old Babylonian period, and the fully developed postSumerian penitential psalms of the first millennium, whose very name
(literally lament for appeasing the heart, i.e. of the god) reflects its
concluding formula.
At first glance, the comparison may seem far-fetched. The late genre
is, to begin with, wholly poetic in style, as attested not only by the
language, parallelisms and other internal features, but also by the fact
that its lines, in distinction from the earlier letter-prayers, are now fixed
in their division and as to their number for each separate composition. In the second place, the new genre has lost all formal traces of
any epistolary origins, with one possible exception, namely the use of
the phrase your servant to refer to the penitent, whether he otherwise presents himself in the third or in the first person.82 Thirdly, it is
couched in the emesal-dialect of Sumerian, once erroneously translated
as the womans language83 but more properly described as a kind of
whining or wailing tone used by women or goddesses neither exclusively nor universally, but by them only in certain contexts, and also by
certain men, notably the singers called gala (kal) and in the context of
lamentation.
In these formal or external respects, then, the post-Sumerian penitential psalms clearly represent a new genre as compared to the neoSumerian letter-prayers. Indeed, if we were to confine ourselves to their
formal characteristics, we might be forced to conclude that they were
simply the later successors to the neo-Sumerian ersemma-psalms. The
ersemma, however, survived in its own right and under its old designation, albeit chiefly as a subsection of longer compositions. And when
we consider the penitential psalms from the point of view of contents
272
273
274
were now written in the vernacular, like the letter-prayers to the gods of
Anatolia,98 Egypt99 and elsewhere.100
The substantive changes too are readily explained in terms of historically attested changes in the Babylonian Weltanschauung as these
have been delineated by Jacobsen.101 Where the earlier Babylonians
worried chiefly about the divine origin of natural misfortunes and manmade disasters, the later ones were more concerned with their own
sins, known or unknown, as the causes of their aictions. The petition
of the individual accordingly witnessed a corresponding shift in emphasis: the deity was now entreated to remove, not the aiction, but the
sin; not the symptom but the assumed underlying cause. It is, however, not my purpose to dwell on these dierences, important though
they certainly are as indices of developmental stages in the history of
Mesopotamian religion. From the point of view of literary history, it is
the similarities between the earlier and the later genre that are most
impressive. They entitle us to regard the neo-Sumerian letter-prayers
as the lineal antecedents of the post-Sumerian penitential psalms, and
to throw them into the balance in any comparison with the individual
laments of the Biblical Psalter.
275
B. Structure
The letter-prayers have no structural labels,104 but the present text, by
virtue of its great length, shows a clear strophic structure based on
meaning units and the occurrence or recurrence of certain formulas.
There is also the evidence, in exemplar A, of the line count. While the
total (56) is correct, the subtotals are too low by two for the obverse (31
for 33) and too high by two for the reverse (25 for 23). Unless they were
slavishly copied from a model (in which case it is hard to see why the
disposition of the lines would have been altered), this seems to imply
that the formulas of lines 2 and 7 were not counted as separate lines,
while the long lines 39 and 40, which in A are written over 11/2 lines
and in C over two separate lines, were in fact counted separately. On
this assumption, and with one minor transposition (moving the couplet
18 f. after line 27), the poem consists of eleven five-line stanzas plus a
concluding doxology of one line.
C. Transliteration of A105
i
d
ii
dEN.ZU-
sa-mu-h (5) dub-sar dumu Ur-dnin-[. . .] r-zu na-ab-b-a
10) u4 su mu- e (6)-du11-ga(7) nam-l-ul-us mu-e-ni-[n-. . .] mu-p-dazu-s! IM-sub li-b-ak ab-ba-gim [. . . ] ezen-sizkur-zu-us (8) gri-mu
la-ba-ni-sil lul-as -du-un-na
iii
e-ne-s (9)n-a-na(10) b-ak-a(11)-mu di nam-tag(12)-ga(13)-mu
nu-[til?]
(14)-nam-tar-ra(15)-ke4(16) mu-DU(17) ki-lul-la l-la-en izkim
na-ma-ab(18)-kin
15) dingir-kr-ra nam-tag(19) (20)hu-mu-tm(21) z-bi nu-mu-da-p
u4-la-la-m -bi an-n b-du-ga.
sag-sg-s nam-tag-mu nu-me-a gaba im-ma-da-ri-e[n]
104
105
276
ba-gub-
(iv)
20) ki-n -u8-a-a-e ba-n-en a-nir mu-un-si-il
alan-sa6-ga-mu g ki-s ba-l giri-s ba-tus-en
[. . .]. P.AH-mu ki ba-ni-in-l uktin-mu ba-kr
[. . .] -nu-ku gri-mu-a ab-s zi-mu ba-da-zal
u4-zalag-ga -u4-HI-da-gim im-ma-an-ak ki-tm-mu ba-an-z-ir
v(a)
25) dub-sar-me-en n-mu-zu-zu a-na-m uh-s ba-ku4-re-en
su-mu sar-re-d ba-DU ka-mu inim-bal-bal im-ma-an-l
ab-ba nu-me-en gist-mu ba-dugud igi-du8-mu ba- gil -gil
vi
gurus-ad-hal -lugal-a-ni b-ta--a-gim sag ki-a mu-tm-tm
l-zu-a-mu na-ma-te-g inim-ma na-ma-ab-b
30) ku-li-mu ad nu-mu-da-gi4-gi4 s-mu la-ba-se4-d
l-in-na su-lum-mar-s ba-ku4-re-en nam-tar-mu ba-kr-e-en
dingir-mu za-ra nir-im-ta-gl-en l-s nam-mu
vii
gurus-me-en
31
lower edge
277
B: en-mah
B adds: -ke4
B: -hal-la
B: daB: -h
B omits
B adds: -ta
B: s !
B: a-na-m
B: -kaB omits
B omits
B: -mu
B: omits
B: e-ne ?
B: -ni-inB: -a (?)
B: ha-ma-tm
C: NE-gim ba-gub
278
24.
25.
26.
2738.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
3637.
3839.
4041
4243.
4445.
4647.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53
54.
55.
56.
57.
5859.
60.
61.
62.
63.
C: gurumx(GAM)
C: omits
C: m-gdC: -mu
C adds -m]u
C: - be-en ?
C omits
C: nu-mu-un-[. . .]
C inverts the next two couplets, thus: 43, 44, 41, 42.
C: asal-l- HI C: omits line 45.
C: hu-mu-ra-ab-t[m]
C: KU-ma-a[b]
C: ki- ru -da-mu
C: i -ni-in-bar
C: arhus tuku-mu- da-ab
C: mi-ni-in-KU?
C omits
C: ga-anC omits
C: -anC omits line 51
C omits
C: -tmC: UN-x-y
C omits 1. 54
C: g-eC: im -ma-ra-sar
C: gisC: -ta
C inserts a line: [. . .]- mu-ra hu-mu- un-gl -[. . .]?
C: -ma-ab-
E. Translation106
i
1. (1) To Enki, the outstanding lord of heaven and earth whose nature is
unequalled
(2) Speak!
2. (3) To Nudimmud, the prince (1) of broad understanding who determines
fates together with An,
3. (4) Who distributes the appropriate divine attributes among the Anunnaki, whose course cannot be [reversed]
4. (5) The omniscient one who is given intelligence from sunrise to sunset,
106
279
5. (6) The lord of knowledge, the king of the sweet waters, the god who
begot me,
(7) Say furthermore!
ii
6. (8) (This is) what Sin-samuh the scribe, the son of Ur-Nin [. . .],
7. (9) your servant, says:
8. (10) Since (2) the day that you created me you have [given] me an education.
9. (11) I have not been negligent toward the name by which you are called,
like a father [. . .].
10. (12) I did not plunder your oerings at the festivals to which I go regularly.
iii
11. (13) (But) now, whatever I do, the judgment of my sin is not [. . .]
12. (14) My fate(3) has come my way, I am lifted onto a place of destruction, I
cannot find an omen.
13. (15) A hostile deity has verily brought sin my way, I cannot find(?) its side.
14. (16) On the day that my vigorous house was decreed by Heaven
15. (17) There is no keeping silent about my sin, I must answer for it.
iv
16. (20) I lie down on a bed of alas and alack, I intone the lament.
17. (21) My goodly figure is bowed down to the ground, I am sitting on (my)
feet.
18. (22) My [. . .]. is lifted from (its) place, my features are changed.
19. (23) [. . .] restlessness is put into my feet, my life ebbs away.
30. (24) The bright day is made like an alloyed day for me107 I slip into my
grave.
v
21. (25) I am a scribe, (but) whatever I have been taught has been turned into
spittle (?) for me
22. (26) My hand is gone for writing, my mouth is inadequate for dialogue.
23. (27) I am not old, (yet) my hearing is heavy, my glance cross-eyed.
24. (18) Like a brewer (?) with a junior term(?) I am deprived of the right to
seal.
107 Cf. Man and his God (Kramer, VT Suppl, 3:175) line 69. Van Dijk also calls
my attention to Ur Lament (Kramer, AS 12:36) 190: u4-HI-da ba-da-an-tab, and the
new variant from Ur (UET 6/2:137:73): u-mud!-e ba-da-an-ku4. This, and parallel
expressions like our line 48 or Reisner, SBH pl. 77:20 f., suggest a meaning day of
darkness and possibly a reading u4-mux-da for our expression.; for mud = dark(ness),
cf. u4-mud = umu da"mu. (CADD 74c), dNanna i-mud = dSin adir (CADA/1: 103b).
Note also an-usan-da = da"ummatu (CADD 123b), where USAN (USN) may have the
280
25. (19) Like a wagon of the highway whose yoke has been broken (?) I am
placed on the road
vi
26. (28) Like an apprentice-diviner who has left his masters house I am
slandered ignobly.
27. (29) My acquaintance does not approach me, speaks never a word with
me,
28. (30) My friend will not take counsel with me, will not put my mind at rest.
29. (31) The taunter has made me enter the tethering-rope, my fate has made
me strange.
30. (32) Oh my god, I rely on you, what have I do to with man?!
vii
31. (33)
32. (34)
33. (35)
34. (36)
35. (37)
36. (38) I am (still) young, must I walk about thus before my time? Must I roll
around in the dust?
37. (39) In a place where my(5) mother and father are not present I am detained,
38.
who will recite my prayer to you?
39. (40) In a place where my kinsmen do not gather I am overwhelmed,
40.
who will bring my oering in to you?
ix
41. (41) Damgalnunna, your beloved first wife,
42. (43) May she bring it to you like my mother, may she introduce my lament before you
43. (43) Asalalimnunna, son of the abyss,
44. (44) May he bring it to you like my father, may he introduce my lament
before you.
45. (45) May he recite my lamentation to you, may he introduce my lament
before you.
x
46. (46) When I(6) have verily brought (my) sin to you, cleanse (?) me from evil!
47. (47) When(7) you have looked upon me in the place where I am cast down,
approach my chamber!(8)
281
48. (48) When(9) you have turned my dark place into daylight,108
49. (49) I will surely dwell in your(10) gate of Guilt-Absolved, I will surely sing
your praises!
50. (50) I will surely tear up my(11) sin like a thread, I will surely proclaim your
exaltation!
xi
51. (51) As you reach the place of heavy sin, I will surely [sing your] praises.
53. (53) Release me at the mouth of the grave, [save me] at the head of my
tomb!
53. (53) (Then) I will surely appear to the people, all the nation will verily
know!
54. (54) Oh my god, I am the one who reveres you!
55. (55) Have mercy on(12) the letter which I have deposited before you!(18)
xii
56. (56) May the heart of my god be restored!
F. Translation-Principal Variants
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
G. Abridged Glossary109
ad-gi4-gi4 (30): von Soden, AHw s.v. malaku Gt (mitluku); van Dijk, SGL 2: 98.
ad-hal (28): CADB s.v. bar.
a-gim (33): von Soden, AHw s.v. kam.
an-da nam-tar (3): Falkenstein, SGL 1:99 f. ad STVC 34 iii 7.
Cf. Kramer, Two Elegies 1. 89.
Only the latest discussions are listed, and occasionally an additional reference. No
282
283
sahar-ra-bala (38): Hallo and van Dijk, loc. cit., s.v. sahar-da . . . gi4.
su-lum-mar (31): Civil, JAOS 88:8 f.
s-ki-bi-gi4-gi4 (56): Civil, Oppenheim AV 89.
2:354:121 f. [v. D.].
su-bar-zi: SL
su-du11 (10): Rmer, SKIZ 69, n. 305. AHw s.v. liptu, lipit qate [v. D.].
sul-a-lum (49): CADE s.v. ennittu.
su-te-g (47): Rmer, SKIZ 86 f.
u4-HI-da (24); Hallo, BiOr. 20:139 s.v. nig-SAR/HI-a and above, n. 106.
uktin (22): Falkenstein, An. Bibl. 12:72 no. 1; ZA 55:4 n. 8; CAD s.vv. bunabuttum,
s. ubur pan [note: Goetze, JAOS 65:225:69 reads ukkur.]
-na-a-du as noun (55): Hallo, Bi. Or. 20:142 [3]; Civil, JNES 23:7 ad Ludingira
7.
-nu-ku (23): CADS. s.v. (la) s. alalu/ s. allu.
-u8-a-a-e (20): Krecher, Sumerische Kultyrik 114 f.
z-dib (1): Rmer, SKIZ 252.
z-p, (15): cf. Kramer, TMH 3 p. 21:9.
z-tag (40): Falkenstein Bi. Or. 22:282 n. 24; Gordon, S.P. pp. 68, 81.
110 Gordon, Bi. Or. 17 (1960) 141 (7) regards these texts as Essay Collection No. 7,
but it is clear that all the texts included in it are letters.
111 Cf. F. Ali, Blowing the horn for ocial announcement, Sumer 20 (1964) 6668.
112 F.A. Ali, Dedication of a dog to Nintinugga, Ar. Or. 34 (1966) 289293.
113 NG 1 (1956) 32.
114 NBC 7800 (unpubl.); separately also on YBC 12074 (unpubl.).
284
B15
B16
B17
B19
115 UET 6:196:4! Some of the other entries in this catalogue duplicate or resemble
entries in the Yale catalogue of royal hymns. Cf. UET 6:196:6 with Hallo, JAOS 83
(1963) 171:13, here: II.1, also UET 6:196:2 and 11 with JAOS 83:171:6 and 9 respectively.
114a After this article was completed, I obtained a Xerox copy of Alis dissertation from
University Microfilms (Ann Arbor, Michigan); to this I owe three or four corrections or
additions in the following list.
116 Perhaps identical with the Indasu whose defeat by Su-Sin
is recorded in late
copies; cf. Edzard, AfO 19 (19591960) 911, but note also J. Laesse, AS 16 (1965)
195 f.
285
From the daughter (?) of Sin-kasid, king of Uruk, to MeslamtaeaNergal(?) (salutations only)117 Text: TRS58
Royal correspondence of Larsa,118 including the following:
From [. . .] to Utu Text: UET 6:182 (?)
From Sin-iddinam, king of Larsa, to Nin-isina119 Texts: UET 8:70;
YBC 4705, YBC 4605 (unpnbl.); cf. also SEM 74.
117 Was there a small collection of Uruk letters between those of Isin and Larsa as in
the case of the royal hymns, for which cf. my remarks JCS 17 (1963) 116? Here: III.1.
118 Cf. S.N. Kramer, JAOS 88 (1968) 108, n. 3.
119 I intend to edit this letter elsewhere.
120 E, I and J are included here only provisionally.
iv.2
LETTERS, PRAYERS, AND LETTER-PRAYERS
288
289
A late fiction has left us an alleged letter (in Akkadian!) from the
first antediluvian sage Adapa (= Adam) to the first antediluvian king
(Alulim),11 but according to earlier native tradition, it was Enmerkar of
Uruk, during the Second Early Dynastic period (ca. 2600 bc), who first
resorted to a written letter.12 The first surviving example of an actual
letter is said to come from Fara at the beginning of the Third Early
Dynastic period (ca. 2500 bc).13 From the end of that period (ca. 2350
2300 bc) at least a half dozen letters have survived, all in Sumerian.14 In
the succeeding Sargonic period (ca. 23002100 bc) letters were written
in both Sumerian15 and Akkadian.16 In the Ur III period (ca. 2100
2000 bc) letter-writing really came into its own. The vast majority of
letters were written in Sumerian; they have been conveniently collected
by Sollberger17 and added to in numerous recent articles and reviews.18
Sollberger entitled his corpus of 373 neo-Sumerian letters The business and administrative correspondence under the kings of Ur.19
11 O.R. Gurney and P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets 2 (1964) Nos. 176 + 185. Cf. the
remarks of M. Civil, JNES 26 (1967) 208. For other implications of the text, cf. Hallo,
Antediluvian Cities, JCS 23 (1970) 62 and note 69; for the equation see provisionally
ibid. 60 and note 36.
12 S.N. Kramer, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (1952) lines 504507. However, the crucial phrase KA . . . gub, which Kramer hesitantly translates as set up the words, has
the technical meaning of assignment, instruction in the school-essays and proverbs.
For the preceding passage (lines 502 f.), according to which the letter was necessitated
because the herald was heavy of mouth, see Tigay, Moses speech diculty, Gratz
College Annual of Jewish Studies 3 (1974) 2942, esp. 37, note 53.
13 Cited by E. Ebeling, RLA 2 (1938) 65 s.v. Briefe, but I have been unable to find a
letter among the published Fara documents, for whose date cf. Hallo, The date of the
Fara period, Gelb Volume (Orientalia 42, 1972) 228238.
14 See the list compiled by E. Sollberger, TCS 1 (1966) p. 3 sub 6.1.2a and add
D.O. Edzard, Sumerische Rechtsurkunden (1968) No. 96 (ITT 2:5758). Cf. also J. Bauer,
Altsumerische Beitrge. 3. Ein altsumerischer Brief, WO 6 (1971) 151 f.
15 See the list complied by Sollberger, TCS 1 (1966) p. 3 sub 6.1.2b (1-1c) and add
T. Donald, MCS 9 (1964) No. 252; Edzard, Sumerische Rechtsurkunden (1968) No. 95
(Sollberger, RA 60, 1966, 71); D.I. Owen, JCS 26 (1974) 65.
16 F.R. Kraus, Einfhrung in die Briefe in altakkadischer Sprache, JEOL 24
(1976) 74104 (with complete bibliography); K.R. Veenhof, ibid., 105110. Cf. also the
bibliography by A.L. Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia (1967) 201.
17 TCS 1 (1966).
18 E.g. Hallo, The neo-Sumerian letter-orders, BiOr (1969) 171175, which see also
for a description of the genre. For other additions see Owen, JCS 24 (1972) 133 f. and
note 1; Piotr Michalowski, JCS 28 (1972) 161168.
19 See Hallo, loc. cit. (above, note 18) 171 f. for a critique of this title.
290
And indeed, like nearly all their more occasional predecessors,20 they
are short and business-like when exchanged between private persons, or
concerned with routine administrative matters when, as was more often
the case, they involved royal chancelleries. But the growing popularity
of the letter format in neo-Sumerian times went hand in hand with
a growing standardization in epistolary style. Not only the opening
formulas21 but the message itself 22 became subject to fairly stringent
rules, a process brought to a head when letter-writing entered the
formal curriculum of the scribal schools. It is these schools which, along
with the temples, preserved the knowledge of Sumerian alive during
the Old Babylonian period (ca. 20001600 bc) while Akkadian became
the vernacular for the population as a whole. The schools continued
to teach the writing of letters in Sumerian even while nearly every
real letter (and thousands of them have survived) was being written in
Akkadian.23 (Whether they also taught Akkadian epistolography is open
to debate).24 And as models of style to this end they turned in the first
instance (as was so often the case also elsewhere in the curriculum)25 to
the examples set and left by the Third Dynasty of Ur.26
20 For a pre-Sargonic letter of more than routine interest, see Sollberger, CIRPL
sub Enz 1, translated by Kramer (after A. Poebel), The Sumerians (1963) p. 331 and by
Sollberger in his Inscriptions Royales Sumriennes et Akkadiennes (1971) pp. 7577 (report on
an Elamite raid to En-entar-zi, the future ruler of Lagash). For a comparable Sargonic
letter (report on Gutian raids by Ishkun-Dagan), see Hallo, Gutium, RLA 3 (1971)
710 and the translation by Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia (1967) 71 f. (No. 2); but
this and the other Ishkun-Dagan letter (ibid., No. 1) may be literary, according to a
suggestion of P. Michalowski.
21 Sollberger, TCS 1 (1966) pp. 2 f. sub 6.1 and 6.1.1.
22 Hallo, BiOr 26 (1969) 172.
23 The huge corpus of Old Babylonian letters is being newly edited by F.R. Kraus
et al., Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und bersetzung (1964 .). For English translations
of selected Akkadian letters of all periods, see Oppenheim, Letters From Mesopotamia. For
the last examples of (non-literary) Sumerian letters in Early Old Babylonian see Hallo,
BiOr 26 (1969) 175 (Nos. 388390).
24 Kraus defended this thesis in Briefschreibbungen im altbabylonischen Schulunterricht, JEOL 16 (1964) 1639 and then questioned it in his introduction to
AbB 5 (1972) vii f. For an Old Babylonian school letter from Sargon of Akkad, see now
O.K. Gurney, UET 7 (1974) 73 I 117.
25 Cf. e.g. my remarks on lexical texts, HUCA 30 (1959) 136.
26 For general surveys see Hallo, List of letter-prayers and other neo-Sumerian
literary letters, loc. cit., (above, note 4), 88 f.; C. Wilcke, Die Quellen der literarisch
berlieferten Briefe, ZA 60 (1970) 6769 with 4 tables. Earlier surveys by Edzard,
AfO 19 (19591960) 3 n. 27 and Kraus, ib. 20 (1963) 153155.
291
292
293
was itself a votive, royal or divine statue.43 In this function, in short, the
petition served as a vehicle of communication with deceased or divine
intercessors. I have therefore designated the genre as a letter-prayer,
and assigned it a major role in the development of individual prayer in
Sumerian.44
The typical letter-prayer began with a salutation loaded and overloaded with epithets of the addressee suitable to the purposes of the
petitioner. If sickness plagued him, he might rehearse the healing powers of the deity; if unjustly accused, the kings concern for righteousness;
if promotion to higher oce was his goal, he might remind a superior of his solicitousness for underlings in general and his past favors
to the suppliant in particular. To accommodate the growing number of
invocations, the address formula was expanded into two or even three
salutations, each with its own stereotyped predicate.45
The message too assumed a more literary cast. Usually it is possible
to isolate discrete sections, devoted respectively and successively to the
recital of the addressees past beneficences, the petitioners past deserts
and present tribulations, and his promise to sing the deitys praises to
the multitudes when and if his wishes are fulfilled. The parallels that
this structure suggests to the biblical psalms of individual lament or
thanksgiving are apparent, and the millennium or more that separate
the respective genres can be largely bridged by the later development
of the letter-prayer into the ersahunga, the lament for appeasing the
heart of the angry god which became the typical vehicle for individual
prayer in Sumerian after Old Babylonian times.46 Although the generic
43 Hallo JAOS 88 (1968) 79 and note 74, here: IV.1. Even when a private individual is
addressed (above, note 40), note that he is apostrophized in terms more suitable for the
statues of the protective deities that flanked the entrance to temples and palaces (dalad,
dlamma). Note an Akkadian letter-prayer similarly addressed via the writers personal
deity (a-na DINGIR a-bi-ia) to Marduk! Lutz, YOS 2:141; cf. the edition by van Dijk, La
Sagesse . . . (1953) 13 f., and the remarks by Kraus, Ein altbabylonischer Brief an eine
Gottheit, RA 65 (1971) 36.
44 Above, note 4. See there for details of the characterization oered here.
45 The first two found their way into the Old Babylonian lexical list called izi
(M. Civil et al., MSL 13 [1971] 33 lines 487 f.) and, from there (?), all three were incorporated, oddly enough, into the late canonical lexicon of professional names called L =
sa (Civil et al., MSL 12 [1969] 106 lines 8486; cf. the collation of C.B.F. Walker, BiOr 29
[1972] 310 ad loc.). Cf. also the catchline of NBGT I (MSL 4 [1956] 147: cf. TCS 1, p. 1).
46 For recent discussions of this genre, see Hallo, JAOS 88 (1968) 8082, here: IV.1;
JCS 24 (1971) 40 ad SLTF 223; JAOS 97 (1977) 584 f. ad M.J. Seux, Hymnes et Prires
. . . (1976) 139168; W.G. Lambert, JNES 33 (1974) 267322; Werner Mayer, Studia Pohl:
Series Maior 5 (1976) 32 note 63.
294
295
Up to this point in time (i.e., ca. 1900 bc), the literary letters of the
school curriculum were of two discrete types, though both types were
grouped together, in some instances, on large single tablets. The historical letters were written by the living king, or to him by his highest ocials, while the letter-prayers were all composed by private individuals.
The letter-prayer, indeed, represented the private individuals cheapest
form of communication with the deity, for though the Mesopotamian
worshipper seems to have lived by the rule of
(Deut. 16:16; cf. Ex. 23:15, 34:20), he could rarely aord the optimal
dedicatory, or votive, oering: the statue of the worshipper set up in the
cella of the deity and inscribed with his prayer, which was conceived
thereby as proerred perpetually by the statue of the worshipper to the
statue of the deity, both statues serving as images or surrogates of their
originals.53 Less costly votives were available: usually elaborate stone
carvings and replicas of bowls, maceheads, seals and other tools and
weapons of daily life.54 Their inscriptions might proclaim their purpose
in the standard votive formulas as being for the sake of the long life
of the donor and/or designated beneficiaries such as the king, or the
donors wife and children. Or, alternatively, a specific prayer, whether
as a petition for success in a given venture, or as thanks for favors
previously asked and now granted, might be added to the basic dedicatory inscription, usually as the name of the votive object.55 Even
such objects, however, proved too expensive for the masses. As a result,
the letter was introduced as an alternate form of petition. Possibly it
required a small concomitant oering and certainly a fee to the scribe,
but no more. A letter addressed to the deity (or to the deified king)
via his statue could be commissioned from any trained scribe, and
deposited at the feet of the cult-statue much as generations of worshippers have inserted their letters to God in the chinks of the Western
Wall.
53
The result was often a chapel filled with statues, such as those recovered by the
Chicago expeditions to the Diyala Valley cities of the Early Dynastic period; cf. e.g.
P. Delougaz and S. Lloyd, Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region (OIP 58, 1942) 188,
fig. 149.
54 For a more detailed typology of votive objects, see Hallo, HUCA 33 (1962) 1214;
for their inscriptions, ibid., 16 f.; Sollberger and Kupper Inscriptions Royales (1971) 29 f.,
For the view that the objects should be termed dedicatory rather than votive see
A.K. Grayson, JAOS 90 (1970) 528 f.; G. van Driel, JAOS 93 (1973) 68 f.
55 See I. J, Gelb, The names of ex-voto objects in ancient Mesopotamia, Names 21
(1956) 6569.
296
297
letter-prayer can be followed from the 19th century bc all the way to
the 7th. Therewith the potential link to the royal prayer in the Bible is
strengthened.62
62 See above, note 1. For a possible epigraphic parallel to the cuneiform letter-prayer,
see Joseph Naveh, A Hebrew letter from the seventh century bc, Israel Exploration Journal 10 (1960) 129139; cf. Dennis Pardee, The judicial plea from Mes.ad Hashavyahu
.
(Yavneh-Yam): a new philological study, Maarav 1/1 (1978) 3366, who classifies the
document as a judicial plea in epistolary formin more traditional terms, a letter of
petition (ibid., 38; cf. ibid. 55).
iv.3
LAMENTATIONS AND PRAYERS
IN SUMER AND AKKAD
Congregational Laments
Forerunners in Main-Dialect Sumerian
The earliest example of a congregational lament dates from the Old
Sumerian period and constitutes a kind of forerunner to the lamentations over the destruction of temples and cities of the Neo-Sumerian
canon. The Fall of Lagash is a unique composition, preserved on a
single clay tablet dating from, or at least referring to, Uru-inimgina
(Urukagina), the last ruler of the First Dynasty of Lagash, around
300
301
able for subsequent reuse in the liturgy, but they were adopted into
the Neo-Sumerian canon and widely recopied in the scribal schools of
mid Old Babylonian times (about 18001700). Three of them were written wholly or largely in the main dialect of Sumerian. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, which may be the first in
the series, catalogs the devastation visited on all the major cities of the
Ur III Dynasty in its second stanza, while concentrating on the capital
city of Ur in the other four. The laments for Eridu and Uruk (modern
Warka, biblical Erech) bemoan the fates of these two cities in at least
eight and twelve stanzas respectively.
Three other city-laments bewailed the fate of the political capital at
Ur, the religious capital at Nippur (modern Nuar), and, in fragmentary form, the more obscure town or temple of Ekimar. They were
written wholly or largely in a dialect of Sumerian called Emesal (literally thin or attenuated speech). This dialect was aected, in literary texts, by women or goddesses and by the liturgical singers (GALA
= kal) who specialized in reciting lamentations. Females were often
described as bemoaning the fate of their cities, their husbands, or their
sons, and the theme of the weeping mother (sometimes compared to
the mater dolorosa of the Christian tradition) has been recognized in several types of laments. The kal-singers may have been castrati singing
in a kind of falsetto; in any case, they became the butt of unflattering
references, particularly in the proverbs.
Tambourine-Laments and Harp-Songs in Dialectal Sumerian
Inevitably, the Dynasty of Isin came to an end, meeting its doom at the
hands of the rival Dynasty of Larsa. The event was commemorated in a
number of compositions in which Nin-Isina (the divine Lady of Isin)
in one or another of her various manifestations laments the fate of
her city. Most often, these compositions were labeled as tambourine
laments (R.SM.MA,
from R = tazzimtu, lament, or biktu, wailing,
302
Except for those that refer to Isin, they do not, like the city-laments,
describe a specific, historical destruction or reconstruction and can
better be regarded as ritual laments. They couched their complaints
in such generalized language that they could be reused liturgically
for many centuries. Indeed, some of the Old Babylonian examples of
the genre recur in copies of the first millennium, and new examples
were still being copied and perhaps even composed as late as the first
century.
But the late ershemmas served a new purpose. Except when used in
certain ritual performances (KI.DU.DU = kidud), the first-millennium
ershemmas were now appended to another genre, the song of the harp
or lyre (BALAG = balaggu). Harp-songs were alluded to already in
the third millennium and are known from a dozen actual examples
in the second and from many more in the first. They included some
of the longest of all Sumerian poems. They were divided into liturgical stanzas like the city-laments, but sometimes featured as many as
sixty-five or more of them. Occasionally they were accompanied by
glosses (marginal annotations) possibly representing musical notations
or instructions. In their late form, each harp-song concluded with a
tambourine-lament, and the resulting combinations were catalogued
together as 39 lamentations of gods (literally of Enlil) and 18
lamentations of goddesses (literally of Inanna). All were written in
dialectal Sumerian, but the first-millennium recensions often added a
word-for-word translation into Akkadian, which was inserted between
the Sumerian lines in interlinear fashion.
A survey of the entire genre as well as the detailed history of particular examples shows clearly that these long compositions became
increasingly repetitive; they were filled with stock phrases; and sometimes with whole stock-stanzas. The eect is best described as litanylike. That these compositions were employed in the liturgy is clear from
cultic calendars that specified their recitation on certain days of the cultic year, sometimes in identical form for dierent deities on dierent
days. In this way, their divorce from specific historical events became
complete.
303
304
deity to the world of the living. Even Inanna, who, according to the
mythology, was responsible for consigning Dumuzi to the netherworld
in the first place, participated in these appeals. The Death of Dumuzi
is recounted in a moving Sumerian lament and incorporated in a number of other compositions of a mythological character, such as The
Descent of Inanna, Dumuzis Dream, Dumuzi and the GALLAdemons, and Inanna and Bilulu.
The historical tradition knew of two mortals who also bore the name
of Dumuzi, one a shepherd and ruler of Pa-tibira (or Bad-tibira)
before the Flood, the other a fisherman and ruler of Uruk just before
Gilgamesh. On the basis of late laments in which the divine Dumuzi
is associated (or even identified) with other antediluvian kings, and of
references to him in other laments as shepherd, the earlier mortal
(rather than the later one) may have served as prototype of the deity.
Laments for Kings
The deified Mesopotamian kings of the classical period (about 2250
1750) were considered stand-ins for Dumuzi, especially in the rite of
the sacred marriage and, albeit more rarely, in the ceremonies surrounding their death and burial. The death of kings was a major
concern of Mesopotamian ideology, particularly if death was untimely
or took a bizarre form. The topic was often addressed in the historiography, particularly in its characteristically Mesopotamian form of
(historical) omens, which assumed connections between observed natural phenomena and historical events. At other times the issue was
dealt with in the liturgy, if it can be assumed that some laments for
Dumuzi were actually addressed to the newly deceased king. (See also
Theologies, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Mesopotamia in Part 8,
Vol. III, and Love Lyrics from the Ancient Near East in Part 9,
Vol. IV.)
There were also a number of compositions mentioning the king by
name. Their prototype may be The Death of Gilgamesh, a Sumerian
epic that details the legendary fate of this celebrated ruler of Uruk.
Certainly this narrative has many points of resemblance with The
Death of Ur-Nammu, a poem about how the founder of the Third
Dynasty of Ur met his death in battle, a fate Mesopotamian kings
normally reserved for their enemies. This lament composed for UrNammus burial was so moving and so personal in its language that it
has sometimes been attributed to his widow.
305
Lamenting the death of Mesopotamian royalty was also noted outside of strictly literary texts. Thus, for example, the founder of the
Individual Laments
Elegies
The destruction of cities or temples and the real or imaginary death
of gods and kings were all alike cause for communal or congregational
lament. The death of a private individual, however, or even the sickness
or discomfiture of a king, were cause for individual lament. The death
of individuals inspired the elegy, which is infrequently attested. Two
such elegies, identified as I.LU (= nub or qubb), are attributed to
a certain Lu-dingira (man of God) and recited over his deceased
father and wife, respectively. Lu-dingira is known from another text
306
307
308
deity). Such laments typically conclude with the wish, May your
heart be appeased like that of a natural mother, like that of a natural father. This is a slightly expanded form of the most common ending of the earlier letter-prayers: May the heart of my god (or king)
be appeased. Other major characteristics of these laments also echo
309
MA SU.L.LA.KAM),
Because they combine the form of an incantation with the function of a prayer, they are often referred to in German
as Gebetsbeschwrungen (incantation-prayers); in English they are more
often known as prayers in rituals of expiation. Collectively, they constitute a late and wholly Akkadian means of communication with the
divine. They feature prominently a section devoted to complaint or
310
4 DINGIR.L.LUx.KAM), but no
mans (personal) god (R.S.NE.
SA
other examples of such a genre are known, and it may be questioned
whether it is liturgical in character. Like the later Akkadian treatments
of the theme, it has a fairly simple tripartite structure, beginning with
311
312
313
Then will I surely appear to the people, all the nation will verily know!
Oh my god, I am one who knows reverence!
Have mercy on the letter which I have deposited before you!
May the heart of my god be appeased!
314
the Book of Jashar (Book of the Upright, 2 Samuel 1:18) or, perhaps,
the Book of Song, and it was to be taught to the Judaeans. Similarly,
Jeremiahs laments over King Josiah were entered in the anthology of
qn-laments (2 Chronicles 35:25). The genre was also used to mourn
nonroyalty, as in Davids brief lament for Abner (2 Samuel 3:3334),
an analogue of sorts to the Sumerian and Akkadian elegies for private
individuals.
The royal letter-prayers in Sumerian find an echo in the Psalm of
Hezekiah (Isaiah 38:920) who, like King Sin-iddinam of Larsa, pleads
for divine release from illness by composing a prayer described as a
miktab (written document). It may be related to the genre of miktam
in the Psalter (Psalms 16, 5660) and to other forms of individual
laments there. Like the late bilingual laments for appeasing the heart,
the individual laments of the Psalter have lost the explicit epistolary
structure and formulas of the earlier Sumerian letter-prayers, but they
retain other echoes of possible prototypes in letter form.
The obvious parallels between the Just-Suerer compositions in
Sumerian and Akkadian and the biblical book of Job, including its
ancient prose narrative frame, extend not only to their comparable
treatments of a common theme but also, in the case of The Babylonian Theodicy, to the dialogue structure familiar from the poetic
core of the book of Job. Thus, while there are undoubtedly universal
elements in the language of lamentation everywhere, its particular evolution in Mesopotamia permits the reconstruction of genre histories.
It also suggests the possibility that some features of this millennial tradition influenced biblical psalmody and wisdom literature before and
during the exilic period (sixth century bce).
Bibliography
General Studies
Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once. . . . Sumerian Poetry in Translation
(1987), contains a number of Sumerian texts sensitively translated and
annotated. Relevant to this chapter are those translated on pp. 2884,
357374, and 445484
Joachim Krecher, Klagelied, Reallexikon der Assyriologie, vol. 6 (19801983),
studies the lament as a literary type; and in Jack M. Sasson, ed., Studies in
Literature from the Ancient Near East (1984), are discussed particular examples
of laments on pp. 6782, 143148, 193200, 211215, 255260, and 315
320.
315
Congregational Laments
Forerunners in main-dialect sumerian
Jerrold S. Cooper, The Curse of Agade (1983).
City Laments in Main-Dialect and Dialectal Sumerian
Margaret W. Green, The Eridu Lament, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 30
(1978)
Samuel N. Kramer, Kes and Its Fate, Gratz College Anniversary Volume,
edited by isidore david passow and samuel tobias lachs (1971)
, The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa
Biblical Archaeologist 46 (1983), and Lamentation over the Destruction of
Nippur, Acta Sumerologica 13 (1991)
Piotr Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (1989).
Tambourine-Laments and Harp-Songs in Dialectal Sumerian
Bendt Alster, Edin-na -sag-g: Reconstruction, History, and Interpretation of a Sumerian Cultic Lament, Rencontre assyriologique internationale 32
(1985)
Jeremy A. Black, A-se-er Gi6-ta, a Balag of Inana, Acta Sumerologica 7
(1985)
, Sumerian Balag Compositions, Bibliotheca Orientalis 44 (1987)
Mark E. Cohen, Sumerian Hymnology: The Ersemma (1981), The Canonical
316
Dumuzi-Laments
Bendt Alster, Dumuzis Dream; Aspects of Oral Poetry in a Sumerian Myth (1972),
and A Dumuzi Lament in Late Copies, Acta Sumerologica 7 (1985)
Samuel N. Kramer, The Death of Dumuzi: A New Sumerian Version,
Anatolian Studies 30 (1980).
Laments for Kings
William W. Hallo, The Death of Kings, in Ah, Assyria: Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor,
edited by Mordechai Cogan and Israel Ephal, Scripta Hierosolymitana, vol. 33 (1991).
Individual Laments
Elegies
Samuel N. Kramer, Two Elegies on a Pushkin Museum Tablet: A New Sumerian
Literary Genre (1960); and The Gir5 and the ki-sikil: A New Sumerian
Elegy, Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (=
Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences), edited by
Maria de Jong Ellis (1977)
Erica Reiner, Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut: Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria (1985).
Private Letter-Prayers in Sumerian
William W. Hallo, Individual Prayer in Sumerian; The Continuity of a
Tradition, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88, no. 1 (1968), here: IV.1
and Letters, Prayers, and Letter-Prayers, Proceedings of the Seventh World
Congress of Jewish Studies, 1977 2 (1981), here: IV.2.
Royal Letter-Prayers in Sumerian
William W. Hallo, The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: I. A Sumerian
Prototype for the Prayer of Hezekiah? in Cuneiform Studies in Honor of
Samuel Noah Kramer, edited by Barry L. Eichler, Alter Orient und Altes
Testament, vol. 25 (1976), here: V.1
, II. The Appeal to Utu, in zikir sumim: Assyriological Studies Presented
to F.R. Kraus, edited by G. van Driel (1982), here: V.2
, III. The Princess and the Plea, in Marchands, Diplomates et Empereurs,
edited by D. Charpin and F. Joannes (1991), here: V.3
, The Expansion of Cuneiform Literature, Proceedings of the American
Academy for Jewish Research 4647 (19791980).
Bilingual and Akkadian Letter-Prayers
Rykle Borger, Ein Brief Sin-iddinams von Larsa an den Sonnengott.
Sowie Bemerkungen ber Joins und das Joinen, Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gttingen; I. Philologisch-historische Klasse (1991)
317
F.R. Kraus, Ein altbabylonischer Privatbrief an eine Gottheit, Revue dAssyriologie 65 (1971).
Bilingual Laments for Appeasing the Heart
Samuel N. Kramer, The Fashioning of the Gala, Acta Sumerologica 3 (1981)
Stefan M. Maul, Herzberuhigungsklagen: die sumerisch-akkadischen Ersahunga
Gebete (1988)
Piotr Michalowski, On the Early History of the Ershahunga Prayer,
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 39, no. 1 (1987).
Individual Prayer in Akkadian
Rudolf Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Formsprache der babylonischen Gebetsbeschwrungen (1976)
Cecil J. Mullo Weir, A Lexicon of Accadian Prayers in the Rituals of Expiation
(1934).
Just Suerer Compositions
W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (1960)
Gerald L. Mattingly, The Pious Suerer: Mesopotamias Traditional
Theodicy and Jobs Counselors, in The Bible in the Light of Cuneiform
Literature: Scripture in Context III, edited by William W. Hallo, Bruce
William Jones, and Gerald L. Mattingly, (1990)
Jean Nougayrol, Une version ancienne du juste sourant, Revue Biblique
59 (1952), and (Juste) sourant (R.S.25.460), Ugaritica 5 (1968)
Donald J. Wiseman, A New Text of the Babylonian Poem of the Righteous
Suerer, Anatolian Studies 30 (1980).
Possible Biblical Analogues
Jean Bottro, Le Problems du Mal et de la Justice Divine Babylone et dans la
Bible, Recherches et Documents du Centre Thomas More, vol. 14 (1976)
F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre
in the Hebrew Bible (1993)
Paul Wayne Ferris, The Genre of the Communal Lament in the Bible and the
Ancient Near East (1992)
William C. Gwaltney, The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context
of Near Eastern Literature, Scripture in Context II, edited by William W.
Hallo, James C. Moyer, and Leo G. Perdue (1983)
Thomas F. Mcdaniel, The Alleged Sumerian Influence upon Lamentations, Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968).
See also The Influence of Ancient Mesopotamia on Hellenistic Judaism (Part
1, Vol. I) and Hittite Prayers (Part 8, Vol. III).
iv.4
TWO LETTER-PRAYERS TO AMURRU*
* The substance of this paper was presented to the joint meeting of the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago,
20 November 1994, for the session entitled Scholar for all Seasons: A Tribute to Cyrus
H. Gordon.
1 J.J.M. Roberts, The Earliest Semitic Pantheon: A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested to
in Mesopotamia before Ur III (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972),
p. 16. According to J. Zarins, Jebel Bishri and the Amorite Homeland: the PPNB
phase, in O.M.C. Haex et al. (eds.), To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies
in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon (Rotterdam/Brookfield, VT: A.A. Balkema, 1989),
p. 44, the Amorites were Semitic populations . . . from the western desert of Iraq and
Southeastern Syria involved in pastoral nomadism.
2 A. Archi, Mardu in the Ebla texts, Or 54 (1985), pp. 713.
3 K.A. Al-A"dami, Old Babylonian Letters from ed-Der Sumer 23 (1967), pp. 151
167 and pls. 117 and facing p. 156, esp. pp. 153156 (IM 19431 = IM 49341!). For the
possible identification of ed-Der (Tall ad-Dair) with Sippar-Yahrarum, see L. de Meyer
in Rpertoire gographique des textes cuniformes 3 (1980), pp. 208209.
4 But cf. S.J. Lieberman in M. de J, Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial (Occasional
Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 14; Philadelphia: The University
Museum, 1992), p, 129 n. 13.
320
321
16 W.W. Hallo, Oriental Institute Museum Notes 10: The Last Years of the Kings
of Isin, JNES 18 (1959), pp. 5472. Latest re-edition by D. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period
(20031595 bc ) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods, 4; Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 1990), pp. 103104.
17 Frayne, Old Babylonian Period, pp. 305308.
18 Frayne, Old Babylonian Period, p. 360.
19 J. -R, Kupper, LIconographie du dieu Amurru dans la glyptique de la I re dynastie babylonienne (Acadmie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres, Mmoires, 55,1; Brussels: Palais
des Acadmies, 1961). Cf, pp. 6976, for the sources littraires.
20 O.R. Gurney, Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum (OECT, 11;
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), No. 1; cf. pp. 1519 and W. von Soden, Zu dem
altbabylonischen Hymnus an Anmartu und Asratum mit Verheissungen an Rm-Sn,
NABU (1989), p. 78 No. 105.
21 For various proposals see A. Falkenstein, Sumerische Gtterlieder (Abhandlungen der
Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse 1959/1; Heidelberg: Carl
Winter, 1959), p. 120 n. 2.
22 F. Thureau-Dangin in G. Cros, Nouvelles fouilles de Tello (Paris: E. Leroux, 1910),
p. 207.
23 A. Poebel, Sumerische Untersuchungen. II: V. Der Emesal-Text AO 4331 + 4335
Vs. 25, ZA 37 (1927), pp. 161176, 245272.
24 VS 2.7577.
25 E. Bergmann, Untersuchungen zu syllabisch geschriebenen sumerischen Texten:
3, ZA 57 (1965), pp. 3133.
26 For this genre, and the translation oered here, see in greater detail Hallo,
Lamentations, apud J.M. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. III (New
York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1995), pp. 18711881, here: IV.3.
27 CT 42.7 iv; cf. S.N. Kramer, CT XLII: a Review Article, JCS 18 (1964), p. 41.
The text is 28 lines long.
322
28 On this genre see C. Wilcke, Formale Gesichtspunkte in der sumerischen Literatur, in S. J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen (AS, 20;
Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 1975), p. 287; it is entered among other
genres in line 594 of the unilingual lexical list known as Old Babylonian Proto-L; see
Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon 12 (1969). p. 54.
29 E. Chiera, Sumerian Religious Texts (Crozer Theological Seminary Babylonian Publications, 1; Upland, PA, 1924), No, 8; idem, Sumerian Epics and Myths (Oriental Institute
Publications, 15; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934). No. 58.
30 Falkenstein, Sumerische Gtterlieder, No. 4.
31 Chiera, Sumerian Religious Texts, pp. 1423.
32 S.N. Kramer. Sumerian Mythology (Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society,
21; Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1944; 2nd edn. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1961), pp. 98101 and n. 89. Cf. idem, The Sumerians (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1963), p. 253; new edition idem. The Marriage of Martu, in J. Klein
and A. Skaist (eds.), Bar Ilan Studies in Assyriology Dedicated to Pinhas Artzi (Ramat Gan:
Bar Ilan University Press, 1990), pp. 1127.
33 Kupper, LIconographie, p. 75.
34 G. Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period (Istituto Orientale di Napoli Ricerche,
1; Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli, 1966), p. 339.
35 J. Klein, The Marriage of Martu: The Urbanization of Barbaric Nomads , in
M. Malul (ed.), Mutual Influences of Peoples in the Ancient Near East (Michmanim, 9; Haifa:
University of Haifa, 1996), pp. 8396. Cf. also idem, Additional Notes to The Marriage
of Martu , in A.F. Rainey (ed.), kinattutu sa darti: Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume (Tel
Aviv: Institute of Archaeology, 1993), pp. 93106.
323
36 On this genre see most recently Hallo, Lamentations, here: IV.3. Previously
S.M. Maul, Herzberuhigungsklagen: Die sumerisch-akkadischen Ersahunga-Gebete (Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1988), and the reviews by M.E. Cohen, JAOS 110 (1990), pp. 571
572 and by Hallo, BiOr 49 (1992), pp. 7778.
37 Bergmann, Untersuchungen, pp. 3342.
38 P. Michalowski, On the Early History of the Ershahunga Prayer, JCS 39 (1987),
pp. 3748, esp. p. 42 (4).
39 Michalowski, Early History, pp. 4243 (6).
40 Hallo, review of M, i
g and H. Kizilyay, Sumerian Literary Tablets and Fragments in
the Archaeological Museum of Istanbul I, JCS 24 (1971), p. 40.
41 See Hallo, above, n. 36.
42 A parallel of sorts may be found in the tradition of model-letters in Chinese
culture; cf. A. McNair, The Engraved Model-letters Compendia of the Song Dynasty,
JAOS 114 (1994), pp. 209225. My colleague H. Stimson assures me that the modelletters in these compendia indeed refer to epistles not characters.
43 Misspelled dMAR.MAR.TU, but this is just one of many mistakes noted by the
editor.
44 W.H. van Soldt, Letters in the British Museum (AbB, 12; Leiden: E J. Brill, 1990),
pp. 8485, No. 99.
45 Van Soldt, Letters, p. 84.
46 F.R. Kraus, Altbabylonisches ze"pum, BiOr 24 (1967), pp. 1214. Previously Hallo,
The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: a Typology, HUCA 33 (1962), p. 14.
47 J.J. Finkelstein, Late Old Babylonian Documents and Letters (YOS, 13; New Haven/London: Yale University Press, 1972), pp. 46; cf. S. Greengus, review of CT 58 and AbB 7,
JAOS 101 (1981), p. 258.
324
The evidence for the existence of a tradition of Old Babylonian letterprayers written in Akkadian has been mounting steadily.50 In 1968, I
was able to list only four possible examples, three of them from Mari.51
One of these is probably addressed, not to a personal deity (lamassu),
but to an Assyrian princess named Lamassi or Lamassi-Assur.52 The
others have been newly translated by Moran,53 Charpin and Durand54
and Foster55 respectively. (Whether the appeal of Kussulu56 to the
Hallo, The Neo-Sumerian Letter-Orders, BiOr 26 (1969), pp. 171175, esp. p. 172.
Hallo, Individual prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition, JAOS 88
(1968), repr. in Essays in Memory of E.A. Speiser (ed, W.W. Hallo; AOS, 53. 1968), pp. 71
89, here: IV.1, esp. p. 76.
50 Cf. the survey by R. Borger, RLA 3 (19571971), pp. 575576, to which the following may be considered a supplement.
51 Hallo, Individual Prayer, p. 78 n. 43, here: IV.1.
52 M. Birot et al., Rpertoire analytique 2 (ARM, 16/1; Paris: Geuthner, 1979), p. 143 s.
vv. (ARM 4.68).
53 W.L. Moran, A Letter to a God, ANET (3rd edn, 1969), p. 627, based on
G. Dossin, Les archives pistolaires du palais de Mari. Syria 19 (1938), pp. 125126).
54 D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, La prise du pouvoir par Zimri-Lim, MARI 4
(1985), pp. 339342, with a new copy; cf. pp. 293299; cf. J.M. Sasson, Yasmah-Addus
Letter to God (ARM 1:3), NABU (1987), pp. 6364 No. 109.
55 B.R. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL
Press, 1993), p. 157 No. II 38 = idem, From Distant Days: Myths, Tales, and Poetry of Ancient
Mesopotamia (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1995), p. 294; previous translation by T. Jacobsen et al., Before Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1949), p. 221 (YOS 2:141).
56 I follow the transcription of Foster, Before the Muses, I, pp. 154155 = idem, From
Distant Days, pp. 293294, on the assumption that the name alludes to a bodily defect,
perhaps involving the kaslu/kislu.
48
49
325
326
327
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
SU.BA.ZI
mi-ni-in-TAR
...
[x y z] kr-ra-ta kar-mu-da? -nigin2 When I escape from a hostile. . . he
nam-mu-en
turns aroundwhat is it to me?
e ? -ne ? dingir-mu-da ? s-ne-sa4-mu With This is my god may your
holy heart proer my plea!
s-k-zu h-tm
SI
da-rka ! -tar-zu h-si-il-e For enduring ages (?) may I recite
[DI]S.
me!-ts h-i-i
your praises, in unison may I bless
you!
328
ll. 56
ll. 79
ll. 1012
ll. 1314
ll. 1517
ll. 1819
ll. 57
ll. 812
ll. 1314
l. 15
l. 16
329
and the description of the present plight, while dealing lightly or not all
with the subsections devoted to past deserts80 and the vow, and with the
closing formula.81
It must be left for another occasion to compare and contrast all the
respective elements of the letter-prayers thus identified from examples
in both languages. Here I will confine myself to just one of them, as an
indication of where such investigations may lead. I refer to what may
be called the mailing instructions of the letter-prayers. These form
the conclusion of the Akkadian letter-prayer to Amurru, which I would
retranslate as follows: May whoever sees me forward (my message)
to your well-disposed godliness.82 In the Sumerian letter-prayer they
constitute, in its entirety, the petition: With This is my god may your
holy heart proer my plea!83 The implication here seems to be that
Amurru, acting as the petitioners personal deity, will forward his plea
to an even higher authority, presumably one of the great gods of the
Sumerian pantheon.
Such mailing instructions are implicit in votive inscriptions beginning with the most expensive kind as represented by statues, and for
which letter-prayers are simply a cheaper substitute. Sometimes, indeed, they are explicit, as when Gudea instructs his statue to speak
to (the statue of ?) Ningirsu, using precisely an epistolary form of salutation: Gudea said to (or: placed a word into the mouth of ) the
statue (saying): Statue! Speak (to) my king,84 or when Sin-iddinam of
Larsa commissioned a statue of his father Nur-Adad and two letters
which that statue was asked to convey to the sun-god Utu, patron-deity
of Larsa.85 They are justified by the philological evidence to the
eect that prayers were placed in the mouth of statues86 and the
330
de Recherches en Msopotamie, 1970), pp. 116134, here: I.2 esp. 119 and n. 5, 122 and
n. 3.
87 Hallo, Individual Prayer, p. 79 and n. 74.
88 Hallo, The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry, p. 122 n. 3, here: I.2, with
reference to the stone tablet published by F. Thureau-Dangin, La desse Nisaba, RA 7
(1910), p. 107.
89 Hallo, The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry, p. 134, here: I.2, addendum to
p. 122 n. 3, with reference to The Fall of Lagash; dierently H.E. Hirsch, Die
Snde Lugalzagesis, in G. Wiessner (ed.), Festschrift fur Wilhelm Eilers (Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz, 1967), pp. 99106, esp. 102 n. 36.
90 BE I 15 (Shulgi 41) = Shulgi 66 in D.R. Frayne, Ur III Period (21122004 bc) (The
Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods, 3/2; Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 1997), pp. 170171.
91 Hallo, Individual Prayer, pp. 8287, here: IV.1.
92 -na-a-du mu-ra-gub-ba-mu arhus tuk-ma-r[a].
11
93 -na-a-du
11 im-ma-ra-sar gis tuk-ma-ta / [ . . . ] -mu-ra (or: -ke4) hu-mu-un(or:-ebar-x)-gl [ . . . ].
94 Rim-Sin of Larsa according to Piotr Michalowski (orally).
95 -na-a-du mu-ra-ab-gub-ba s lugal-mu hl ma-ak-e /[ . . . ] s-x-dim-ma-mu ga11
mu-na-ab-du11 -du11.
v
royal correspondence
v.i
THE ROYAL CORRESPONDENCE OF LARSA:
I. A SUMERIAN PROTOTYPE FOR THE PRAYER
OF HEZEKIAH?1
which came to mean letter in later Biblical Hebrew (e.g. II Ch. 21:12),5
This paper, presented to the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem,
August 14, 1973, is dedicated to Professor Samuel Noah Kramer on the occasion of his
77th birthday.
2 Individual prayer in Sumerian: the continuity of a tradition, JAOS 88 (1968),
7189; also published in Essays in Memory of E.A. Speiser, ed. W.W. Hallo (= AOS 53
[1968]), pp. 7189, here: IV.1.
3 F.M.Th. de Liagre Bhl in Studia Biblica et Semitica Theodoro Christiano Vriezen dedicata (1966), p. 213, note 1.
4 Joachim Begrich, Der Psalm des Hiskia: ein Beitrag zum Verstndnis von Jesaja
38:1020 (1926). Cf. P.A.H. de Boer, Notes on the Text and Meaning of Isaiah
XXXVIII 920, Oudtestamentische Studin 9 (1951), 170186.
5 The usual term for letter in this period is SE
PER; cf. e.g. Isaiah 37:14. Later
30:1) as did Aramaic (Ezra 5:6)
Biblical Hebrew also used the term IGGERET (II Chr.
(Ezra 4:7, 18) and PITGAM
(ib. 17) occur.
eWAN
where, in addition, NIST
334
but which critical opinion, both modern and traditional, here tends
psalms linked to events in the life of David (Pss. 16, 5660). And while
is translated in the Greek Bible simply by PROSEUCHE
MIKTAB
(prayer), MIKTAM
is consistently rendered by STELOGRAPHA,
335
336
337
338
339
praises. This is, incidentally, early and important testimony for the
Mesopotamian conception according to which royal piety is the warrant for national well-being (and fertility), in sharp distinction to the
Biblical, and especially Deuteronomic, concept of collective responsibility
for the common weal. The final two lines invoke the kings own personal case: And as for me, for my reverence give me health, bestow
on me long life as a present! They thus form a fitting transition to the
other new letter prayer of Sin-iddinam.
This is preserved in its entirety on two unpublished tablets of the
Yale Babylonian Collection, and in part on three published and unpublished duplicates from other collections. It is addressed to Nin-isina,
tutelary goddess of the rival kingdom of Isin, but revered throughout Sumer as a healing goddess.28 It is a classic of the genre, and is
presented below, with thanks to Professor Jacobsen for many helpful
suggestions.28a
Once more, the letter displays a fairly clear five-fold structure, beginning with the elaborate salutation characteristic of the genre (lines 111).
The body of the letter begins with the historical (or in this case biographical) background, stressing the kings past piety and eective rule
(1215), until a dream at night reversed his fortunes (2022). There follows a praise section which, in the context of his illness (2325), emphasizes his total dependence on the healing arts of the goddess in face of
the failure of human help (2629). Next comes a petition section which
pleads for mercy from both the goddess and her healer-son Damu (34
40). The concluding petition looks to both deities for merciful restoration of health and long life (4550). A final line in only some exemplars
seems to imply reconciliation with Babylon or its hostile deities; in others, the granting of the petition (52).
In general, then, one may posit a structural correspondence between
the Sumerian letter-prayers and the individual prayers (both laments
and thanksgiving) of the Bible, including those concerned with sickness.
For the specific assessment of the prayer of Hezekiah, one may note the
following: we now have evidence that an Old Babylonian king, writing
in Sumerian, addressed prayers to the gods in the form of letters, and
28 Cf. most recently W.H.Ph. Rmer, Einige Beobachtungen zur Gttin Nini(n)sina
auf Grund von Quellen der Ur III-Zeit und der altbabylonischen Periode, = AOAT 1
(1969), pp. 279305.
28a I am also indebted to Professor Shaer for supplying me with Text F (identified
by P. Michalowski), which I was able to incorporate in the page-proofs.
340
in two or even three cases these were, if not actual inscriptions on steles,
intimately connected with the erection of monumental stone statues. In
addition, the specific occasion for at least one of the new letter-prayers
was the kings illness.
We cannot yet fully reconstruct the historical circumstances surrounding each of the letters: whether those regarding Nur-Adad date
to that kings reign when Sin-iddinam was only the crown-prince;29
whether the seven-year plague was coterminous with his seven-year
reign;29a whether his illness resulted from it; whether his victory over
Babylon in his fourth year30 was alluded to; or even whether he recovered, as might seem to he implied by his famous omen.31 But, even
without going into these questions, or into the numerous verbal correspondences between the prayer attributed to Hezekiah and the comparative Sumerian material, we may already conclude that this material
provides an early Mesopotamian model for the notion of a king praying
to the deity for recovery from illness by means of a letter inscribed on
or deposited before a public monument.31a
29a
lines 152
lines 125
lines 113, 3952?
lines 2552
lines 2346
lines 1426
342
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
g bra-mah-bi ri-a
Laa-ra-akKI b c-nigxd-gar ase-tef g-sa-bad -sa-s-ma
aNew
343
Translation
I
1. To Nin-isina, beloved daughter of lofty An, mistress of Egalmah, speak!
2. To the chair-bearer of the Orient, the counselor of the netherworld,
3. The beloved (chief-)wife of the warrior Pabilsag, the senior daughter-inlaw of Ki"ur,
4. The senior record-keeper of An and Enlil, proudest of goddesses,
5. Who perfects the attributes of Duranki in Nippur.
6. Who makes theira exaltation appear in Egalmah, the house of her
queenship.
7. Who has founded (in) Larak the Eniggar (as) a throne, the Esabad, the
house of . . . , (as) their lofty dais.
8. Great healer whose incantationa is life (health), whose spells
restore(?) the sick man,b
9. Mother of the nation, merciful one, who loves prayer and
supplication,
10. My lady, say furthermore to her
11. (This is) what Sin-iddinam, the king of Larsa, says:
II
12. Since the day of my birth, after you spoke to Utu (and) he gave me the
shepherdship over his nation.
13. I do not neglect my duties, I do not sleep sweetly, I seek life (or: I work
all my life).
14. To the gods greatly in my worship
15. aI perform prayers and sacrifices,a I have withheld nothing from them.
16. Asalluhi the king of Babylon, ason of Illurugua (the divine Ordeal-river),
persisting [in wrath?],
17. Their city against my city daily overruns the land,
6. aC: your
8. aA: (whose) creation. bB: the dead man?
15. a-aA: In prayers, emerging from sacrifices; F: Prayers performed with sacrifice.
16. a-aA: (and) the young lord Ilurugu
344
. . . ]; E omits.
a
b
c
33. From D; A omits; E: ]-in. So A (!) and D; E omits. So D; E: AMA.INANNA.
d-dSo D; E omits?
345
Since that day my manhood is not in order, his hand has seized me.
I cannot escape from my fears by myself, an evil sickness has seized me.
My sickness isa an unlit darkness, not visible to man.
The physician cannot look upon it, cannot [soothe?] it with a bandage,a
The exorcists cannot recite the spell(?), since suddenly(?) my sickness has
no diagnosis.
28. My sickness: its (healing) herb has not sprouted fortha on plain (or)
mountain,a no one gets it for me.
29. Healing my sickness is with you (alone), let me declare your supremacy:
30. As my [mother] has abandoned me since my childhood
31. I am one who has no [mother], no one recites my lament to
you, you are my mother!
32. Except [for you], I do not have another personal goddess, no
one pleads for mercy to you on my behalf.
33. No one seeks [for mercy?] from you for me, you are my personal goddess!
20. a-aor: seized me by the feet; A and F: stationed himself at my feet.
25. a A and B: is placed in
26. a A: regal robe?
28. a-aE: on mountain and plain
346
e
40. -nu-ku-kua-mub se-sa4-mu gi6-ac gad-mu-ra-ab-tm
a
b
b
41. igi-sa6-ga-zu-s har-mu-si-ib zi-du10-ga s-ma-ab
42. [g-e]? musen-s sr-dmusen-taa-bkar-rab-gim zi-mu al-tm-tm-muc-un
43. [g]-e igi-a nam-tar-ra-ke4 a r-zab cku4-mu-ni-bc su-ta dkar-mud
44. a gurus -me-ena su-nam-tar-rab-ka a-nir c-g-gd zi-mu im-mi-in-zal
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
nu-se-ga
[x]- ad ka- tab -ba gis-tug MAS.KA
d
d
[ Da-m]u dumu-ki-g(a)-zu a-zu-gal En-ll-l-ke4
-nam-ti-la mu-un-zu a-nam-ti-la mu-un-zu
[. . .. ]-ka dingir sag-[du-ga-mu] a-ba za-ra [. . .]
a[dAsal-l]-hi dumu d [I -l-r]u-g na-ab-d[u -ga]a bhu-mu-un-ti-leb
7
11
34. aSo D and E; A: gis-gu-za-tur. b-bSo D and E; A omits. cSo E; A and D omit. So
D; E omits.
35. aNew line begins here in D. b-bSo E; A and D omit. C-CSo D (and [A]); E: gl-la.
d-dSo D; E: h[ . . . ].
36. aNot a new line in D; E omits line. b-bSo A; D omits.
37. aSo D and E; A: ta. bSo A and D: E omits. c-cSo D? (or: d?); A: sedx (A. MUS X)d[i]; E: si-bi with gloss: sedx(MUS x)-di-bi? dSo D; E omits.
38. a-aSo D; A: nu-; E: nu-mu-un-. b-bSo D; E omits. So E; D omits.
39. a-aSo E; D: x-y-ma?-. b-bSo E; D: -a-ke4
40. aSo D; E omits. bSo D; E omits. cSo E (and C?); D: -e; A omits. dSo A; C, D and
E: hu-. eSo D; E: tm-mu.
41. aSo E;D omits. b-bSo D; E: -mu-si-bar. In A, this either belongs with line 41 or
there is something lost at the beginning.
42. aSo D; A and E omit; C: da? b-bSo A, C! and D; E: dal-a. cSo D; E omits.
43. a-aSo D and E: C: nam -[ . . . ]; A: dingir-bi-ta -mu-[ . . . ]. bSo E; A: -za-a: D: zu-s; C: -da- zu?. c-cSo E; D: -me-ni-ku4; C: []?-me-[ . . . ]; A: mu-e-[ . . . ].
d-dSo E; D: kar-(ra, erased)-mu-da.
44. a-aSo D; C: g?!-e?!. bSo A and D; C omits. cSo D; C omits. dSo C; D adds: -an.
45. aFrom C (collated). bFrom C (collated). CSo E?; C: an?; D omits.
46. aSo C (and A); D omits.
47. aSo D; A: -ri-ib-.
48. Line in A only; D omits.
51. Line in A only; D omits.
52. So A; D omits except for a few traces. b-bSo D; A: [ . . . ]-an-ti-[ . . . ].
347
IV
34. I am verily your constable (and) dog,a I do not cease from being tied to
you.
35. Damu, your beloved son: I am verily his private soldier (and) weapon
holder,
36. May you plead for mercy for me before him!
37. My sickness has been changed into (worse) sickness, one does not know
how to rectify it.
38. At midday I am not given any sustenance, by night I cannot sleep.
39. My very own mother(?), holy Nin-isina, verily you are the merciful lady,
40. With my not sleeping, let me bring my wailing to you at night:
41. a Let me behold your favorable glance, give me sweet life!
42. As for me, alike a bird fleeing from a falcon,a I am seeking to
save my life.
43. As for me, alet me enter your lap in the face of Death (Fate)a,
save me from (its) hand.
44. aI am a young man,a I set up lamentation in the face of Death,
my life ebbs away from me.
V
45. Like a mother-cow, have mercy on me!
46. Like a [. . .], have mercy on me!
47. Like the mother who bore me, who verily took me from the womb(?),
have mercy on me!
48. (Like) the father who . . ., hear the . . ., the disobedient . . .
49. Damu, your beloved son, the great healer of Enlil,
50. He knows the plant of life, knows the water of life,
51. . . ., the god who cre[ated (?) me], who can [. . .] to you?
52. Asalluhi, son of Ilurugu, has verily spoken: Let him live!
34. aA: your little lap dog (little chairdog)
41. aE: When I shall have beheld . . .
42. a-aE: like a falcon flying up against a bird
43. a-aA: when I . . . from the face of its god
44. a-aC: as for me,
348
which cf. e.g. TCL 16, No. 60:9) at the end of the line, one may also
consider nin-gal- dingir-re-ne - ra, as in SRT, 6:iv 16 = 7:64 (Rmer,
ibid., p. 292).
2. These epithets seem more at home with other deities; cf. e.g. UET 8,
85 (inscription of Rim-Sin) which begins: dNin-giz-zi-da . . . gu-za-l
ki-an-a-na-s-a-as32 na-ri eri11-gal-la, Ningizzida . . . chair-bearer of
the universe, counselor of the underworld. For the connection of the
Orient (literally, the place of the sun-rise; originally a poetic designation
of Dilmun) with Ningizzida, see Sjberg, Temple Hymns No. 15. Cf.
ISET. 1, 201:9789; dNusku . . . na-ri An Uras-a.
3. As spouse of Pabilsag, Ninisina was daughter-in-law of Enlil ( -gi4-a gal en dnu-nam-nir-ra: TRS 60:2; cf. Kraus, JCS 3 (1949), 77 f.; Rmer,
AOAT 1, p. 282). Evidently, this also made her the daughter-in-law of
Ninlil, whose temple at Nippur was called Kiur (see CAD K s.v. kiuru B;
Falkenstein, Gtterlieder, p. 33; Sjberg, TCS 3, p. 59; van Dijk, Acta
Or. 28 [1964], 44 f.).
4. (Senior) record-keeper of An is a standard epithet of Ninisina (see
Krecher, Kultlyrik, pp. 120 f.); the variant with -ta recurs only once
(TCL 15, 2:i 5). She is addressed as the proudest of goddesses also
in TCL 16, 60, for which see above, note 26.
57. The sequence Nippur-Egalmah-Larak or Nippur-Larak-Egalmah
(so in text C) here replaces the sequence Isin-Egalmah-Larak which is
standard in Isin contexts; see Krecher, Kultlyrik, p. 167.
6. The Egalmah is the temple of Ninisina in Isin; ibid., p. 86.
7. The Eniggar (note the gloss in B) is connected with Ninisina, Gula
and Ninkarrak through the divine name Lady of Eniggar (Krecher,
32
349
33
34
350
1618. These lines are crucial but dicult. Do they allude to the dispute
between Babylon and Larsa which, according to the name of Siniddinams fourth year, led to a defeat of Babylon by Larsa in 1847 bc,
three years before the end of Sumu-la-els reign?
2023. This is an expansion of the classic dream image. For the heroic
figure standing at the head, see Oppenheim, Dream-book, p. 189 and
YNER 3, p. 86 s.v.
3033. These sentiments are familiar from other letter-prayers and
from the Gudea cylinders: Hallo, JAOS 88 (1968), 78, here: IV.1, with
notes 5053 and 83 lines 39 f. Cf. now also Sollberger, JCS 21 (1967
[1969]), 286 note 80.
351
v.2
THE ROYAL CORRESPONDENCE OF LARSA:
II. THE APPEAL TO UTU
In recent years, F.R. Kraus has devoted much eort to the study
of early Akkadian epistolography. In addition to his long labors on
behalf of a definitive edition of Old Babylonian letters,1 he has provided an introduction to their Old Akkadian precursors,2 as well as
specialized studies on model letters as taught in the scribal schools3
and on letters addressed to the deity.4 My own concern with Sumerian epistolography has also ranged widely, from real (i.e., archival)
letters5 to literary ones, with special emphasis on letter-prayers.6 It
thus seems fitting to oer here a second installment of one of the
principal collections of Sumerian literary letters. Because of the space
limitations imposed by the requirements of a Festschrift, the present
contribution confines itself to the edition of the text, including literary parallels and other philological notes to selected lines. For extensive introductory remarks, the reader is referred to the first installment in the series,7 as well as to two separate attemptspublished
elsewhereto place the new text in its literary context. Of these, the
first stresses its generic connections within Sumerian literature,8 the
F.R. Kraus, ed., altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und bersetzung (Leiden 1964 .).
Idem, Einfhrung in die Briefe in altakkadischer Sprache, JEOL 24 (1976) 74104.
3 Idem, Briefschreibbungen im altbabylonischen Schulunterricht, JEOL 16 (1964)
1639. But cf. also AbB 5 (1972) vii f.
4 Idem, Ein altbabylonischer Privatbrief an eine Gottheit, RA 65 (1971) 2736. Cf.
also JCS 3 (1949) 78, note 30.
5 W.W. Hallo, The neo-Sumerian letter-orders, BiOr 26 (1969) 171175. Cf. also
HUCA 29 (1958) 97100.
6 Idem, Individual prayer in Sumerian: the continuity of a tradition, JAOS 88/1 (=
Essays in Memory of E.A. Speiser, AOS 53, 1968) 7189. Here: IV.1.
7 Idem, The royal correspondence of Larsa: I A Sumerian prototype for the prayer
of Hezekiah?, Kramer Anniversary Volume (= AOAT 25, 1976) 209224. Here: V.1.
8 Idem, Letters, prayers and letter-prayers, Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of
Jewish Studies (Jerusalem 1977) [I:] Studies in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (1981) 1727.
Here: IV.2.
1
2
354
second its implications for the broader theme of Sumerian interconnections with Ancient Near Eastern literature generally.9 A third aspect of
the text, namely its significance for the history of the bilingual SumeroAkkadian tradition within Mesopotamia, will be taken up elsewhere by
Miguel Civil, who called my attention to the neo-Assyrian duplicates
and allowed me to incorporate the unpublished copy by W.G. Lambert in my edition. I am deeply grateful to both these scholars for their
generosity.
Letter of Sin-iddinam to Utu
I. Old Babylonian-unilingual (Sumerian)
A = Ashmolean 1922258 lines 146 copy by O.R. Gurney, OECT 5 (1976) 25,
sides A-B
lines 1558
B = CBS 7072A Rev. *
lines 124 copy by M.E. Cohen, below, fig. 23
C = AO6718
lines 2446 copy by H. de Genouillac, TCL 16 (1930)
56
D = CBS 3829
lines 2325 copy by E. Chiera, STVC (1934) 13
E = CBS 4078
line 25
photo by S.J. Lieberman, below, fig. 1.
II. Neo-Assyrian-bilingual (Sumerian and Akkadian)
F = K 8937
G = K 7171
lines 18
copy by Th.J. Meek, BA 10/1 (1913) No. 3
lines 2239 copy by W.G. Lambert (unpubl.)
Transliteration
I
1. DUtu lugal-mu-r [en?] di-kuru5-mah an-kia
[
s. ]i-i-ru s AN-e u KI-tim
2. sag-n-tar kalam-ma ka-as mu-un-bar-bar-rea
[
pa]-ri-is pu-ru-us-se-e
3. dingir-zi l-ti-le-d ki-g a-ra-zu gis-tug
[
i-r]am-mu se-mu- tas-li-ta
4. arhus-s s-gur-ru mua-un-zu-a
[
l]a mu-du-
5. ang-si-sb ki-g ng-zi bar-tam-mec NE.[RU zh] d -[na-a]- du11
bi-ma
[
]-ti q
9 Idem, The expansion of cuneiform literature, Jubilee Volume of the American Academy
of Jewish Research (= Proceedings 4647, 19791980) 307332.
355
1. aSo A; F adds: -a. 2. aSo A; F: -ra. 4. aSo A and B; F: nu-. 5. aNot a new
line in B. bSo A; B omits. cSo A; B adds: bar-ra. d-dSo A; F: -mu-un-d-du11. 6.
aSo A?; F: na ?; B omits. b-bSo B (and A?); F: l-e. 7. aSo B; A omits? bSo B?; A
omits. cSo A and B; F: zalg. dSo F (and B?); A: -g? 10. a-aSo B; A omits?
Translation
I
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
356
III
21. kur-nimKI-ma [. . .]-musen-gim mah-bi l-as-aa bnu-gl-lab
[
u]l i-.te-eh-hi-s
b
29. l-MU.AN.SAL.LA-bi ng-gig-gaa -k-e ugnim-bi
silim-ma
!
[
i-ku]l-s-nu um-man (wr.MAT)-s-nu sal-ma
12. aSo A; B omits. 13. aSo B; A; -gar? 14. aSo A; B omits. 15. a-aSo B; A: x
b-in-y-[ . . . ]. b-bSo B; A: mu-x-y- 16. aSo B; A: ab 17. aSo B; A omits. 18.
aSo B; A omits.
19. aSo B; A: ka -.bSo B; A omits. 20. aSo B; A omits. 21.
a-aSo A; B: adda (L-sessig)? b-bSo A; B: i[n-nu]? 22. aSo G; A omits.
23. aSo
x
A; D omits. b-bSo A; D: TAG? 24. Precedes lines 2223 in G? aSo A; C and D
omit. b-bSo A (and D?); C: dingir-ra-ni. c-cSo D; A and C: lukur d-dSo A (and D?);
C: l-la nu-mu-un-zu-a. 25. Precedes lines 2223 in G(?). a-aSo A and C; D: -bi.
bSo A and D; C: -m. c-cSo A (and D); C: -bi. d-dSo A and C; E (by confusion
with line 43?): h-mah. 26. aSo C; A and G omit. bSo C and G; A omits. 27.
bSo A; C omits, c-cSo A; G: A.TIR(esa) ezen; C omits. d-dSo C
aSo A; C omits.
(by confusion with line 24?); A and G omit. eSo A and C; G omits. 28. aSo A
and G; C omits, bSo G (and A?); C omits. 29. aSo C; A: -bi? bSo C; G: -a-ni; A
omits.
357
II
11. This is what Sin-iddinam, king of Larsa, your servant, says:
12. In your city Larsa, your hearts choice, a plague has broken out,
13. The broad streets where they passed the days in play are filled with
silence.
14. Your goodly troops who were subdued have returned, they have been
finished o like thread for tearing.
15. Your young men are scared like running pigs, they have been destroyed,
they have been made to stand there.
16. They have broken the image of self-respect of my people, they have
finished them o by themselves,
17. They have snatched(?) the little ones from their parents on an evil day.
18. The visage of my people has been changed into a foreign(?) face,
19. The troops who were subjugated are (now) freed, (while) the nation
emerges covered as with a garment.
20. Oh youthful Utu, in your city Larsa you stand aloof like an enemy/
stranger.
III
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
358
[
az?]-za-zu te-mi-qu--a ma-a"-du
D
a
34. sul- Utu nam-bi-s uru -zu UD.UNU.KI-mab igi-zi cbar-mu-un-si-ibc
[
URU-k]a? ba-bi-lu
ki-nis nap-li-is-su-ma
IV
35. a uru-zu a gig -ga ul4-la-bia du11 i-ga-bab-ab
[
] sum-ru-s. a r-his q-bi
a
36. a s en !-s adu11-ga-ab
[ a]-di ma-t q-bi-is
37. arhus- s [UD.UNU].KI-ma su tea-ba-ab
[
]- ka ? le-qe
38. ng-gig-ga-ak-bi n atar-bi-ib!a
[
si-t]a-a"-al-su-ma
39. [uru-z]u UD.UNU.KI-ma a-ni-iba
[
]su--s. i
30. aSo A; C: i. bSo A; C: uruki. cSo A; C omits. dSo C; A omits. e-eSo A and
C; G: [nu-]? fSo A; G: -u]b; C omits. gSo C; G: -du8-a; A: -du12(TUG). hSo C;
A omits. iSo A; C: s-a; G: tar-ra. jSo G; A and C: DA. 31. aSo C; A: -ta. bSo
C; A omits. ci.e. L x S or LU-sessig; A and C: L. dSo A; C: KA. eSo A and
C; G: un fSo A; C: l; G: b. gSo A (and G?); C omits. 32. Precedes lines 3031
in G. a-aSo C; A omits. bSo C; A omits. cSo C; A omits, dSo A and C; G omits?
e-eSo A and C; G: ba. fSo C and G; A: -an-. gSo A and G; C: ks. hSo A; G:
-es; C omits. 33. aSo A and G; C omits. bSo A and G; C omits. cSo A and C;
G: -s-s-ke-da-. dSo A (and G?); C: [a]? 34. aSo A; C: uruKI, bSo A; C and G
omit? c-cSo A and C; G: -mu-un-si-te-bar. 35. a-aSo G; A (and C?) omit. bSo A;
C and G omit. 36. a-aSo A and C; G: inim nu-un-na-ab-b. 37. aSo A; G: ti.
38. a-aA: tar-bi-MA; C: tar-bi; G: [b]-b-tar-ra. 39. Not a new line in A? a-aSo
C; A: #na-ab-ta-sub-e1; G: ib-ta-,
359
30. Since (or: in) the seventha year, in my city one has not been released
from strife and battle, pestilence does not stay its arm,
31. In the open country (even) the lion who eats corpses does not carry3
(anything o ) there.
32. (Like) one who does not know how to entreat god I am dealt with
33. (Yet to) the great gods, whom I serve with daily oerings, is my urgent
entreaty.
34. Oh youthful Utu, on that account (or: for their sake) look with favor
upon your city Larsa!a
IV
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
360
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
a
b
g-e n-te-g-mu -us nam-ti s-mu-na-ab
zi-s-ud-gl ng-ba-ea-s ba-mu-na-ab
a
361
362
= remenim tajjarim semi tesltim. Only the first (for which see also line 10)
recurs with Utu in a letter-prayer (UET 6, 182:8). For s-gur-ru cf. also
the loanword sagurr, attested only in synonym lists where it is equated
with tajjaru.
5. For the association of Utu and righteousness with the compound
verb bar-tam or the doubly compound verb bar-tam-me/e/ak = bru,
choose, select, see Hallo, Choice in Sumerian, JANES 5 (1973) 165
172; Sjberg, JCS 29 (1977) 5 ad Nungal-hymn line 11, for which see also
Hallo loc. cit. 168 n. 29. Our line is restored on the basis of the hymn
to Numusda by Sin-iqisam of Larsa first published in photograph by
Falkenstein, SAHG pl. 9 (cf. already JCS 17 (1963), 115 n. 49), copied
by Van Dijk as VS 17 no. 38 and edited by M.-A. Dupret, OrNS 43
(1974) 327343 and by Sjberg, OrSuec. 22 (1973) 107116, where line 32
may be read: ng-zi-d bar-tam-me ng-NE.RU-e za-ha al-ak with the
363
364
14. g-gar-gar is taken here to equal kanasu though it also varies with
g-gur = puhhuru, assemble. The image of tearing like a thread
recurs in the letter-prayer to Enki (Hallo, JAOS 88 (1968) 84, here:
IV.1) 50a: nam-tag-mu gu-gim ga-mu-ra-si-il; cf. also Man and his
god (Kramer, VT Supp. 3 (1955) 173) 3b: gu-gim ha-ba-si-il-e; Kramer
d
hu
But cf. also the divine name Lugal-igi-hur -ra in An = Anum VI 62
(CT 25, 38: 11928: 1) where hur may be equated with ban, beautiful;
so already H. Radau, BE 30 (1913) p. 41 n. 1; followed by Tallqvist,
Akkadische Gtterepitheia (1938) s.v., J. Lewy, HUCA 23/1 (19501951) 260.
19. ga-an-sa-sa is taken here as an allomorph for ka-(sa)-an-sa-sa, for
which see most recently Hallo, JANES 5 (1973) 166, note 37. The reading kalam is preferred over uk because of the frequent image of the
nation (or foreign land or GN) covered as (with) a garment as in the
passages collected by Falkenstein, AnOr 29 (1950) 107 and note 2; ZA 55
(1963) 62; Wilcke, Lugalbandaepos (1969) 143 f. Cf. especially SRT 15: 4a:
zalag-me-lm(a)-ni kalam-ma bi-dul4; CT 15, 15:12: me-lm-zu kalamma tg im-mi-in-dul5 (cf. W.H. Ph. Rmer, BiOr 32 (1975) 148: 11, 12).
An alternate reading of the line may be suggested in light of CT 26,
25: 46 f.: pirig ka-s-an-sa-sa = [umu] muktassassu; cf. CAD M/2 188;
B. Kienast, OrNS 26 (1957) 4550.
20. For standing outside/apart/aloof like an enemy (nu-erm-gim
bar-ta. . . gub) see the references collected by G.B. Gragg, Sumerian
365
366
31. For addax-k = salamta akalu see Hallo and van Dijk, The Exaltation of
Inanna (= YNER 3 (1968)) 70 and add Hendursanga-hymn (Edzard and
Wilcke, Kramer AV (1976) 139176) line 81. The present line alludes
to the disruption of the normal order of nature, as in the Incantation
to Utu (G. Castellino, OrAnt 8 (1969) p. 10) line 47: Utu, if you do
not rise, the wolf smites not the lamb, the lion in the (open) field does
not strike or [carry o?]; for this analogy and its implications, see
P. Michalowski, The Royal Correspondence of Ur (Yale Dissertation, 1976)
10 f.
32. For KA-sa6-(sa6) as a verb (= sutemuqu) see Steible, Rmsn (1975) 52
and 61; the reading of the first sign can be determined by reference to
the dialectal rendering in The Descent of Inanna (Kramer, PAPS 85
(1942) 293323) line 30: sukkal e-ne-m-sa6-sa6-ga-mu; cf. Kraus, JCS 3
(1949) 10; SD 5 (1958) 63, note 1. Note also MSL 12, 106:78: inim-ss-ga = sutemuqu (for this variant cf. line 33 below) corresponding to
MSL 12, 32:472: inim-sa6-sa6-ge. The curious variant in C (if correctly
read) seems to depend on a dictation-error: im-ma-da-ak-es > im-mada-ks.
33. For inim-sa6-(sa6) as a noun (= supp, tadmiqtu, temqu) see Alster,
Mesopotamia 2 (1974) 96 who reads ka-sag5-sag5 and translates our passage: (this is) my most urgent request. That a dative is implied with
the great gods seems likely from the parallel in the letter-prayer of
Sin-iddinam to Nin-isina (Hallo, Kramer AV [1976] 209224, here: V.1)
line 14: dingir-re-e-ne-er (var.: [dingir-gal-ga]l-e-ne-ra) mah-bi inim
sa6-sa6-ge-mu-da, when I entreat the (great) gods urgently. For the
daily service in this connection, cf. especially Lipit-Istar *26 (Rmer,
SKIZ 7) rev. 8 f.: inim-sa6-ga dLi-p-it-es4-tr-ra-da [ . . . ] u4-s-u[s . . . ] ha
ra-da-gub. For the roughly synonymous construction with terminative
and gl, cf. the letter-prayer of Gudea-Enlila to Dingir-mansum (TMH
n. F. 3, 57) 4a: inim-sa6-sa6-ge inim-inim-ma-s gl-la. For the late variant inim-s-s-ke-da-mu see comment to previous line.
37. Take pity, have mercy is expressed in the letter-prayers variously
by arhus tuk and arhus su-te/ti. (1) Sin-iddinam to Nin-isina 4547
367
v.3
THE ROYAL CORRESPONDENCE OF LARSA:
III. THE PRINCESS AND THE PLEA
1 The princess and the plea, presented to the 185th meeting of the American
Oriental Society, Columbus, Ohio, April 22, 1975.
2 Women of Sumer, Bibliotheca Mesopotamia 4 (1976) 2340, 129138; esp. pp. 33 f.
3 Sumerian historiography, in H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld, eds., History, Historiography and Interpretation (Jerusalem, Magnes, 1983) 920, here: VI.2, esp. pp. 1317.
4 Knigsbriefe, RLA 6 (19801983) 5159, esp. p. 56.
5 Durum and Uruk during the Ur III period, Mesopotamia 12 (1977) 8396.
370
371
372
principal chtonic deity Nergal;21 it has also been argued that he was
worshipped at Uruk22 and indeed there is a veiled allusion to that city
as the place of sustenance in the Ibbi-Sin hymn.23 At Nippur, Lugalgirra and Meslamtaea guarded the gates of the temple of Nusku,24 or
its cella.25 But our new letter, and other evidence, makes it clear that
the principal seat of the combined worship of the twin deities26 was
at Durum, and to this city there is an explicit reference in the hymn,
whether we read the logogram as Kisiga (EZEN K) with Sjberg27
or Durum (EZEN BAD), a reading which is equally compatible with
the photograph.28
Ibbi-Sins solicitude for Durum (and Uruk) may reflect a period
of service there before his own accession. If so, it provides further
precedent for the early kings of Isin, who reigned as kings of Ur and
strove to perpetuate the institutions of the Third Dynasty.29 One of
them installed a high-priestess (nin-dingir) of Lugalgirra,30 presumably
at Durum (Date C); whether she was his daughter is not known.
The third king of Isin, Iddin-Dagan (19741954 bc), certainly assigned
the city to his son Ishme-Dagan, the crown-prince, who ruled there as
21 The equation is traced back to Ur III times by Sjberg, TCS 3 (1969) 11 f. Cf. now
Horst Steible, Archv Orientln 43 (1975) 346352.
22 Van Dijk, SGL 2 (1960) 23 and note 36, followed by Falkenstein, BM 2 (1963) 32
and note 143; J. Renger, ZA 58 (1967) 139 f. and Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient (=
Falkenstein Anniversary Volume, 1967) 161. Apart from lines 17 f. of our letter (which
now calls for a dierent interpretation), the chief basis for this assumption is a single
Ur III text from Drehem (Chiera, STA 31) listing oerings of one sheep each to
Meslamtea and Lugalgirra in Uruk (s unuki-ga). Note that Lugalgirra is here written
Lugal-ir!-ra.
23 Line 3. For ki-zi s-gl-la as epithet of Uruk, see Hallo, Bi.Or. 23 (1966) 243, here:
III.3, lines 23, 25; YNER 3 (1971) 58 and note 52. Another referent seems implied in
once Lugal-A, once Lugal-gr-ra; see F.J. Stephens apud V. Crawford, BIN 9 (1954) pp. 17 f. and cf. above, note 22.
373
viceroy before becoming king himself (19531935).31 For the next ninety
years, little or nothing is heard of the city, although it needs to be
investigated whether some alleged references to Transtigridian Der in
this interval do not actually refer to Durum.
The next certain reference to the city comes from newly published
inscriptions of Sin-kashid on clay nails32 and tablets.33 The clay nail
inscriptions were found in many duplicates together with other Sinkashid nails in the kiln on the north wall of court 28 of the Sin-kashid
palace in the winter campaign of 19631964, i.e., in Uruk.34 Clearly,
however, they were intended not for Uruk but for Durum, since the
two closely parallel inscriptions are dedicated respectively to Lugalgirra and Meslamtaea and refer to their temples as -n-hus-l(a) and
-mes-lam respectively, the latter temple name recurring in our letter.35
In these inscriptions, and nowhere else, Sin-kashid refers to himself as
viceroy of Durum, thus raising the distinct possibility that he too had
once served the Isin dynasty, much like the predecessors of Gungunum
of Larsa.36 It may even be possible that Sin-kashid was a son of LipitEnlil (18731869), perhaps his intended successor. Lipit-Enlil was the
last of a line of three Isin Kings that began with Ur-Ninurta, but,
unlike his predecessors, was not honored by a royal hymn at Nippur.37
Neither was Irra-imitti (18681861). Irra-imitti was a man of unknown
parentage at whose death the normal succession at Isin was interrupted
by the peculiar circumstances of Enlil-banis accession as preserved in
the late chronographic tradition.38 During Irra-imittis reign also fell
the upheavals that led to the beginnings of a new dynasty at Larsa
374
375
376
54 The fact that the Louvre exemplars B+C+D together formed a duplicate to A
became clear to me as soon as Prof. Gurney showed me his copy of A in 1971, when
I prepared a preliminary edition of the entire royal correspondence of Larsa for him
based on the Oxford exemplars. The identification of E and F, and the transliteration
of F which I owe to Prof. Civil, followed in 1973. Earlier statements regarding the
Louvre exemplars (including my own) have now to be revised accordingly; see e.g.
above, note 22; Hallo, JCS 17 (1963) 116, here: III.1 and note 65; JAOS 53 (1968) 89,
here: IV.1 and note 116; van Dijk apud Hallo, IEJ 16 (1966) 242, note 79. The last
note has found its way also into W.G. Lambert, Or. 39 (1970), note 3, and Grayson,
Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (1975) 22, note 36. Cf. also Kraus, Bi.Or. 22 (1965) 289
(5).
377
378
26.
A.
F.
C.
27.
A.
F.
C.
28.
A.
C.
F.
29.
A.
C.
F.
30.
A.
C.
F.
nu-sg nu-mu-un-zu-bi-s
" " " " " ' " '
[
] " " " = =
[
] " = =
379
37.
F.
E.
D.
A.
"
" "
" " " - in - " su " " " / NU . SU
mu-u n -" "
i m-du-du
'
" ' ? -e ms " ' ba-n i - " ' ' ' ' = GAM GAM-e
38.
F.
E.
A.
D.
39.
A.
D.
E.
F.
380
im-ri-a-mu-ke4 z gi4-mu-un-na
" " " "! " " ! " "! " " "
" ' ' ' ' ' ' [
]
]
[
] ' ? '? ' ? [
55.
D.
E.
A.
56.
E.
D.
A.
381
58. nam-ba-da-ha-lam-ma-me-en
A. ' ? ' ? ' ? ' ? " " " " (not a new line)
]
E. ' ? [
D. " " " " " - e
I
1. Speak to my king!
2. To Rim-Sin, the young protector who soothes the heart of Enlil,
3. The faithful shepherd legitimately summoned by the great lord Ninurta
in order to rescue the entire nation,
4. Wide of understanding, whose insight is surpassing, who gathers everything together,
5. Counsellor whose wisdom is soothing, whose full extent no eye can see,
6. Judge of righteousness, who loves the righteous man like Utu (himself ) 7. Say furthermore!
II
8. To the merciful one whose land is broad, the warrior who avenges the
city (of Larsa),
9. Impetuous goodly aurochs, in battle and combat the warrior who raises
the head (proudly) in the conflict,
10. Having courage, turning the steps whose progress (?) no one knows how
to turn back,
11. The standard bearer before whom no man can stand, the strong(est) is
distraught,
12. Prince of the lofty head who attains victory, the most triumphant in
kingship,
13. Mighty one who verily smites the . . ., tying up the mace of the enemy,
14. Son engendered by the lord Nergal with greatness from the womb (on) 15. Say for the third time!
III
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. Larsa, the city lofty like a mountain whose might none can attain,
21. Having taken the field at the command of An and Enlil, has seized the
heaped-up earth(?).
382
22. The army of Uruk, bond of all the lands, (is) lowering the horns like an
aurochs.
23. With your great might you have seized its king from them in single combat.
24. Having spared its populace, grant them sweet life!
25. Among slaves (and) children fed on milk pestilence not having emerged, a
plague has not broken out.
26. Its populace whose collapse is like fish deprived (?) of waterthey have
left it to the daylight
27. Its warriors are uprooted before you by the mace, it is your hand which
overtakes them.
28. They were able to escape pestilence; they sang your praises.
29. The lament of Uruk has turned to rejoicing; its complaints have departed.
30. Orphan and widow one has placed in lush pastures; they let them repose
in verdure.
31. Daily the people (and) all the lands eat from its surroundings.
32. Your good years are merciful, all the lands dance(?).
33. From time immemorial, a king like you in battle who has seen?
34. It is thus Utu himself dwells in Ebabbar for a lifetime.
V
35. Now look favorably (also) on me, let your declaration brighten the dark
day!
36. Since the fifth year not being in my city, they make me live like a slave, I
have none who understands (me).
37. At your falling silent, I am changed in my appearance (and) whole being;
my body being dead, I walk about bowed down.
38. In the silence I now clap my hands, I do not know the sound of my . . .
39. Though vigorous, I am abandoned in old age like a day which has ended,
I am scattered (from) my chamber.
40. Like a bird caught in a trap whose fledglings have fled from their nest
41. My children are scattered abroad (and) I have no man to do (my) work.
42. (Since) the attraction of my brickwork (i.e. home) no longer satisfies, they
moan over it like doves.
43. The bread I eat fills me with crying, thus I cannot rest
44. Life is long! They have informed me of my sacrilege, I have been turned
into a slandered woman.
45. As my station they have placed me as a slave.
46. Pay attention to the things in hand!
47. My slave-girl will not fashion a garment (for me), I who am dressed in a
flounced garment(?), who will intercede for me with you?
48. I, even I, have intoned the crying of your lament; will they sit (still) for
me?
49. Since the day that the populace is no longer directed aright, the day (has
become) a lifetime of bad luck, my words have not been sung there
383
VI
50. Now that Enlil has ordered it, the lands to their furthest limit he has
assigned to your hand.
51. Zabalam as a residence (and) Durum as my city are greatly . . .
52. No residence is good like the city (of ) the populace; let them but see(?) my
city!
53. Speak to the twin deities of Emeslam (and) I will surely sing your
praises!
54. Restore the border to the domain (?) of my family!
55. By your command let them give praise to you!
56. May they make my mouth ponder how to heed your ordinances!
57. To the furthest reaches of distant lands you shine,
58. may you never be destroyed!
v.4
A SUMERIAN APOCRYPHON? THE ROYAL
CORRESPONDENCE OF UR RECONSIDERED*
In 2001, Fabienne Huber published a lengthy study of the Sumerian
compositions known collectively as The Royal Correspondence of Ur and
concluded that they were not the product of the Third Dynasty of
Ur with which they purport to deal, but of the scribal schools of
the Old Babylonian period, perhaps as much as three centuries later.
She arrived at this conclusion primarily on linguistic grounds, arguing
at length from grammatical and phonological features in the texts
that placed them squarely in the later period.1 She also considered
historical and prosopographic factors, admitting that the Correspondence
undoubtedly rests in part on historic data,2 but that these data were
distorted to suit the didactic and other purposes of the authors.3
Sumerian literary texts occasionally carry dates indicating when a
particular exemplar was copied out by a master or student scribe
though such dates are largely confined to the first half of the 18th century bce, beginning with Manana of Kis4 and including Hammurabi,
Samsuiluna, and Rim-Sin II; at other times they can be dated by the
archival texts found with them.5 But their dates of composition are, by
contrast, notoriously lacking, and even when external sources such as
(later) literary catalogues presume to supply these, the evidence is universally suspect.6 Modern research has therefore resorted to other criteria to make good the omission. In the case of compositions like the
Instructions of Suruppak
or the Hymn to the Temple of Ninhursag at Kes, the
existence of forerunners firmly datable on paleographic grounds to
the Early Dynastic Period provides a terminus post quem non for the
*
386
at Ur,
include one hymn in honor of the e2-hur-sag, the palace of Sulgi
which can hardly be earlier than his reign; but whether this apparent
anachronism serves to date the entire composition or represents an
isolated insert in an earlier recension remains an open question.
Where paleographic and other criteria fail to provide an answer, linguistic criteria may well be resorted to for attempts to arrive at a date of
composition. Thus Jacobsen famously dated the original composition
of the Sumerian King List before the middle of the Ur III periodthe
7
8
9
10
11
Westenholz 1989.
Jacobsen 1939:128135.
Jacobsen 1939:136; cf. 138.
Jacobsen 1957:125 n. 73; reprinted in Jacobsen 1970:386.
M.B. Rowton in CAH 1/1 (1970) 200; cf. Rowton 1960.
387
of Ur-Ninurta of Isin.12 I myself hold out for a date nearer the end
of the Isin I Dynasty with which it concludes.13 The reason for the
apparent reluctance to rely on linguistic criteria is that, in the course
of transmission via the scribal schools, compositions could well have
been subject to modernization of orthography, morphology, and even
lexicon to bring them au courant with the language of the scribes time.
This caveat applies in heightened degree to Hubers arguments. Let us
examine one of them in some detail.
She finds eight examples of the enclitic sux -ma in the Royal Correspondence of Ur, each time used in a conjunctive function between two
independent phrases (clauses).14 These examples are taken from four
out of a corpus of 23 letters, and in one of them (21) only one or
two exemplars display the feature. It can thus hardly be described as
characterizing the corpus as a whole. She dates the appearance of the
phenomenon, which is admittedly an Akkadianism, to the Early Old
Babylonian period (Lipit-Istar) in archival texts, and finds it also in certain canonical genres such as wisdom texts and literary letters.15 All this
is beyond dispute. But the reciprocal borrowing of grammatical features
between Sumerian and Akkadian, as of lexemes, was an enduring consequence of the long symbiosis of the two languages and their speakers. It was the subject of the 9th Rencontre in 196016 and is illustrated
equally well by the earlier and well-attested borrowing of Akkadian u
into Sumerian (replacing older -bi-da) as a conjunction between nouns.
Its evidentiary value for dating purposes applies only to the exemplar
or exemplars in which it occurs, not to the date of first creation of any
given composition.
Huber denies that such grammatical lapses could be the consequence of a progressive akkadisation of the Sumerian language during the neo-Sumerian period, or a corruption of texts undergone in the
course of their transmission.17 I question that judgment, but prefer to
move on to those of her arguments which are based on prosopography
and history. In challenging her views, I am not motivated by her total
12
13
14
15
16
stein.
17
Kraus 1952:44.
Hallo 1963a:55 and n. 41, here: VI.1.
Huber 2001:173.
We can already add model court cases; see Hallo 2002.
Sollberger 1960; note especially the contributions by Edzard, Gelb, and FalkenHuber 2001:172.
388
18
19
20
21
389
Ur with the coming of the Amorites who were, after all, ancestral to the
ruling classes of the eighteenth century, or of the Royal Correspondence of
Isin with watercourses.22
3. The Royal Correspondence is not the only genre to which this characterization applies. Others could be cited to the same eect. I will confine
myself here to two related ones, the model contracts and the model
court cases. The former mostly remain to be properly published and
edited, and until then it remains an open question whether they were
based on functional documents and, if so, whether these documents
dated from an earlier period.23 Model court cases are better known, and
typically involve prominent citizens, e.g. of Nippur, well-known from
other sources; the possibility that they were fictitious creations utilizing
known names cannot be excluded, but neither can the contrary conclusion, i.e., that they represent actual cases thought worthy of inclusion
in the curriculum because illustrating important points of law or ethical behavior. A Model Court Case Concerning Inheritance which I
published in 2002 illustrates these points.24 It is so far known in only
one exemplar, and thus not demonstrably part of the (Nippur) curriculum, but its prosopography ties it securely to Old Babylonian Nippur,
specifically in the 20th and 19th centuries.25 And the selection of this
particular case for the scribal school curriculum . . . from the presumably vast stock of authentic court cases on deposit in the archives of
Nippur may be due to the fact that it appears to be an apt illustration of the proverbial abhorrence of (the first-born heirs?) driving out
the younger son from the patrimony.26
4. Clear cases abound where literary copies of later date correlate with
archival and/or monumental evidence contemporary with the events
described. Apart from the case of Nin-satapada already cited, they
include in the first place the case of The Bride of Simanum. In his
article of that name, Michalowski showed conclusively that the name of
Kunsi-matum is preserved in the Royal Correspondence of Ur.27 Huber does
22
23
24
25
26
27
390
not cite this article, only Michalowskis summary of it in his thesis, and
his view there that the Sumerian version represents a back-translation
from the Akkadian.28 In fact, the situation is much more complex.
Kunsi-matum occurs in only one letter (Michalowskis No. 6) and this
letter is known in only one exemplar, the bilingual OB text PBS 10/4:8.
Here her name occurs only in the Akkadian version; the Sumerian
version misunderstood it as a masculine personal name and provided a
mistaken back-translation into Kur-gammabi. But Michalowski found
evidence of the correct form of the name in a number of Ur III
archival texts, as well as an integral report of her history in an OB
copy of Su-Sins
royal inscriptions, albeit without name. Here is my
own reconstruction of this history:
Simanum,
in the far northwest, was too distant to be subjected militarily. It apparently retained its own Hurrian ruler, a certain Pusam, while
diplomatic ties were pursued through his messenger called, interestingly
enough, Puzur-Assur (Amar-Suen 7). The immediate object was a dynas
tic marriage, specifically a daughter of the crown-prince Su-Sin
was sent
against Simanum,
an event commemorated in the name of his third year,
and restored both the native dynasts (now perhaps as dependent governors) and his daughter.29
proceeded as indicated in the date formulas of Sulgi, Amar-Sin and SuSin. The particular part played in it by diplomatic marriage is spelled
391
question. The notion that her name would have somehow been resurrected in an Old Babylonian scribal school defies credibility. More
likely, the letter ultimately derived from genuine archival copies in
the royal chanceries, as suggested by (its) many correspondences with
details known from contemporaneous sources.32
5. A parallel case to the preceding, though not directly connected to
the Royal Correspondence of Ur, is that of The House of Ur-Meme.33
In my reconstruction of the genealogy of this prominent Nippur family through five generations, covering the entire time of the Ur III
Dynasty, I deliberately made use of later (canonical) as well as contemporaneous (monumental and archival) evidence. The later literary
sources conformed with the contemporary ones to a degree that makes
it unlikely that they were works of creative imagination. Nor do the
additions and corrections proposed by Zettler for the genealogy in 1984
and 1987 aect this conclusion materially.34 Specifically, one side of this
family held the oce of governor of Nippur four times, while the other
inherited Ur-Memes own position of prefect of the temple of Inanna,
adding to it that of priest of Enlil. It would be possible to write a veritable novella of high life at Nippur around the fortunes of this family;
perhaps, indeed, the canonical sources were preserved with some such
goal in view.
One point of Zettlers reconstruction does deserve some notice here.
As I had already speculated in 1977,35 and as he agreed, the name of the
last known member of the House of Ur-Meme is not Inim-Inanna, as I
suggested in 1972, but Nabi-Enlil. Therewith a connection is established
between the House of Ur-Meme and the text first published by Ali
under the title of Blowing the Horn for Public Announcement,36 where
Nabi-Enlil appears as a former um-mi-a. That text fairly teems with
personal names known from other sources as at home in Nippur during
the later Ur III period. One of them is Lugal-melam, governor of
Nippur under Amar-Sin, when that oce apparently passed out of
the hands of the house of Ur-Meme for the duration of his reign.
Another is Ur-DUN, the owner of the lost seal which is the subject
32
33
34
35
36
392
393
in context), and that the texts so mined date primarily to the Ur III or
early OB period. A recent study of the terminology for animal parts
found in an Ur III account seems to bear this out.39
The gradual emergence of literary texts is also best explained as
the result of the existence of scribes and scribal schools as early as
the Early Dynastic period, for which we have surviving exemplars of
of Sulgi
of Ur as the founder of the scribal schools at Ur and Nippur,
he certainly was their patron. Nor is the existence of scribal schools in
the Ur III period, or in the subsequent Early Old Babylonian period, in
doubt. A few exemplars of literary texts datable by paleography to the
21st or 20th19th centuries have survived, but more importantly, the
preservation on 18th century exemplars of texts recognizably dependent on earlier models implies the continuity of textual tradition, however many changes and even distortions individual compositions may
have undergone in the process of transmission.
One of the techniques of scribal training involved the copying of
free-standing monuments in the open areas of Nippur and Ur, as
attested both by explicit references to this technique in Sumerian compositions dealing with the life of the scribal schools,42 and by preserved
examples of the products of the field-trips that one can visualize in
this connection. The comparison of Sargonic inscriptions known from
both original monuments and from late (OB) copies shows that by and
large the copies were reliable.43 But even where the originals are not
preserved, we can reconstruct a very likely monumental origin for other
parts of the neo-Sumerian canon preservedso faronly or mainly in
canonical form, i.e. on clay tablets; one can mention here the laws of
Ur-Nammu and Lipit-Istar (of the latter we actually have some stone
Hallo 2001a.
Cohen 1976:99101; for a fuller edition see Hallo 1983a, here: VII.1.
41 Hallo 1976a, here: I.4.
42 Hallo 1991a: 17, here: X.3, n. 80; with the reservations of Yoshikawa 1989.
43 Cf. Gelb and Kienast 1990:129: Prinzipiell machen die Abschriften einen sehr
zuverlssigen und vertrauenerweckenden Eindruck, . . . This reliable and confidenceinspiring impression can be illustrated by the juxtaposition of OB copies and their Old
Akkadian originals, e.g. in the case of the disc-inscription of Enheduanna, ibid. 64 f.
39
40
394
1. Sulgi
A: 104.
2. Lipit-Istar A: 109.
3. gis-al: 107.
4. nin-me-sar2-ra: 153.
5. enlil-surase: 171.
6. Kes Temple Hymn. 131.
7. Enkis Journey to Nippur. 129.
395
396
397
Tinney 1999:166 f.
Michalowski 1976:200, 243.
Wilcke 1969:3 .
Jacobsen 1953.
Wilcke 1970.
Introduction to OECT 5 (1976) 7 and n. 38; 16 and n. 6.
398
399
400
401
402
403
In press Day Dates in the Ur III Period. In The Growth of an Early State in
Mesopotamia: Studies in Ur III Administration, Proceedings of the Workshop on
the Administration of the Ur III state at the 49e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, London 2005, eds. Steven Garfinkle and Gale Johnson. Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas: Madrid [published 2008].
Hallo, William W. and W.K. Simpson
1998 The Ancient Near East a History. 2nd. ed. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Hallo, William W. and K.L. Younger, eds.
2003 Archival Documents from the Biblical World. The Context of Scripture 3.
Leiden: Brill
Huber, Fabienne
2001 La Correspondance Royale dUr, un corpus apocryphe. ZA 91:169
206.
Jacobsen, Thorkild
1939 The Sumerian King List. AS 11. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
1953 The Reign of Ibbi-Suen. JCS 7:3647. Reprinted, pp. 173186 in
Thorkild Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz, ed. William L. Moran
HSS 21. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1970.
1957 Early Political Development in Mesopotamia. ZA 52:91140. Reprinted, pp. 132156 in Thorkild Jacobsen, Toward the Image of Tammuz,
ed. William L. Moran HSS 21. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
1970.
1970 Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and
Culture, ed. William L. Moran. HSS 21. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Kraus, Fritz Rudolf
1952 Zur Liste der lteren Knige von Babylonien. ZA 50:2960.
Landsberger, Benno
1959 Zum Silbenatphabet B. Pp. 97116 in Muazzez ig and Hatice
Kizilyay, Zwei altbabylonische Schulbcher aus Nippur, Ankara: Trk Tarih
Kurumu Basimevi.
Michalowski, Piotr
1975 The Bride of Simanum. JAOS 95:716719.
1976 The Royal Correspondence of Ur. Doctoral dissertation, Yale University.
1995 Review of: Bendt Alster and Markham Geller, Sumerian Literary Texts
(CT58), London 1990. JNES 54:4951.
Nissen, Hans J.
1981 Bemerkungen zur Listenliteratur Vorderasiens im 3. Jahrtausend. Pp.
99108 in La Lingua di Ebla, ed. L. Cagni. Naples: Istituto Universitario
Orientale.
Reeves, John C. and Waggoner Lu
1988 An Illustration from the Apocrypha in an Eighteenth Century Passover
Haggadah. HUCA 59:253268.
404
Reichel, Clemens
2003 A Modern Crime and an Ancient Mystery: The Seal of Bilalama.
Pp. 355389 in Festschrift fr Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage
dargebracht von Freunden, Schlern und Kollegen, ed. Gebhard J. Selz. AOAT
274. Mnster: Ugarit Verlag.
Robson, Eleanor
2002 More than Metrology: Mathematics Education in an Old Babylonian
Scribal School. Pp. 325365 in Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics
in the Ancient Near East, eds. John M. Steele and Annette Imhausen.
AOAT 297. Mnster: Ugarit Verlag.
Rowton, M.B.
1960 The Date of the Sumerian King-list. JNES 19:156162.
Sauren, H.
1979 E2-dub-ba-literatur: Lehrbcher des Sumerischen. OLA 10:97107.
Sigrist, Marcel
1983 Textes conomiques no-sumriens de Iuniversit de Syracuse. Paris: ditions
Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Sjberg, ke W.
1961 Em Selbstpreis des Knigs Hammurabi von Babylon. ZA 54:5170.
Sjberg, ke W. and E. Bergmann
1969 The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. TCS 3. Locust Valley: J.J. Augustin Publisher.
Sollberger, Edmond
1960 Aspects du contact sumro-akkadien. Genava 8, 241314.
1968 The Cruciform Monument. JEOL 20:5070.
Steinkeller, Piotr
1998 The Historical Background of Urkesh and the Hurrian Beginnings in
Northern Mesopotamia. Pp. 7598 in Urkesh and the Hurrians. Studies in
Honor of Lord Cotsen. Urkesh/Mozan Studies 3, eds. Giorgio Buccelati and
Marilyn Kelly-Buccellati. BiMes 26. Malibu: Undena Publications.
Stol, Marten
1976 Studies in Old Babylonian History. PIHANS 40. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut.
Tinney, Steve
1999 On the Curricular Setting of Sumerian Literature. Iraq 61:159172.
Vanstiphout, Herman LJ.
1978 Lipit-Estars Praise in the Edubba. JCS 30:3361.
1979 How did they Learn Sumerian? JCS 31:118126.
Veldhuis, Niek C.
1997 Elementary Education at Nippur. The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Groningen.
405
Westenholz, Joan
1989 Enheduanna, En-Priestess, Hen of Nanna, Spouse of Nanna. Pp. 539
556 in Dumu-E2-dub-ba-a. Studies in Honor of ke W. Sjberg, eds. Hermann
Behrens, Darlene Loding and Martha T. Roth. OPSNKF 11. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum.
Wilcke, Claus
1969 Zur Geschichte der Amurriter in der Ur-III-Zeit. WdO 5:131.
1970 Drei Phasen des Niedergangs des Reiches von Ur III. ZA 60:5469.
Yoshikawa, Mamoru
1989 mas-dra and sag-tag. ASJ 11:353355.
Zettler, Richard L.
1984 The Genealogy of the House of Ur-Meme: a Second Look. AfO 31:19.
1987 Sealings as Artifacts of Institutional Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia. JCS 39:197240.
vi
historiography
vi.1
BEGINNING AND END OF THE SUMERIAN
KING LIST IN THE NIPPUR RECENSION
I
The newly discovered fragment of exemplar L2 of the Sumerian King
List (N 3368) published by M. Civil in this journal1 makes possible a
new reconstruction of the first six kings of Kish. The text oered here
employs the line count and sigla of Thorkild Jacobsen, and attempts to
bring pp. 7679 of his standard edition up to date.2 The figures in the
margin enumerate the kings of Kish I.
(1) WB
i 43 K i sk i *- r
L2
WB
44
WB L2 45
l u g a l-m
m u 1200 -a g
Text from WB. L2 (according to L. Legrains copy):3 K[i sk i *-** lugalm)/ 1200 m[u -ag]. Berossos excerpters give the first post-diluvian
king as Euechoios, which may plausibly be supposed a corruption of
Euechoros,4 and contains in the (emended) element -or(os) a possible
reflection of the cuneiform spelling. There is, however, another tradition in which Berossos evinced considerable interest, that of the socalled apkallus, or legendary sages. In this tradition, the first postdiluvian king, or at least the first one associated with such a sage, is
En-me(r)kar of Uruk. This is shown not only by the apkallu-text cited
by Jacobsen5 and newly edited with the help of additional duplicates
410
by E. Reiner,6 but even more explicitly by a new late text from Uruk
published by J.J.A. van Dijk.7 The identification of Euechoios (etc.) with
En-merkar8 thereby gains in probability, and the necessity of identifying
the Greek transcriptions with * - r diminishes. Given the fact that a
number of star names recur as royal names in the ante-diluvian portion of the King List (lu-lim = ajjalu, Dumu-zi, Sipa-zi-an-na) as well
as among the first post-diluvian rulers of Kish (Kalibum, Zuqaqp), it
is tempting to restore the traces of the present name in WB as (g i s -)
g n - r, for this is the name of one of the southern stars.9
(2) WB L2 Su2 46 Ku -la-zi-na-be- el
WB L2 Su2 47 900 mu -ag
Text from L2, following Civils copy. The first element of the name is
taken to be kullassina *kullat-sina, all of them (the people?).10 The
second element is restored, with all due reserve, on the basis of the
Greek sources, which give the name of the second post-diluvian king
as Khomasbelos.11 Su2 has [ . . . ]-na-i-be-el /[900 mu] - a g. WBs Klla-d*-AN.NA-**-el/m u 960 - a g remains a crux. The discrepancy
in the figures amounts to only one vertical wedge, exactly as in the
case of the seventh king of Kish, Kalibum. But d*-AN.NA is hard
to reconcile with L2s zi-na. S. Langdon read the * in question as
14
Jacobsen as NIDABA.15
NIDABA12 or EZEN,13 i.e., EZINU (SE.TIR),
d
The copy favors a reading TIR, and TIR.AN.NA is well known as
the logogram for marratu or dmanzt, rainbow,16 Moreover it varies
The Etiological Myth of the Seven Sages, Orientalia 30 (1961) 111.
XVIII. Vorlufiger Bericht . . . Uruk (1962) 4452.
8 Cf. Jacobsen, AS 11: 87, note 115.
9 Article Fixsterne, Reallexikon der Assyriologie 3 (1957) 79; cf. Deimel, Sume
risches Lexikon 2 (1928) No. 105: 13 f.
10 For this form, cf. I.J. Gelb, Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 2 (2nd ed., 1961)
121 f. and 3 (1957) 145 and, with another interpretation, A. Goetze, RA 52 (1958) 147.
11 F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker III C (1958) 384; P. Schnabel,
MVAG 13 (1908) 5 and Berossos (1923) 184 and 267 f. For a dierent identification, cf.
Jacobsen, AS 11: 88, note 122.
12 OECT 2 (1923) p. 9.
13 Ibid., note 9.
14 The copy looks more like TIR or SE.NIR,
411
with dSE.TIR-n
a (i.e. da s n a n - n a or de z i nx -n a) in the Hymn
to the Temple of Nin-hursag at Kesh ( s - n u n - e).17 For line 34
(3) L2 Su2
P5
L2 Su2
670 mu -ag
and the
younger ones dTIR-an-na according to A. Falkenstein, Sumerische Gtterlieder 1 (1959)
65, note 97; he considers the latter spelling erroneous.
22 NBC 7799. The confusion or conflation of BAN and TIR in the complex bow
of heaven may be due to the near homophony in Akkadian of qastu, bow (BAN)
B"NN, (rain)bow
and qstu, forest (TIR), and recalls at once the Biblical QST
in the cloud of Genesis 9:(13), 14, 16 (cf. Ezekiel 1:28). As a theophoric element,
(d)BAN.AN.NA occurs in Neo-Babylonian personal names; cf. Deimel, Pantheon Babylonicum (1914) No. 2971.
23 Cf. Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, vol. E, s.v. ezenn.
24 Cf. W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwrterbuch, s.v. a
snan.
25 For a comparable orthographic development, cf. the syllabic value i
sin, izin, or isin
derived from EZEN; Gelb, MAD 22: 210 ad No. 72.
26 TMH n. F. 12:346; de Clercq, Cyl. Or. No. 86 = pl. x and p. 68; unpubl. 1st. Ni.
372 (courtesy E. Sollberger).
17
18
412
Text from L2. The restoration of the figure as 1200 seems less
probable by comparison with the form of the signs for 1200 four lines
above. Su2: [ . . . ]-li- is-ma / [ . . . ] - a g. P5: traces.
3 En-dra-an-na
(4) L2 Su2
P5
420 m u a r - * - [?] - m
i t i - 3 u4 - 3 1/2 -ag
L2 Su2
Text from L2 and Su2, the latter preserving the last sign of each of the
three lines. WB has only room for two lines here; the first sign of the
second resembles the * of L2. P5: E n - t a r - * - a n - n a /[ . . . ]. This
entry supplies not only an entirely new name,27 but also the basis for
the months and days in the total of Kish I.
(5)
L2 Su2
WB
L2
5 Ba-bu-um-*-[?]
P5 5
300 mu - a g
Text from L2. WB: Ba-b[u- . . . ]. P5: Ba-u-um-E [ . . . ]. Su2 preserves only
L2
WB
L2
P5 6
Pu-An- na -[um]
240 m u [ - a g]
Text from L2. WB: Pu-An- nu-um m u [8]40 -ag . P5: Pu-An-*-um [
. . .]. The new text confirms Langdons copy and rules out F.R. Kraus
otherwise plausible conjecture sr-ri-mu-um.28 L2s 240 represents the
lowest figure in a kind of arithmetic progression formed by the first six
reigns, as follows: 1200 , 900 (variant: 960), 670 , 420+, 300, 240 ; it
may therefore be preferable to WBs [8]40.
413
II
The remaining kings of Kish I are not aected by the new fragment.29
It is interesting to note that their number remains twenty-three as
given in the dynasty summary. But the discrepancy between the regnal
totals as calculated and as given in the summary is not reduced by the
discovery of the new figures except in respect to the months and days.
The hope that L2 might be assigned to its proper place in a presumed
original by physical inspection was expressed by Kraus.30 Even without
such inspection, the new fragment makes it seem highly probable that
L2 represents, in fact, the upper left-hand corner of a tablet, since L1
and P2, two twelve-column tablets of identical lay-out, undoubtedly
began with the post-diluvian kings, and the new fragment breaks o
at the very point where P2 (as well as P3) begins. The conclusion that
L2 is part of either L1 or P2 (or possibly P3) seems almost inescapable.
In response to my inquiry regarding the latter two texts, M. Civil
kindly stated: CBS 14223 + N 3368 is compatible with both P2 and
P3; personally I am inclined to assume that it belongs to P2. It is not
however a physical join, although the fragments must be quite close.31
If we suppose, then, that L2 represents the upper left-hand column
of the obverse of either P2 or L1 (or conceivably P3), then all the extant
Nippur exemplars of the Sumerian King List32 begin with the first postdiluvian dynasty, Kish I, with one possible exception, namely P5.33 In
the case of P5, however, we are dealing with a copy later than the
others; moreover, while the shape of the tablets suggests that at least
twenty double-lines were lost from before the beginning of the Kish I
section, we can hardly be sure what, if anything, the missing portion
contained. In short, the Nippur scribes of the Early Old Babylonian
period were not in the habit of joining the ante-diluvian traditions to
the King List. This is also the conclusion arrived at on internal grounds
most recently by J.J. Finkelstein.34
It is dicult to place the stray -a of Kraus transliteration of Ni. 9712a i (ZA 50:35,
38), which does not appear in Kramers copy, University Museum Bulletin 17/2 (1952)
19.
30 ZA 50:54, note 3.
31 Letter of 11-16-1961.
32 For P and P , see below, notes 45 f.
4
6
33 For previous discussions of this question, cf. Jacobsen, AS 11:5568 and Kraus,
ZA 50:3133, 5153.
34 American Oriental Society meeting, Cambridge (Mass.), 1962; cf. now above, sub
General Conclusions (A).
29
414
The same conclusion follows from the fact that the same Nippur
scribes, and only they, regularly concluded their exemplars with a final
summary limited to the post-diluvian dynasties.35 These summaries
were not included in Jacobsens edition of the King List, which was
based on the non-Nippurian exemplar WB 444, though of course he
made full use of them in his reconstruction of the rest of the text.36
Here too we now dispose of additional material: Ni. 9712c, a part of
L1 copied by Kramer37 and edited by Kraus who identified it;38 N 1610
= CBS 15365 (P6), first published, in transliteration only, by A. Poebel
and now re-identified and copied by Civil;39 and CBS 13484, a small
fragment joining CBS 13293 (P4) which was identified by Civil and is
published herewith with the kind permission of Professor Kramer.40
In view of the new material, it has been deemed appropriate to edit
the Nippur summaries here. P2, as the most complete of the versions,
is used as the basis for a text; the newly copied material is presented
in the right hand column. No attempt has been made to resolve the
troublesome question of regnal totals for the separate cities or the grand
total for all the cities; the restorations are simply based on the preserved
figures from the body of the King List, where possible from the Nippur
exemplars. One observation may, however, be in order in connection
with the newly-found fragment of P4. It knows of all sixteen kings of
Isin and, while there is some doubt about the precise number of years
assigned to the dynasty, goes far toward confirming what Poebel had
argued from internal evidence: that it was, in eect, written in the last
year or years of Damiq-ilisu, the last king of Isin.41
415
duplicates
(1)
P6(CBS 15365)
[mu] - bi 125
[. . .] b - ag
[a - r] - 6 - kam
[s - unu]gk i - a
[ . . . luga]l
L1 (Ni. 9712c)
[s - A - wa - ank] i
[su -nign 1 luga]l
[7 mu ] -ag
[a - r] - 1 - kam]
[s - Ha - ma -z]iki - a
42 This break must have contained summaries for (6) Adab, (7) Mari and (8) Aksak,
each of which was once the seat of kingship.
43 These new figures for the kings and years of Gutium will be dealt with separately
in a study of the Gutian period.
416
duplicates (continued)
16 lugal
mu - bi 226! *
nam - lugal - - si - ink i - na
11 uruk i
139 lugal
mu - bi ** + 3000
+ 443 mu
traces
III
Thus all the evidence points to a Nippurian King List tradition which
began with the first post-diluvian dynasty (Kish I) and ended with a
summary of the eleven cities which shared the kingship till the end
of the First Dynasty of Isin. One other new bit of evidence deserves
to be mentioned in conclusion, for it enables us to specify the precise
line with which this tradition began the text of the King List, even
though that line is not preserved on any of the Nippur recensions. In
a New Literary Catalogue from Ur,48 Kramer has, in fact, discovered
417
the incipit of the King List. It takes the form of nam-lugal (No. 25) and
seems to show that the Old Babylonian version began with i 4149 and
not with i 43.50
Of course, nam-lugal is also the incipit of the ante-diluvian section,
and it could therefore be argued that the new catalogue entry identifies
the fuller form of the King List. I would, however, suggest that the line
nam - lugal an - ta e11 - d - a - ba is originally more at home in the
post-diluvian King List, and secondary in the ante-diluvian addition
and in the Sumerian Flood myth. Were it otherwise, it would be dicult to justify the repetition of the line in the middle of the expanded
version of the King List. There is nothing in the preserved Sumerian
traditions to suggest that kingship reverted to heaven during the flood.51
Moreover, the line that precedes our incipit in the postdiluvian section
(egir a - ma - ru ba - r - ra -ta) is clearly transitional, and results
in an awkward juxtaposition of two uncordinated temporal clauses.
This could easily have been avoided had not the second clause been
an already established part of the existing text. If, on the other hand,
nam-lugal was in fact the incipit of the Nippur King List, it is easy to
see the identical opening of the ante-diluvian addition as an intentional
imitation of the existing, post-diluvian King List,52 betraying a desire to
adapt the expanded version to the familiar patterns of the Nippurian
ones, even as to its title.
So already Jacobsen with respect to P2; cf. AS 11:55 f., note 100.
Ibid. 77, note 38 and references there.
51 Expressions like From [heaven] kingship has come down [!; text has: si-il) to
you [i. e., Ur] (G. Castellino, Urnammu/Three Religious Texts, ZA 53 [1959] 124,
line 114; cf. ibid. 107, line 44), if correctly restored and emended, may simply represent
attempts to legitimize a new dynasty. An echo of the notion that the attributes of
kingship must be removed for safekeeping during a/the floodalbeit to the aps,
not to heavenmay perhaps be seen in the Irra Epic, but there it is primarily the
divine kingship of Marduk that is involved; cf. especially W.G. Lambert, Archiv fr
Orientforschung 18 (1958) 398400. For a similar tradition in connection with the King
List itself, cf. Finkelstein, JCS 17 (1963) 46, note 24.
52 Granted that its immediate model may have been the Sumerian flood myth; cf.
Jacobsen, AS 11:58 .
49
50
vi.2
SUMERIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY
I am going to use the expression Sumerian historiography in a double sense hereone to describe the Sumerian texts dealing with history,
and the other to identify the attempts of modern scholars to reconstruct
Sumerian history.* My object is to test the validity of the proposition
that literary sources may be used, with due caution, in historiographical reconstructions. In the case of ancient Israel, this proposition is
virtually axiomatic. For many periods, institutions and topics of Biblical
history, the Bible is our only resource, and it is a literary source. The
debate over its admissibility in evidence has raged long and hard all the
same, and I have reviewed it at length elsewhere.1 I will not dwell on it
here except to note that my recent animadversions on Assyrian historiography were in part an attempt to bring that analogy to bear on the
debate.2
On the Egyptian side, I may perhaps cite the opinion of Gun Bjrkman who, in an article entitled Egyptology and historical method,
argued against the uncritical use of New Kingdom literary texts to
reconstruct the history of the First Intermediate Period.3 Two of these
are commonly used for this purpose, the Admonitions of Ipuwer and
the Instructions of Merikare. But since the date and historical value
Presented to the Third Assyriological Colloquium, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, May 9, 1979, on Aspects of Cuneiform Historiography under the sponsorship of
the Institute for Advanced Studies. For an earlier treatment of the subject, see Samuel
Noah Kramer, Sumerian Historiography, IEJ 3 (1953), pp. 217232.
1 See my Biblical history in its Near Eastern setting: the contextual approach, in
Carl D. Evans, William W. Hallo and John B. White (eds.), Scripture in Context: Essays on
the Comparative Method (Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series 34), 1980, pp. 126.
2 W.W. Hallo, Assyrian Historiography revisited, Eretz Israel 14 (H. L. Ginsberg
Volume), 1978, pp. l*7*. Of other recent contributions, note especially J. Krecher and
H.P. Mller, Vergangenheitsinteresse in Mesopotamien und Israel, Saeculum 26 (1975),
pp. 1314, and B. Hruska, Das Verhltnis zur Vergangenheit im alten Mesopotamien,
Archv Orientln 47 (1979), pp. 414.
3 Gun Bjrkman, Egyptology and historical method, Orientalia Suecana 13 (1964),
pp. 933.
420
421
or everyday,8 I substituted categories based on form as well as function,9 defining these respectively as canonical,10 monumental,11 and archival.12 Within these broad categories, I have been at pains to delineate
the individual genres into which they could be broken down,13 to trace
the evolution of these genres over time,14 and thus to reconstruct the
separate genre-histories from which a literary history of Mesopotamia
could ultimately be assembled.15 To a growing extent, my classification
system has been gaining acceptance in the field.16
Classification is not, however, the be-all and end-all of our eorts.
Even if our modern taxonomy tallies with the native categories, it
remains no more than a working hypothesis, a means to an end, or
to diverse ends. One of these is to reconstruct a literary and cultural history of Mesopotamia, juxtaposed with the political, social,
and economic history of the area, to the reciprocal illumination of
both. Another end is closer to our purpose here. For, having once
defined and distinguished our categories and genres, we can more
safely aspire to re-unite them, in other words to draw on all of them
jointly and severally in order to reconstruct the historical reality lying
behind them.
I made a first conscious attempt in this direction with The House of
Ur-Meme, the aristocratic family which held some of the highest political and priestly oces at neo-Sumerian Nippur for five generations.17
My reconstruction of the genealogy of the family and the careers of
C.J. Gadd, Teachers and Students in the Oldest Schools, London, 1956, p. 6.
Hallo, (above, n. 6), pp. 154156; previously e.g. in JNES 17 (1958), p. 210 n. 6.
10 Idem, New viewpoints on cuneiform literature, IEJ 12 (1962), esp. pp. 2126,
here: I.1.
11 Idem, The royal inscriptions of Ur: a typology, HUCA 33 (1962), pp. 143.
12 Idem, Sumerian Archival Texts (TLB 3), Leiden, 19631973.
13 Idem (above, n. 11) for monuments; cf. The neo-Sumerian letter-orders, Bib Or
26 (1969), pp. 171175 for an archival genre.
14 Idem, Individual prayer in Sumerian; the continuity of a tradition, JAOS 88
(Speiser Memorial Volume; AOS 53), 1968, pp. 7189, here: IV.1.
15 Idem, Toward a History of Sumerian Literature, Sumerological Studies in Honor of
Thorkild Jacobsen (AS 20), Chicago, 1976, pp. 181203, here: I.4.
16 I.J. Gelb, deploring the lack of any comprehensive study of the typology of written records in ancient times, singled out my studies (above, nn. 1011) for preliminary thoughts on the topic as applied mainly to ancient Mesopotamia in his Written
records and decipherment in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.). Diachronic, Areal and Typological Linguistics (Current Trends in Liguistics 11), 1973, p. 254. Cf. previously E.C. Kingsbury,
HUCA 34 (1963), p. 1, n. 1.
17 The house of Ur-Meme, JNES 31 (1972), pp. 8795; cf. idem. Seals lost and
found, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 6 (1977), p. 57 and nn. 1820.
8
9
422
18
719.
19
See, for now, P. Michalowski, The bride of Simanum, JAOS 95 (1975), pp. 716
M.B. Rowton, Watercourses and water rights in the ocial correspondence from
Larsa and Isin, JCS 21 (1967), pp. 267274.
20 So according to M.E. Cohen, The Lu-Ninurta letters, WO 9 (1977), pp. 1013.
21 E.g. the letter of Lugal-murub to Enlil-massu his son (!) = No. 16 in LetterCollection B (below, n. 57); it can be dated to the time of Ibbi-Sin (more or less) if the
authors father is Zuzu; cf. Hallo (above, n. 17).
22 E.g. Letter-Collection B , from Ur-shaga to Shulgi(?) (below, n. 57); cf. Hallo
6
(above, n. 14), p. 75 f.
23 E.g. Letter-Collection B , from Inannakam to Nintinuga, which can perhaps be
17
dated to the time of Amar-Sin; cf. Hallo, (above, n. 17), p. 91 f.
423
Thus the literary letter developed along two separate but parallel lines
in neo-Sumerian (Ur III-Isin) times: one the royal letter and the other
the letter-prayer.
The two lines converged under the Larsa dynasty, when we have
no less than four royal letter-prayers addressed by King Sin-iddinam
(ca. 18491843 bc) to Utu, the patron-deity of Larsa, and (in one case)
to Nin-Isina, goddess of Isin. Since I have dealt with these letters in
some detail on previous occasions here in Jerusalem in 197324 and
1977,25 I will pass over them now and turn instead to a fifth letter-prayer
which follows directly on one of the Sin-iddinam letters to Utu in a
prism from Oxford recently published by Gurney and Kramer,26 and
which thus forms part of the Royal Correspondence of Larsa. It is, in
fact, in many ways the pice de rsistance of this correspondence.
The new composition is a letter, not from the king but to the king,
and that king is Rim-Sin, last and longest-lived member of the Larsa
dynasty. It is addressed to him by a woman, Ninshatapada. Like the
famous Enheduanna, she is a princess, priestess and poetess in one.
Like her predecessor more than four centuries earlier, she was born
to the founder of a new dynasty, in her case, the founder of the Old
Babylonian dynasty of Uruk, Sin-kashid. She was removed from her
oce and exiled from Durum, the city in which she served, when it
fell to Larsa. Now she pleads with the conqueror to spare her city and
restore her to her priestly oce. The text is complete, in six duplicates
and 58 lines. Its elaborate structure features a three-part salutation and
a three-part body so disposed that each portion of the body is twice as
long as the corresponding section of the salutation.
There is little diculty in correlating the newly recovered letter with
the history of southern Babylonia in the late nineteenth century bc
24
424
For this history, see especially A. Falkenstein, Bagh Mitt 2 (1963), pp. 2241.
Note that he appointed another daughter, Nish-inishu, as high priestess of Lugalbanda at Uruk; cf. Sin-kashid 6 (republished Falkenstein, above, n. 27, Pl. 8); P. Weadock, Iraq 37 (1975), p. 125.
29 C.B.F. Walker, AfO 23 (1970), pp. 88 f.; G. Pettinato, Oriens Antiquus 9 (1970),
pp. 105107; David I. Owen, JCS 26 (1974), pp. 63 f.; H. Steible, Archiv Orientln 43
(1975), pp. 346352.
30 YOS 9:22 f. (= Ishme-Dagan 6) (written BD.KI).
31 The high-priestess (nin-dingir) of Lugal(g)irra installed according to Isin Date C
presumably functioned at Durum, probably under Ishbi-Irra.
32 In view of his hymn to Meslamtaea and Lugalgirra, edited by . Sjberg, Orientalia
Suecana 1920 (19701971), pp. 140178, No. 11a.
33 Hallo, Royal titles from the Mesopotamian periphery, O.R. Gurney Anniversary
Volume (Anatolian Studies 30, 1981) n. 75.
34 Perhaps in an eort to translate Akkadian re"m ep
sum; cf. Hallo, Early Mesopotamian
Royal Titles (AOS 43), 1951, p. 148 and n. 2. Is the comparable utul9-zid applied to one
of the earliest Rulers of Lagash a parody on this epithet? Cf. E. Sollberger, JCS 21
(1967), pp. 281, 284, 289 (line 113).
35 Hallo (above, n. 33), n. 74.
27
28
425
In between, it was used predicatively, i.e. after the royal name, by Shulgi
of Ur in his royal hymns, by An-am of Uruk in his inscriptions, and
by Nur-Adad and Sin-iqisham of Larsa in letter-prayers and hymns
respectively.36 The Akkadian equivalent reu knu occurs in a fragmentary
literary letter reminiscent in many ways of our Sumerian letter.37 Now
Rim-Sin used the attributive title only in the date formulas of his 23rd
to 26th years (18001797 bc); before that (year 22 = 1801) he called
himself simply shepherd (sipa) and afterwards obedient shepherd
(sipa-gistug) (year 27 = 1796) and reliable shepherd (sipa-gi-na) (years
28 . = 1795 .). Thus our text reflects the ocial designation of the
years following the capture of Uruk (year 21 = 1802).
In the second (really: third) salutation, Rim-Sin is apostrophized,
among other things, as natural-born son of the lord Nergal. This
epithet occurs verbatim in a fragmentary literary letter also, presumably, addressed to Rim-Sin,38 and, less literally, in several inscriptions of
the king.39 It assumes special significance in the present context in view
of the equation of this chthonic deity with Meslamtaea, the god whom
the writer served as high-priestess.
The body of the letter begins with a 15-line hymn praising Rim-Sins
magnanimous treatment of the defeated Uruk which is so far unique
in cuneiform literature, but which draws everywhere on the ocial
diction of the conquerors scribes. Larsa is referred to as the city lofty
like a mountain (uru-hur-sag-gim-l-la), a simile used exclusively in the
inscriptions of Warad-Sin and Rim-Sin during this period.40 The king
takes the field at the command of the gods An and Enlil (du11 dAn
En-ll-l-ta mu-un-da-an-zi-ga), the phraseology of his date formulas
from his 22nd year (1801) on; previously, notably in date formulas 17
21 (18061802), only Enlil was invoked. The implication is that the
conquest of Uruk commemorated in year 21 (1802) entitled the king to
426
invoke An, the tutelary deity of Uruk, in his subsequent date formulas,
the more so if his treatment of the conquered city was magnanimous.41
And so indeed it was, as is clearly stated in the next three lines, where
we read (i.a.) of Uruk: its king . . . you captured (but) spared its populace (unuki-ga lugal-bi . . . . mu-un-dab5-b u-g nam-l-ux -lu-bi su-gar
mu-un-gar-ra). The captured king may be Irdanene, whose defeat RimSin recorded in his 14th year formula (= 1809 bc) and whose capture he
claimed in his inscriptions.42 But the sparing of the population is surely
a reference to the events commemorated in identical terms in the 21st
year formula (= 1802 bc); our letter even makes it possible to improve
on the current reading and understanding of the date formula,43 which
seems to be quoted once more three lines later on.44
In the second 15-line strophe of the letter, the writer turns to her
own plight, speaking of the exile from her city and her priestly oce
which she has endured for five years45 or, in a variant, for four years.46
If she met this fate upon the defeat of Uruk in 1803, then her letter was
composed, or at least worded as if composed, in 1798, or 1797 according
to the variant. If inclusive reckoning is involved, the corresponding
dates are 1799 or 1800 respectively. All these dates fall within the
time span18001797already argued above on the basis of the royal
epithets.
But more likely her exile began one year earlier, for in the concluding 9-line stanza of her letter she speaks of Durum as my city47
and as cult-seat of the twin-gods of the underworld, Meslamtaea and
41 Some date formulas add Enki to An and Enlil, implying a similar conquest of
Eridu. Cf. also Rim-Sin 7, which has all three deities giving Uruk to Rim-Sin.
42 Rim-Sin 10 and 15 (from Ur); cf. D.O. Edzard, Die zweite Zwischenzeit Babyloniens,
Wiesbaden, 1957, p. 155, and the additions of E. Sollberger, UET 8 (1965), pp. 31 f. (sub
Nos. 28 and 32).
43 ugu nam-lu-ulu -bi su-gar mu-un-gar-ra. Edzard (above, n. 42), 156, read egir
x
instead of ugu but ugu is clear in the date lists as well as some of the attested texts (e.g.
YOS 5:79). M. Stol, Studies in Old Babylonian History, 1976, p. 23, does not comment on
Edzards reading.
44 Cf. line 27: ur-sag-bi (var. -e-ne, ) . . . su-zu (var. -s, ) s bi (var. am-mi)-in-du
11
-ga with the date formulas ern--dah-bi s b-in-du11-ga. Cf. also UET 8: 82 as read
by Michalowski, (below, n. 50), p. 87.
45 Cf. line 36: mu-5-kam-ma-(ta) uru-m nu-me-a etc. So OECT 5:25:92; TCL 16,
no. 46:1.
46 So with M. i
g and H. Kizilyay, Sumerian Literary Tablets and Fragments in the
Archaeological Museum of Istanbul I, Ankara, 1979, p. 181 (Ni. 9729).
47 Cf. line 51: BD.KI uru(ki)-mu.
427
428
429
The importance of Ninshatapadas letter for Sumerian historiography was recognized, on the basis of my remarks in Women of Sumer (above, n. 56) by Hruska
(above, n. 2), p. 11.
59 Cf. F. Charles Fensham, VT 13 (1963), p. 133 on the impact of the royal chancellery language in the latter part of the second millennium bc on the greater part of
the ancient Near East, citing Klaus Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (1960), p. 28.
60 The cultic setting of Sumerian poetry, RAI 17 (1970), pp. 118 f., here: I.2.
61 Cf. Michalowski (above, n. 18), p. 716, n. 2; J. Renger, RLA 6 (1980), p. 68.
62 D.R. Frayne, The Historical Correlations of the Sumerian Royal Hymns (24001900 bc.)
(PhD dissertation, Yale University, 1981).
430
63 With this important proviso: that we do not insist that all royal hymns were
written to commemorate events recorded in year formulae, or that all year formulae
were commemorated in hymns (Frayne, ibid., p. 500).
64 Comparable conclusions were reached for some Akkadian literary texts by J.J.M.
Roberts, Nebuchadnezzars Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective, in Maria de
Jong Ellis (ed.), Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein (Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Memoirs 19), Hamden. Conn., 1977, pp. 183187.
vi.3
NEW DIRECTIONS IN HISTORIOGRAPHY
(MESOPOTAMIA AND ISRAEL)1
The substance of this paper was presented to the Institut fr Orientalistik of the
University of Vienna, Prof. Hermann Hunger presiding, October 21, 1996, and to the
Oriental Club of New Haven, February 13, 1997. It is here oered to W.H.Ph. Rmer
in fond recollection of our encounters in Leiden in 19501951.
2 Gterbock 1934, 1938.
3 Van Seters 1983; Millard et al. 1994; cf. also Cancik 1976 and the reviews by Zevit
1985 and Brettler 1996.
4 Collingwood 1993.
5 For a spirited defense of some of my positions, see Millard et al. 1994, especially
Averbeck 1994.
432
Huizinga 1936.
Finkelstein 1963:462 and n. 4.
8 Hallo 1980:6 and 20, n. 27.
9 Hallo and Simpson 1971:vi.
10 Hallo and Simpson, 1997:vii.
11 Hallo 1996 ch. 9 and see the bibliography in Studies Hallo (1993) xixvi, items
7,8,10 (ch. 9) and 125.
12 Ibid., Item 146.
13 Ibid., Items 60, 56, 58, 109 (and 141).
14 Ibid., Items 17 and 81.
15 Ibid., Items 108, 114, and 127.
16 Ibid., Items 10:107; 59:4; 91:5; 136:193 and Hallo 1996:314 f.
6
7
433
When I first oered that formulation, the field of Biblical history was
already polarized into two camps that I chose to labelas neutrally as
possiblemaximalists and minimalists,17 a terminology which I credited to W.G. Dever (i.a.),18 though Dever himself has since disavowed
paternity,19 and I now sometimes receive credit for it20or should I say
blame (Another early use of maximalist was by D. Pardee in reference
to what he called Dahoodic.).21 Speaking very generally, the maximalists are willing to accept the Biblical version of events unless and until
falsified by extraBiblical sources, preferably contemporaneous, bearing on the same mattersa position stated with unusual candor by Bob
Becking when he declared; The dates in the Book of Kings can only
be considered as untrustworthy when they can be falsified by contemporaneous evidence.22 The minimalists, by contrast, demand that the
Biblical version of any given event must have extraBiblical verification,
preferably again contemporaneous, before it can be regarded as historical. And they set themselves up as arbiters of what constitutes extra
Biblical verification, as we shall see. No wonder that most scholars prefer to place themselves in the golden mean between these extreme (and
irreconcilable) positions,23 especially today, when this polarization has
gone much further, with the very term Biblical history under fire.24
What is more to the point here, however, is that today it is no longer
so clear that the historiography of Mesopotamia and the rest of the
ancient Near East still provides a methodological model for avoiding
this kind of polarization. Let me illustrate.
My illustration will be taken from the Sargonic dynasty. As I already
put it in 1971, the rise and fall of this dynasty is so much the stu
of later legend that the chief historiographic problem is to peel away
the legendary accretions in order to get at the authentic core,
Hallo 1980:3 and 19, n. 13; 1990:193.
Hallo 1980:19, n. 14, referring to Dever apud Hayes and Miller 1977:77.
19 Shanks 1996:35: How would you define the minimalists and the maximalists?
Dever: I didnt coin those terms. Im not sure who did. Shanks 1997 and 1997a still
uses the term without attribution.
20 Yamauchi 1994:6, referring to Hallo 1990:187 (correct to 1990:193). But see above,
note 17, for the earlier formulation in Hallo 1980.
21 Dennis Pardee, JNES 40 (1981) 69.
22 Becking 1992:52.
23 As did I (Hallo 1980:3) despite Yamauchis characterization of some of my opinions as maximalist (1994:13 and n. 68).
24 Whitelam 1996, and his paper at the SBL meeting, Philadelphia, 1995, for which
see Shanks 1997:50 f.
17
18
434
435
Liverani 1973.
LOrigine della citt (Rome, Riuniti, 1986); Prestige and Interest: International Relations in
the Near East ca. 16001100 B.C. (Padua, Sargon srl, 1990).
35 La Palestina, with Andrea Giardina and Biancamaria Scarcia (Rome, Riuniti,
1987).
36 I Trattati nel mondo antico: forma, ideologia, funzione, with L. Canfora and C. Zaccagnini (Rome, LErma di Brettschneider, 1990).
37 Antico Orients: Storia, Societ, Economia (Rome, Laterza, 1988).
38 Early/Middle/Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, etc.
39 Cf. Hallo 1992:70, n. 5.
40 Cf. my concept of the high or classic Sargonic period, most explicitly in
Hallo forthcoming; previously: Item 90:191, Item 175:255, 1993:19, n. 26. Dierently
Zhi, 1989:4.
41 Cf. e.g. Hallo and Simpson 1971:6063, 1997:5762.
42 Liverani describes the new historiography in terms of a real Copernican revolution, (p. 6 et passim). See also below, at n. 68.
33
34
436
43
44
45
Fischer 1971.
Cf. simply Hallo and Simpson 1971:154158; 1997:154157.
Liverani 1993b:41.
437
later literary text.46 Royal inscriptions thus become part of the pattern
of literature as politics which has been identified for many periods
and culturesEgyptian by Williams, Hittite by Honer, Assyrian by
Machinist and more recently Barbara Porter, Israelite by Brettler47
and which is demonstrated for the neoSumerian period by Cooper
in Liveranis volume.48 Even when more or less contemporary with the
events they describe, they are not unimpeachable witnesses to them.
As for archival texts, most of these are not, it is true, products of
the royal chancery, or instruments of royal propaganda. But they suffer from another disability, their laconic character. It is only the rare
archival text which throws explicit light on courtly ceremonial, on
diplomacy, on warfare and on other broad aairs of state. As a shining
exception we may cite the example of the two letters of IshkunDagan,
one invoking (though not naming) the king and queen, the other mentioning the depredations of the Gutians who, according to the historic
tradition, were destined to topple the great Sargonic Empire. They are
duly cited by Aage Westenholz in the Liverani volume49 but they turn
out to be the exceptions that prove the rule, for though they have been
repeatedly cited and anthologized since they were first published in
1926 and 1932 respectively,50 their like has not recurred among the considerable number of letters of Sargonic date available by now.51 The
proverbial character of the first52 has even tended to cast doubt on
its contemporary status. And though the figure of IskkunDagan has
acquired additional reality by the discovery of an indubitably contemporaneous monument, namely his seal impression, in the Yale Babylonian Collection,53 one would hardly want to base the history of the fall
of the dynasty on his Gutian letter, at best an ambiguous piece of contemporary testimonyon the contrary, one needs to use it with utmost
caution.54
Archival texts, of course, are more revealing of management and
administration, especially of the royal lands and enterprises, than they
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
Liverani 1993a:7.
Williams 1964, Honer 1975, Machinist 1976, Porter 1993 and 1996; Brettler 1989.
Cooper 1993.
Westenholz 1993:158 f.
Thureau-Dangin 1926; Smith 1932. Cf. e.g. Michalowski 1993:27 f.
Kienast and Volk 1995. For the Ishkun-Dagan letters see pp. 5355, 8994.
On which see Hallo 1990a:209 and nn. 4648.
Hallo apud Buchanan 1981:445. Cf. the comments of Westenholz 1993:159, n. 3.
Glassner 1986:40, 50.
438
are of aairs of state as such. No matter how laconic, here their sheer
numbers provide valuable insights, as fully documented in Benjamin
Fosters two contributions to Liveranis volume. Of these the first deals
with Management and administration in the Sargonic period, and
does so without noticeable concession to any particular philosophy of
history.55 The second is a bibliography of the Sargonic period running
for all its ostensibly select characterto twelve pages; what is particularly noteworthy about it is that it devotes only half a page to historical
studies and almost ten times as much space to archival sources and
studies, letters (also archival in my taxonomy), and society and economy.56 To the extent, then, that one chooses to equate history with
social and economic history, one is justified in exploiting these sources
to that end.
(2) But the reverse of that proposition is equally valid: to the extent
that one thinks of history as embracing more than just social and
economic phenomena, one is required to resort to other than only
social and economic sources, i.e., in particular, to later sources. Not
to belabor the obvious, I will confine myself here to a single illustration of this point, the very concept of a Sargonic period. How
would modern historians have ever arrived at such a concept without the promptings of the native historiography and chronography?57
One looks in vain for it in histories written before 1925 by such early
synthesizers as Hugo Radau,58 R.W. Rogers,59 Stephen Langdon,60 or
even L.W. King.61 Except for the last, these are the very authorities
whom Liverani faults for their indiscriminate utilization of late and
early sources.62
And no wonder, given the piecemeal recovery of the Sumerian King
List and the relatively belated publication of a first working edition. To
quote Thorkild Jacobsen, The first fragment of the Sumerian King
list of any importance was published by Hilprecht in 1906, the second
Foster 1993.
Foster 1993a.
57 For the latter concept see most recently Hallo, Item 127:178 and nn. 26 f.
58 Early Babylonian History (London, 1900), esp. pp. 154175: Kings of Agade.
59 A History of Babylonia and Assyria I (London, 1902), esp. pp. 363367.
60 In: The Cambridge Ancient History I (Cambridge 1923) 402434; (2nd ed., Cambridge,
1924) 402436: The dynasties of Akkad and Lagash, The dynasty of Sargon.
61 A History of Sumer and Akkad (London, 1916), esp. pp. 216251.
62 Liverani 1993b:42, n. 3. Cf. also Boscawen 1903:127132.
55
56
439
440
Liverani 1993a:6.
Hallo Item 29:55, 127:179, 181. For an over-all survey see Chavalas 1994:111, n. 47.
441
now. Although he acknowledges that all this is no more than a hypothesis, he believe(s) that the logical procedure of this analysis is the right
one.70
I beg to dier. This analysis piles assumption on assumption to arrive
at a most debatable conclusion. It presupposes a degree of political
debate at the time which remains to be demonstrated;71 it appeals
to Sargons inscriptions including their later copies as evidence that
he did not cross the Euphrates, and to NaramSins inscriptions as
evidence that NaramSin was the first to do so, thus (a) ignoring his
own strictures against the monuments, (b) treating Sargons contacts
with lands further faraway in the northwest as only indirect or
mediated,72 and (c) taking NaramSins claim at facevalue in spite
of its propagandistic cast. I am not insisting that the attribution of
the composition to Sargon of Akkad is necessarily valid; I could as
easily, for example, imagine that the composition originally dealt with
Sargon I of Assyria and was subsequently transferred to Sargon of
Akkad.73 But to assume that the composition dates to the reign of
ShamshiAdad and then to write the history of that reign based on
such a dating and such an assumption seems to me to defy logic.
Much the same could be said for the attempts by Liverani to associate the other four compositions with specific dates of composition and
political contexts or purposes: The Curse of Akkad with the reign of
IshmeDagan of Isin, The General Insurrection with that of Sumu
laEl of Babylon, the NaramSin Legend with Hammurapi or perhaps Samsuditana, and the geographical treatise generally known as
The Empire of Sargon of Akkad with Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal
of Assyria. In each case his objections to an uncritical and literal reading of the texts are valuable, but his total rejection of any historical
kernel leads him to new hypotheses about the compositions that are if
anything even more dicult to justify.
(4) The proposition that we cannot aspire to know more than the
ancient sources knew, only more than they told was put forward by me
long ago in an utterly obscure book review,74 but I have repeated it often
70
71
72
73
74
Liverani 1993b:5256.
Liverani 1993b:52 and n. 26.
Liverani 1993b:53.
Hallo and Simpson 1971:94; 1997:89.
Hallo Item 149.
442
443
theory into practice, to see what can actually be achieved when the
sources are split into more and less reliable ones. It is thus comparable to those few attempts that have been made in Biblical criticism to
actually present the text of documents identified by one or another documentary hypothesis, of which one of the best to my mind remains the
eort of Pfeier and Pollard to reconstruct the early source in Samuel.81
A completely dierent approach is taken by Giorgio Buccellati in his
study of a single Sargonic inscription, or what he argues persuasively
is a single inscription.82 As is true of much of his best work, his study
combines archaeology and philology, and it does so here to focus on an
inscription of Rimush, son and successor of Sargon, as preserved in Old
Babylonian copies from Nippur. Virtually for the first time,83 and certainly for the first time systematically, he tries to reconstruct the physical
appearance of the statue of Rimush from which the late copies of his
inscription were presumably made. In this eort he is greatly aided by
the scholarly notations inserted in the ancient copies as to where precisely the respective texts were located on the monument. The results of
his research over many years are presented in the form of actual drawings as well as schematic transliterations and translations. I would dier
with him on some details, notably I would take ms to be a circular
base not a plaque given its other attested meanings.84 But the overall result is an important step in the direction of a realistic appraisal
of the Sargonic inscriptions and their late copies: the inscriptions are
powerful instruments of royal propaganda, and their copies are faithful
to an extraordinary degree, even displaying a kind of scholarly interest in the physical details of the original. This is not as surprising as
it might at first seem, given what we now know about the copying of
royal monuments, presumably from their originals in Nippur, Ur and
perhaps other places, as a portion of the scribal curriculum.85 If Buccellati is correct, then the skepticism displayed by the new historiography
towards the late copies of Sargonic inscription needs to be tempered.
In a recent article, Steve Tinney confronts the Old Babylonian traditions about the Great Rebellion against NaramSin with the evidence of the contemporaneous monuments. Like Liverani he concludes
81
82
83
84
85
444
that the traditions may be used to illuminate the sociopolitical background of the Old Babylonian period itself, but have no place in the
reconstruction of the events of the Old Akkadian period.86 However,
he rejects any a priori separation of literary and historical texts on the
basis of apparent veracity, implying that each case must be judged on
its own merits.87
The most recent addition to the list deserves more notice than it
has so far received. The Groningen dissertation by Gerdien Jonker is
by far the most systematic and ambitious attempt yet to assess the
Sargonic period not only in its own right but in the total context of
Mesopotamian historiography including the ritual remembrance of the
dead.88 It succeeds admirably in this purpose, reviewing a huge mass
of literature along the way. In brief, its conclusions can be summarized
as follows: Memory is of necessity selective; since we cannot remember
everything, it is essential that much be forgotten. Within the family, the
ancestral cult provides for memorizing up to four previous generations
at the most, and if a particularly illustrious distant ancestor is to be
included among the honored dead, as e.g. in the case of the second
millennium (Kassite) period eponyms of the first millennium (neo
Assyrian and neoBabylonian) scribal families, then the intervening
generations are readily dropped by means of telescoping. In the
royal houses, a comparable process was at work, but the availability
of scribes and written records made possible the construction of very
lengthy and detailed genealogies beginning in Old Babylonian and Old
Assyrian times (from my point of view on the basis of the Amorite or
Akkadian/Amorite interest in family relationships).89 They were pressed
into service in what were explicitly or by implication cultic invocations
of the dead in connection with the kispuritual, the coronation of new
kings and possibly other occasions. The kispuritual and possibly others
were conducted in front of the statues of the deceased, and in the case
of Sargon and NaramSin, the cult of their statues is attested as far
away as Mari and as late as neoBabylonian times. Historiography may
thus be said to have followed ritual: to the extent that the veneration
of royal predecessors and ancestors was constantly winnowed out to
meet the limitations of memory, so was the retelling and recopying of
86
87
88
89
Tinney 1995:14.
Tinney 1995:2.
Jonker 1995.
Hallo, Item 127:180183.
445
90
91
92
93
94
446
447
448
449
Kienast, Burkhart, and Konrad Volk, 1995: Die Sumerischen und Akkadischen Briefe
(= Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 19) (Stuttgart, Franz Steiner).
Klein, Jacob, 1986: On writing monumental inscriptions in Ur III scribal
curriculum, RA 80:17.
Kraeling, Carl H. and Robert M. Adams, 1960: City Invincible (Chicago, University of Chicago).
Lemaire, Andr, 1994: House of David restored in Moabite inscription,
Biblical Archaeology Review 20/3:3037.
Liverani, Mario, ed., 1973: Memorandum on the approach to historiographic
texts, Orientalia 42:178194.
, 1993: Akkad the First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions (= History
of the Ancient Near East / Studies 5) (Padua, Sargon srl).
, 1993a: Akkad: an Introduction, in Liverani 1993:110.
, 1993b: Model and actualization. The kings of Akkad in the historical
tradition, in: Liverani 1993:4167.
Machinist, Peter, 1976: Literature as politics: the TukultiNinurta Epic and
the Bible, CBQ 38:455482.
Margalit, Baruch, 1994: The OldAramaic inscription of Hazael from Dan,
UF 26:317320.
Michalowski, Piotr, 1993: Letters from Early Mesopotamia (= Writings from the
Ancient World 3) (Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press).
Millard, A.R., J.K. Homeier and D.W. Baker, eds., 1994: Faith, Tradition, and
History: Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake,
IN, Eisenbrauns).
Pfeier, Robert H. and William G. Pollard, 1967: The Hebrew Iliad (New York,
Harper).
Porter, Barbara A., 1993: Images, Power, and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddons Babylonian Policy (= Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society
208) (Philadelphia, The American Philosophical Society).
, 1996: Politics and public relations campaigns in ancient Assyria: King
Esarhaddon and Babylonia, PAPS 140/2:164174.
Rainey, Anson F., 1996: review of Soggin 1993 in JAOS 116:546548.
Redford, Donald, 1970: The Hyksos invasion in history and tradition, Orientalia 39:151.
Shanks, Hershel, 1996: Is this man a Biblical Archaeologist? BAR interviews
Bill Dever-Part One, BAR 22/4 (July/August 1996) 3039, 62 f.
, 1997: The Biblical minimalists: expunging ancient Israels past, BR
13/3:3239, 5052.
, 1997a: Face to face: Biblical minimalists meet their challengers, BAR
23/4 (July August 1997) 2642, 66.
Sjberg, ke, 1976: The Old Babylonian Eduba, in: Sumerological Studies in
Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen (= Assyriological Studies 20), ed. S.J. Lieberman
(Chicago, Oriental Institute) 159179.
Smith, Sidney, 1932: Notes on the Gutian period, JRAS 1932:295308.
Soggin, J, Alberto, 1977: The DavidicSolomonic kingdom, in: Hayes and
Miller 1977, ch. vi.
450
Abbreviations
Hallo Item 1, 8
2
6
8
10
17
29
36
45.
50
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
451
RLA 3:708720.
JNES 31:8795.
Perspectives in Jewish Learning 5:112, here: I.3.
Or 42:228238.
EretzIsrael 14:1*7*.
AnSt. 30:189195.
SIC 1:126.
Bulletin of the Society for Mesopotamian Studies 6:718
Tadmor and Weinfeld 1983:920, here: VI.2.
Gorelick and WilliamsForte 1983:717 and pl. xii.
JANES 1617:143151.
Bible Review 1/1:2027.
History of the World, vol. I, ed. John W. Hall.
Studies Sachs 175190.
JAOS 110:187199.
Studies Tadmor 148165.
Studies Garelli 377388.
Studies Talmon 381401.
Hallo 1992a.
Studies in Bibliography and Booklore 3:7173.
JAOS 101:253257.
Addendum
The important new work by Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Legends of the Kings
of Akkade: The Texts (= Mesopotamian Civilizations 7) (Winona Lake, IN,
Eisenbrauns, 1997) appeared too late to be taken into account here.
vi.4
POLYMNIA AND CLIO1
1 The substance of this paper was delivered to the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., July 5, 1998.
2 The same lecture was delivered to the Oriental Club of New Haven in April 1965;
see Welles and Beckman 1988: 61.
454
455
contemporaneous royal monuments, although they are notoriously tendentious; that we can rely on archival records, although they may be
hopelessly laconic; that we can reconstruct ancient history without benefit of the overall structure provided by native historiography; that we
can dispense with the significant details incorporated in literary reminiscences; or that we can hope to date these canonical texts with sufficient certainty to use them as evidence for the concerns of their own
times.
The Sargonic Period remains a parade example, a test case par excellence, for the methodological issues involved in the debate over Mesopotamian historiography. The rise of Sargon so captured the imagination of later ages that it spawned much of the literature at the heart
of that debate. The literary oeuvre of his daughter Enheduanna is still
growing,9 as is her attestation on contemporaneous seals inscriptions10
and other monuments;11 at present she even has her own website!12 The
reign of Naram-Sin, her nephew, and more particularly his deification
represent in some ways the classical moment of Mesopotamian history and is treated as such in another recent article of mine that need
not be repeated here.13 The fall of Akkad left such a deep impression on
later generations that they not only composed lengthy disquisitions on
it as represented by the Curse of Agade but, in the case of ShamshiAdad I,14 even enshrined the concept of the end of Akkad (sulum
Agade) as a chronological fixed point on a par with before the flood
and after the flood (lam abubi, arki abubi).15
Not wishing to repeat Jean-Jacques Glassners monographic treatment,16 however, I would rather try to set the subject in a kind of comparative perspective, concentrating instead on the Ur III dynasty as
another example of the end of empire in order to draw a lesson for historiography based on the fall of the great empires of the ancient Near
East in general.
Westenholz 1989.
To the three seals inscribed by her retainers we may now add a fourth in the
collection of Jonathan Rosen, which formed part of the exhibition at the Morgan
Library in 1998.
11 On her famous disc, see lastly Winter 1987.
12 http://www.angelfire.com/mi/ninmesara.html. Information courtesy Michelle
Hart (Los Angeles).
13 See now Hallo 1999.
14 Grayson 1987: 53.
15 See for these most recently Hallo 1991.
16 Glassner 1986; cf. my comments in Hallo 1998, here: VI.3.
9
10
456
17
18
19
20
21
457
458
459
Michalowski 1975.
Michalowski 1975: 716.
To these we may now add Sigrist 1983: 480:16.
Hallo 1972; cf. also Zettler 1984.
See the references in Hallo 1983, here: VI.2.
Hallo 1983: 12, here: VI.2.
460
461
(Even later than the lamentations are certain litanies in which IbbiSin figures in long lists of deceased kings,50 and the semi-legendary
versions of his exile to Elam and death and burial there.)51
A key concept of the lamentations is again the balaan oce rotated
among the members of a Sumero-Akkadian politynot, as in the
case of the provinces of the Ur III empire, on a monthly basis,52 but
rather on a long-term basis among the independent cities, dynasties
and kingdoms that inherited the Ur III legacy. The concept is stated
most memorably in the fourth stanza of the Lamentation over the
Destruction of Ur and Sumer (ll. 365369). In Kramers translation, it
reads: The verdict of the assembly cannot be turned back, / The word
commanded by Enlil knows no overturning, / Ur was granted kingship,
it was not granted an eternal reign (bala), / Since days of yore when the
land was founded to (now) when people have multiplied, / Who has
(ever) seen a reign of kingship that is everlasting!53 In other words, no
city or dynasty rules forever.
The same concept is implicit in a later source that is the best known
of allthe Sumerian King List. Here we have ancient historiography
in its most schematic form. It insists that, in Sumer and Akkad, royal
hegemony was always the prerogative of only one city or dynasty at a
time and divinely fated to devolve in turn on dierent cities, dynasties,
or kingdoms. Jerrold Cooper has noted that it shared this ideology
with the lamentations, whereas royal inscriptions and royal hymns, both
being products of the royal chanceries, promoted the opposite ideology,
namely that kingship was divinely ordained to stay with the present
ruler for length of days and with his dynasty forever.54 This dichotomy is
certainly to be preferred to a simple dichotomy between contemporary
and later formulations.
In fact, it is not for the modern historian of antiquity to prejudge
the value of any given source or genre, but to subject each to scrutiny
and to make allowances for its particular agenda and prejudices. If we
apply that rule of thumb to the fall of Ur, we will soon enough realize
that lamentations and the King List both overemphasize the extent
of the break with the succeeding age that the disaster represented,
Jacobsen 1970: 346, n. 50.
Jacobsen 1970: 346, n. 50.
52 Above, note 22.
53 Kramer apud ANET (3rd ed. 1969) 617. Cf. also PSD B: 69 f.: who has ever seen a
reign of kingship take the lead (bala-nam-lugal-la sag-bi-s-e-a); Michalowski 1989: 59.
54 Cooper 1990: 39 f.
50
51
462
and each for its own ideological reasons, as already suggested. Even
the royal correspondence weighs in on this side of things with its
unflattering characterization of Ishbi-Irra as a non-Sumerian and an
ape from the mountain.55 And a proper reading of the Larsa King List
leaves no room for the widespread misconception that he, or his first
three successors, had to compete with Naplanum and his first three
successors in the rule of the land.
Other evidence, both contemporaneous and retrospective, suggests
major aspects of continuity between the Third Dynasty of Ur and the
First Dynasty of Isin in matters of economy, cult, literary convention,
and even political organization. Suce it to emphasize, in connection
with the last factor, that Ishbi-Irra and Shu-ilishu, the first two socalled kings of Isin, actually ruled under the title king of Ur or its
poetic equivalent king/lord/deity of his nation/country.56 It is only
under Iddin-Dagan that an inscriptional use of the title king of Isin is
attested, and then only once.57 And his successor Ishme-Dagan, though
using the new title more liberally, still allowed the older one to be
employed once on a fragmentary votive bowl, at least as generally
restored.58
The same observation applies to the evidence of the Isin year
names, conveniently assembled by Marcel Sigrist. They exhibit an
almost studied avoidance of the royal title king of Isin, indeed any
royal title, even after the royal inscriptions have begun to use it.59
The contemporary seal inscriptions are more creative in their use of
a variety of royal titles and epithets. Here, king of Ur appears as late
as Lipit-Ishtar60 and king of Isin not until Bur-Sin.61
The fall of Ur was thus not as cataclysmic an event as the lamentations, for their own reasons, made it out to be, and certainly not a
watershed event on a par with the fall of Akkad earlier or the fall of
Babylon at the end of its First Dynasty. But neither was the transition to Ishbi-Irra and his successors quite as smooth as their royal titles
and epithets might suggest. For the full story of the fall of Ur, as of
Sjberg 1993. Previously Franke and Wilhelm 1985: 26, n. 53.
lugal-ma-da-na, bel matisu, dingir-kalam-ma-na; cf. Hallo 1957: 1620.
57 Haldar 1977, republished by Frayne 1990: 22.
58 Frayne 1990: 46.
59 The sole exception noted by Sigrist 1988: 14 is a text from the twelfth year of
Ishbi-Irra that calls him king of his land (BIN 9: 52).
60 Frayne 1990: 61 f.
61 Frayne 1990: 72.
55
56
463
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
Kennedy 1987.
Yoee and Cowgill 1988. 64.
Ibid., 2048.
Weiss and Courty 1993.
Joanns 1995.
Krecher and Mller 1975, Hruska 1979, Wilcke 1988, Cooper 1990.
Cooper 1990: 39 citing Hallo 1983, here: VI.2.
Hallo 1980: 16; Cooper and Goldstein 1992: 21 f.
464
70 Of the considerable literature on the subject, I content myself here with citing
Anderson 1970 (reference courtesy Jerey Larson of the Yale University Library).
71 For a thoughtful review of some of the topics touched on here, see now Renger
1986.
465
Mesopotamian Historical Consciousness and the Production of Monumental Art in the Third Millennium bc, in Gunter 1990: 3951.
466
1983
1990
1991
1998
1999
1985 Sulgi
and Isme-Dagan. Runners in the Service of the Gods, Beer
Sheva 2: 7*38*.
Krecher, Joachim
1967 Die pluralischen Verba fr gehen und stehen im Sumerischen,
WO 4: 111.
Krecher, Joachim and H.P. Mller
1975 Vergangenheitsinteresse in Mesopotamien und Israel, Saeculum 26:
1344.
Lafont, Bertrand
1995 La chute des rois dUr et la fin des archives dans les grands centres
administratifs de leur empire, RA 89: 313.
467
Lambert, Maurice
1966 La Guerre entre Urukagina et Lugalzaggesi, RSO 41: 2966.
Liverani, Mario, ed.
1993 Akkad the First World Empire: Structure, Ideology, Traditions (History of the
Ancient Near East/Studies 5; Padua: Sargon srl).
Ludwig, Marie-Christine
1990 Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Isme-Dagan von Isin (Santag 2; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).
Martin, Robert L., ed.
1970 The Paradox of the Liar (New Haven/London: Yale University Press).
Michalowski, Piotr
1975 The Bride of Simanum, JAOS 95: 716719.
1976 The Royal Correspondence of Ur (Ph.D. Thesis; Yale University).
1984 Knigsbriefe, RLA 6: 5159.
1989 The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (Mesopotamian Civilizations 1; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Millard, A.R., J.K. Homeier and D.W. Baker, eds.
1994 Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern
Context (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns).
Renger, Johannes
1986 Vergangenes Geschehen in der Textberlieferung des alten Mesopotamien, in Vergangenheit und Lebenswelt, ed. H.-J. Gehrke and A. Mller
(Tbingen: Gnter Marr) 969.
Rmer, W.H. Ph.
1993 Die Hymnen des Isme-Dagan von Isin, OrNS 62: 9098.
Shanks, Hershel
1997 The Biblical Minimalists: Expunging Ancient Israels Past, Bible
Review 13/3: 3239, 5052.
1997a Face to Face: Biblical Minimalists Meet Their Challengers, Biblical
Archaeology Review 23/4: 2642, 66.
Sigrist, Marcel
1983 Textes conomiques No-Sumriennes de lUniversit de Syracuse (tudes Assyriologiques Mmoire 29; Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations).
1988 Isin Year Names (Andrew University Assyriological Series 2).
Sjberg, ke
19701971 Hymns to Meslamtaea, Lugalgirra and Nanna-Suen in Honour of
King Ibbsuen (Ibbsn) of Ur, Or. Suec. 1920: 140178.
1993 The Ape from the Mountain who Became King of Isin, in The
Tablet and the Scroll: Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, ed.
M.E. Cohen et al. (Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press) 211220.
468
469
Zettler, Richard
1984 The Genealogy of the House of Ur-Me-me: a Second Look, AfO 31:
19.
Postscript
Of the many relevant studies and remarks that have come to my attention in
the last three years, the following are particularly worth quoting here:
There is one school which I would define as maximalist-optimist, convinced that analysis can and must be pushed as far as possible . . . in
such a way as to draw the greatest possible significance from the material
available. There is, on the other hand, a minimalist-pessimist school . . .
which holds that . . . this use of evidence in a forceful way, is not justified
given the quality, quantity and distribution of the finds . . .. As for myself,
I clearly belong to the minimalist-pessimist school of thought and hold
that the more material we have available, the more we will realize how
dicult it is to reach precise, unequivocal conclusions.
Mario Liverani in
Archives Before Writing, Piera Ferioli et al., eds.
(Turin: Scriptorium, 1994), pp. 414 f.
vi.5
SUMERIAN HISTORY IN PICTURES:
A NEW LOOK AT THE
STELE OF THE FLYING ANGELS*
472
473
474
Fig. 1: Side A
Fig. 2: Side B
475
476
477
25 Andr Parrot, Sumer: the Dawn of Art (New York: Golden Press, 1961), 146 (at least
with respect to the side picturing the king at war).
26 See, e.g., Michelle I. Marcus, Geography as an Organizing Principle in the
Imperial Art of Shalmaneser III, Iraq 49 (1987): 7790 and pls. 1622, esp. p. 81; note,
however, that the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser reads from top to bottom, according to
Stephen J. Lieberman, Giving Directions on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III,
RA 79 (1985): 88.
27 Jerrold S. Cooper thinks that the narrative can run from top to bottom; see
Mesopotamian Historical Consciousness and the Production of Monumental Art in
the Third Millennium bc, in Investigating Artistic Environments in the Ancient Near East,
ed. Ann C. Gunter (Washington: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution,
1990), 3951, esp. p. 50, n. 37. V.K. Afanasieva thinks that the Ur-Nammu stele presents
single-momentness of the action rather than a succession of events; see On the
Composition of the Ur-Nammu Stele, in Studies Vinogradov (2000), 728 (in Russian;
English summary pp. 28 f.).
28 Canby, The Stela, 217.
29 Cooper, Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia, in Ocial
Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, ed. E. Matsushima (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1993), 8196, esp. p. 91.
30 Hallo and J.J.A. van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna, YNER 3 (New Haven/London:
Yale University Press 1968), 79.
478
accounting for the presence of the king in the scene. This was so
since the time of Sargon according to one reconstruction.31 In Winters
view, it could have begun even earlier,32 in Steinkellers, conceivably
later.33
As reconstructed by Canby, the top register of Side A prominently
features a female deity seated in the lap of a male deity. She regards
this as symbolic of love-making suitable to the sacred marriage, and
cites a plaque from Tello (Girsu) inscribed to the goddess Bau as an
iconographic parallel.34 But one searches in vain for textual confirmation of the gesture in the richly attested love literature of Sumerian.
The knee (du10 = birku) is not mentioned there at all and as for the lap
(r = snu, utlu), it is more often the lap of the female partner that is
mentioned;35 when the male partners lap is alluded to, it is in the context of lying in bed, not sitting in a chair;36 the only possible exceptions
to this rule are ambiguous on this point.37 The only textual evidence for
the gesture that I am aware of is that of lifting a child on ones knees as
a sign of acknowledging paternitywhether natural or adoptiveor,
more generally, as a sign of legitimation; as such, it is attested equally
among Babylonians, Hittites, and Greeks,38 as Canby has pointed out
elsewhere,39 and can be reconstructed for Israel as well.40 A particularly telling example is a Mari letter quoting the deity as saying of the
31
Ibid.
Winter, Women in Public: The Disk of Enheduanna, the Beginning of the Oce
of EN-Priestess and the Weight of Visual Evidence, RAI 33 (1987), 189201, esp. p. 196,
n. 31.
33 Piotr Steinkeller, On Rulers, Priests and Sacred Marriage: Tracing the Evolution
of Early Sumerian Kingship, in Priests and Ocials in the Ancient Near East, ed. K.
Watanabe (Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1999), 103137, esp. p. 125, n. 77.
34 Canby, The Stela, 216 and pl. 47 (fig. 13).
35 See Yitschak Sefati, Love Songs in Sumerian Literature, Bar-Ilan Studies in Near
Eastern Languages and Culture (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998), 105:188;
188:14, 16; 225:32; 305:35, 37; 306:6466; CT 58:16:43 f.
36 Ibid. 105:189190.
37 Ibid. 137:41; 225:7, 9.
38 J.D. Muhly, review of M.C. Astour, Hellenosemitica in JAOS 85 (1965): 585588, esp.
pp. 586 f.; Hallo, review of RLA 3/1 in JAOS 87 (1987): 6266, esp. p. 64.
39 The Child in Hittite Iconography, in Ancient Anatolia: . . . Essays in Honor of
Machteld J. Mellink, ed. J.V. Canby et al. (Madison, Wisc: University of Wisconsin Press,
1986), 5469, esp. p. 69 nn. 2425. It may be noted that her interest in this subject
prompted Dr. Canbys investigation of the stele in the first place; cf. The Stele, 12.
40 Theodore H. Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom in the Old Testament (New York/
Evanston: Harper & Row, 1969), 788 f. No. 296 with reference to Job 3:12.
32
479
king, i. a., Am I not Adad the lord of Kallassu who reared (raised?)
him between my thighs41 and restored him to the throne of his fathers
house?42
The fact that there is no figure seated in the lap of the female
deity on the left side of Register A I is seen by Canby as further
evidence in favor of her interpretation of the entire scene as representing a sacred marriage. But it accords equally well with the notion
that it is the high priestess who is seated on the lap of the male deity.
Nor is her wearing the horned crown of divinity an objection to it,
since it has long been demonstrated that the high-priestesses of Nanna
shared some of the divine status of their royal parents, and donned and
doed the characteristic divine headdress at will.43 The first of the line,
Enheduanna, was considered the embodiment of the goddess Ningal,
and shared the title hen of Nanna (zirru) with her, according to Joan
Westenholz.44 One can also cite in this connection the translation of the
priestly title nin-dingir or rather eres-dingir by lady (who is) a deity in
CAD, though this translation obviously makes no sense in the opinion of Steinkeller.45 Finally, we may note with Canby that the stele stood
near the entrance to the temple of Ningal and the giparu, the residence
of the high-priestess of Nanna, and at least one face of it would have
been visible to those walking there.46
Now for the remaining registers on Side A. Register II is relatively
very well preserved even after the removal of many of the elements
of the 1927 restoration. Canby does not oer an interpretation of the
scene, but it can be plausibly regarded as representing the investiture
or coronation of the king. While on the left he is shown libating to the
41
Latest
translation by W.L. Moran, ANET (3rd ed., 1969), 625; to the previous
translations listed there, add especially H.B. Humon, Prophecy in the Mari letters,
BA 31 (1968): 101124, esp. pp. 106 f.; reprinted in The Biblical Archaeologist Reader 3 (1970),
199224, esp. pp. 204 f.
43 Hallo, Women of Sumer, in The Legacy of Sumer, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 4,
ed. D. Schmandt-Besserat (Malibu: Undena, 1976), 2340 and 129138, esp. pp. 32 f.,
136; cf. also Sjberg, JCS 29 (1977): 16 and now Giorgio Buccellati, Studies Oates (2002),
16 f.
44 Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Enheduanna, En-Priestess, Hen of Nanna, Spouse
of Nanna, in Studies Sjberg (1989), 539556, esp. pp. 539, 541544, citing i.a. . Sjberg,
JCS 29 (1977): 16.
45 CAD E, 173d s.v. entu; Steinkeller, On Rulers, 121, n. 59.
46 The Stela, 7 f. and pl. 5.
42
480
47 Edith Porada and W.W. Hallo, Cylinder of Kurigalzu I? in Studies Hrouda (1994),
229234 and pls. xxiii f.
48 Winfried Orthmann, Der Alte Orient, Propylen Kunstgeschichte 14 (Berlin: Propylen, 1975), fig. 190 and p. 305 (top of a stele from Susa, uninscribed).
49 Cf. two stele fragments from Tello showing a figure holding a coil of rope and a
peg, as noted by Claudia E. Suter, Gudeas vermeintliche Segnungen des Eninnu, ZA
87 (1997): 110 and figs. 14, esp. pp. 8 f. and figs. 3 f.
50 Cf. briefly Hallo, Origins (Leiden etc.: Brill, 1996), 199, and at length Agnes
Spycket, La baguette et lanneau: un symbole dIran et de Msopotamie, in Studies
Calmeyer (2000), 651666. See also below, Appendix.
51 For both together cf., e.g., ke W. Sjberg, Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts, III,
JCS 34 (1982): 72 obv. 5.
52 For es-kiri written syllabically, see CAD s.v. serretu, reins. Proverbs such as
4
.
S.P. 1.153, formerly interpreted as his nose has not borne the rope (kiri4-ni ese nu-l),
is now read he . . . is not raised to prosperity (kiri4-zal-s nu-l) by Bendt Alster, Proverbs
of Ancient Sumer (Bethesda, Md.: CDL, 1997), vol. 1, 31.
53 The Stela, 9, n. 66.
481
measuring sta, thus connecting the scene with the building activity
depicted in the next register below.54
In answer to Jacobsen, it may be further noted that, according to
royal hymns and inscriptions, both sta and nose-rope and, for good
measure, the scepter, were bestowed on the king so that he could
guide the people aright.55 This may best be illustrated by reference
to the Ur-Nammu hymn first edited by myself as The Coronation of
Ur-Nammu and more recently by Esther Flckiger-Hawker as UrNamma D and by Tinney as Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger.56 I
would now translate lines 16 f. of this hymn: He has pressed the holy
scepter for guiding (si si-e-s) all the people in my hand / The noserope and sta so that I might direct (he-lah4-lah4-e) all the numerous
in the
people. The use of the verb si-s, guide,
first image seems to
be a clear allusion to Ur-Nammus role as author of the Laws and thus
of the enactment of justice (ng-si-s).
But we can be more specific still. Iconography and hymnography
alike conjure up the image of the king as good shepherd (sipa-zi
= re"um knum) first attested in the Cylinder Inscriptions of Gudea of
Lagash, then frequently in the hymns of Shulgi of Ur.57 With or without
other epithets, this image emphasizes the kings concern with justice;
in the Hammurapi Dynasty, the epithet regularly occurs in those dateformulas that refer to a royal proclamation of debt-release (mesarum).58
This, then, is the ruler in his gentle, popular guise.
But the king can also be pictured as a stern and powerful oxherd,
able to control the fiercest bull by means of a ring fastened to the animals nose and connected to a rope by which the animal can be pulled
54
482
483
nial basket of earth or clay. The tools have been described as an axe
and a plow65 respectively, but if the former is in fact an al, variously
translated as pickaxe or hoe, we may have here the pictorial combination of pickaxe and hod that became the symbol of corve labor,
known as dusu = tupsikku, literally hod or mortarboard.66 (Written
variously with gi, reed, or gis, wood, as a semantic indicator or
determinative, it was presumably a reed basket carried on the head or
mounted on a wooden pole for carrying by hand.)67
This is expressed most tellingly in the so-called Song of the Hoe, where
we read (lines 9 f.): By distributing the shares of duty he (Enlil) established daily tasks / and for the hoe and the (carrying) basket even wages
were established, or again (line 98): The hoe and the basket are the
tools for building cities.68 The latter passage is echoed in the Hymn to
Nippur,69 which ends thus (iv 2330): In order to make all the Anunna
gods of heaven and earth do the work, he (Enlil) placed in their(!) hands
the hoe and plow that are for establishing cities.70 This shows that
corve labor was also the lot of the (lesser) gods before the creation of
humanity. Similarly, we read in the myth of Ninurta (Lugal-e ll. 336
338): Because the gods of the nation were subjected (literally, made
to stand/serve), and had to carry hoe and basket (hod), that being their
corve . . .. Iconographically, the theme of the king as carrier of the
(first) hod is familiar from the canephore figurines of Ur-Nammu and
Shulgi, as well as Gudea.71
In Register IV, the kings subjects carry baskets on their heads and
up a ladder to build what is presumably a temple or other monumental building. According to Andrea Becker, it could be part of a canalcomplex, since canals were known to involve structures along their
Canby, The Stela, 20.
Armas Salonen, Die Hausgerte der alten Mesopotamier I, Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 139 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1965), 247249.
67 For an example of the latter, see, e.g., Hallo, Contributions to Neo-Sumerian,
HUCA 29 (1958): 99 f., and pl. 22 = E. Sollberger, TCS 1:270. Sollberger translates
levers.
68 Gertrud Farber in COS 1 (1997), 511, 513.
69 UET 6/1:18; ed. by K. Oberhuber, ArOr 35 (1967): 262270; duplicates published
by Sjberg, Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts I, Orientalia Suecana 2324 (19741975):
159181, esp. pp. 159, 163 f., 174 f., 179.
70 Cf. Adam Falkenstein, Die Anunna in der sumerischen berlieferung, Studies
Landsberger (1965), 127140, esp. p. 132 and n. 69.
71 Hallo, The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: a Typology, HUCA 33 (1962): 143, esp.
pp. 1011.
65
66
484
banks and were often named after these. Becker based her suggestion
on the assumption that the stele illustrated the narrative sequence of
The Coronation of Ur-Nammu.72 In their new editions of the text, neither
Esther Flckiger-Hawker nor Steve Tinney mention Beckers interpretation.73 It may, however, find some support from a fragmentary UrNammu hymn, which can be interpreted as giving him credit for restoring the house of the Inun-canal.74
The register between IV and V, which on the other side of the stele
carries an inscription, is uninscribed on this side as far as preserved. For
the wholly lost bottom register, Jutta Brker-Klhn suggests a restoration, based on the Gudea stele, of transport of materials over mountains
and water.75
Turning now back to Side B, the poor face, its Register II includes
a scene of slaughtering of bulls, almost certainly in the context of a
sacrificial act, since meat was rarely consumed on other occasions. The
case of the Royal Correspondence of Ur may be the exception that
proves this rule, since in it Irmu denounces Apillasha to Shulgi precisely
for the fact that, in Michalowskis translation, six grass fed oxen and
sixty grass fed sheep were placed (on the tables) for (a mere) lunch.76
In passing, it may be noted that the proportion of one large to ten small
cattle is standard for the sacrificial cult in Ur III.
Rather, the topos of slaughtering oxen and sacrificing sheep is a
fixture of the description of festival rites.77 As such it already occurs in
an UD.GAL.NUN text from Abu Salabikh, though here both times
Becker, Neusumerische Renaissance? (above, n. 16), 290295.
Flckiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur; Tinney, Urnamma the Canal-digger. But see
now Margarete van Ess, Ein Bauwerk Amar-Suens vor den Mauern Uruk-Warkas,
BaM 33 (2002): 89108, esp. pp. 100 f., who connects the building in question with
Amar-Sins extensive canal-building operations, and notes that it was built entirely of
bricks stamped with his nine-line standard inscription, for which see Frayne, RIME 3/2:
245247.
74 Miguel Civil, Literary Text about Ur-Namma, AuOr 14 (1996): 163167. In i 6
(not read by Civil), I would take in-nun-na-ke4 as a syllabic Ur III spelling for i7-nunna-ke4, and restore ki mi-in-gi4 or the like at the end.
75 Apud Orthmann, Der Alte Orient, 203 f.
76 Piotr Michalowski, The Royal Correspondence of Ur (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale, 1976),
142.
77 My translation attempts to render the dierence between gu -gaz and udu-sr,
4
for which see Hartmut Waetzoldt, BiOr 32 (1975): 384, who says der Unterschied der
Schlachtmethoden ist noch zu untersuchen. For literary topoi in general, see A.J. Ferrara, Topoi and Stock-strophes in Sumerian Literary Tradition: Some Observations,
Part I, JNES 54 (1995): 81117.
72
73
485
486
(= Suen)! / Oh youth of Suen, on your throne by Enlil (and) Ashimbabbar!86 The first half of this formula recurs in the concluding doxology of Nanna-Suens Journey to Nippur (II. 349), where Ferrara follows my
translation.87 Edzard took issue with the rendering,88 as did Wilcke.89
The newer renderings by Flckiger-Hawker and Tinney agree neither
with Edzard and Wilcke nor with each other. But given the evidently
formulaic character of the couplet, it remains likely that we are here
dealing with a formula of acclamation for the (new?) king. Register B IV
is better preserved and provides three discrete images: on the left the
playing of a great kettle-drum, on the right the seated statue of a deity
serviced by a priest, and in between a wrestling match. There is room
for a fourth image but not enough preserved to identify it. Canby interprets Registers B III and IV as probably a single episode which, like
the building activities on the opposite face, occupies two registers.90
But in distinction to Registers A III and IV, Registers B III and IV
are divided by a full baseline and a double dividing line. The wrestling
match is thus not the central motif of the scene, observed by a seated
king on one end and a seated deity on the other. Rather, the focus of
B IV is on the (statue of the) seated deity on the right end much as the
focus of B III was on the seated king on the left end. The nude priest
servicing the deity is holding a towel in his right hand as the clothed
priest to his left is holding one in his left hand, and Brker-Klhn
took both to be involved in lustrations, after rejecting any connection
with the mouth-opening ceremony.91 But the nude priest appears to
be reaching approximately for the mouth of the statue with the whisk
(Wedel) in his left hand. That leaves little doubt that what is illustrated here is the ceremonial vivification of a divine statue by means of
the double ceremony known as mouth washing (ka-duh-a = pt p) and
86 Hallo, Coronation, 141, here: III.2; Origins (1996), 129. For the reading of the
divine name, see M. Krebernik, RLA 8 (19931997), 362 f.
87 A.J. Ferrara, Nanna-Suens Journey to Nippur, Studia Pohl series maior 2 (1973), 106
and 155157.
88 D.O. Edzard, review of Ferrara in ZA 63 (1973): 296300, esp. pp. 299 f. and n. 10.
89 Claus Wilcke, RAI 19 (1974), 187.
90 The Stela 25.
91 Jutta Brker-Klhn, Sulgi
487
Lagash.92 It has now been dealt with in detail by Walker and Dick.93
It should be added, however, thatin Neo-Assyrian times at leastthe
coronation of the king, whether a one-time or a recurrent event, was
accompanied by the mouth-washing ceremony. The ritual tablet of this
investiture ceremony was in fact originally thought to have belonged to
the mouth-washing series.94 As Angelika Berlejung has emphasized, it
is not the kings mouth that is washed, nor does he enter the picture
till the mouth-washing has been carried out.95 Still, it establishes a
connection between the two ritualsinvestiture and mouth-washing
that may already be anticipated in Registers B III and B IV.
Between Registers B IV and B V there is a relatively narrow band
entirely given over, so far as preserved, to an inscription.96 The inscription includes the beginning of a curse formula typical of the royal
inscriptions of Ur,97 Isin,98 and Larsa.99 But for the rest it is entirely
devoted to canal-building. Now canals figure prominently in the cadastre of Ur-Nammu,100 and the king is celebrated for his canal-building in
his date-formulas101 in his inscriptions,102 and in his coronation-hymn,
92 Cf. (Erica Reiner and) Miguel Civil, Another Volume of Sultantepe Tablets,
488
where, indeed, this achievement figures as his foremost claim to kingship in the first place.103 Moreover, at least one and possibly two of the
very canals identified by name on the Stele were dug by Ur-Nammu
according to his inscriptions.104 Shulgi, on the other hand, has not a
single canal-building project to his credit in all his 48 regnal years.105
This then is perhaps the strongest argument in favor of assigning the
stele as a whole to Ur-Nammu, even if his name is no longer on
it.
But there are other arguments. We may note them here without
pausing for Register B V, whose fragmentary scene of royal sacrifice
adds little or nothing in the way of new details. I would argue that the
stele is, in eect, a commemoration of the first part of Ur-Nammus
eighteen-year reign. If read from bottom to top, it recalls successively
his canal-building in the inscription on Side B, and other building
activity (possibly connected with the canals) on Side A (Registers III
and IV), which earned him his coronation that, on other grounds, can
hardly have taken place earlier than his fourth year.106 This coronation
is symbolized by Register A II, while the popular acclamation that
accompanied it (or perhaps preceded or followed it) is symbolized by
Register B III. The details of the coronation scene, moreover, strongly
hint at the kings role as lawgiver, a role that should be attributed to
Ur-Nammu, not Shulgi, in light of new evidence.107
The ritual scenes in Register B IV seem to involve the dedication of
a divine statue, while that in B II may involve the dedication of a divine
chariot if the traces on the right are correctly so interpreted. A date
formula commemorating the fashioning, presumably at Nippur, of a
chariot for Ninlil, the consort of Enlil, is attested, and Frayne assigns it
103
For an appreciation of Ur-Nammus canal-building eorts, see already T. Jacobsen, The Waters of Ur, Iraq 22 (1960): 174185 and pl. xxviii; rep. in Toward the Image
of Tammuz . . . , Harvard Semitic Series 21, ed. W.L. Moran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970), 230243.
104 Nanna-gugal, the boundary canal of Ningirsu or Nanna (Ur-Nammu 28) and
possibly Inun(na), the great canal of Nanna (Ur-Nammu 24 = 40).
105 The closest he comes is in the inscriptions Shulgi 8 = Frayne, Ur III Period 125,
commemorating a weir (gis-ksd-r), and Shulgi 71 (Krki) = Frayne, RIME 3/2:140 f.
(from Susa?), commemorating a ditch or moat (hirtum).
489
Appendix
Further to the rod and ring (above at nn. 5063), the following details
may be provided.113
While rod and rope begin as early as the Ur-Nammu stele, rod
and ring do not appear in the iconography before the extraordinary
seal design of Lugal-engardu dedicated to Amar-Sin, first published by
RIME 3/2:17. Three of the four texts cited by Frayne have been republished by
G. Pettinato as MVN 6 (1977), 515, 517, and 521, and dealt with by Daniel C. Snell,
The Rams of Lagash, ASJ 8 (1986): 133217, esp. pp. 142, 160; Snell dates them to
Shulgi 3.
109 M. Civil, Ishme-Dagan and Enlils Chariot, JAOS 88 (1968): 314, repr. Studies
Speiser 314; cf. Klein, Building and Dedication Hymns in Sumerian Literature, ASJ
11 (1989): 2767, esp. pp. 36: Appendix 1: A Revised Edition of Ismedagan I.
110 Ur-Nammu 35 = Frayne, RIME 3/2:87 f.
111 Hartmut Waetzoldt, Zu einigen Jahresdaten Urnammus, N.A.B.U. 1990:4 No. 6.
112 Winter, After the Battle, (above, n. 24), 12.
113 Cf. already my remarks in Cylinder of Kurigalzu I? (above, n. 47), Origins
(above, n. 50), and in Privatization in the Ancient Near East and Classical World, ed. by
Michael Hudson and Baruch A. Levine. Peabody Museum Bulletin 5. (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University, 1996), pp. 61 (as reported by Eva von Dassow) and 64.
108
490
491
rod and ring and rod and rope were represented, as divine symbols,
on the stele of Ur-Nammu.126 But she rejected the suggestion that as
the symbol originally represented measuring implements its significance
was later extended metaphorically to symbolize the measuring out
of justice.127 More recently the notion has found a new defender in
Cooper, who illustrates the disconnect between text and image in the
third millennium by reference to the measuring line and cord held out
to Ur-Nammu on the Ur-Nammu stele but adds that these objects
metamorphose in later centuries into rod and ring. 128
The problem is avoided if both manifestations are treated as royal
rather than only divine insignia. In his survey of the subject, Krecher
emphasized that deities and kings shared the same insignia; in both
cases these included sta and nose-rope, but the ring (GAN-ma, kippatu) only occurs late and only with deities.129 Rod and nose-rope, on
the other hand, are frequently mentioned together in the literature of
all periods. For rod and nose-rope as symbols of royal authority cited
in this order, see above, n. 51; for the opposite order see, e.g., the hymn
Ishme-Dagan A in the recension published by Sollberger130 and discussed by Frayne.131 Most significantly, they occur togetheroriginally
four timesas one(!) of the royal attributes in the myth Inanna and
Enki.132
It is also noteworthy that the profession of kir4-dab, kartappu, literally the one who holds the nose-(rein), became a general term for
groom and later developed into a high administrative ocial.133
E. Douglas van Buren, The Rod and Ring, ArOr 17/2 (1949): 434450 and pls.
ixxi, esp. p. 436, referring to Legrain, MJ18 (1927), 96. However, Canby lists this piece
among fragments from other monuments (The Stela, 56 sub El).
127 The Rod and Ring, 435.
128 Jerrold S. Cooper, Mesopotamian Historical Consciousness and the Production
of Monumental Art in the Third Millennium bc, in Investigating Artistic Environments in
the Ancient Near East, ed. by Ann C. Gunter (Washington: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery,
1990), 3951, esp. p. 46.
129 Joachim Krecher, Insignien, RLA 5 (19761980), 109114.
130 UET 8 (1965), 95 iii 8.
131 Douglas Frayne, New Light on the Reign of Isme-Dag
an, ZA 88 (1998): 644,
esp. p. 10 iii 62a.
132 Gertrud Farber, Der Mythos Inanna und Enki, (Rome: Biblical Institute, 1973);
p. 28:19, 54:7. Eadem, Inanna and Enki, in COS 1:522526; note she translates sta
and rein here (523 II).
133 CAD K, s.v.
126
492
COS 1
vii
myths and epics
vii.1
LUGALBANDA EXCAVATED
I. Introduction
When he first heard of my call to Yale two decades ago, Professor
Kramer immediately urged me to devote myself to the large corpus
of Sumerian literary texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection. He was
familiar with their riches, having been the first to prepare a systematic
catalogue of them based on his own identifications and those of Goetze,
Stephens and others. Among them, the large tablet numbered YBC
4623 particularly interested him. He asked me to copy it for him so
that it could be incorporated in an edition of the full text by him or
one of his students. Accordingly I prepared a copy, complete except for
dividing lines, and submitted it to him in 1965. Sol Cohen was thus
enabled to incorporate the text of the Yale tablet in his preliminary
edition of the entire composition, from which I in turn have greatly
benefited. But neither his edition nor my copy has been published,
and it thus seems appropriate to make at least the latter available in
this volume. While there is no intention to anticipate the definitive
edition, an attempt will be made to provide an overview of the whole
text, and an appreciation of the significance of the central portion of it
which the Yale exemplar covers. Duplicates will be taken into account
as far as they are published. The readers indulgence is requested for
the imperfections of a copy made before many of these duplicates
were available or known to me; a few improvements, plus dividing
lines, have been added to the copy by Randall McCormick. The text
of the composition was the subject of a seminar in Sumerian Myths
and Epics oered in the fall of 1980; the members of that seminar
(Mary Rebecca Donian, Jean Svendsen and Marc Van De Mieroop)
provided a critical sounding-board for some of the suggestions now
oered here.
A word about the name of the composition may be in order first. Its
incipit was restored as u4-ul-an-ki-ta by J. Klein, JAOS 91 (1971), 297,
but as long as the restoration is uncertain, it is risky to employ it as the
496
497
B. The Argument-Part I
137168
169195
169222
223256
C. The Argument-Part II
257276 Lugalbanda leaves the cave
277291 He lights a fire to bake cakes and bait a trap
292316 He captures an aurochs and two(?) goats (Cohen, ELA, 1014; in
part: Kramer AV, 99101)
317338 He lies down to sleep
339353 Lugalbandas dream
354376 The dream fulfilled: the divine repast (takultu)
D. Peroration
377386
387445
446475
476490
Assuming that the text as now extant is nearly complete, it thus can
be broken down into three rhetorical portions (cf. a similar analysis
proposed for nin-me-sr-ra by Hallo and van Dijk, The Exaltation of
Inanna, 1968) and four sections of more or less similar length. The
Yale exemplar covers the first 88 lines (out of 120) of the third of these
sections (plus the immediately preceding line as a catchline?) and it is
this section to which the following brief remarks will be addressed.
498
to explain the durative (cf. Hallo, 17 RAI, 1970, 117 n. 1, here: I.2; cited
with approval by F.R. Kraus, Vom mesopotamischen Menschen, 1973, 132).
But aetiologies (along with proverbs!) are also found in Sumerian epic,
as noted, e.g., by G. Komorczy (Zur tiologie der Schrifterfindung
im EnmerkarEpos, AoF 3, 1975, 1924). And it is possible that there is
one here.
Lugalbanda is alone (note the recurrent emphasis on this fact, e.g. in
lines 271 and 317; cf. also l. 286 and in Lugalbanda II lines 231 f. = 335 f.)
as befits an epic hero (cf. Alster, JCS 26, 1974, 180), and must fend for
himself. In so doing, he recapitulates what for the author may have
constituted the beginnings of an essential aspect of civilized human
lifethe consumption of animal meat. Both the practical and the ritual
aspects of this process are spelled out in detail. By his own eorts,
Lugalbanda traps and tethers the wild animals. He then gets divine
approval in a dream for slaughtering them. In repeating the latter
action in his waking state, he confirms the divine approval by inviting
the four principal deities of the Sumerian pantheon to a ritual meal.
These deities are entirely distinct from the three (astral) deities who
hear Lugalbandas four prayers in Section B and who dominate the
denouement in Section D, thus underlining the discrete and possibly
aetiological character of Section C.
Both aspects of this sectionthe practical and the ritualare
worthy of deeper study than present space permits. Suce it only to
note here that Lugalbanda seems to employ a combination of methods
to catch and dispatch his quarry. As interpreted below, he first places
a trap (gis-umbin; l. 264) on the ground, then baits it with dainties
(l. 288); the aurochs stumbles into the trap (l. 294; not repeated in
the goat-passage); both it and the goat(s) are caught in the ambush
(restoring [subtu]mx-ma-na in ll. 301 and 313) or, more likely, by the
snare (restoring [gis-di]m-ma-na) presumably attached to the trap; all
are tethered with rope made of rushes (ll. 305316). In slaughtering
the animals, a pit (si-du11-ga) seems to have been of practical or ritual
importance, receiving the blood (ll. 349359) and providing a site for
the divine repast (l. 365).
The practical role of pits and pitfalls, and to a lesser degree of traps,
has received a great deal of attention in Assyriological circles of late.
A brief review of the literature may therefore be in order. The older
evidence was summed up in one short paragraph by E. Ebeling. RLA
3/1 (1957) 5. My review (JAOS 87, 1967, 64) noted, i.a., the contribution
499
500
YBC 4623
HS 1449
HS 1471
HS 1479
CBS 10885
CBS 7085
Ni. 9933
Ni. 4405
ISET 2:43
Ni. 4553
ISET 2:45
Ni. 9913
ISET 1:196
Ni. 4441
ISET 1:156
L
M
Ni. 2511
3 NT 917,
368
3 NT 919,
467
3 NT 902,
74
6 NT 638
SRT 33
SLFN pl. 8
N
O
Z
below
TMH n. F. 3: 8;
Wilcke, Kollationen, 16
TMH n. F. 3: 9;
Wilcke. Kollationen, 17
TMH n. F. 3:10;
cf. Wilcke, Kollationen, 18
HAV 4
Lines of Text
256344
282308
325342;
387396
1258
288252;
253274
327387;
388441
SLFN pl. 8
306310;
325333
307313(or 294301?);
321329
277302;
336348
308319;
321323?
351359;
376379
357374
256262;
283285
345359
SLFN pl. 7
290296
Based on the assumption of a text of approximately 495 lines, a tentative typology of the published manuscripts may be oered here along
the lines laid down by Hallo and van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna
[YNER 3], 1968, 38 f. The suggested joins (indicated by +) remain to
be tested against the originals.
*TMH n. F. III 11 + ISET 1: 128 f. Ni. 4012 f. + ISET 2:44 Ni. 9648
501
502
im-tm
AEM
260 -nam- ti -la- ka KA nam-mi-in-[gub]
AEM
261 a-nam-ti-la- ka DUB nama-rig7
AEM
262 -nam-ti-la KA h-im-gub-bu-a-ka
AE
263 a-nam-ti-la DUB h-im-rig7-a-ka
sb-ni ki mu-un-dab -dab
AE
264 g-e-ta gisa umbin-di
5
5
a
AE
265 ki -bi-ta anse-kur-kur- ra -gim m-gul-e
a-d
AE
266 drr-AS.DU.GIM
sakan-nab-ke4 hur-sag -si-il-(le)
-tag!-tag-ge
AE
267 drr-urux(EN)-gal-gim kusu(U.PIRIG)
a
AE
268 anse-libir kas4-e kin-g-m m-mi-DU.DU
AE
269 gi6-bi-ta u4-te-en-(na-s?) na-DU
AE
270 hur-sag (s-sig) dEN.ZU-naa-ka?b kas4 mi-ni-ib-kar
kar-re
AE
271 asa-a-nib l-igi-nigin l nu-mu-un-dad -abe-bar-re
AE
272 kusmas-ali-uma ng-si-s-e
AE
273 kusa-g-l-e ng-s-du11-du11-gea
AE
274 ses-a-ne-ne ku-li-ne-ne
A
275 a-sed7,-gim ninda ki-e mu-un-da-an-du8-us-m
A
276 k-dLugal-(bn-d)a hur-ru-um-kur-ra-ta im-ma-ra-an
l-l
?
AI
277 g-izi-ur5-ra-ka ba-an-sa4
AI
278 gisbuginx-R a b-in-ra / igi-ni-s mu-un-taa-gar-ra
mu-un-si-i(l)b
AI
279 na4!-ga? su im-ma-an-ti
AI
280 ts -bi! h-im-ra-ra-a-t(a)
ma-ra-sig edin-ea ba-ni-i[n-k(u )?]
AI
281 -db-gn
4
ABBI
282 na4KA-sa -la izi b-in-(m)?
ABBIM 283 izi-bi s-sig-ga u4-gim mua-na-an-
ABBIM 284 ninda-gg-du8 nu-zu im-su-rin-na nu-zu
ABBIM 285 izi-ur5-imin-ta ninda-gi-izia-es-b d-ab ba-rac-an-du8
ABI
286 ninda n-bi-a en-na m-seg-seg6
ABI
287 gi-sul- hi -kur-ra r-ba mi-in-in-s-s pa-ba
mi-ni-in-suh-suh
ABI
288 ga-en-gg-ga-ka pad babbar-s KA ba-ni-in-l-l
ABI
289 ninda-gg-du8 nu-zu im-su-rin-na nu-zu
ABIO
290 izi-ur5-imin-ta ninda-gi-izi-es-d-a ba-ra-an-du8
ABIO
291 aninda n-bi-a en-na sg-sg
ABIO
292 am-sg am-sa7 am-si-agr-gra
ABIO
293 am-s-sig-ga nam-aa-a-ak
ADEM
ADEM
ADM
AEM
294
295=307
296=308
297=309
298=310
299=311
503
305
am-si4 am-kur-ra samanx(S.SU.NUN.
S.DU)-e
b-in-l
306
ms-si4 ! ms-z (ms-za)-l ms-sa-KS.K
S-sa
ms-g--g-a
307=315 [see above]
316
ms-si4 ms-z ms-min-a-bi du10-gurum s bi-in- l
317
dis-a-ni l-igi-nigin la nu-mu-un-da-ab(erased)-bar-re
318
lugal-s -s-ge s nam-ga-mu-ni-ib-du11?
319
-s-ge kur nam-g-ga-(
)-ke4
320
KU. KUR-galam-gim-ma su -SIG4-gim- gul -la
321
su-bi galam-m gr-bi galam-m
322
nig igi-bi-ta AD? s-s-e
323
igi-bi-ta AD?diri-diri-ga-e
324
ugula nu-zu-e nu-banda nu-zu-e
325
ng ur-sag-ra -gl-la-e
gisada-ha-ta dNin-ka-si-ka-ke
326
4
dLugal-bn-da -s-gea s nam-ga-bmu-nib-ib-du
327
11
i-li-in-anu-u
328
sa -sikil-kur-ra-ka ki-n-gar-s mu-un-gar
329
zulumhi (TG. SG.SUD) mu-un-dag gad(a)-babbar
abi-ina-br
330
-ur5-ra a-tu5-tu5 nu-gl-la ki-bi-s s im-du11
331
lugal -s-ge la-ba-ana-n-ab ma-m-dac ba-n
332
ma-m-daa gisig-e nu-gi4-e za-ab-ra nu-gi4-e
333
lul-da lul -di-da zi-da zi-di-dam
334
l-hl-hla-le-d l-sr-re-d
gipisan-kad dingir-re-e-ne-kama
335
5
336
unu6-igi-sa6 dNin-ll-l-kama
337
ad-gi4-gi4 dInanna-kam
338
gu4-NE? ura-dib-dib-nam-l-ulu3b-ka am?! l nu-ti-la
339
An-za-ana-gr-ra dingir-ma-m-(d)a-ke4
504
ACFI
ACFI
ACFI
ACFI
ACFI
FIN
FIN
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
FIN
FIN
347
348
FN
FN
FKN
KN
349
350
351
352
KN
KN
KN
FKN
353
354
355
356
FKLN 357
FKLN 358
FKLN
FL
FL
L
L
FL
Ft
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
F
FK
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
d a
si-du11-ta gizbun(KI.KAS.GAR)-na
im-ma-ni-in-drru
kur-ra ki-gar-ra mu-un-aka-a
gizbun ba-ni-in-gar ane-saga ba-ni-in-d
kas-gi6 kurun ziz-babbar
gestin-nag-nag g-me-z-du10-ga
edin-na a-sedx(MS.DI)-
s im-ma-ni-in-d-d
uzu-ms-si4-ke4 gir b-in-ak
HAR? ninda-gi6 izi im-mi-nia-in-sg
NA-izi-si-ga-gim i-b-[B(A)]-ni b-in-m
i-gi-in-zudDumu-zi (ir)-du10-ga gi4-a ku4-ra
ng-su-du11-ga Lugal-bn-da
An dEn-ll dEn-ki dNin-hur-sag-g-ke4 du10-ga-bi
mu-un-k-usa
D: m; E: mu.
D and E add: ; bD and M: ke4.
aD and M omit; bD: i; M omits?; cnot a separate line in A.
aM; tm.
aE and M add: -mi-in.
aE omits; bE adds: a.
aE: u ?
4
aE: e; bE: ne.
aE: NITA.R.SAL.LA.
aE omits; bE omits.
aE: DIS;
b E adds: im; cE omits; d E: du; eerased in A; E omits.
a-aE: lum-e.
aE: ga.
aI: DU; bseparate lines in A.
aI: na.
aB (once) adds: un.
aB, I and M: zi; bbB, I and M: ta; cB (twice) omits.
aI: gi?
variants (B and I) as in 1. 285.
aaB. I and O: bar?-ba? z-lum-ma ninda-ku -ku -da hi-li
7
7
ba-ni-in-du8-du8.
aaB: gur -gur .
292
6
6
aB: mu; O: me.
293
295=307 aB and G: e.
296=308 aH omits; bA (1.296 only) omits.
297=309 aH omits; bJ omits; cB: si-im.
298=310 aJ adds: ab-sin; bB: e.
299=311 aaJ: um?; bA (1. 299 only): ka.
aG adds: e.
306
aJ omits.
317
aC: la.
325
aC and H omit.
326
aC: ke ? bb C: ri.
327
4
aaF: u
328
s; H: um?
aaC: mu-u[n].
329
aC: omits; bC: e; cC, F and G: d.
331
aC and G: d; bC omits.
332
aC and F omit.
334
aF: ke .
335
4
aF: ka?
336
aC: ib?; bC: u -lu; cC: g(KA)
338
x
aI omits.
339
aF and I omit; bC adds: a.
340
aC omits.
341
a
505
506
342
343
347
348
349
355
356
357
358
359
361
362363
364
366
367
372
376
F omits.
C, F and I add: ?
aN adds: ab.
aaI: h-im.
aN: ?; bN adds: in.
aK adds: an.
aK: liru; bK omits.
aaK: im-ma; N: -mu-[na].
aN adds: bi.
aN omits; bbN: s-s?
aL: ka.
from L; F omits,
aL adds: le; bbF omits.
aL: LU.
aaL: nesag.
aL omits.
aF: k?
a
VII. Translation
Lugalbandas Departure from the Cave (257276)
(256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
275
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
507
Lighting the Fire and Baking the Cakes to Bait the Trap (277291)
277
278
278a
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
508
307
315
316
317
509
346 The red aurochs, the aurochs of the mountain, like an athlete let him
carry it away, like a wrestler let him make it submit,
347 Let its strength leave it when he turns toward the rising sun.
348 The red goat, the goat of a nanny, the goats both of themwhen he
has heaped up their heads like barley,
349 When he has poured out their blood in the pit
350 their fat running(?) over the plain
351 Let the snakes hurrying through the mountains sni it (the blood and
fat).
352 Lugalbanda awokeit was a dream. He shiveredit was sleep,
353 He rubbed his eyes, he was terrified.
510
257
ad Sulgi
0 57; for seven brothers, cf. also the Cuthean legend of
NaramSin.
276
Cf. Perhaps Enlilsuduse 37 for x-ta . . . -ra-l (Gragg, Infixes, 95).
277283 See below, APPENDIX I.
278
The buginvessel recurs in Lugalbanda II 22 in connection
with Ninkasi (cf. below, line 326) and 402 f. in connection with
Enmerkars catching fish for Inanna.
282
For na4z-sal-la = na4 su - see Stol, The stone called sm, On
Trees, etc. (1979) 9496. But cf. also NA4.KA = s. urru, obsidian or
flint.
283
For u4-gim. . . cf. Rmer SKIZ, 232 ad IddinDagan *7:70. For
sa-sg-ga cf. 1.270.
511
Cf. line 289. For im-su-rin-na (etc. etc.) = tinuru see Salonen BM 3
(1964), 101103; Civil, JCS 25 (1973), 172175. According to Jerrold
Cooper, all the dierent Sumerian and Akkadian forms of this
word go back to Indian tandoor, oven; letter to N.Y. Times,
2-8-1977.
285
Cf. line 290 and LE, 152 ad 1. 53.
287
Cf. line 302.
291
Translation follows B, I, and O. A repeats 1. 286 (more or less;
reading courtesy M. Civil).
292316 Cf. S. Cohen, ELA, 12 f.
292
Cf. S. Cohen, ELA, 10 .; Heimpel, Tierbilder 5. 1 (dierently Civil,
Oppenheim AV, 79).
293
For s-sig-ga cf. l. 270; for nam-a-a cf. l. 224 and CT 17: 22: 155 =
IV R2 4 iii 1315: nam-a-a-ta = ina nu-uh-hi.
294
hur-sag = hills or foothills, to distinguish from kur = mountain;
cf. T. Jacobsen, Or. 42 (1973), 281286. But cf. l. 17 for umbin
kin-kin-ba?
295299 Cf. S. Cohen, Kramer AV, 99101. Cohen takes Lugalbanda as the
subject of these lines, but more likely it is the ox (respectively the
goat).
296
For the various orthographies of numun = elpetu see most recently
Hallo, ZA 71 (1981), 49. For numun-br-(ra), alfa grass from
reed clearings, = elpet m purki, alfa grass (growing) in stagnant
water, see CAD E, 109. The terra recurs in the Tummal History 6
(Sollberger, JCS 16, 42) and in Iddin-Dagan *6: 176 (Rmer, SKIZ,
133); the simile recurs in Inanna and Ebih 142 (Limet, Or 40: 15)
and in the Eridu Lament 5: 6 (M.W. Green, JCS 30 [1978], 137).
297
For si-im (var. sim) cf. si-im (var. sim)-ak in 1. 361 and the
references collected by Heimpel, Tierbilder, 356, 48 2 f.
298
Cf. l. 259.
299
Cf. LE, 188; Alster, Or. 41 (1972), 355.
300
In view of l. 305, I take this ox to be the (single) victim, and the
verb therefore iterative not plural.
94: 20
301
Cohen restores [gis-di]m-ma-na, snare and compares SL
= umasu! Note that in the equivalent line 313, the Ur III version
(though diering) introduces the PN Lugalbanda here. Is it
possible to restore instead subtu(m) = subtum, ambush? Cf. MSL
3:136:78; 14:191:283 f.; B. Alster, Dumuzis Dream (= Mesopotamia
1), 1972, 98 f.
303
Cf. Civil, JCS 15:125 f. for erina/arina/irina =sursu, root.
306
For ms-za-l = ibhu, mssa-sar-ks-da! = miqqanu, and ms-g-g- = tahlappanu see Hh. XIII (MSL 8: 33), 234236. The fact
that all three occur together in the lexical text lends support to
the hypothesis that they, and many other lexical entries, are taken
from literary and archival sources (cf. already Hallo, HUCA 30
(1959), 136). If correctly translated, the implication is that sick
animals were not sacrificed.
512
317
318
319
327
330
331
332
332337
338
339341
342343
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
351
513
352353
514
last embers dead so that he was thrown on his own resources to restart
the fire. He accomplished this by striking a spark with a suitable stone.
The operative terms are ne-mur and -db, both of which are equated
with Akkadian pemtu / pentu; see AHw s.v. and previously Hallo, Bi. Or.
20 (1963), 139 f. and 142(6) s.v. pentu; YNER 3 1968), s.v, izi-ur5 The reading ne-mur seems preferable in view of that reading, now well-attested,
in connection with the near-synonym tumru, glowing ash, ember; see
AHw s.v. That may indeed be the intended meaning of ne-mur here.
For -dub = pemtu see now also MSL 13: 36(A) 11. The Akkadian word,
which is clearly cognate with Hebrew PHM,
coal (so already Hallo,
.
loc. cit.), was expanded by the addition of the nisbe-ending to form pent,
explained as aban isati, firestone, stone for making fire; cf. AHw s.v.
pe/ind, and MSL 10:32:92: na4-izi = aban i[sati] = [pind]; ib. 35a: na4.
d
SE.TIR = pind = aban isat. This in turn was borrowed into Sumerian
as (na4) p-in-di; cf. UET V 292 and 558 as interpreted by W.F. Leemans, Foreign Trade (1960) 28 and 30. In our text, however, the stone
employed is identified more specifically as flint or silex (line 282; cf.
line 279).
Udub also occurs as a logogram, written lagab izi, i.e. block
(lagabbu) with inscribed fire (Hallo, Bi. Or. 20, 140 n. 61) and in late,
purely syllabic orthography as u-tu-ba (Salonen, JEOL 18, 338). Phonologically, it resembles i-sub / -sub, brickmold (Salonen, Bi. Or.
27, 1970, 176 f. and Ziegeleien, 1972, 80 f., 87100) and other cultural
terms ending in -ub. Salonen does not list it among these substrate
nouns (ibid., 714; Fussbekleidung, 1969, 97119, esp. 110 f.; Zum Aufbau
der Substrate im Sumerischen = St. Or. 37/3, 1968, 5 f.) but its appearance
in Lugalbanda I, in the context of an aetiology (?), is suggestive of its
antiquity.
alludes to Inannas sexual aspect and her role as generator of fertility as celebrated
in the sacred marriage. If Enmerkar and Lugalbanda were, like Gilgamesh, partners
of Inanna in this rite, then line 337 probably alludes to this role; for the doublemeaning of ad-gi4-gi4 in this context, cf. Hallo and van Dijk, YNER 3 (1968), 53 and
note 20. The preceding line similarly suggests the place where the sacred marriage
was consummated; for unu6 (usually: dining-hall) as the place where the crown-prince
was born of this union cf. . Sjberg, Nanna-Suen, 94 and Hallo, Birth of Kings,
Pope Festschrift (forthcoming), here: III.4. Thus the first dream of Lugalbanda (or the
beginning of his single dream) may anticipate the royal role for which Inanna has
helped to save him.
515
516
gods tabletbox, the one for whom Ninlil has a favoring mouth (unu6
= p) and eye, Inannas counsellor, saying to mankind: Let me restore!,
the border district of men no (longer) alive.
vii.2
THE ORIGINS OF THE SACRIFICIAL CULT:
NEW EVIDENCE FROM MESOPOTAMIA AND ISRAEL1
In 1975, I.J. Gelb discussed the role of singers, musicians, snake charmers, and bear wards in ancient Sumer in an article which, no doubt with
a nod to J. Huizinga,2 he entitled Homo Ludens in Early Mesopotamia.3 If I turn in this chapter from this playful side of the Sumerians to their more murderous aspect, it is with an eye not only to
Gelbs study but also to a monograph published just three years earlier by the Swiss classicist W. Burkert under the title Homo Necans:
Interpretations of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Rites and Myths.4
In his important study, Burkert surveyed the anthropological and
more particularly the Greek literary evidence for the origins and motivations of animal sacrifice. His conclusion, to which this summary cannot begin to do justice, is that the sacrificial rites as described in Greek
literature or observed to this day in primitive cultures reflect a prehistoric origin which can be reconstructed approximately as follows.
Prior to the domestication of plants and animals, hunting and gathering groups divided between the sexes the essential functions of victualing themselves, with men assigned to the hunt and women to the gathering of edible plants. But the hunt required collective action and the
aid of traps and weapons, and these mechanics held a potential threat
in that they could conceivably be turned inward against members of
the group. Hence the catching and dispatching of the animal prey
1
In its original form, this material was first given at the University of Puget Sound,
Tacoma, Wash., on 13 March, 1983, R.G. Albertson presiding. In slightly dierent
form, and under the title of Homo Necans in Early Mesopotamia, it was read to
the 193d meeting of the American Oriental Society, Baltimore, 22 March, 1983.
2 J. Huizinga, Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture (Boston: Beacon
Press, 1955).
3 I.J. Gelb, Homo Ludens in Early Mesopotamia, StudOr 46 (= Armas I. Salonen
Anniversary Volume, 1975) 4376.
4 W. Burkert, Homo Necans. Interpretationen altgriechischer Opferriten und Mythen (= Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 32, 1972). This has meantime been translated by P. Bing under the title Homo Necans: The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial
Ritual and Myth (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983).
From Ancient Israelite Religion edited by Miller, Hanson and McBride copyright
1987 Fortress Press, admin. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. Reproduced by special
permission of Augsburg Fortress Publishers.
518
519
for the human victim of aggression, the hunt or the sacrifice as an outlet for the innate disposition toward violence which, once aroused, must
be satisfied or assuaged. On this theory, the role of the deity recedes
into the background or, rather, becomes a secondary embellishment to
an essentially human or, at best, human-animal nexus of relationships.
(Often enough, the substitute victim is also human.) What counts, on
this view, is that the murder of the substitute victim not be avenged, as
this might unleash an endless cycle of vengeance threatening to wipe
out the entire group. It is to this end that the murder is invested with
the mythic and ritual sanctions that turn it into a sacrificial act. And
it is for this reason that sacrifice loses its significance in societies that
have substituted a firm judicial system for more primitive notions of
private or public vengeance.
Of these two comparable but discrete analyses, the former comes
nearer to providing a clue to unraveling the mysteries of the sacrificial
cult as these are enshrined in the Hebrew Bible. Many gallons of ink
have been spilled on this issue over the decades, but it may perhaps
suce to cite my own remarks by way of orientation in the current
state of the question. According to Israelite belief, then, the spilling
of animal blood was in some sense an oense against nature and
courted the risk of punishment, although never on the level of human
bloodshed. It was to obviate such punishment that successive provisions
were made to invest the act of animal slaughtering with a measure of
divine sanction . . . . The common denominator of these provisions was
to turn mere slaughter into sanctification. The sacrifice was a sacredmaking of the consumption that followed.8
Biblical attitudes toward the consumption of animal meat underwent
three distinct transformations. In the primeval order of things, men and
beasts alike were vegetarians by divine command. This is most explicit
in the mythic version of creation prefaced to the Priestly narrative:
See, I give you every seed-bearing plant that is upon the earth, and
every tree that has seed-bearing fruit; they shall be yours for food. And
to all the animals . . . [I give] all the green plants for food (Gen 1: 29
30).9 It is only slightly less explicit in the epic version that begins the
8 W.W. Hallo apud W.G. Plaut, B.J. Bamberger, and W.W. Hallo, The Torah: A
Modern Commentary (New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1981) 743;
previously apud Plaut, Numbers (1979) xxvi.
9 Translations are according to the New Jewish Version (NJV) unless otherwise
indicated.
520
so-called J document: Of every tree of the garden you are free to eat
(Gen 2:16). It is also the state to which beasts, at least, are to revert in
the messianic age when, according to the prophetic view, the lion, like
the ox, shall eat straw (Isa 11:7).
This original dispensation was superseded after the flood by a new
promulgation which, while echoing it, reversed it completely: Every
creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as with the green grasses, I
give you all these (Gen 9:3). The only restriction added immediately
(Gen 9:4) is: You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in
it. This act is virtually equated with homicide (Gen 9:5). In the later
rabbinic view, the new dispensation is one of the seven Noachide
laws that are binding on all the descendants of Noah, that is, on all
mankind.10
An entirely dierent principle was invoked in the legislation of the
Holiness Code (Leviticus 1726), generally held to be one of the oldest
strata surviving within the so-called Priestly Document. The Levitical
enactment postulates that the life of the flesh is in the blood, and
I have assigned it to you for making expiation for your lives upon
the altar; it is the blood, as life, that eects expiation (Lev 17: 11).
In J. Milgroms view, the expiation involved here is nothing less than
ransom for a capital oense. Under the Levitical dispensation, animal
slaughter except at the authorized altar is murder. The animal too has life
(older versions: a soul), its vengeance is to be feared, its blood must
be covered or expiated by bringing it to the altar.11
The final biblical revision of the law of meat consumption was promulgated by Deuteronomy, presumably in the context of the Josianic
reform of the seventh century. Again following Milgrom,12 who in
this instance, however, was preceded by A.R. Hulst,13 we may see the
repeated formulas introduced by as I/He swore or commanded or
promised as citations of earlier legislation, whether written or (in this
case) oral.
What Josiah in eect instituted reconciled the older prohibition
against profane slaughter with the newer centralization of the cult:
10
521
522
523
gods of the need to provide for their own food. Thus, for example, in
the Sumerian myth known as Cattle and Grain or Lahar and Ashnan23 man was created (lit. given breath) for the sake of the sheepfolds and good things of the gods.24 To quote W.G. Lambert, The
idea that man was created to relieve the gods of hard labor by supplying them with food and drink was standard among both Sumerians and
Babylonians.25
This conception is even thought to find a faint echo in the primeval
history of Genesis. For the epic (J) version of the creation begins:
When the Lord God made earth and heavenwhen no shrub of the
field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet sprouted,
because the Lord God had not sent rain upon the earth and there
was no man to till the soil (Gen 2: 4b-5). And it continues, after the
creation of man (Gen 2: 15): The Lord God took the man and placed
him in the garden of Eden, to till it and tend it.
But a newly recovered Sumerian myth puts matters into a rather
dierent light and permits considerably more precise analogies to be
drawn with biblical conceptions. The myth, or mythologem, is embedded in an ostensibly epic tale dealing, as do all other Sumerian epics,
with the exploits of the earliest rulers of Uruk, that well-nigh eternal
city where writing first emerged in full form late in the fourth millennium and where cuneiform continued in use almost to the Christian
era, the city whose name is preserved in the table of nations as Erech
(Gen 10:10). The earliest rulers of Uruk were preoccupied with heroic
campaigns against distant Aratta, the source of lapis lazuli and other
precious imports from across the Iranian highlands to the east, perhaps as far away as Afghanistan. On one of these campaigns the crown
prince Lugalbanda fell ill and had to be left behind in a cave of the
mountains by his comrades, with only enough food and fire to ease his
23
Unedited; see the texts listed by R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter) 1 (1967) and 2 (1975), under G.A. Barton, Miscellaneous Babylonian
Inscriptions (New Haven; 1918), no. 8, and the discussion by G. Pettinato, Das altorientalische Menschenbild und die sumerischen und akkadischen Schpfungsmythen (AHAW 1971/I) 8690.
24 Translated thus or similarly by S.N. Kramer, Sumerian Mythology (Memoirs of the
American Philosophical Society 21, 1944; 2d ed.; New York: Harper & Row, 1961) 73;
idem, From the Tablets of Sumer (Indian Hills, Colo.: Falcons Wing Press, 1963) 221; idem,
History Begins at Sumer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981) 109.
25 W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atra-hass: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969) 15. Cf. in detail G. Komorczy, Work and Strike of the
Gods: New Light on the Divine Society in the Sumero-Akkadian Mythology, Oikumene
1 (1976) 937.
524
dying days. Left for dead, he prayed to the sun at dusk, followed by the
evening star, then the moon, and finally the sun again at dawnand
there the text eectively broke o in the first systematic presentation of
the plot by C. Wilcke in 1969.26
The thread of the epic is taken up at this point by a large tablet
from the Yale Babylonian Collection first identified by S.N. Kramer,
copied by me in 1965, incorporated into a preliminary but unpublished
edition by S. Cohen some years later,27 and finally edited by me in full
and with the help of numerous fragmentary duplicate texts from other
collections for a volume in honor of Professor Kramer.28 From all of
this, the following sequel can be reconstructed.
The prayers of Lugalbanda were answered: He arose from his sickbed and left the cave. He refreshed himself from revivifying grass
and the invigorating waters of the nearest stream, but then he faced
a problem: The food left for him by his comrades-in-arms had given
out; the fire they had left had died out. How was he to nourish himself
henceforth? He was still in the mountains, or at least the foothills of
the Zagros, surrounded by wild plants and wild animals. The plants
are pointedly contrasted with the domesticated varieties familiar to him
from the cultivated plains of Uruk, and the animals consume them
with relish. It is implied, however, that they are not fit for human
consumption. In this extremity, Lugalbanda decides to make a virtue of
necessity and turn carnivorous. But this is easier said than done when a
solitary man confronts a thundering herd of aurochsen. He must select
one that is weak and languid from overeating29 and try to trap it as it
mills about the meadow. To do this, he must bait the one trap he has
presumably constructed. As I translate the relevant passage, he does so
by baking some delectable cakesadmittedly a questionable procedure
in these circumstances but one that would justify a subsidiary aetiology
inserted in the text at this point, namely, the invention of fire, or at least
of fire-making! The embers of the last campfire left by his companions
C. Wilcke, Das Lugalbandaepos (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1969).
Cf. also S. Cohen, Studies in Sumerian Lexicography, I, in Kramer Anniversary
Volume, ed. B.L. Eichler et al., AOAT 25 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1976)
99101.
28 W.W. Hallo, Lugalbanda Excavated, JAOS 103 (1983) 165180, here: VII.1. See
there for a detailed exposition of the text.
29 See Hallo, Lugalbanda Excavated, here: VII.1, 175 line 293. T. Jacobsen proposes an alternative translation: the curly (haired) aurochs, fatherly, protective (private communication).
26
27
525
having died out, Lugalbanda must start a new fire by striking flintstones
(?) together until they generate a spark. And even then, not knowing
how to bake a cake, not knowing an oven (11. 284, 289) he has to
improvise. But one way or another, the aurochs is caught and then
tethered by means of a rope made on the spot from the roots and tops
of the wild juniper tree uprooted and cut with a knife. The process is
then repeated with two goats, taking care to select healthy ones from
those in sight.
But with the practical problems disposed of, Lugalbandas real problems are just beginning. His companions have left him supplied with an
ax of meteoric iron and a hip dagger of terrestrial iron (the latter presumably used already to cut the juniper trees), but how can he presume
to wield them against his quarry? Only the appropriate ritual can solve
this problem. Providentially, the answer is vouchsafed in a dream, by
none other than Za(n)qara, the god of dreams himself. He must slaughter the animals, presumably at night and in front of a pit, so that the
blood drains into the pit while the fat runs out over the plain where the
snakes of the mountain can sni it, and so that the animals expire at
daybreak.
Upon wakening, Lugalbanda follows these prescriptions to the letter, needless to say. But he goes them one bettersignificantly better. At dawn he summons the four greatest deities of the Sumerian
pantheonAn, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursagto a banquet at the pit.
This banquet is called in the text gizbun (written logographically as
ki-kas-gar [lit. place where beer is placed]), a Sumerian word later
equated with Akkadian takultu, the technical term for a cultic meal or
divine repast.30 Lugalbanda pours libations of beer and wine, carves the
meat of the goats, roasts it together with the bread, and lets the sweet
savor rise to the gods like incense. The intelligible portion of the text
ends with these two lines (11. 375376): So of the food prepared by
Lugalbanda/An, Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag consumed the best part.
What is oered here is a first glimpse at a tantalizing new bit of
evidence regarding early Sumerian religious sensibilities. Admittedly,
the text can be translated dierently here and there by other interpreters or, upon maturer reflection, by myself. But some salient points
are already more or less beyond dispute. They are enumerated here,
together with the conclusions that I propose to draw from them.
30
Cf. R. Frankena, Takultu: de sacrale maaltijd in het assyrische ritueel (diss., Leiden, 1953).
526
527
528
39 W.W. Hallo, Cult Statue and Divine Image: A Preliminary Study, Scripture
in Context II (ed. W.W. Hallo, J.C. Moyer, and L.G. Perdue; Winona Lake, Ind.:
Eisenbrauns, 1983) 117.
40 Hallo apud Plaut, The Torah, 743; previously apud Bamberger, Leviticus (1979) xxvi.
vii.3
DISTURBING THE DEAD*
Disturbing the dead was fraught with danger not only in the biblical
view but across the whole ancient Near East, from Mesopotamia to
Phoenicia. In what follows, old and new documentation will be oered
to this eect, and some recent discussions of the theme will be considered.
In Death and the Netherworld according to the Sumerian Literary
Texts, S.N. Kramer decried the fact that the Sumerian ideas relating
to death and the netherworld . . . were neither clear, precise or consistent.1 Much the same could probably be said of most cultures. But
in fact the consistency and continuity of the Sumerian view, and its
survival in Akkadian texts, is quite impressive. Nowhere is this better
exemplified than in the tale to which Kramer himself gave the title Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld.2 The first half of this tale was
edited by Kramer under the title Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree at
the start of his long career of editing Sumerian literary texts.3 Its second
half, translated verbatim into Akkadian, became the last (12th) tablet
of the latest recension of the Akkadian Epic of Gilgamesh4itself a literary phenomenon almost without parallel in the history of cuneiform
literature.5
Paper submitted to the 24th Annual Conference of the Association for Jewish
Studies, Boston, December 1315 1992, and here oered in warm tribute to Nahum
Sarna.
1 Iraq 22 (1960), pp. 5968, esp. p. 65.
2 PAPhS 85 (1942), p. 321; JAOS. 64 (1944), pp. 723, esp. pp. 1922.
3 Gilgamesh and the Huluppu-Tree (AS 10 [1938]); preceded by Gilgamesh and the
Willow Tree, The Open Court 50 (1936), pp. 1833.
4 A. Shaer, Sumerian Sources of Tablet XII of the Epic of Gilgame
s (Ann Arbor, MI:
University Microfilms, 1963).
5 W.W. Hallo, Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics, Perspectives in Jewish Learning
5 (1973), pp. 112, here: I.3, esp. p. 7; Toward a History of Sumerian Literature,
in S.J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen (AS, 20; 1976),
pp. 181203, here: I.4, esp. pp. 189190 and n. 57; review of B. Alster, The Instructions of
Suruppak,
JNES 37 (1978), pp. 269273, esp. p. 272 (D).
*
530
According to this account, when Enkidu descended to the netherworld to recover the hoop and driving stick6 of Gilgamesh, or his drum
and drumstick7 if a shamanistic reading is preferred,8 the latter counseled him not to oend or disturb the dead.9 In particular, he warned,
Do not take a sta in your hands [or] the spirits will panic before
you.10 Enkidu, however, ignored the warning, and a few lines later
on we read that he took a sta in his hands and the spirits panicked
[because of him].11 In a recent study of the passage, Aase Koefoed
interprets the warning as taboo rules which seem to correspond to
the actual rules for conduct during a mourning ceremony12 and their
violation by Enkidu as the reason for his untimely death.13 She compares the sta of cornel-wood14 to the rhabdos in Greek religion, where
it is the stick or magic wand used by Hermes to invoke and drive the
ghosts.15
These ghosts (gidim = e.temmu) could easily turn into demons
(GIDIM4 = udug = utukku) which, if improperly buried or disturbed,
could return to haunt and terrify the living.16 The Sumerian incantations known as Evil Spirits (udug-hul)17 and the bilingual series into
6 Sumerian gis-ellag and gis - E. KD - ma, Akkadian pukku and mekk; cf. CAD
M/2 s.v. mekku A, based on B. Landsberger, WZKM 56 (1960), pp. 124126; 57 (1961),
p. 23.
7 This is Landsbergers earlier translation, and survives in ANET (3rd ed., 1969),
p. 507.
8 I judge that the readings drum and drumstick are clinched by the widespread
Siberian tradition that the frames of shaman-drums come from wood of the World
Tree; A.T. Hatto, Shamanism and Epic Poetry in Northern Asia (London: SOAS, 1970), p. 4.
But cf. C.R. Bawden, BASOS 35 (1972), p. 394.
9 Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld, ll. 185199; see Shaer, Sumerian
Sources, pp. 7476, 108109.
10 Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld, ll. 191192; cf. CAD A/2, pp. 236237;
531
which they evolved (utukku lemnutu)18 were designed to ward o that possibility. This is illustrated by such lines as [these demons] agitated the
distraught man19 and [the demons] caused panic in the land.20 The
former passage recurs in a bilingual exercise text where the Akkadian
verb used is the same as in Gilgamesh XII (exceptionally in transitive
usage).21
Violation of a grave was therefore considered a particularly severe
form of punishment, as for example when Assurbanipal of Assyria
(668627 bc) destroyed the tombs of the Elamite kings during his sack of
the Elamite capital at Susa,22 carrying their bones to Assur, condemning
their spirits to restlessness, and depriving them of funerary repasts23
and water libations (e.temmesunu la s. alalu emid kisp naq m uzammesunuti).24
Perhaps this was a specific revenge for their having been the disturbers
(munarri.tu)25 of the kings my ancestors, that is, of the graves of the
departed royalty. But more likely the reference here was simply to the
harassment and terrorism to which the royal Assyrian ancestors had
been subjected during their reigns.26
The prevention of such desecration thus became the particular objective of another genre of texts, that of the funerary inscription. This
genre is relatively less well attested in cuneiform than in some other
ancient Near Eastern corpora of inscriptions. Such evidence as was
by then available, was assembled and discussed by Jean Bottro in
1981.27 A good illustration of the genre is the mortuary inscription of
R.C. Thompson, The Devils and Evil Spirits of Babylonia, I (London: Luzac, 1903).
Thompson, Devils, pp. 2021, l. 2.
20 Thompson, Devils, pp. 3435, l. 255, with note ad loc. (p. 99).
21 UET 6.392, cited CAD A/2, pp. 236237; s.v. araru B. 22.
22 For this event and its aftermath cf. W.W. Hallo, An Assurbanipal Text Recovered, The Israel Museum Journal 6 (1987), pp. 3337; P.D. Gerardi, Assurbanipals Elamite
Campaigns: A Literary and Political Study (Ann Arbor, MI: 1987), esp. pp. 195213; E. Carter
and M.W. Stolper, Elam (Near Eastern Studies, 25; University of California Publications, 1984), p. 52.
23 For these see below, pp. 536537.
24 CAD E, 399a; Z, 156d.
25 CAD N/l, 349a; cited Hallo, loc. cit. (see next note), but correct citation accordingly.
26 A. Tsukimoto, Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien (AOAT,
216; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985), pp. 114115; cited in W.W. Hallo,
The Death of Kings: Traditional Historiography in Contextual Perspective, in M.
Cogan and I. Eph"al (eds.), Ah, Assyria . . . : Studies . . . presented to Hayim Tadmor (ScrHier,
33; 1991), pp. 148165, esp. p. 162 n. 126.
27 J. Bottro, Les inscriptions cuniformes funraires, in G. Gnoli and J.-P. Vernant,
(eds.), La mort, les morts dans les Socits Anciennes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1982), pp. 373406.
18
19
532
533
36 Jacobsen, The Myth of Inanna and Bilulu, pp. 182183 n. 50; Toward the Image,
p. 346 n. 50.
37 R. Kutscher, Oh Angry Sea (a-ab-ba hu-luh-ha): The History of a Sumerian Congregational Lament (YNER, 6; 1975), p. 49.
38 ANET (3rd edn, 1969), p. 96, ll. 220221.
39 KI.SI.GA q-ul-ti-
su; A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second
Millennium bc (to 1115 bc ) (RIMA 1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1987), pp. 59
60, no. 8; cf. Bottro, Les inscriptions, p. 403 n. 18, who, however, seems to take
KI.SI.GA as a phonetic (?) spelling for KI.S.GA, hence rendering it Salle-au-kispu.
Dierently CAD Q 302d.
40 OIP 2. 151. 14. 3 and 13. 2 respectively; cf. Bottro, Les inscriptions, p. 382.
41 See in general H. Tawil, A Note on the Ahiram Inscription, JANESCU 3 (1970
1971), pp. 3236, esp. p. 36; A. Negev, A Nabataean Epitaph from Trans-Jordan, IEJ
21 (1971), pp. 5053, esp. pp. 5051, with nn. 49.
42 W.W. Hallo, Oriental Institute Museum Notes No. 10: The Last Years of the
Kings of Isin, JNES 18 (1959), pp. 5472, esp. p. 54 and n. 2, based on A. Deimel,
Sumerisches
Lexikon, III.2 (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1932), no. 399, 177 based in
turn on K.D. Macmillan, Some Cuneiform Tablets . . . , BA 5 (1906), p. 634 l. 13; cf.
p. 573, ll. 1314 and p. 588 l. 11.
43 MSL 13.69.108.
534
houses built by the kings of Isin and Larsa.44 The Sumerian equivalent
to resting-place (asar tapsuhti) is ki-n-db-bu-da; it occurs in an inscription of Warad-Sin of Larsa (c. 18341823 bc) as an epithet of the temple
of Nin-Isina called E-unamtila, literally house [of] the plant of life.45
To return to the idiom of waking the sleeper, Livingstone has also
discovered it in a late Akkadian literary text46 which he treated under
the heading of works . . . explaining state rituals in terms of myths in
198647 and as mystical miscellanea in 1989.48 Here Jacobsen had read
The sill of the temple of Enmesharra: he hitched up at the wall, / the
tallow of fleece (.UDU it-qi) is taboo for Enmesharra.49 Livingstone,
however, reads, He hung the ladders of the house of Enmesarra on the
wall and woke up the sleepers (s. al-lu id-ki). Taboo of Enmesarra,50 and
adds, it would not be dicult to suppose that disturbing the dead was
anathema to the underworld deity Enmesarra.51
The concept of a divine taboo or anathema has been the subject of
two recent studies. In 1985 I selected some fourteen examples of the
theme from Sumerian and Akkadian literature, and compared them
with the biblical concept of divine abominations.52 Klein and Sefati
covered much the same ground in 1988, in another volume dedicated
to the memory of Moshe Held.53 I concluded that, between the early
second millennium and the early first millennium, the emphasis of the
taboos . . . shifted from a principal preoccupation with morals and manners to an at least equal concern with cultic matters,54 and eventually
535
536
thrones all the kings of the nations.62 For good measure it may be
pointed out again that the same root (rgz) is employed in Phoenician
funerary inscriptions,63 notably those of Tabnit of Sidon64 and of the
son of Shipit-Baal of Byblos.65
By contrast to such practices, subject to dreadful curses and dire
punishments, the proper respect for the departed required, in the first
place, the recitation of appropriate lamentations, presumably at the
time of interment. That appears to be the sense of the Sumerian
notation when he entered [turned into is a possible translation but
unlikely here] the oce of lamentation-priests (u4 nam-gala-s in-ku4ra) which is frequently encountered in neo-Sumerian accounts justifying the expenditure of modest numbers of sacrificial animals66 by
the next of kin (?), whose ranks include two cooks, a courier, a bowman, a foot-soldierall lay professionsand three Amorites.67 Given
the diversity of these origins, it seems unlikely that we should translate
here, when they entered the oce of lamentation-priest,68 the more
so since a single name at most recurs among the numerous named
lamentation-priests on neo-Sumerian documents.69
Once buried, the dead required above all a commemorative funerary meal, called kispu in Akkadian and ki-s-ga in Sumerian.70 Because
the Sumerian term, in the form house (e) of the ki-s-ga, is otherwise
62 See previous note and cf. H.L. Ginsberg, Reflexes of Sargon in Isaiah after
715 bce in W.W. Hallo (ed.), Essays in Memory of EA. Speiser (AOS, 53; New Haven:
American Oriental Society), repr. from JAOS 88 (1968), pp. 4753.
63 On their typology see H.-P. Mller, Die Phnizische Grabinschrift aus dem
Zypern-Museum KAI 30 und die Formgeschichte des Nordwestsemitischen Epitaphs,
ZA 65 (1975), pp. 104132, esp, pp. 109110, 118119: Cf. also K. Galling, Die Grabinschrift Hiobs, Welt des Orients 2 (1954), pp. 36 ad Job 19.2327.
64 ANET (3rd edn, 1969), p. 662. Cf. above n. 60, but correct the reference in The
Death of Kings (n. 125) accordingly.
65 H. Donner and W. Rllig, KAI, II (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1973), pp. 10
11.
66 Typically five sheep and/or goats; once two grain-fattened sheep and once three
adult goats.
67 T. Fish, Gala on Ur III Tablets, MCS 7 (1957), pp. 2527; M. Sigrist, AUCT 3
(1988), no. 42; idem, Tablettes du Princeton Theological Seminary: Epoque dUr III (Occasional
Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 10; 1990), no. 90; see below n. 6.
68 As implied by H. Hartmann, Die Musik in der Sumerischen Kultur (Frankfurt 1960),
pp. 141142.
69 Hartmann, Die Musik, pp. 166179, 356361. The possible exception, as noted by
Hartmann (p. 173 n. 4), is N. Schneider, Keilschriftutkunden aus Drehem und Djoha,
Or o.s. 18 (1925), no. 17, pp. 1719; the profession of - k u l registered there is otherwise
unknown to me.
70 See Hallo, Royal Ancestor Worship, p. 394 and cf. above n. 39.
537
equated with Akkadian words for grave (kimahu, quburu),71 the existence
of a true Sumerian equivalent has hitherto been overlooked. I propose
as such an equivalent gizbun, a Sumerian word generally translated
by (festive) meal, banquet, based in part on its logographic writing
72
Later
with the signs for place where beer is put (KI.KAS.GAR).
the Sumerian term was equated with Akkadian takultu, divine repast,73
illustrating once again the tendency of cultic terms to evolve out of
everyday language.74 The fact that the logogram was at times still pronounced as written (ki-kas-gar-ra)75 strongly suggests that gizbun is an
alternate reading of the signs, and hence a loan-word from Akkadian,
rather than vice versa.76
Since the cultic meal in question is most at home in Mari, at or near
the border between the Mesopotamian and the biblical worlds, its evidence may be added to that of the other common features of funerary
practices and beliefs as yet further testimony to the interconnectedness
of the entire ancient Near East.
vii.4
ENKI AND THE THEOLOGY OF ERIDU*
Ancient Egytian religion viewed the world through three discrete intellectual perspectives which modern Egyptologists have labeled the theologies of Thebes, Heliopolis, and Memphis.1 Similarly, the older Mesopotamian Weltanschauungen can be subsumed under three headings best
described as the theologies of Nippur, Lagash, and Eridu.2
The first and oldest of these theologies centered upon Enlil, eectively the head of the Sumerian pantheon, and reflected conditions
in Early Dynastic times, a period when Nippur, Enlils cult city, also
served as the religious center of a league of all Sumer (Jacobsens
Kengir League)3 and later, under the Sargonic and Ur III Dynasties, of Sumer and Akkad.4 It survived into Old Babylonian times
when the First Dynasty of Isin tried to present itself as the heir to all
Sumerian traditions since the Flood. It was enshrined at this time in
the Neo-Sumerian canon as fixed in the scribal schools, particularly at
* Review article of: Myths of Enki, the Crafty God. By Samuel Noah Kramer and John
Maier. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Pp. viii + 272.
1 Cf., e.g., James P. Allen, Genesis in Egypt: the Philosophy of Ancient Egyptian Creation
Accounts, Yale Egyptological Studies, 2 (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1988), 62.
2 W.W. Hallo, The Limits of Skepticism, JAOS 110 (1990): 187199, esp. pp. 197 f.;
idem, Sumerian Religion, in kinattutu sa darti: Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume, ed.
Anson F, Rainey, Tel Aviv Occasional Publications, 1 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv Univ. Press,
1993), 1535, here: I.6, esp. pp. 26 f.
3 Cf. W.W. Hallo and W.K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History (New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, 1971), 38 f. and 43. For even earlier evidence of such a
league, see now Roger J. Matthews, Cities, Seals and Writing: Archaic Seal Impressions from
Jemdet Nasr and Ur, Materialien zu den frhen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients,
2 (Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1993).
4 In the words of the (Sargonic) hymn to the temple of Enlil in Nippur, your right
and your left hand are Sumer and Akkad; cf. Hallo, Sumerian Religion, 26, here: I.6.
540
541
son of Enki, and turned, like his Sumerian prototype, into a patron of
incantation and magic. The Sumerian flood story, in which Enki bests
Enlil to assure the survival of humankind,15 was modified to provide
a new antediluvian prologue, beginning with Eridu, to the Sumerian
King List. A whole host of myths focusing on Enki developed the theme
of his solicitude for humanity as a counterweight to the terror inspired
by Enlil and his unalterable word.
The book under review speaks of a theology of Ea (p. 146). It does
not operate with the notion of a theology of Eridu, but it provides for
the first time a systematic survey of the Sumerian and Akkadian literary
texts that go to make it up, i.e., the myths and other compositions about
Enki/Ea. It is the product of a collaboration between Samuel Noah
Kramer, the late dean of Sumerology, and John Maier, a professor
of English at the State University of New York at Brockport. Their
respective roles are partially delineated in the introduction (pp. 17 f.).
Maier is the coeditor of two volumes of essays on the Bible.16 He is
known to Assyriologists chiefly through his contribution to the second
Kramer Festschrift17 and through his collaboration with the poet John
Gardner (and the Assyriologist Richard A. Henshaw) in the preparation
of a new and rather imaginative rendition of the Gilgamesh Epic.18
He has also addressed the American Oriental Society on the subject
of Enki Speaks (cf. p. 193) and has written on Three Voices of
Enki (p. 244, n. 42).19 The present book is the outgrowth of these
essays, according to the introduction, which seems to be at least in part
Maiers.
15 M. Civil, The Sumerian Flood Story, apud W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard,
Atra-hass: The Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 138145,
167172.
Civil, however, considers this text as possibly late and secondary; cf. ibid., 139.
16 The Bible in Its Literary Milieu: Contemporary Essays, ed. Vincent I. Tollers and John
R. Maier (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979); eidem, Mappings of the Biblical Terrain; The
Bible as Text (Lewisburg, Pa.: Bucknell Univ, Press, 1990).
17 John R. Maier, Charles Olson and the Poetic Uses of Mesopotamian Scholarship, JAOS 103 (1983): 227235.
18 John Gardner and John Maier, Gilgamesh (New York: Knopf, 1984).
19 J. Maier, Three voices of Enki: Strategies in the Translation of Archaic Literature, Comparative Criticism 6 (1984): 101117.
542
543
544
P. 107, l. 72: For Nindinugga, the Woman who Revives the Dead
in Shurpu,34 cf. already the inscription of Enlil-bani of Isin dedicated
to Nintinuga as nin-ti-la-ug5-ga, the mistress who revives the (near-)
dead.35 The same epithet, applied to Ninisina in a hymnal prayer,36
was translated by Kramer as queen of the living and the dead.37
P. 112: The incantation against the seven evil gods from Utukki
Limnuti XVI is reminiscent of that in the fifth tablet of the same series
which inspired, indirectly, the Russian poem, They Are Seven, by
Konstantin Balmont, set to music by Sergei Prokofiev.38
P. 116: It may be questioned whether adapu means wise. That
Berossos Oannes is derived from Sumerian u4-an-na (thus rather than
uma-an-na) and is none other than Adapa has long been clear from
the compound forms umun-a-da-p,39 u4-an-na-a-da-p,40 and u4-mad
a-num-a-da-p.41
Pp. 138 f.: The exaltation of Kinguif this characterization of the
passage in question is grantedprovides an interesting new example
of the typology of divine exaltation.42 The pericope occurs in the
second chapter (tablet) of Enuma Elish, the composition conventionally
known as the Babylonian Epic of Creation, but which would be
better entitled, The Exaltation of Marduk (cf. pp. 172 f.).43
P. 145: The term nagbu, everything, is not ordinarily groundwater
or depth. Rather we may be dealing here with two homophones.
The same ambiguity occurs in the opening line of the canonical version
34
35
545
note 25), 104 (actually, not actual), 116 (seen the plan, not been the
plan), 117 (takkabu, not takkakbu), 121 (chapter 8, not 6), 154 (denonced),
44
546
vii.5
URBAN ORIGINS
IN CUNEIFORM AND BIBLICAL SOURCES
(FOUNDING MYTHS OF CITIES IN THE ANCIENT
NEAR EAST: MESOPOTAMIA AND ISRAEL)1
548
civilization is recognized in most modern treatments.4 It was acknowledged as well in ancient historiography and mythography. These two
genres are dicult to disentangle in pre-classical antiquity. Both will
therefore be taken up in what follows. The sources to be considered
are preserved in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew. But rather than
classify them by language, it is proposed to divide them according to
other, internal criteria. The principal categories to be distinguished are:
(1) versions of the first city; (2) the notion of antediluvian cities; (3)
myths associated with the origins of specific Mesopotamian cities; (4)
the case of Babylon; (5) tales of specific cities in Israel; (6) the case of
Jerusalem. In conclusion, (7) a short comparison with a more modern
mythologem will be attempted.
In other words, the poet pictures a primordial time before day and
night, before vegetation, before some of the great gods, and before any
cities, even the first one, Eridu.
True, the line mentioning Eridu (NUN.KI) is rendered dierently in
some translations. Sollberger, for example, rendered it en ce temps-l,
Enki ne crait plus dans Eridu. Wilcke translated: Damals wohnten
die Herren der Orte, die Frsten der Orte, noch nicht. Alster echoed
this with: At that time the (divine) earth lord and the (divine) earth
lady (NINI.KI) did not exist yet. And even van Dijk modified his
4
5
E.g. Hallo 1996, ch. I; Hallo and Simpson 1998. ch. II.
Hallo 1996:14.
549
Ibid.
It is by no means certain that, in this case, the Sumerian is original and the
Akkadian secondary. Note e.g. KI.MIN in the first line of the Sumerian, apparently
referring to the ina asri elli of the Immediately preceding Akkadian!
8 So Borger 1975:126 ad CT 13:3538; dierently Borger 1967:225 ad loc.
9 So Heidel 1942:49; dierently Heidel 1951:61.
10 Falkenstein 1953, nn. 57 f. This relatively early date is supported, i.a., by the
peculiar arrangement of the bilingual text, with the Akkadian in the middle between
the two halves of the Sumerian line, and typically (though not universally) separated
from it by a Glossenkeil at the beginning of the insertion; cf. Hallo 1996:159 f.
11 Hallo 1963, here: VI.1.
7
550
551
Generations of translators and exegetes have taken Qayin (Cain) for the
first city builder in the Biblical tradition, and Chanoch (Enoch) for the
name of his citymisled, no doubt, by the peculiar repetition of the
name Chanoch at the end of the verse. They ignored the parallelism
with verses 12, the previous generation, where the etiology concerns
the domestication of plants and animals, innovations unambiguously
attributed to the sonssince there are two of them. But Qayin has
only one son, hence the ambiguity about the subject of he became the
(first) builder of a city, and he called the name of the city like the name
of his son. But there is no city-name that remotely resembles the name
Chanoch anywhere in ancient Near Eastern tradition. By contrast, the
name of Chanochs son#Iradis close indeed to Eriduand it is
a name which defies all other explanations. Among the few Biblical
scholars who have taken notice of my suggestion are Robert Wilson
and Patrick Miller, the latter even accepting it.17
It may be worth noting that this reading of the Biblical text was
not entirely lost to mind in post-Biblical exegesis. It is preserved in
the book of Al-Asatir, a medieval Samaritan text dating ca. 1000 CE.
My colleague Steven Fraade informs me that, in chap. 2, each of
Adams antediluvian descendants is associated with the building of a
city, some of which are named for the builders son . . .. This tradition
attributes the building of the first city to Enoch the son of Cain and not
to Cain;18 he notes, however, that Cain is the builder of seven cities
in a tradition preserved by Pseudo-Philo in his Biblical Antiquities, which
dates to the first century ce.19
Wilson 1977: 138141; Miller 1985:157 f. and n. 9.
Gaster 1927:196. Note, however, that the first chapter of this work already speaks
of cities inhabited by Cain (pp. 186, 190) and Adam (pp. 192, 194).
19 The first of which was named after his son Enoch (II 3): cf. Kisch 1949:113.
17
18
552
553
554
Eridu was thus the first of all cities in the Mesopotamian tradition, or in
most of it. But it was not the only antediluvian city. There were others.
Their number, names and sequence vary somewhat in the various
exemplars of the Sumerian King List and in other sources, as follows
(= means: same as entry to the left):33
WB44434
Eridu
Bad-tibira
Larak
Sippar
Shuruppak
WB62
Kuara
Larsa
=
=
=
=
UCBC
Eridu
Ni.3195
lost
Chr. 18
lost
Berossos35
Babylon
Larak
Bad-tibira
rest lost
Bad-tibira
Sippar
Larak
=
Pautibiblon
=
=
Laragchos
The number of the cities is five in all the most reliable texts where these
are completely preserved, and this number can probably be restored
where they are not. It is increased by one in WB 62, a Larsa version
of the Sumerian King List where local pride evidently dictated the
insertion of Larsa. It is decreased by one in UCBC, a casual schoolboys version, apparently through simple omission. It is decreased by
two in the late Hellenistic version tradited under the name of Berossos.
The substitution of Kuara and Babylon for Eridu has been discussed
above. Otherwise the names agree in all sources as far as preserved.
As for the order of the names, this is relatively fixed as to the first
and last members of the series. No doubt this is due to firm notions,
preserved outside the antediluvian schemes, as to the first of all cities36
and as to the home of the flood-hero. The maximum divergence occurs
in the middle of the sequence, which seems to be arranged more or
less at random. Similar discrepancies in another historiographical text,
the History of the Tummal, can best be interpreted as implying the
essential contemporaneity of the kings in question; perhaps this analogy
allows us to see the three cities as more or less contemporary, rather
33 Hallo 1996:8 f. See already Finkelstein 1963:45 f. with Table 1, and Finkel 1980 for
the Dynastic Chronicle (Chronicle 18). The King List from Uruk published by van
Dijk 1962:4452 does not contain the names of the cities.
34 The same configuration also in the Eridu Genesis (above, note 13).
35 Ni. 3195 was meantime published (in transliteration) by Kraus 1952:31; for Berossos see the edition by Burstein 1978.
36 See above for the Founding of Eridu.
555
Grayson 1975:153 f.
Al-Rawi 1990; previously Grayson 1975:4345, 145151, 285; Finkel 1980:7275,
78, 80.
39 Al-Rawi 1990:10. Al-Rawi proposes an emendation to: built a city opposite
Babylon; and called its name Agade.
40 Cf. Grayson 1975:153, note to 18 f.
37
38
556
As Avigdor Hurowitz has noted, this section of the myth (as well as
lines 3640) anticipates enuma elish in dating the building of Babylon to
the time of creation.43
In some ways the most intriguing foundation myth comes from
the latest period. It is often referred to as a theogony, specifically the
theogony of Dunnum, for it combines both theogony and foundation
myth.44 Jacobsen reedited the text under the title The Harab Myth.45
Although dating in its sole surviving exemplar from the Late Babylonian period, it deals with matters at the beginning of time, and seems
to climax in the creation of the city or fortress called Dunnum. This
is itself a generic name for fortress, and there are many dierent placenames that consist of or contain the word dunnum.46 A new theory would
even have it that the text is an aetiology of the institution of rural fortifications.47 But in our case the reference appears to be to a specific
Dunnum, namely the one named in the 29th date-formula of Rim-Sin
of Larsa, i.e. 1795 bce in the middle chronology. Its fall to Rim-Sin ushered in the fall of the city of Isin the following year, and with it the fall
Pettinato 1977.
Pomponio and Visicato 1994:12 f.; cf. Selz 1998:307 n. 127.
43 Hurowitz 1992:94, n. 4.
44 Latest translation by Hallo, COS 1:402404, which is followed here.
45 Jacobsen 1984.
46 Hallo 1970:66 n. 110.
47 Wiggerman 2000. I did not hear the lecture in person. Cf. also the institution of
the fortified manor (dimtu) at Nuzi and in Kurruhanni: Al-Khalesi 1977:18.
41
42
557
of the chief rival to Larsa. In the date formula, the city was described as
the lofty capital city (uru-sag-mah) of Isinor perhaps we can better
understand it as its bolt (gamiru).48 The myth begins as follows:
In the beginning, [Harab married Earth.]
Family and lord[ship he founded.]
[Saying: A]rable land we will carve out (of ) the plowed land of the
country.
[With the p]lowing of their harbu-plows they cause the creation of Sea.
[The lands plowed with the mayaru- pl]ow by themselves gave birth to
Sumuqan.
His str[onghold,] Dunnu, the eternal city, they created, both of them.
Harab gave himself clear title to the lordship of Dunnu, but [Earth]
lifted (her) face to Sumuqan, his son, and Come here and let me
make love to you! she said to him. Sumuqan married his mother
Earth and
Hara[b his fa]ther he killed (and)
In Dunnu which he loved he laid him to rest.
Moreover Sumuqan took over the lordship of his father.
Sea, his older sister, he married.
There follow several more generations of sons killing fathers and mothers, and marrying sisters. All the principals bear names evocative of
creation stories and of early stages of culture: Heaven, Earth, Sea, river,
plow, domesticated animals, herdsman, pasture, fruit-tree, vine. Only
the last pair, Haharnum and his son Hayyashum, so far do not answer
to this description, but they recur as incipit of the Marduk Prophecy
for which see below, as well as in a broken context.49
In contrast to Jacobsen,50 I take the opening words of the composition to be in the beginning (ina res ); they are not only reminiscent of
the beginning of the Biblical account of creation in Genesis 1:1, but also
recur as a title (incipit) twice in a late literary catalogue.51 That makes it
the more reasonable to regard them as the opening words of the composition; the small break before them may have contained, if anything,
only a rubric such as incantation.
48 So first suggested by Jacobsen 1934:116 (22) on the basis of CADG s.v., for
which see meantime MSL 17:218:233. But CAD overlooked the same equation in
MSL 6:30:293. noted by Salonen, Tren 75.
49 Hallo 1997:403, n. 11.
50 Jacobsen 1984:100 f. Cf. Hallo 1997:403, nn. 1, 14.
51 Van Dijk BaM Beiheft 2 (1980) 90:3 f.
558
559
60
61
62
63
64
560
561
562
told that in the time of Ahab, the son and successor of Omri, a certain
Chi"el from Beth-el rebuilt the city of Jericho in defiance of the curse
laid upon it by Joshua centuries beforebut paid the price of violating
Joshuas ban: he had to sacrifice his eldest son Aviram to found it and
his youngest son Seguv (Ketiv: Segiv) to set up its gates (I Kings 16:34;
cf. Joshua 6:26).72 This suggests an analogy to archaeological evidence
of child-burials within the gate-complex of cities; whether the children
were dead of natural causes or represented foundation-sacrifices is
uncertain.73
Joshuas ban on the rebuilding of Jericho has a parallel of sorts
in the ban imposed by Abimelech, son of Gideon, on Shechem. In
the case of Shechem, it involved sowing its ground with salt (Judg.
9:45; cf. Deut. 29:22), a usage widely attested in stories of destruction
and cursing of cities across the ancient world.74 The actual founding
of Shechem is implicitly attributed to Hamor, the father of Shechem
(Gen. 33:19; Jud. 9:28). What we have here, then, may be regarded as a
secondary etiology, more particularly an attempt to account for a place
name by equating it with a personal name. For while there is ample
Near Eastern precedent for (royal) foundations named after their (royal)
founders, there are none for a more modest naming after a son. The
nearest parallel is the Biblical one of Cain or rather Enoch building a
city and naming it after his son (see above).
There are also Biblical traditions regarding the founding of Mesopotamian cities. The proof-texts here are Genesis 10 and 11:19. These
one and a half chapters form the conclusion of the primeval history
of Genesis, or shall we say of Biblical pre-history, and share many obvious traits with the corresponding traditions of Mesopotamia.75 Chapter 10 is more specifically known as the tabula gentium, or table of
nations, a kind of early geography of the world as known to the Biblical authors of the tenth and sixth centuries respectively, cast in the form
of a genealogy of the sons of Noah or, if one prefers, of their lines or
simply their history.76
563
Much ink has been spilled over the identification of Nimrod, and some
of his cities.77 Here I only want to point to the Biblical notion that some
of the principal Assyrian cities in the northern half of Mesopotamia
were built by a mighty conqueror from the south whose realm included
Babylon, the ancient city of Uruk, and the traditional realm of Sumer
(Shin"ar) and Akkad. That this conqueror is more likely to have been
a king of Akkad like Naram-Sin78 than a king of Assyria like TukultiNinurta I79 strikes me as almost axiomatic.
More familiar than the Table of Nations is the story of the Tower
of Babel in the next chapter of Genesis. Here too the Mesopotamian
setting is obvious, and the Mesopotamian analogues to the resulting
confusion of languages have by now also become familiar.80 What is
less often realized is that the denouement of the Biblical story includes
the dispersion of peoples from their Mesopotamian origins (Gen 11:9b),
thus setting the stage for the Line of Shem or, if you like, the history of the (Western) Semites which follows, and what is most often
overlooked is that the story begins with the resolve to build, not just a
tower, but first and foremost: a city (11:4). So we have here, in a sense,
an etiology or myth of the founding of Babylon. The native Babylonian conceit was that the city was the gate of god (bab-ilim) by virtue
of its very name as rendered in Sumerian or logographic form (KDINGIR-RA), contrary to the evidence of older syllabic spellings. The
Biblical author showed up this self-serving etymology by substituting his
own, scurrilous etymology, according to which the city got its name
because there God confused (BLL) the languages of mankind.81
77
78
79
80
81
564
We may pass over minor founding stories82 and on to the parade example of an Israelite city as the focus of Biblical myth. This is of course
Jerusalem, whose sanctity and centrality in the Hebrew canon rival
those of Nippur and Babylon in Sumerian and Akkadian literature,
and were the subject of a recent conference and book.83 The oldest
references to Jerusalem occur, not in the Bible, but in Egyptian sources,
beginning with the so-called Execration texts of the 19th to 18th centuries bce.84 The hieroglyphic spelling 3-w-s-3-m-m stands for *rwslmm,
perhaps to be read as Rushalimum.85 Next we find Jerusalem as the subject of numerous letters, written in cuneiform, in the Amarna archive of
the fourteenth century bce, both in the letters of its king Abdi-Hepa to
Akh-en-Aton, and in other correspondence to and from that heretic
pharaohs archive at El Amarna.86 In this correspondence, it is consistently referred to as (uru)-ru-sa-lim, possibly to be interpreted as City
of (the deity) Salim. If that etymology is correct, it may provide a
link of sorts to what, by general critical opinion, is the oldest Biblical
name of the city, Salem, for ancient Near Eastern cities occasional went
by the name of the deity to whom they were sacredas for example
Assur. For Syria, Westenholz cites the examples of Ebla,87 Halab, Emar,
Neirab and Carchemish (i.e. Kar-Kemosh).88 The divine name Salem
or Shalim is well known in the earliest Semitic pantheon to cite the
title of J.J.M. Roberts book on that subject.89 The city-name stands in
parallelism with Zion in the Psalms (76:3), i.e. is eectively equated with
Jerusalem there.90
565
566
is tempting to follow the tradition that links the (near-)sacrifice with the
foundation, if not of the city, then of its most important edifice.97
The first Biblical reference to Jerusalem by name occurs in the Book
of Joshua (10:1 et passim), where it is listed among Joshuas conquests
(12:10) and linked both with the Jebusites (15:8) and with its king, Adonizedek (10:1, 3), whose name sounds suspiciously reminiscent of Malchizedek. Critical scholarship generally does not give much credence to
the triumphant conquest narratives of the Book of Joshua, preferring
the often more sober accounts of painful and incremental infiltration
in the Book of Judges. But that book itself begins with a rather curious
reference to Jerusalem in Chapter 1. We are told there that Judah and
his brother Simon began the conquest of the Promised Land on
this side of the Jordan (Cisjordan) with a victory over the king Adonibezek (whose name in turn sounds suspiciously like Adoni-zedek, and
is sometimes so read)98 and his burial in Jerusalem, presumably his city
(Jud 1:37). Judah then attacked and burned the city. The reference
must be, of course, to the tribe, not the patriarch as some would have
it.99 Even so, it is hard to square this tradition with those traditions
which attribute the conquest to Joshua or, more plausibly, to David.
With David, I like to think that we pass out of the realm of myth and
legend and into that of history. So my survey can stop here.
VII. Conclusion
Summing up, I must admit that founding myths of cities are far less
abundantly attested in the ancient Near East than they are in classical antiquity, where the founding of cities was virtually a way of
life. Nevertheless, some results have been obtained from my survey,
and some common distinctive characteristics emerge from them. In
Mesopotamia, many cities claim to be as old as heaven (or An, the
heaven-god); the optimal founder of a city would be a deity, preferably
its patron-deity; foundation by mortals, even by kings who were deified or later were counted as deified, usually invited disaster, as in the
case of Akkad. In Israel, where most cities had a long existence prior to
97 Though not its largest: it took only seven years to complete, whereas Solomons
palace took thirteen! (Cf. I Ki 6:1, 37:f.; 7:1.)
98 BH ad loc.
99 E.g. Thompson 1992:361.
567
their becoming Israelite, the emphasis was on the story of their acquisition for Israel, whether by force of arms (Jerusalem) or by purchase
(Samaria). Only occasionally was there a genuine myth of foundation,
or re-foundation, typically involving child-sacrifice (Jericho and perhaps
Jerusalem). But in neither Mesopotamia nor Israel did the founding of
cities give rise to a distinct genre in the literature.
Let me then conclude with a more modern analogy. Every American
schoolchild knows that New York began as New Amsterdam, and that
New Amsterdam began with the purchase of Manhattan by Pieter
Minuit for twenty-four dollars, the equivalent at one time (in 1856)
of 60 Dutch guilders. This happened in 1626 CE (November 5, to be
exact). But recent research has forced a revision of that comforting
myth. It was based on a letter first published in 1856, and lacks any
verification in contemporaneous records. According to the authoritative
Encyclopedia of New York City, the Lenape Indians of Manhattan regarded
land as a gift to all, which it was not theirs to sell; they looked upon
land stewardship as temporary, and did not expect the Dutch to settle
there permanently!100 So much for a city-founding myth about the 17th
century of our own era. Can we hope to do better with those of the
17th century bceand earlier?
Bibliography
Al-Khalesi, Y.M. 1977, Tell al-Fakhar (Kurruhanni), a dimtu-settlement, Assur
1:81122.
Al-Rawi, F.N.H. 1990, Tablets from the Sippar Library, I. The Weidner
Chronicle: a suppositious royal letter concerning a vision, Iraq 52:113.
Al-Rawi, F.N.H., Black, J.A. 1993, A Rediscovered Akkadian city, Iraq 55:147 f.
Attinger, P. 1984, Enki et Ninhursag, ZA 74:152.
Azara, P. et alii, (eds), 2000, La fundacin de la ciudad: Mitos y ritos en el mundo
antiguo (Barcelona, Edicions de la Universitat Politcnica de Catalunya).
Borger, R., 19671975, Handbuch der Keilschriftliteratur, vols. 12 (Berlin, de Gruyter).
Burstein, Stanley M., 1978, The Babyloniaca of Berossus, SANE 1:141181.
Civil, M. 1994, The Farmers Instructions: a Sumerian Agricultural Manual (Aula
Orientalis Supplementa 5).
Cohen, Ch. 1991, Genesis 14:111an early Israelite chronographic source,
SIC 4: 67107.
Falkenstein, A. 1953, Zur Chronologie der sumerischen Literatur, MDOG
85; 113.
100
Schenitz 1999:E45.
568
569
Heidel, A. 1942, 1951, The Babylonian Genesis: the Story of (the) Creation (Chicago,
University of Chicago; 2nd ed., 1951).
Hess, R.S., Tsumura, D.T., (eds.) 1994, I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood:
Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 111 (Sources
for Biblical and Theological Study 4) (Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns).
Humon, H.B. 1965, Amorite Personal Names in the Mari Texts (Baltimore, the
Johns Hopkins Press).
Hurowitz, V. (Avigdor) 1992, I Have Built You an Exalted House: Temple Building in
the Bible in the Light of Mesopotamian and Northwest Semitic Writings (JSOTS 115)
(Sheeld, Sheeld Academic Press).
Jacobsen, T. 1984, The Harab Myth, SANE 2:99120.
Jacobsen, T. 1987, The Harps That Once . . . Sumerian Poetry in Translation (New
Haven/London, Yale U.P.).
Jacobsen, T. 1996, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, COS 1:547550.
Kalimi, I. 1990, The Land of Moriah, Mount Moriah, and the site of Solomons temple in Biblical historiography, HTR 83:345362.
Kisch, G. 1949, Pseudo-Philos Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (Notre Dame, IN,
University of Notre Dame).
Kramer, S.N. 1989, Myths of Enki, the Crafty God (with John Maier) (New
York/Oxford, Oxford U.P.).
Kraus, F.R. 1952, Zur Liste der lteren Knige Babyloniens, ZA 50:2960.
Lambert, W.G. 1966, Enuma Elis: The Babylonian Epic of Creation: the Cuneiform
Text (Oxford, Clarendon).
Lambert, W.G. 1968, Myth and ritual as conceived by the Babylonians,
JSS 13:104112.
Lapidus, I.M. (ed.) 1970, Middle Eastern Cities: a Symposium on Ancient, Islamic,
and Contemporary Middle Eastern Urbanism (Berkeley, University of California
Press).
Levine, L.I. (ed.) 1999, Jerusalem: its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity,
and Islam (New York, Continuum).
Litke, R.L. 1998, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists (TBC 3) (New
Haven, Yale Babylonian Collection).
Longman, Tremper III, 1997, The Marduk Prophecy, COS 1:480.
Ludwig, M.Ch. 1990, Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Isme-Dagan von Isin (SANTAG 2) (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz).
Mann, T.W. 1977, Divine Presence and Guidance in Israelite Traditions: the Typology
of Exaltation (Johns Hopkins Near Eastern Studies [9]) (Baltimore/London,
The Johns Hopkins U.P.).
Mccarter, P. Kyle, Jr., 1999, Two bronze arrowheads with archaic alphabetic
inscriptions, Eretz-Israel 26 (Frank Moore Cross Volume) 123*128*.
Miller, P.D., Jr. 1980, El, the Creator of Earth, BASOR 239:4346.
Miller, P.D., Jr. 1985, Eridu, Dunnu, and Babel: a study in comparative
mythology, Hebrew Annual Review 9:227251; reprinted in Hess and Tsumura
1994:143168.
Moran, W.L. 1975, The Syrian scribe of the Jerusalem Amarna letters, in
Unity and Diversity 146168.
570
Moran, W.L. 1992, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore/London, The Johns Hopkins
U.P.).
Oded, B. 1986, The Table of nations (Genesis 10) -a sociocultural approach,
ZATW 98:1431.
Olmstead, A.T. 1923, History of Assyria (New York/London, Scribners).
Oppenheim, A.L. 1970, Mesopotamialand of many cities, in Lapidus
1970:318.
Pettinato, G. 1977, TSS 242: Fondazione della citta Unkenki, OA 16:173176.
571
Westenholz, J.G. 1998a, The theological foundation of the city, the capital city
and Babylon, in Westenholz 1998:4354.
Wiggerman 2000, unpublished lecture of 4-7-2000 at Harvard.
Wilcke, C. 19721975, HackeB. Philologisch, RLA 4:3338.
Wilson, R.R. 1977, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER 7) (New
Haven/London, Yale U.P.).
Wiseman, D.J. 1967, A late Babylonian tribute list? BSOAS 30:495504.
Abbreviations
Abbreviations as in The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago 14 (1999) (CAD Q) with the following additions:
AB
ABD
BaM
BH
COS 1
EJ
JAC
NJV
SANE
SHCANE
SIC 4
Studies Hallo
Studies Levine
Studies Milgrom
Studies Rmer
Studies Sachs
Anchor Bible.
Anchor Bible Dictionary (1992)
Bagh. Mitt.
Biblia Hebraica (Stuttgart, Privileg. Wrtt. Bibelanstalt,
1949)
William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds.,
1997: The Context of Scripture I: Canonical Compositions from
the Biblical World (Leiden etc., Brill, 1997).
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Keter, 1971).
Journal of Ancient Civilizations
New Jewish Version (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication
Society)
Sources from the Ancient Near East (Malibu, Undena)
Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near
East (Leiden, Brill)
K.L. Younger et al., eds. The Biblical Canon in Comparative
Perspective (= Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies 11.
1991) (Lewiston, Edwin Mellen)
M.E. Cohen et al., eds., The Tablet and the Scroll: Near
Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda, MD,
CDL Press)
R. Chazan et al., eds., Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near
Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch
A. Levine (Winona Lake, IN, Eisenbrauns, 1999)
D.P. Wright et al., eds., Pomegranates and Golden Bells:
Studies . . . in Honor of Jacob Milgrom (Winona Lake, IN,
Eisenbrauns, 1995)
M. Dietrich and O. Loretz, eds., dubsar anta-men: Studien
zur Altorientalistik: Festschrift fr Willem H.Ph. Rmer . . .
(AOAT 253) (Mnster, Ugarit-Verlag, 1998)
E. Leichty et al., eds., A Scientific Humanist: Studies in
Memory of Abraham Sachs (= Occasional Publications
572
viii
proverbs
viii.1
THE LAME AND THE HALT
In the city where there is no dog, the fox is oxherd. This pointed
paradox, of a type dear to the guardians of proverbial wisdom, is the
sense of Proverb 65 in the Sumerian Proverb Collection One, edited by
Gordon,1 as is clear from a variant text now published by Gadd and
Kramer from Ur.2 The identical proverb recurs in Collection Two as
No. 118,3 and in both instances there follows another saying of precisely
the same form and intent, as Jacobsen indicated by translating In the
town of the vagrants(?), the lame is courier!4 It is now possible to
clear up the one questionable element remaining in this translation,
thanks to a lenticular school-tablet from the collection of the University
of Illinois Oriental Museum (now the Classical and European Culture
Museum).5 This is published in autograph below through the courtesy
of the Director, Rear Admiral O.H. Dodson, USN (Ret.). Restoring the
breaks in the superior obverse from the students hand on the reverse, it
reads: uru ad4-l--[ka]/ba-za l-m6-[e-kam]: in the city of the lame,
the halt is courier.
The texts published by Gordon in copy or photograph have essentially the same wording, but a number of variants can be made out. For
convenience sake, all the texts are transliterated here, using Gordons
sigla.
(1.66)
B:
C:
Y:
Z:
[. . .]-ne-ka
uruKI ad4-x-ka
uru ad4-[. . .
(traces only)
ba-za l-m-e
ba-za l-m-e
b]a-za/l-[]m-e
1 E.I. Gordon: Sumerian Proverbs, Philadelphia, 1959, p. 72: uru(KI) nu-ur-gi -ra(re)
7
ka5-(a) nu-bnda-(m).
2 UET 6:221: uruKI ur-gi nu-me-a.
7
3 Gordon, op. cit. (above, n. 1), p. 262.
4 Ibid., p. 459.
5 No. 1999 in the catalogue of the collection prepared by Professor Goetze.
6 Or girm.
576
(2.119)
uru ad4-e-ne?!-ka/
uru ad47-e-ne!-ka
[. . .]-ka
ba-za l-m-a-kam
[. . .]-e-[?]
ba-[. . .]
The reading ad4-e-ne-ka is easier to accept, but nowhere palaeographically certain. Thus the lectio dicilior may have to be preferred. Compound expressions with man (l or l-ul) as second element can possibly be detected as early as the Fara period,8 and are well attested
in later Sumerian. Note such terms as gr-tab-l-ux-lu = girtablilu, the
scorpion-man, and ku6-l-ux-lu =kullu, kulullu, the fish-man.9 Note
also such purely Akkadian examples as habilu-amelu and lullu-amelu in
10
They are otherthe Gilgames Epic, which favors such compounds.
wise rare in Akkadian, and von Soden is therefore inclined to consider
some of them gelehrte Lehnbersetzungen aus dem kompositareichen
Sumerischen.11 (He notes that some of them were actually elided into a
single word, as in nittmelu nitt-amelu, a sandhi process evident also in
such spellings as s. e-he-ra-bi for s. eher-rabi 12 or a-ba-bi-im for ab-abim)13
The sign, as far as preserved, is A-ten; for this variant of ZA-ten cf. Landsberger:
MSL 8/1, p. 9:28 with notes.
8 Cf. Sollberger: Corpus, p. 2 sub Urn. 22: 24, where dub-sar-l seems a likelier
reading than l-dub-sar since the writing with the determinative occurs, at least outside
of the lexical lists, only much later. (Of course a genitive construction, man of the
scribe, is also conceivable.) For dating Ur-Nanse to the Fara period, cf. a forthcoming
paper.
9 Cf. AHw, s.vv.; CAD Z, pp. 165 f. In astronomical terms, Scorpio and Pisces
respectively, according to H. Lewy: Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger (= Assyriological
Studies 16), Chicago, 1965, p. 278, n. 41.
10 As noted by Speiser in his translation, ANET, pp. 72 ., notes 19, 23, 126 (and 170).
11 von Soden: GAG, 59b.
12 YOS 2:141:15; cf. van Dijk: La Sagesse, Leiden, 1953, p. 14.
13 MSL 2, p. 127: 17; cf. also CAD A/1, p. 70c.
14 Following the suggestion of J. Krecher: Sumerische Kultlyrik, Wiesbaden, 1966, p. 197.
15 Cf. MSL 3, p. 97: 8 and note; above, note 7.
577
16
(=hummuru); cf. CAD H, s.v.
21 No. 17 in Letter-Collection
B. Cf. Fadhil A. Ali: Sumerian Letters: Two Collections
from Old Babylonian Schools, Ann Arbor, 1967, pp. 137143. For the published texts and
translations, and a survey of the genre, cf. Hallo: JAOS 88/1 (1968; =AOS 53), pp. 71
89, here: IV.1.
22 La Sagesse (1953) 15 f. and n. 37, with a full survey of previous literature on hummuru.
once
23 -du: 5 times; -da: 2 times. I cannot explain the complement -bi occurring
(UET 6:180:9) or -ba occurring two or three times (PBS 1/2: 134: 9; Ali, op. cit. [above,
n. 21], pp. xxvii, li).
24 l or dab/dib/dub (Akkadian kam, kas, ussulu, subbutu etc.) as in su-l, dg-l,
..
.
dg-dab, for which cf. e.g. SLT 1: 6,12,13 (above, n. 18).
25 (l)--ku (=ak), crippled, deformed, is rightly regarded by CAD A/1, p. 284 as
5
an artificial formation suggested by the Akkadian word.
17
578
579
III 42, which reads gis- hashur-ba-za40 where the canonical series reads
gis-hashur-ba-an-za= (hashuru) piss.41 The reference here is apparently
or
perhaps to its malformed fruit.42
to a crooked apple-tree
Akkadian piss is not so far attested as a personal name43there
were, perhaps, enough other names of this approximate meaning44
but the Sumerogram BA.AN.ZA recurs in the mantic literature at
the head of fairly standardized lists of human deformities.45 Thus the
first tablet of the teratoscopic series summa izbu predicts: If a woman
gives birth to a limping male, penury: the house of the man will be
destroyed; if a woman gives birth to a limping female, corresponding
entry (GABA.RI).46 The commentaries to this passage are at pains
to explain ba-an-za =piss in this passage as meaning kur, short,
i.e. with one leg shorter than the other.47 The entry for cripples
(KUD.KUD.DU) follows six lines later. Similarly, the first tablet of the
terrestrial omen series summa alu states: If in a city the limping men
are numerous, [ . . . ]; if in the city the limping women
(BA.AN.ZA.MES)
are numerous, the heart of that city will be
(SAL.BA.AN.ZA.MES)
37 Note that biblical Hebrew has to express the idea of lame (on both feet) by the
circumlocution limping on both feet (2 Sam. 9:13) or by the more general smitten as
to the (two) feet (2 Sam. 4:4; 9:3).
38 Clavis Cuneorum, Leipzig, 1933, 272: 666.
39 Above, n. 4.
40 Matous: LTBA 1: 78 (= VAT 6667) i 23. The variant was already noted in the
edition of HAR-ra III by Meissner (MAOG 18/2 [1913], p. 16, ad line 48) who, however,
to the neo-Babylonian period (ibid., p. 14).
dated the text
41 MSL 5 (1957), p. 97: 42 where the forerunners variant is, however, not noted.
42 So R.C. Thompson: Dictionary of Assyrian Botany, London, 1949, pp. 302305.
43 Cf. H. Holma: Die Assyrisch-babylonischen Personennamen der Form quttulu, Helsinki,
1914, pp. 80 f.
44 Ibid., s.vv. Ubburu, Ussulu, Bussulu (Pussulu), Hummuru, Kubbulu, Kur, Sub
..
..
buru etc. For the famous scribal name Hunz and attempts
to give it a less pejorative
Lambert: JCS 11 (1957), pp. 2,4, 7,13 (line 45).
Sumerian etymology (ibid., p. 53), cf. W.G.
45 Note that the sequence BA.AN.ZA//SAL.BA.AN.ZA mirrors the Middle Babylonian Silbenvokabular from Ugarit (above, n. 34).
46 Dennefeld: AB 22 (1914), p. 27, lines 25 f.; Fossey: Babyloniaca 5 (1912), pp. 6 f.,
lines 49 f.; cf. also von Soden: ZA 50 (1952), pp. 183 f.
47 Weidner: AJSL 38 (1922), pp. 196 f.; R. Labat: Commentaires assyro-babyloniens sur les
prsages, Bordeaux, 1933, pp. 80 f., line 18; note there the spelling BA.AN.ZU.
580
good.48 Twelve lines later, the same series predicts an unfavorable fate
are numerous.49
for the city in which the cripples (KUD.KUD.MES)
d
Finally, it may be noted that Ba-za even seems to occur as a theophoric
element in a single Ur III personal name, KUR.TI-dBA.ZA.50
Is it possible to delimit the semantic border between ad4 and ba(an)-za more closely still on the basis of etymology? We may safely
disregard the equations za-na = passu, doll51 and (gis)-bi-za = *pessu,52
counter, (chess)-figurine as a more or less fortuitous homophones of
our term, and must equally reject any direct connection of ba-an-za
with piss. But perhaps one may very tentatively see in the ZA of ba-za
some ultimate connection with the ZA-ten of ad4. If b,53 ba-ma54 and
perhaps even bn55 can express one-half , we may have in ba-(an)-ZA
an attempt to render the idea of half-lame, lame on one foot, limping,
halt.
To return to our proverb, it clearly distinguishes the lame from
the halt, a distinction we still find alive in the New Testament.56 The
distinction is that of the greater and the lesser evil, and it has inspired
similar proverbial expression through the ages. If we substitute eyes for
legs, we can point to the medieval parallel luscus praefertur caeco57 and its
English equivalent Better one-eyed than stone blind.58 An even closer
parallel to our Sumerian proverb is provided by a proverb (o)
quoted in the early Byzantine Scholiast to Iliad XXIV, 192: v v
581
luscus rex imperat omnis60 and into English as In the country of the blind,
the one-eyed man is king.61 W.F. Albright, whose vision has spanned
all the intervening centuries, will hopefully find a small measure of
gratification in this modest link between the modern and the ancient
epigram.
viii.2
NUNGAL IN THE EGAL: AN INTRODUCTION
TO COLLOQUIAL SUMERIAN?
The goddess Nungal (or Manungal) has commanded increased attention since the definitive publication of the 120-line hymn in her honor
by Sjberg under the title Nungal in the Ekur.1 Her role as patrondeity of prisonsindeed the very existence of prisons in early Mesopotamiahas been clarified by Sjbergs edition and by the subsequent
studies of Frymer2 and Komorczy.3 This role finds further confirmation in a literary allusion to the goddess which, modest as it is, bears
adding to the discussion.
The allusion has hitherto been overlooked because, apart from problems of reading, it occurs in the context of an extract tablet combining
quotations from numerous compositions, apparently in a fixed (canonical) order. Such extract tablets were identified in first-millennium
examples from Assur by Lambert4 and Borger,5 from Ur by Borger6
and Gurney,7 and from Sippar (?) by Leichty.8 At Ur, this practice
goes back to Old Babylonian times, to judge by our tablet (UET 6/2
336; cf. 337 and 339). In our case, the extracts so far identified are from
584
Obv. 6: 6 f.; cf. Edzards review of UET 6/2 in AfO 23. (1970) 95.
Rev. 14 f.; cf. Edzard, AfO 23 (1970) 95; Alster, Instructions of Suruppak (=
Mesopotamia 2) 99 and 133 n. 105.
11 Obv. 1417 resembles UET 6/2 299; cf. Sjbergs review of UET6/2 in Or. NS 37
(1968) 238.
12 Rev. 16 belongs to the lists of actions (usually in groups of three) described as an
abomination (ng-gig) of Utu (or Ninurta or Suen); cf. most recently G.D. Young, Utu
and Justice: A New Sumerian Proverb, JCS 24 (1972) 132; OECT 5 41; Alster, JCS 27
(1975) 205 example 9; note also UET 6/2 259 (and anpubl. dupl. YBC 7351).
13 Rev. 1113. Note the aberrant line and paragraph division; for the latter see also
obv. 6 f. (above, n. 9) and 1416 (above, n. 11).
14 So according to E.I. Gordons handwritten note found with the Yale duplicate,
though not listed either in his surveys, Sumerian Proverbs p. 518 and BiOr 17 (1960)
126 n. 44, or in the more recent one by Alster, RA 72 (1978) 100. Indeed, a quick check
of the unpublished Philadelphia texts listed in these surveys reveals that CBS 13890
contains a slightly divergent and expanded version of our proverb (6.14 in Alsters
numbering). It seems to add dUtu (?) su-mu bu-i-ma-ni-ib, Oh Utu(?), stretch forth
a hand to me. My thanks are due to Robert Falkowitz for help with these texts.
15 This text was communicated in transliteration in my Antediluvian Cities, JCS 23
(1970) 58 n. 10, before I was aware of the versions from Ur. It is a lenticular school
tablet, inscribed with the identical text on the obverse and reverse.
9
10
585
to the royal storehouse,16 (royal) bivouac,17 the ark,18 and perhaps even
the extended family.19 In addition to its basic sense of forest, TIR
is translated into Akkadian words meaning dwelling(-place), sanctuary,
city, and country.20 Given the explicit semantic indicator for wood
in A, the basic meaning may be retained for TIR, but -gal can
perhaps be translated literally as big house, a colloquial equivalent
for prison in contemporary American English. For it seems to have
the sense of prison in the Nungal hymn (lines 32 f., 40 f., 69)21 where
the synonymous -gu-la (line 10) is specifically identified as the guardhouse, brig (en-nu-un).22
Elsewhere, too, this meaning seems to fit better than palace. In
a fragmentary text again linking Nungal and Nin-egal,23 the -gal is
described as a trap which . . . the evil-doer,24 as a distant sea which
knows no horizon25 (a description elsewhere applied to the -kur),26
and as the pillory of the nation.27 It is compared to a huge river,
and its interior to goring oxen28 in the Instructions of Shuruppak,29
where the epigram to this eect is preceded directly by another of
the same structure;30 the identical saying recurs as Proverb Collection
6.13, immediately before our own proverb.31 That it is linked also to
Durand, RA 71 (1977) 21 n. 2.
586
ZA 68 (1978)
206 and 218.
33 Hallo, review of Alster, JNES 37 (1978) 272 and 273 ad lines 99101.
34 YOS 4 1.
35 Falkenstein NSG 1 140 n. 3.
36 For KAB . . . du = apportion, mete out, sentence, see Hallo, Urban Origins
11
(forthcoming) n. 81, here: VII.5, contra M, Civil in Lambert and Millard, Atra- hass
p. 170.
37 Note that, by contrast, the convicted party prefers imprisonment (or hanging)
to performance of the contract (in this case marriage) in the much debated case of
the slandered bride and its analogue CT 45 86; cf. Hallo, Studies Oppenheim 95;
Finkelstein, WO 8 (1976) 238 f. and n. 4; Veenhof, RA 70 (1976) 153 f.
38 J.V. Kinnier Wilson, An Introduction to Babylonian Psychiatry, Studies Landsberger (= AS 16) 289 f. Cf. Vanstiphout, JCS 29 (1977) 56.
39 Below, n. 43.
40 Above, n. 28. For the variant see Wilcke, ZA 68 (1978) 218.
41 Cf. E. I, Gordon, Animals As Represented in the Sumerian Proverbs and Fables,
Festschrift Struve pp. 226249; Sumerian Animal Proverbs and Fables: Collection
Five, JCS 12 (1958) 121, 4375.
587
The
sud!-ra!)47 and in addition as a house of detention (.SE
latter translation is based on a presumed equation with bt nap.tari 49
meaning house of detention or sanctuary,50 and the attested albeit
late equation with -se-m-sa4 = bt dimmati in the context of (sickness
as) metaphoric imprisonment.51
S.A
588
kisersu53 kisukku, abullu,54 etc., as potential designations of houses of detention. Perhaps the multitude of designations, and the ambiguity of some
of them, provide clues that Sumerian, before its much-heralded demise,
had developed the capacity for expressing some ideas in the form of
slang.55 Like the technical jargon of the priests, craftsmen, and merchants,56 the rougher language of sailors and farmhands may even have
found its way into the scribal curriculum.57
It is hoped that this small clarification of a Yale inscription, with
its duplicates and parallels, will contribute to the ongoing recovery of
Mesopotamian texts and institutions.58
53 Cf. M.T. Larsen, The Old Assyrian City-State and Its Colonies (= Mesopotamia
4) 190 f. n. 90.
54 In the phrase abullam (abullatim) sud (kal), for which see CAD A/1 86cd; I/J 34a;
Falkenstein, BaghMitt 2 (1963) 45 and n. 211.
55 An analogy of sorts may lurk in the expressions sab-gal and sab-tur, translated by
merchant (tamkaru) and (merchants) assistant, agent, apprentice (samall), respectively, in the Group Vocabulary, but meaning literally big pot and little pot; see
Hallo, Studies Landsberger 199 n. 5a, For sab-gal = merchant, already in Uruk III
and Jemdet Nasr texts, see Falkenstein, ATU 58 and n. 2; A.A. Vaiman, Preliminary
Report on the Decipherment of Proto-Sumerian Writing, Prdn aziatskii Sbornik
2 (1966) 164; M.A. Powell, Jr., Gtter, Knige und Kapitalisten in Mesopotamien,
Oikumene 2 (1978) 140 and n. 37.
56 On the last, see Gerd Steiner, Kaufmanns-und Handelssprachen im alten Orient, Iraq 39 (1977) 1117.
57 .S. Sjberg, Der Examenstext A, ZA 64 (1975) 142145 lines 21, 25 f.; The Old
Babylonian eduba, Studies Jacobsen (= AS 20) 166 f.
58 From time to time, Notes From the Babylonian Collection are to appear in this
Journal at the kind invitation of the editor, Professor Erie Leichty.
viii.3
BIBLICAL ABOMINATIONS AND SUMERIAN TABOOS*
* This paper was first presented to the Dropsie College Guest Lecture Series,
September 19, 1984, at the invitation of Prof. Stephen A. Geller. It was repeated in
essentially similar form at Columbia University, November 1, 1984, as a memorial
lecture for Moshe Held. A fuller tribute to his memory, together with a bibliography
of his writings, will appear in the Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research.
The following common Assyriological abbreviations are used extensively in this
paper:
ANET = J.B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, third
ed. (Princeton, 1969).
BM = tablets in the British Museum.
CAD = I.J. Gelb et al., eds., The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University
of Chicago (Chicago, 1956).
CT = Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (London, 1896).
KAR = E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religisen Inhalts, WVDOG, 28, 34 (Leipzig,
19151923).
MSL = B. Landsberger, Materialien zum Sumerischen Lexikon (Rome, 1937).
OECT = Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Inscriptions/Texts (Oxford, 1923)
SLB = Studia ad tabulas cuneiformes a F.M. Th. de Liagre Bhl pertinentia (Leiden, 1954).
TIM= Texts from the Iraq Museum (Baghdad/Wiesbaden/Leiden, 1964)
TLB = Tabulae cuneiformes a F.M. Th. de Liagre Bhl collectae (Leiden, 1964).
UET = Ur Excavations Texts
YBC = tablets in the Yale Babylonian Collection, New Haven.
1 M. Held, Studies in Comparative Semitic lexicography, Studies in Honor of Benno
Landsberger . . . , Assyriological Studies, 16 (Chicago, 1965), pp. 395406.
590
entire range of attestations, especially in poetic contexts. One illustration among many from Helds own oeuvre is his convincing equation
of Hebrew sah. at/suh. a and Akkadian hastu/suttatu, all in the approxi
this equation involved,
mate sense of pit or netherworld.2 Establishing
in Helds own words, the study of idiomatic correspondences and
the establishment of interdialectal distribution based on actual usage.3
Availing myself of the same general methodology, I shall here attempt
to demonstrate the functional equivalence of certain terms in Sumerian, Akkadian, and Hebrew that share the semantic field of divine
abominations or taboos.4
The text which initiated me into this topic stands out from among
the nearly forty thousand inscribed objects in the Yale Babylonian Collection by its physical appearance. It has the lenticular form characteristic of school-tablets from the early stages of instruction in the
Old Babylonian scribal schools. The largest group of such schooltablets, discovered at Nippur and preserved at the University Museum
in Philadelphia, is the subject of a recent systematic study by Robert
S. Falkowitz5 (to whom I am indebted for much helpful advice throughout the evolution of this paper).6 But unlike most of the school-tablets
from Nippur, those from other Old Babylonian sites tend to feature
the practiced hand of the instructor on the obverse, the more awkward handwriting of the pupil on the reverse. The present text7 is
an example of this kind. In careful calligraphy it says, once on each
face:
M. Held, Pits and Pitfalls in Akkadian and Biblical Hebrew, The Gaster Festschrift
= JANES, 5 (1973), 173190.
3 Ibid., 181.
4 In passing, note the following interesting lexical entries from the Vocabulary of
591
The structure of this epigramcommon in Sumerian wisdom literature generally, and in Sumerian proverbs particularlyconsists of a
group of sayings in syntactic and (more or less) semantic parallelism,
followed by a concluding end-formula,9 i.e., a climax10 or punchline.
The sayings are most often arranged in pairs, but groups of three11
or four12 or more also occur. Among the proverbial sayings thus structured, one subgroup ends with the punchline, it is an abomination
of (this or that) deity (ng-gig dingir-ra-kam)hence, a taboo.13 This
subgroup, to which the Yale text clearly belongs, was first identified by
Edmund Gordon,14 who located it in Proverb Collection 14.
Our tablet is closely paralleled by a fragmentary one from Ur15 that
describes the same three actions as an abomination of (i.e., against)
Utu, the sun-god and patron of justice, as does a third version (from
** The author has identified his (or others) translations of various Sumerian and
Akkadian texts by means of bracketed numbers, from [1] through [14], throughout the
article. Transliterations of these texts are furnished in the Appendix.
8 For a slightly dierent translation, see now .W. Sjberg et al., Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary B (Philadelphia, 1984), 55, which emends line 2 to s -zi-ga bal-e, who
yearns for violence.
9 B. Alster, Studies in Sumerian Proverbs = Mesopotamia, 3 (1975), 25 f.; see also his
Paradoxical Proverbs and Satire in Sumerian Literature, JCS 27 (1975), 205.
10 E.I. Gordon, Sumerian Proverbs: Glimpses of Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, Museum Monographs, 19 (Philadelphia, 1959), p. 17; see also his A New Look at the
Wisdom of Sumer and Akkad, BO, 17 (1960), 132 f. Cf. W.W. Hallo, Notes from the
Babylonian Collection 1: Nungal in the Egal, JCS, 31 (1979), 164, n. 42, here: VIII.2.
11 Gordon, A New Look at the Wisdom of Sumer and Akkad, 133; Hallo, Notes
from the Babylonian Collection I: Nungal in the Egal, JCS, 31 (1979), 164, n. 43, here:
VIII.2.
12 W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford, 1960), p. 272 lines 510.
13 Another Sumerian word for which the sense of taboo, forbidden (thing), inhibition has been suggested is ks-da; see B. Alster, The Instructions of Suruppak: a Sumerian
Proverb Collection, Mesopotamia, 2 (Copenhagen, 1974), 79 f.; see also his Studies in Sumerian Proverbs, p. 140, 18: Akkadian words (other than ikkibu, for which see below) for
which it has been suggested include anzillu, asakku (B), kimkimmu (B), giparu (4) (see CAD
s. vv.), and marustu (see W.W. Hallo, The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: II. The
592
Proverb Collection 14 contains still another version of this saying (courtesy R.S. Falkowitz), which I venture to restore as follows:
[1b] To seize someone with unauthorized force,17
to pronounce an unauthorized verdict,18
to have the younger (son) driven out of the patrimony by the (first-born)
heir
these are abominations of Ninurta.
cf. Sulgi
B 17 as translated by .W. Sjberg in his The Old Babylonian Eduba,
in S.J. Lieberman, ed., Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen, Assyriological
Studies, 20 (Chicago, 1976), pp. 172 f.
20 For ha-la ha-la = zittam zzu, divide an inheritance, etc., see Examenstext A27
(.W. Sjberg, Der Examenstext A, ZA, 64 (1975), 144 f. If that is the meaning here,
we would have to render it as: to increase property inheritance for the sake of dividing
it or the like. Cf. also ng-ba-bi-s gar-ra-ab = ana zitti naskin in Lugal-e 429 (J.J.A. van
Dijk, Lugal ud me-lm-bi nir-gl: le rcit pique et didactique des Travaux de Ninurta du Dluge
et de la Nouvelle Creation, 2 vols. [Leiden, 1983]).
21 Urukagina 4 vii 511 = 5 vi 25 31 in E. Sollberger, Corpus des inscriptions royales
prsargoniques de Lagas (Geneva, 1956). See latest transliteration by B. Hruska, Die
16
17
593
innere Struktur der Reform-texte Urukaginas von Lagas, ArOr, 41 (1973), 117, and
translations by I.M. Diakono, in his Some remarks on the reforms of Urukagina,
RA 52 (1958), and S.N. Kramer, in his The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character
(Chicago, 1963), p. 318. The verb is zag. . . s-s. [But cf. now F. Pomponio, JCS, 36
(1984), 96100].
22 .W. Sjberg, Beitrge zum sumerischen Wrterbuch, Or. 39 (1970), 90. The
verb here is zag . . . tag-tag. Ordinarily, add is expressed by Sumerian dah.
23 R.S. Falkowitz, The Sumerian Rhetoric Collections (Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1980).
24 For kb (KAxA)lataku, litiktu cf. CAD L s.v. and now TIM 9:87:13 with van Dijks
comments ad loc. referring to CT 51: 168) iii 9: kab-du11-ga = la-ta-ku and ibid. 45: kabMIN (= du11-ga) = la-ta-ku. For earlier discussion see M. Civil, The Sumerian Flood
Story, in Atra-hass: the Babylonian Story of the Flood, ed. W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard
(Oxford, 1969), p. 170, ad line 92; see also his Les limites de linformation textuelle,
in LArcheologie de lIraq du debut de lpoque nelithique a 333 a.n.., Colloques Internationaux
du CNRS, No. 580 (Paris, 1980), p. 228 (end); W.W. Hallo, Antediluvian Cities, JCS,
23 (1970), 61; and Hallo, Notes from the Babylonian Collection I, 163 f, here: VIII.2.
25 For su-du -ga = lapatu, see CAD L s.v.
11
26 Falkowitz has more recently compared this proverb with Enlils infractions of various taboos in the myth of Enlil and Ninlil, in his Discrimination and Condensation of
Sacred Categories: the Fable in Early Mesopotamian Literature, in La Fable, Entrtiens
sur lantiquit classique, 30 (Geneva, 1984), p. 19, n. 31.
594
The first oense is listed in one variant only; the other three, recurring
in each of five variant examplars, follow a somewhat more consistent
pattern. Putting all four into this pattern, I would suggest this rendering:
To banquet without washing the hands,31
to spit without stamping32 (on the spittle),
to blow (literally, cool) the nose without returning (the mucus) to dust,33
to use (literally, do) the tongue at noon without providing shade
these are abominations of Utu.
In other words, we have here four examples of bad manners associated with ordinary bodily functions.
OECT 5: 35 rev. 15 f.
BM 57994; 26 (unpublished); courtesy R.S. Falkowitz.
29 Sjberg, Beitrge zum sumerischen Wrterbuch, 90; J.S. Cooper, gr-KIN to
stamp out, trample, RA, 66 (1972), 83; Alster, Paradoxical Proverbs and Satire in
Sumerian Literature, 205.
30 Falkowitz would now translate te-en as pierced (dak
su?).
31 Reading the first sign as su!- not p, according to collation kindly furnished by
Falkowitz.
32 For stamping the feet and its possible significance in Biblical and Ugaritic
contexts, cf. G.E. Bryce, Omen-wisdom in Ancient Israel, JBL, 94 (1975), 31 f.
33 For sahar . . . gi in this sense see W.W. Hallo and J.J.A. van Dijk, The Exaltation of
4
Inanna, YNER 3 (New Haven, 1968), p. 88.
27
28
595
Note that no deity at all is invoked here. (In one instance from the same
collection (3.21) even the characterization as an abomination is lacking,
so that only the structure suggests that it belongs to our genre. But the
sense is too obscure to merit further attention here.)
The remaining examples from this Collection are also solitary ones
rather than groups of three or more; some of them recur in the context
of other Proverb Collections. Thus, 3.175
[6] To reach for alms (var., to examine alms closely)
is an abomination of Ninurta.
But the most intriguing parallel to these abominations comes from outside the Proverb Collections, indeed from outside unilingual Sumerian
Civil, Enlil and Ninlil, 62.
UET 6:261 f.; 339ii.
36 For ng-al-di = eri
stu this sense, see, e.g., MSL 1:60:15 f.
37 For im-su-nigin-na in approximately this sense see Falkowitz, The Sumerian Rhetoric
Collections, p. 244 (a tablet of sums), citing G. Komorczy, Zur tiologie der Schrifterfindung im Enmerkar-Epos, AoF, 3 (1975), 1824.
34
35
596
and
Wheat flour is taboo for (his [i.e., the necromancers]) god.
The same saying is found in only slightly variant form in the context of
incantations.38 But a quick check of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionarys
(CAD) article on ikkibu39 (the Akkadian equivalent of Sumerian ng-gig
= taboo) reveals that this particular taboo also passed into the bilingual
series called utukku limnuti, preserved verbatim (albeit in reverse order)
in an unpublished Kuyunjik text (K 166) as follows:
[9a] segusu-flour is forbidden (as an oering) to ghosts,
wheat flour is forbidden (as an oering) to gods.
38
39
40
41
42
597
found most often in wholly new contexts. These include in the first
place the colophons of tablets belonging to the so-called secret lore
of divination and related genres, as well as certain other texts like the
Agum-kakrime inscription. Such texts are typically subscribed:
[11] The initiated shall show (this text only) to (another) initiate;
the uninitiated is not to see (it).
it is a taboo of (this or that) deity.
The second of these moralizing omens is vaguely reminiscent of example No. 3 in the Sumerian tradition.
s u Adad
u Hanis u Sama
ilani s.ruti bele bri.
47 CAD A/1: 255; cf. (ikkib ili
su/alisu akalu). The less common ikkiba epesu (CAD E 209)
seems to be a loan translation from Sumerian ng-gig . . . ak (Emesal m-gig . . . ak) for
which see Hallo, The royal correspondence of Larsa: II, 106 (12), here: V.2.
48 S.M. Moren, A Lost Omen Tablet, JCS, 28 (1977), 66 f., lines 1 and 3. Reference courtesy R.E. Falkowitz.
598
49 KAR 178 rev. iv 3265; cf. R. Labat, Hmrologies et mnologies dAssur (Paris, 1939),
pp. 114117.
50 KAR 177 rev. ii 39-KAR 147 rev. 23; cf. Labat, Hmrologies et mnologies, pp. 174 f.
51 P. Hulin, A Hemerological Text from Nimrud, Iraq, 21 (1959) 4253 and pls.
XIIIXV.
52 KAR 177 rev. iii 15 = KAR 147 obv. 8; cf. Labat, Hmrologies et mnologies, pp. 168 f.
53 KAR 177 rev. i 32 f.; cf. Labat 1939, Hmrologies et mnologies, pp. 178 f.
599
600
I pass over the Hittite papratar, defilement, and especially hurkel, which
refers exclusively to sexual aberrations including incest, sodomy, and
bestiality.63 In Leviticus, these are variously described as aberrations
(tbel; 18: 23, 20: 12) or abominations (to #eba; 18: passim), or folly (nebala;
601
602
603
75 Cf. previously Hallo apud Plaut, The Torah: A Modern Commentary, p. 1303; W.G.
Plaut, The Torah: a Modern Commentary V: Deuteronomy (New York, 1983), p. xxxi.
76 W.H. Ph. Rmer, Randbemerkungen zur Travestie von Deut. 22, 5, in Travels in the World of the Old Testament: Studies Presented to Professor M.A. Beek, ed. by
M.S.H.G. Heerma van Voss et al., Studia Semitica Neerlandica, 16 (Assen [Netherlands], 1974), pp. 217222.
77 E.A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible, I (New York, 1964), p. 345.
78 R. de Vaux, The Early History of Israel, trans. D. Smith (Philadelphia, 1978), p. 375.
604
Appendix
[1] di-kuru5 ng-gi-na hul-a
s a-zi-da bala-e
ibila tur-ra/-ad-da-na-ka/b-ta-an-sar-re
ng-gig dNin-urta-ke4
[1a] di-ku[ru5 n]g-gi-na hul-a
di ng-erim2-e/ki-g(a)
ng-gig dUtu-kam
[1b] tukul? nu-gar-ra [db-b?]
di nu-gar-ra db-b
[tur-ra?] ibila -a[d?-da?]-na-ka [sa]?-ra
ng-gig dNin-urta-kam
[2] ha-la ha-la-s g-g
ng-gig dUtu-kam
[3] l gis-m diri-ga ng-kb(KAxA)-a di-da
ugu? tg?-ga gal4-la su-du11-ga (var., gal4-la tg-ga x- su ba-ni-ti)
ng-gig dSuen-na-ka
[3a] l m diri-ga l m du8 l subub
nig-kb di-d? nig-gig dSuen-na-kam
605
viii.4
PROVERBS QUOTED IN EPIC*
608
609
19 sa kabtu ana mu
skena la idukku u la ihabbilu; cf. CAD H 4.
innepus ina libbi mar-ban; cf. CAD M/1 257.
20 ul seba(ka) sa mamma mu
s
k
e
na
pi
s
ki
.
610
21
S.N. Kramer, In the World of Sumer: An Autobiography (Detroit, Wayne State U.P.,
1986), p. 116.
22 D.O. Edzard, Die zweite Zwischenzeit Babyloniens (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz, 1957),
p. 82 and nn. 400 f.
23 Three Sulgi
611
Sulgi
and Isme-Dagan: Runners in the Service of the Gods (SRT 13), Beer-Sheva
2 (1985), pp. 7*38*. Cf. my remarks on this text in Texts, Statues, and the Cult of the
Divine King, VT Supplement 40 (1988), pp. 5466, esp. pp. 60 f.
30 Rev. xxivb 79 f.; cf. Herbert Sauren, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung 100 (1983), pp. 49 f.
31 Cf. A. Shaer apud D.J. Wiseman, Iraq 37 (1975), p. 158 n. 22; cf. Tigay, op. cit.
(below, n. 82), pp. 150 f., with other parallels from the Prologue.
32 M. Civil, Isme-Dagan and Enlils Chariot, JAOS 88 (= AOS 53, 1968), p. 7,
line 84.
33 K.A. Kitchen briefly documents this fact for Egyptian wisdom literature in Tyndale
Bulletin 28 (1977), pp. 92 f. (ref. court, W.R. Garr).
34 But the Sumerian equivalents for teltu are dierent: i-bi-lu-(du -ga) for teltu when
4
it means proverb, ka-ka-si-ga for teltu when it means pronunciation, vernacular,
29
612
613
614
49 Une fable hittite, Revue Hittite et Asianique 67 (1960), pp. 117119; idem, Ugaritica 5
(1968), pp. 108110; cf. M. Astour, King Ammurapi and the Hittite Princess, UgaritForschungen 12 (1980), pp. 103108, esp, p. 104 (top).
50 W.F. Albright, Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom, VT,
Supplement 3 (1960), pp. 115, esp. p. 7; R.H. Pfeier in ANET, p. 426 (IV). For the
Shechem example, cf. also Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, p. 282; previously
Albright, An Archaic Hebrew Proverb in an Amarna Letter from Central Palestine,
BASOR 89 (1943), pp. 2932.
51 W.G.E. Watson, Antecedents of a New Testament Proverb, VT 20 (1970), pp.
368370, who also cites the previous two examples.
52 Gary Beckman, Proverbs and Proverbial Allusions in Hittite, JNES 45 (1986),
pp. 1930, Nos. 2 and 13.
53 Babylonian Wisdom Literature, pp. 280282; add ABL 614, cited ibid., pp. 97 and 315.
54 Ibid., p. 281. Cf. also ABL 37 Rev. 36 with CAD N/2 138d.
55 Cf. now J.M. Lindenberger, The Aramaic Proverbs of Ahiqar (= The Johns Hopkins
Near Eastern Studies [14], 1983), where it is not cited.
56 MSL 13 (1971) 161:31 f. Cf. now Held, above, n. 44.
57 D.O. Edzard-C. Wilcke. Quasi-Duplikate zur Hendursanga-Hymne, AfO 25
(19741977), p. 36.
58 Eidem, Die Hendursanga-Hymne, AOAT 25 (= Kramer Anniversary Volume,
1975), pp. 139176.
59 Jacob Klein, Personal God and Individual Prayer in Sumerian Religion, AfO
Beiheft 19 (1982), pp. 295306, esp. p. 298.
60 Ibid., pp. 304 f., note 34.
615
61 These two lines recur (without the otiose 1st or 2nd person endings of the Ur
exemplars) on YBC 7344 (unpubl.) in the form: l-ulu3 dingir-da nu-me-a/nu la-ba-gu
/nu la-ba-tur-ra (end).
62 Cf. MSL 13 (1971) 116:71: ng-mu-sa = sa sumam nab.
4
63 Cf. CAD I 101: l-dingir-tuk = sa ilam i
s, one who has luck, l-dingir-nu-tuk =
sa ilam la is, one who has no luck, from MSL 12 (1969) 159:61 f.; 179:18.
64 Cf. also Enlil in the Ekur (Enlil-surase) lines 3234. As A. Falkenstein noted
in his edition (SGL 1, 1959, p. 39), the stanza comprising these lines steht recht
unvermittelt da. That they represent three related proverbs is rendered probable by
their recurrence, in a dierent order, on the school-tablet UET 6/2 371. Cf. also
D. Reisman, Two Neo-Sumerian Royal Hymns (Thesis, Pennsylvania, 1969), p. 75.
65 J.C. Greenfield, The Background and Parallel to a Proverb of Ahiqar, Hommages
Andr Dupont-Sommer (Paris, Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1971), pp. 4959.
66 Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, p. 275.
67 MSL 13 115:3 f.
616
617
And both of these striking rhetorical questions are regarded as proverbial, the former by Benjamin R. Foster,84 the latter by E.A. Speiser.85
T. Abusch regards both as resuming Gilgameshs own encounter with
Ishtar earlier in Tablet VI, and as alluding specifically to death and
burial.86 Or again, near the end of the Epic of Erra, that deity, finally
placated, confesses: one cannot snatch a dead body from the jaws
of a roaring lion/ (and) where one is raging another cannot advise
him!87 Both of these sentiments are reasonably considered proverbial
by Cagni, who even compares the former with Amos 3:12.88 It is less
likely that Atra-hasis I 93 and 95 have the ring of a proverbial saying89 given Borgers reading of the passages.90 I prefer, in any case, to
pursue the topic via Sumerian epic.
81
Gza Komorczy, Akkadian Epic Poetry and its Sumerian Sources, Acta Antiqua
23 (1975), pp. 4163.
82 Jerey H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Pennsylvania U.P., 1982), esp.
ch. 7 and 8.
83 Hallo, Sullanu
RA 74 (1980), p. 94.
84 Foster, lecture of 111786 (unpubl.). Cf. now idem, in J.H. Marks and R.M.
Good, eds., Love and Death in the Ancient Near East: Essays in Honor of Marvin H. Pope
(Guilford, Four Quarters, 1987), p. 35 ad line 72.
85 Apud Pritchard, ANET 2 (1955), p. 84, n. 106. For other proverbs in the Akkadian
Gilgamesh epic see below, n. 122, and J. Renger, AOS 67 (= Erica Reiner AV, 1987),
p. 319.
86 Tzvi Abusch, Ishtars Proposal and Gilgameshs Refusal: An Interpretation of
The Gilgamesh Epic, Tablet 6, lines 179, History of Religions 26 (1986), pp. 143187, esp.
pp. 167169.
87 Luigi Cagni, The Poem of Erra, Sources from the Ancient Near East 1 (1977), p. 116.
(Some exemplars omit and.)
88 Idem, LEpopea di Erra (= Studi Semitici 34, 1969), pp. 249 f.
89 W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atra- hasis: the Babylonian Story of the Flood (Oxford,
618
619
as an eternal verity.99 Earlier in the same epic (ll. 164 f.), Anzu again
speaks in epigrammatic fashion when he says: [3] The stubborn (lit.
wicked) ox is made to follow (i.e., the leader), the balky (Wilcke: lame)
donkey is forced onto the straight path.100 In this case the saying
is not only unrelated (except in a general way) to the surrounding
narrative, but also (again) introduced by the generalizing like this it
is (ever).101
When we pass to the other Lugalbanda Epic (Lugalbanda I or
Lugalbanda and Hurrum-kurra)102 we encounter at least three sayings
that actually recur, more or less verbatim, in the Proverb Collections. In
line 158 f., we read, [4] an unknown beast is bad, an unknown man is
horrible, on an unknown road at the edge of a foreign country (oh Utu,
an unknown man is worse)103exactly as in the Instructions of Shuruppak (ll. 269 f.),104 which have been identified by Alster as essentially
a collection of proverbial sayings.105 Later in the same prayer to Utu
(ll.164 f.), there is a virtual paraphrase of another proverb.106
When Lugalbanda prays to Inanna as the evening star he pleads
(ll. 180182): [5] would this were my city where my mother bore me,
would it were my hole-in-the-ground like a snakes, would it were my
cleft-in-the-rock like a scorpions.107 Surely the poet who worded this
passage was not unaware of the proverb the snake seeks(?) its hole-inthe-ground, the scorpion its cleft-in-the-rock, the tree its egress.108
In the incubation dream which Lugalbanda experiences, much is
unclear, but the line (333) [6] with the liar it (he) acts the liar, with
99
Thorkild Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . (New Haven and London, Yale U.P.,
1987), p. 334 renders: To do a favor, is to call evil into being in hearts. Verily, so it is,
i.e., A favor done to one person will make others envious.
100 Wilcke, Lugalbandaepos, pp. 107 f., 178; cf. Heimpel, Tierbilder, pp. 45 f. ad 5.44 and
27.7. The passage is rendered Being that the yoke-carrying ox must follow the trail, /
being that the trotting ass must take the straight road by Jacobsen, The Harps That Once
. . . , p. 331.
101 Ox and ass are supposed to be separated in law, but are frequently juxtaposed in
literature; cf. Isaiah 1:3 and Eduard Nielsen, Ass and Ox in the Old Testament, Studia
Orientalia Joanni Pedersen . . . dicata (1953), pp. 263274.
102 On this epic, see most recently Hallo, Lugalbanda Excavated, JAOS 103 (1983
= AOS 65, 1984), pp. 165180, here: VII.1; Wilcke, RLA 7 (1987), pp. 121125.
103 Wilcke, Lugalbandaepos, pp. 79 f.
104 Alster, Studies, pp. 137 f.
105 Ibid, ch. III; cf. my review, JNES 37 (1978), pp. 269273; esp. p. 271.
106 Wilcke, Lugalbandaepos, pp. 79, 81, and note 338.
107 Ibid, pp. 68 f.; cf. Heimpel, Tierbilder, pp. 465 f.
108 UET 6:237; cf. Wilcke, Lugalbandaepos, p. 22 n. 26.
620
the truthful one it/he acts truthfully109 can hardly be separated from
such proverbs as 7.89: tell a lie, tell the truth, or 2.71 tell a lie, tell
the truth, it will be counted as a lie.110
A much clearer case is represented by Gilgamesh and Agga lines 25
28. In the translation by Thorkild Jacobsen111 it reads: [7] To continually stand at attention, to continually be assigned to a post, to go
on raids (ri) with the kings son, to continually urge on the donkey,
who has wind (enough) for that? More recent translations by Robert
Falkowitz112 and Jerrold Cooper113 do not materially change this understanding, though one could suggest a change in the second clause to
to protect (da-ri = hatanu)114 the kings son. As Jacobsen noted, the
the enclitic particle of direct discourse (e - s e)
passage concludes with
here: as they say or the like, which led him to conclude that it represented a common saw. This insight is now brilliantly confirmed by
the discovery that Proverb Collection 3 begins with the identical passage, lacking only the final - e s e.115 (Also, the order of the first three
clauses diers from that in the epic and from each other in all three
exemplars now known.)
We may now turn to those epic inserts whose proverbial character
is supported by their recurrence in later, sometimes in much later
literary environments. A debatable example is Enmerkar and the Lord
of Aratta lines 255258: [8] he who acknowledges not a contest, licks
not clean (lit. eats not) (the grass) all about (is like) the bull which
acknowledges not the bull at its side and vice versaan image which
Sol Cohen, in his edition of the text, compared to Numbers 22:4: Now
this horde will lick clean all that is about us as an ox licks up the grass
of the field.116
Hallo, JAOS 103 (1983 = AOS 65, 1984), pp. 173, 176.
Alster, JCS 27 (1975), pp. 207, 224 (Example 16), Studies (1975), p. 119 (6); RA 72
(1978), p. 106.
111 American Journal of Archaeology 53 (1949), p. 17.
112 Robert S. Falkowitz, The Sumerian Rhetoric Collections (Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania,
1980), p. 145.
113 Jerrold S. Cooper, Gilgamesh and Agga: A Review Article, JCS 33 (1981),
p. 235. Cf. also H. Vanstiphout, Towards a Reading of Gilgamesh and Agga, Aula
Orientalis 5 (1987), p. 139.
114 MSL 12 107:100. Cf. also MSL 16 146:144 f.: da-ri = na
s sa s. ihri (L.TUR), nas sa
almatti. See now also Jacobsens new translation in The Harps That Once . . . , pp. 348 f.
115 Falkowitz, Rhetoric Collections, p. 145.
116 Sol Cohen, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (Ph.D. Thesis, Pennsylvania, 1973),
p. 234. Previously S.N. Kramer, Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (1952), pp. 22 f. For a
dierent rendering see Jacobsen, The Harps That Once . . . , p. 297. Alster has found
109
110
621
Far more convincing are two examples from Gilgamesh and the
Land of the Living. In lines 106108 of the epic we read: [9]
for me another (a second) man will not die, a loaded (or: towed) boat
(m-da-l)117 will not sink, the three-ply rope will not be cut.118
Following Kramer,119 Aaron Shaer in 1967 compared this to Ecclesiastes 4:12b: A threefold cord is not readily broken,120 and only two
years later he was able to find the missing link, as it were, between
these two occurrences and to reduce by more than half the huge
chronological gap which separated them.121 For a newly recovered fragment of the Akkadian Gilgamesh epic122 clearly renders the Sumerian
which is ambiguous (Kramer had read it as tg-es-tab-ba, the three-ply
cloth) by three-ply rope (aslu suslus[u]).123 And there are other contacts
between the Akkadian Gilgamesh epic on the one hand and Ecclesiastes in particular on the other.124
My tenth and in some ways favorite example comes from earlier in
the same Sumerian epic when Gilgamesh philosophizes (ll. 2729); [10]
As for me, I too will be served thus, verily tis so / man, the tallest,
cannot reach to heaven, / man, the widest cannot cover the earth.125
As I already noted in 1962,126 this line occurs in more or less identical form first in the Sumerian wisdom literature (specifically in the
a clear allusion to Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta lines 503506 in the Sumerian
Sargon Legend (lines 5356); see ZA 77 (1987), pp. 169173. According to Cooper and
Heimpel, the Legend parodies the Epic here; see JAOS 103 (1983 = AOS 65, 1984),
p. 82.
117 Or raft (m-l).
118 Cf. Heimpel, Tierbilder, pp. 4649.
119 JCS 1 (1947), p. 40.
120 The Mesopotamian background of Lamentations (sic!) 4:912, Eretz-Israel 8
(1967), pp. 246250 (in Hebrew; English summary p. 75*).
121 Idem, New Light on the Three-ply Cord, Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), pp. 159 f. (in
Hebrew; English summary pp. 138 f.).
122 CT 46:21 (Late Babylonian).
123 J.V. Kinnier Wilson, The Legend of Etana: A New Edition (Warminster, Aris and
Phillips, 1985), pp. 62 f., restores VAT 10291 rev. 4 thus: e-s. p-ma A.R III er-su-
[ . . . ] and translates If treble-twisted (the thread), the cloth [will not tear]. If he is
right, the Etana Epic also preserves an allusion to the same proverb. (Ref. courtesy
B.R. Foster.) For the double thread in Sumerian (gu-tab; perhaps also gu-kesda) see
A.L. Oppenheim, AOS 32 (1948), p. 14 and n, 34; H. Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur
neusumerischen Textilindustrie (Rome, 1972), pp. 122 f., 128.
124 Cf. especially Jean de Savignac, La sagesse du Qhlth et lpope de Gilgamesh, VT 28 (1978), pp. 318323, esp. pp. 321 f.
125 Kramer, JCS 1 (1947), pp. 10 f.; ANET 2 (1955), p. 48.
126 Hallo, New Viewpoints on Cuneiform Literature, Israel Exploration Journal 12
622
(1962), pp. 1326, here: I.1, esp. p. 20 note 33; idem, JNES 37 (1978), p. 272 (ad ll.
99101). Cf. also Heimpel, Tierbilder, pp. 44 f.
127 Alster, Studies, pp. 87 f.
128 ANET 2 (1955), p. 79.
129 Ibid, p. 438 (XII).
130 Ugaritica 5 (1968), p. 295.
131 Hallo, Toward a History of Sumerian Literature, AS 20 (1976), p. 182, here: I.4.
132 Hallo, Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos, The Jewish Quarterly Review
76 (1985), pp. 2140, here: VIII.3.
ur5 h-na-nam-ma
[3] ur5-gim-ma-m
gu4-rim-du s-a s-ke-dam
anse-du10-guz-za har-ra-an si-s dab5-b-dam
[4] ur nu-zu hul-a
s-m
l nu-zu hu
a-ba
zi-bi mu-un-tuku e-se
[8] a-da-mn nu-um-zu, ur nu-um-k, gu4-d gu4 da-gl-bi nu-um-zu
a-da-mn um-zu, ur um-k, gu4-d gu4 da-gl-bi um-zu
[9] m-a-ra l-min nu-ug6-e
gis m-da-l nu-su-su-d
s-es-tab-ba l nu-ku5-d
[10] g-e ur5-gim nam-ba-ag-e, ur5-s h-me-a
l-sukud-da an-s nu-mu-un-da-l
l-dagal-la kur-ra la-ba-an-s-s
623
viii.5
PROVERBS:
AN ANCIENT TRADITION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Proverbs are unique in several respects. They represent one of the oldest genres in world literature, if not the oldest. They may be transmitted
individually, or gathered into collections, or inserted in other contexts.
They are often transmitted orally and thus can have an extraordinarily
long shelf life. They may be couched in prose or in poetry. They may
serve as part of a school curriculum or as a repository of folk wisdom
widely cited at suitable times. They may impart behavior that is ethical, or reverent, or politically correct. Most often they convey practical
knowledge for the daily life of common humanity. Yet for all these and
other divergent and sometimes mutually contradictory characteristics,
proverbs have one thing in common: they are short, pithy statements
expressing eternal verities and couched in piquant language suitable for
memorizing. Archer Taylor, in a treatment that has become classic, was
reluctant to define the proverb at all, calling it simply a saying current among the folk (Taylor 1931: 3). He could not have known it but,
interestingly enough, the ancient Akkadian terms for proverb also
have the meaning of vernacular (Hallo 1990: 207).
Within this distinctive genre, the 1,350 Bedouin proverbs that Clinton Bailey presents in the present volume display some unique features
of their own. They are drawn strictly from the daily life of the Bedouin,
to the exclusion of any proverbial wisdom shared with Arabic speakers generally (for some of which see Attal 1989). Like Bedouin poetry,
which the author has called the mirror of a culture (Bailey 1991), they
thus reflect the Bedouin lifestyle, the culture of desert survival in the
Sinai peninsula and the Negev, where the author collected his material over thirty-five years of indefatigable fieldwork. But that lifestyle
is disappearing before our very eyes as village settlement is being promoted by Egypt and Israel respectively, as it is in other countries of the
entire Fertile Crescent, whose edges have always sustained a population of pastoralists living in a more or less uneasy symbiosis with the
agriculturalists. Thus even if other researchers were willing to replicate
the authors heroic eorts, they would probably find that they were too
Reprinted with permission. C. Bailey, A Culture of Desert Survivial, 2004 Yale University
Press, pages ixxvi.
626
late. Baileys collection represents the precious preservation of a vanishing literary legacy. How does it fit into the larger picture of Near
Eastern proverbial literature, and of paroemiology generally?
Proverbs in Context
Written proverbs could be transmitted singly or in collections, the latter
usually sharing a particular focus. The ancient Egyptian and Sumerian
instructions already mentioned were attributed to specific authors, real
or imaginary. The later proverb collections of Sumer, of which more
than thirty have been identified so far, and which could include as
many as two hundred individual sayings, have no such attribution. In
627
the Hebrew bible, on the other hand, Solomon is said to have created
or at least recited no fewer than three thousand proverbs (I Kings 5:12)
and is also credited with some eighteen out of thirty-one chapters of the
Book of Proverbs (1022:16, 2529), containing just over five hundred
verses (proverbs). The rest of the book is attributed to other authors or
remains anonymous.
In addition to those preserved individually or in collections, proverbs
(and the related genre of riddles) are sometimes found inserted in
the context of other genres. In Sumerian and in Akkadian (the other
principal language of ancient Mesopotamia), they have been identified
in some unlikely contexts, such as the beginning or even the middle of
lexical texts, but also in instructions, in letters, and above all in epics.
One proverbial saying, found in both Sumerian and Akkadian versions
of the Gilgamesh Epic, may serve by way of example. When Gilgamesh
needs to encourage his friend Enkidu in their mission to the Cedar
Forest to confront its guardian, the monster Huwawa, he quotes the
old saw, (Two men together will not die . . .) No man can cut a threeply rope. The very same saying surfaces again in the biblical Book of
Ecclesiastes (4:12) as, The threefold cord is not readily broken (Hallo
1990).
628
629
630
These and other ancient Egyptian Instructions were typically addressed by a father, sometimes a royal father, to his son. Although
not part of formal education, they thus played a role in the traditional transmission of knowledgetheoretical, practical, or ethical
from parent to son. In this connection it is worth noting that the story
of the wise Ahiqar, first known from Egypt in the fifth century bc (albeit
in Aramaic), concludes with a long list of proverbs which, at least in
some of the many later versions of the work, are likewise phrased as
instructions to my son (Winton Thomas 1958: 270275). Much of
the biblical Book of Proverbs, too, is addressed to my son (1:8, 10,
15, etc.); more formal training may have been provided by wise men
(though represented in the guise of Wisdom, a woman) (1:20 f., 8:13),
who addressed their pupils as sons (8:32). In light of all this ancient
precedent, it is interesting to learn that the deliberate imparting of wisdom to sons (and younger brothers) is still maintained by the Bedouin,
as evidenced in their surviving proverbs and poetry (Bailey 1991:141
153; 326328).
631
Conclusion
The Bedouin proverbs collected and preserved in this book are indeed,
like Bedouin poetry, a mirror of their culture, reflecting the peculiarities
of a style of life wholly dedicated to survival in the desert. But they
also share features with earlier Near Eastern proverbs and with some of
the proverbial literature of the contemporary world. We can be grateful
that they have here been preserved for comparison with these wider
horizons in space and time, for the light they throw on the culture that
produced them and for the intrinsic pleasure they aord to the modern
reader.
632
Alster, Bendt. 1997. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer: The Worlds Earliest Proverb Collections,
2 vols. Bethesda, Md.: CDL.
Attal, Robert, 1989: Bibliographie raisonne des proverbes Arabes et JudeoArabes du Maghreb, Studies in Bibliography and Booklore, 17: 4154.
Bailey, Clinton. 1991. Bedouin Poetry from Sinai and the Negev: Mirror of a Culture.
Oxford: Clarendon.
. 1993. The Role of Rhyme and Maxim in Bedouin Law. New Arabian
Studies 1: 2135.
Beckman, Gary. Proverbs and Proverbial Allusions in Hittite. Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 45: 1930.
Eph"al, Israel. 1982. The Ancient Arabs: Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent,
9th5th Centuries bc. Jerusalem: Magnes; Leiden: Brill.
George, A.R., and F.N.H. al-Rawi. 1998. Tablets from the Sippar Library,
VII. Three Wisdom Texts. Iraq 60: 187206.
Hallo, William W. 1990. Proverbs Quoted in Epic. In Lingering Over Words:
Studies . . . in Honor of William L. Moran, edited by T. Abusch et al. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, here: VIII.4.
. 1996. Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western
Institutions. Leiden: Brill.
, and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. 19972002. The Context of Scripture, 3
vols. Leiden: Brill.
Lambert, W.G. 1060. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Clarendon.
Lichtheim, Miriam. 1975. Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. I. Berkeley: University
of California.
Scott, R.B.Y. 1965. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Anchor Bible 18. Garden City: Doubleday.
Taylor, Archer. 1931. The Proverb, quoted from the edition of 1962; repr. 1985.
Tsukimoto, Akio. 1994. A Testamentary Document from Emar, Acta Sumerologica 16: 231238.
Veldhuis, Niek. 1997. Elementary Education at Nippur. Ph.D. diss., Groningen, Netherlands.
Winton Thomas, D., ed. 1958. Documents from Old Testament Times. London:
Thomas Nelson.
ix
incantations
ix.1
BACK TO THE BIG HOUSE:
COLLOQUIAL SUMERIAN, CONTINUED1
Among many other insights, J.J.A. van Dijk has provided a new and
profound appreciation of the genre of non-canonical incantations.2
This genre is already attested by the middle of the third millennium
in texts from Ebla,3 Fara4 and early Lagash.5 It is generally identified
by an initial or concluding rubric, but sometimes the incantation so
identified is only part of a longer composition in which it is embedded.6
And sometimes the incantation is not so identified at all.7 That seems
to be the case with the text oered herewith, which has some idiomatic
points of contact with the genre, but no rubric; in form, it suggests
a prayer. The tablet was acquired by the Yale Babylonian Collection
through the good oces of Mr. Jonathan Rosen of New York.
The text is a lenticular or lentil-shaped tablet with ten cases on the
obverse and eight on the reverse. Although lenticular tablets of literary
content are so far known only from the Old Babylonian schools, they
were used for archival purposes as early as Neo-Sumerian times and
occasionally in the preceding Old Akkadian period.8 All such third
millennium examples come from Lagash; it is not impossible that our
The substance of this paper was presented to the 194th meeting of the American
Oriental Society, Seattle, Washington, on March 25, 1984. I am indebted to R.D. Biggs,
M. Civil, and P. Michalowski for comments made at that time and gratefully incorporated here. . Sjberg graciously granted access to the files of the Sumerian Dictionary
Project of the University of Pennsylvania; references from these files are here identified
by the notation PSD.
2 See especially the text volumes VS 17 and YOS 11, as well as numerous articles;
cf. e.g. Or 38 (1969) 539547; 41 (1972) 339348, 357 f.; 42 (1973) 502507; 44 (1975) 52
79 + pls. vvi; and RAI 25 (1982) 97110.
3 G. Pettinato, OA 18 (1979) 329351, and pls. xxvixlii; P. Mander, Or 48 (1979)
335339.
4 E.g. WVDOG 43 (1923) 46, 54 f.; 71; cf. Biggs, JCS 20 (1966) 78 n. 41.
5 Sollberger, CIRPL (1956) sub Urn. 49.
6 E.g. van Dijk, Symbolae . . . Bhl (1973) 109 f.
7 E.g. note 5 above.
8 Pettinato. AnOr 45 (1969), esp. p. 5.
1
636
text is from the same site. Its writing is compatible with the Lagash
ductus of Early Dynastic III date.9
The text is, in any case, not a school tablet like the round tablets
of Old Babylonian date. That is, it does not include the eorts of a
scribal student, with or without the better model of the tutor, as in
the classification system of E.I. Gordon.10 It is perfectly preserved; its
writing is of a high standard of excellence; and obverse and reverse
almost certainly represent successive portions of a continuous entity. It
gives the impression of constituting the polished work of an experienced
scribe, and of presenting a composition in its entirety.
This composition is to some extent sui generis. I would regard it as
a prayer, more specifically the prayer of a (private) individual. Now
individual prayer in Sumerian has a long tradition, as I showed some
time ago.11 But nowhere does it stand by itself in a canonical form of
its own and apart from some other or larger literary context, be that
a letter or lament on the one hand, or an epic, temple hymn, royal
hymn, or even monumental text on the other. The new text, whether it
proves formally to be an incantation or not, functions as a prayer and,
this granted, thus preserves the oldest and most explicit example of its
kind yet recovered. Although it still poses many diculties, a tentative
transliteration and translation is hereby ventured.
Transliteration
(obv.)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
-gal tir
g-har-musen-sa7-a a-sig ha-mu-si-b-gar
s-bi gir4-mah izi ba-ra-a
a-sig ha-ma-ab-s
a
ig-bi ra-gaba ha
harranx(KASKAL) si-s g ha-gub
z- hi-bi l-kin-gi4-a-kam
su ha-mu-si-nigin
gis-bala-bi
lam -sa6-ga-mu ha-m
zag-zi-da-m ha-kr-krka
gis-k-ba g-bi ha-mu-da-zi
637
(rev.)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
egir-m ha-gin
l-kak-du-m
g-e ki ha-l
g g-mu an-s ha-zi
s den-ki dasar-re abzu-na
nam-mu-da-br-e
mu-dnanse al-me-a
Translation
1) The big house (which is) a forest
2) The A.SIG has verily placed the string (?) of a green bird-trap into it for
me.
3) Its interior is a great oven whose fire is lit.
4) May the A.SIG keep it far from me.
5) Its door is a rider traversing the highwaymay it be dislodged for me.
6) Its bolt is that of a messenger.
7) May it turn in it (the door) for me.
8) Its rafters are extensivemay they be my favorable side.
9) On my right hand may it shine brightly.
10) Of its gate may I be able to raise its lock.
11) May Inanna be my vanguard.
12) May my (personal) deity be my helper.
13) May he walk behind me.
14) May she/he make my door (gate?)-keeper bow with his neck to the
ground.
15) As for me, may I raise my neck to heaven.
16) The sanctuary of Enki (and) Asare in his Abzu
17) May no one be able to undo.
18) The spell which Nanshe has cast.
638
man.13 I suggested that the big house in this context could hardly be
the palace but was more likely the prison as in the colloquial equivalent
in English, or a sanctuary as in some of the meanings attested for the
Sumerian tir (forest) with which the proverb equated it. The new text
already provides a second context for the big house (which is) a forest,
and appears to bear out the meaning prison or asylum for the term in
question.
2) A.SIG here (and in line 4) may be some kind of functionary, since it
appears (with the variant a-sig5) in a neo-Assyrian list of professional
names (MSL 12 239 v. 10), between the steward (masennu) and the
charioteer (bel narkabti or mugirri). In view of the rider in line 5 and
the messenger in line 6, the notion that A.SIG stands for mar kall
(messager rapide, R. Labat, Manuel 5 s.v.) is attractive but unsupported
by hard evidence.13a
I follow A. Salonen in taking har-musen(a) as the Sumerian equiva
lent of Akkadian musenharu (not huharu), the bird-trap (Vgel und Vogelfang
Note that Nur-Adad 3 (UET 1 112 + 124 + UET 8 67) records the
building and dedication to Nanna of (such) a big oven (E. Sollberger,
UET 8 p. 14 ad line 38).
For izi. . . ra (read thus rather than r?) cf. e.g. Dumuzis Dream
(B. Alster, Mesopotamia 1 [1972] 82) 251; 253. In Inanna and Ebih
639
5) The comparison between door and rider may seem far-fetched, but
note that the typical Mesopotamian door had a rider, i.e. the knob
of its pole. This is usually expressed by u5-ig = sagammu (Salonen, Die
Tren des alten Mesopotamien [1961] 66). But, as E.A. Speiser recognized
long ago, u5 in this context stands also for rakabu ride and the knob
which adorned the upper end of the door-pole could suitably be called
its rider (JCS 2 [1984] 226 f.).
According to the lexical texts, the sign KASKAL has the reading
kaskal when it means harranu, road, journey (CAD H s.v.) but Civil
have the reading harran . Onthis interpretasuggests that it may also
x
indicator, as would also
tion, the ha of our text would be a phonetic
The meaning remove a door (dalta nasahu) has been established for
the compound verb ig . . . gub by . Sjberg, JCS 24 (1972) 112; cf. more
recently J. Cooper, The Curse of Agade (1983) 250 ad line 168.
6) The reading z-hi-bi was suggested by Civil, as was the equation
with sahab-(bi), shub-(bi) = medelu for which see Salonen, Tren 79.
14
It must be admitted, however, that kaskal and har-ra-an also occur in parallelism.
Cf. eg. P. Michalowski, The Royal Correspondence of Ur (Ph.D. Yale 1976) 136 line 3:
kur su-birki-se har-ra-an kaskal-(la) si s-s e-d (var.: ra), to take the road to Subir.
15
640
9) For kr-krka, (or = kr-kr-ka)16 = nabatu (or napahu),17 see CAD N s.v.
10) For gisg = gisru, part of a lock, cf. MSL 5 30:292a and Salonen,
Tren 76 against CAD G s.v. gisru A.
11) For IGI.DU = gestu, igistu see CAD s.vv.
14) l-kak-du is a problem. One may suggest a partially phonetic
spelling for kak--du8 = musel (A), pan of the lock of a door or (B) doorkeeper, or for (l)-kak-du8 with which compare kak-du8 = mupatttu, literally opener and giskak-ng-du8du-uh= nap.tartum, part of a lock (MSL 6
62:131; 63:136).
For g-ki-s-l = qadadu sa ameli see MSL 16 194 line 97; previously
Falkenstein, ZA 57 (1965) 97 f.
16) The sanctuary of Enki is presumably identical with the sanctuary
known as the ()-abzu (abyss), which in turn may or may not be identical with -engur (house of the watery deep), the temple of Enki in
Eridu; cf. van Dijk, Symbolae . . . Bhl (1973) 111.
17) This predicate is familiar from incantations of all periods, whether
Old Babylonian (cf. e.g. VS 17 29:6; 30:9), Middle Babylonian (cf.
e.g. J. Cooper, ZA 61 [1971] 16:33) or neo-Assyrian (cf. A. Falkenstein,
LSS nF 1 [1931] 98:33), In all such cases the expressed object is the
incantation (tu6, tu6-tu6, nam-sub etc.); here it apparently is understood.
18) Uncertain translation. If mu7-mu7 or me-me = asipu, exorcist, can
be analyzed as incantation reciter, then mu may be phonetic for mu7,
siptu, incantation, and me (or sib) may stand for the verb to perform
an incantation. Cf. ME with the reading sib = ussupu sa asipi, MSL 14
223: 8. But usually the verb used with incantations is sum = nad or sid
= man.
16 For examples of kr-kr complemented by -ka (or a-ka) see Warad-Sin 19 (Krki,
StOr 49 [1980] 109) v 7; Enkis Journey to Nippur (ed. A. Al-Fouadi [1969] 69) 1.7, with
additional references ib. pp. 11 f. (PSD).
17 Cf. Elevation of Istar (Hruska, ArOr 37 [1969] 485) iii 69 f. (PSD); MSL 16 206:3.
641
General Conclusions
As translated above, our text is an individuals prayer for release from
the big house. It invokes the help of Inanna, the individuals (personal)
deity and, in conclusion, Enki, his son Asare and his daughter Nanshe.
What can be said about its possible context, geographical or chronological?
While the appeal to Enki and his Abzu might seem to point to Eridu,
there are grounds for linking the text to Lagash (see already above). As
Sjberg has pointed out, in Old Babylonian times, Asar belonged to
the local pantheon in Lagas . . . ; also in Neo-Sumerian times he was
worshipped in Lagas.18 Nanshe, too, was at home in Lagash, more
specifically in Nina (Sirara).
Other evidence points to the big house as part of a temple or even,
perhaps as pars pro toto, as a description for an entire temple.19 Thus
when it is likened to a distant sea which knows no horizon,20 exactly
as is the -kur, or more specifically its interior,21 we may conclude that
there was a big house within the temple of Enlil at Nippur. Note
that the great hymn to this temple22 actually begins, the great house,
it is a mountain great; Kramer takes this line to refer to the Ekur
complex as a whole, and in a sense . . . to be understood before each of
the following 26 lines.23 Again, the great temple of Nanna at Ur was,
or included, a big house24 even as it included an Abzu.25
A third possibility is that the term for big house became a toponym
in its own right. It then takes the form Bitum-rabium in Akkadian26 (date
of Amar-Suen 7, with Iabru and Huhnuri)27 and -gu-laki in Sumerian,28
but since this form varies with -gal as a temple name or common
642
643
36
37
ix.2
MORE INCANTATIONS AND RITUALS FROM
THE YALE BABYLONIAN COLLECTION1
In 1985, the Yale Babylonian Collection published Yale Oriental SeriesBabylonian Texts (YOS) 11 under the title Early Mesopotamian Incantations
and Rituals. The work represented the collective eorts of four scholars,
three of them now deceased. Of the 96 texts on 83 plates included in
the volume, 29 texts on 49 plates had been copied during the 1920s
by Mary Inda Hussey (18761952),2 while the remaining 67 texts on 34
plates were copied during the 1960s and 1970s by Jan van Dijk (1915
1996). Van Dijk provided extensive notes on most of the texts, in many
cases incorporating an earlier set of notes by Albrecht Goetze (1897
1971).3 In addition, Walter Farber furnished collations of the Hussey
copies.
The title of the volume reflected the fact that the texts were largely
of Old Babylonian date (87 out of 96),4 that they were written in Sumerian (48), Akkadian (31), or both (9), apart from others in Subarian (4),
Elamite (1), and an unidentified language (3), and that they included
both rituals (19) and incantations (67), or both (6). The balance featured, notably, the three collections of recipes which have since been
fully edited by Jean Bottro.5
Since the publication of YOS 11, the Yale Babylonian Collection
has been systematically catalogued under a succession of grants from
the National Endowment for the Humanities (19881992, 19931996).
The substance of this paper was presented to the 207th Meeting of the American
Oriental Society, Miami, March 25, 1997. It is substituted here for the paper I originally
presented to the conference on Mesopotamian Magic held at the Netherlands Institute
for Advanced Studies in Wassenaar, June 68, 1995, in order to make the new material
available, at least in preliminary fashion.
2 R. Borger, RLA 4 (19721975), 523, s.v. Hussey.
3 R. Borger, RLA 3 (19571971), 500, s.v. Goetze.
4 Four (Nos. 37, 58, 73, 81) are in neo-Sumerian script, one (No. 74) in Middle
Assyrian, and four (75, 94, 95, 96) in Neo-Babylonian or Late Babylonian.
5 Textes Culinaires Msopotamiens: Mesopotamian Culinary Texts (Mesopotamian Civilizations 6; Winona Lake, 1995). For earlier studies see Hallo, Origins (Leiden, 1996), 108 f.;
for a more recent summary, id., 98108.
1
646
6 P.-A. Beaulieu, Late Babylonian Texts in the Nies Babylonian Collection (CBCY 1; Bethesda, 1994).
7 G. Beckman, Old Babylonian Archival Texts in the Nies Babylonian Collection (CBCY 2;
Bethesda, 1995).
8 NBC 7688 ii 813: 8 NA .ME an-nu-tu/ina X ZA.GN.NA E 3(?) / ina Y-
s GAR4
647
them11 or from their Nachlass.12 Still others are too fragmentary or too
brief to permit certainty of identification.13 That leaves three of sucient interest or intelligibility to present at this time. Two are Old Babylonian in date, the third is Neo-Babylonian. Because of the diculties
posed by all of them, I have sought out the help of those more experienced than I am with these genres, and I am happy to acknowledge
them here, as follows: Niek Veldhuis (Groningen) with No. 1, Walter
Farber (Chicago) with Nos. 1 and 2, and Izabela Zbikowska (Yale) and
Francesca Rochberg (University of California at Riverside) with No. 3.
Herewith I oer transliterations of the two OB texts and a transcription of the NB one, and I will attempt to provide translations of two of
them, with minimum comment. No translation is attempted for the second which, like the first, includes incantations to Lamashtu (dDM.ME).
No. 1. YBC 8041 (52 38 mm)
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
[
]x
[
]-ma?
ki-k[i-.ta-su ]-x
tu- - e - ni -in-nu-ri
si-pa-at dDM.ME
ki-ki-.ta-su ki-ir-ba-an MUN (.tabtim)
i-na lu-ba-ri-im ta-ra-ak-ka-as!
i-na ki-sa-di-su ta-ra-ak-ka-a[s]
ba-li-i.t
ri--ta-am-ma hu-bi-e-ta
si-p[a-at . . .]
ri--ta-am i-ni-im
Rev.
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
su-pu dDIM.ME
ki-ki-.ta-sa NUMUN UH
su]
ni-is-ki i-na zu-mu-u[r-sa/
ta-na-ad-du-ma
A.BA UR .AS ta-man-nu
te-le-ek-ma .GIS
mu-uh-hi ni-is-ki-im
te-te-eh-hi
te-s-e-er
ta-ra-ak-ka-as-sa
YBC 6706, an incantation against little worms, was copied by Bendt Alster.
YBC 5443, an incantation similar to udug-hul, was copied by the late R. Kutscher;
MLC 1963 and YBC 9891, unidentified incantations, were copied by van Dijk but not
included in YOS 11.
13 Notably MLC 485, 923; NBC 10217, 10339, 11111 (= 6NT 544), 11118 (= 6NT 997),
10339; NCBT 1049; YBC 9877, 9902.
11
12
648
21) ba-li-i.t
22) si-pa-at ur-si
12)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
(Largely lost)
Its procedure: . . ..
Conjuration.
Incantation against Lamashtu.
Its procedure: a lump of salt.
in a garment you tie up,
on his neck you tie (it)
he (will be) well.
????
????
??? Lamashtu.
Its procedure: the seed and/of the spittle
of the bite on his body
you apply and (the incantation)
Who is the dog of the single house? which you recite
you lick away and oil
over the bite
you smear. You approach (and)
you bind her.
He (will be) well.
Incantation of the bedchambers.
Notes
4) This spelling is restored here on the basis of YOS 11:16:11, for which see
the remarks by van Dijk, ibid., p. 5.
5) The translation of sipat Lamasti follows van Dijk, YOS 11, p. 6.
6) For lumps of salt wrapped in a tuft of wool as a poultice, and others as a
suppository, see CAD K, 403:2a, s.v. kirbanu.
7) In another Lamashtu incantation, lubaru (plural) occurs as the (menstrual) rags of an unclean (i.e., menstruating) woman; cf. CAD L 230d;
Falkenstein, LKU p. 12, line 11. Note also the possible association with
the Roman labarum suggested by M.H. Pope, The saltier of Atargatis
reconsidered, Essays . . . Glueck (Garden City, 1970), 178196, esp. p. 193;
the lexical reference there is to the entry published in the meantime as
MSL 13, 115:16.
17) The verb appears to be from the relatively rare root lku, cognate with
Hebrew LHK.
The Sumerian equivalent is UR.(BI) . . . K (or TS.(BI)
.
. . .K); though not attested as such in lexical or bilingual texts, it occurs
in such unilingual passages as Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, 255
and 257, where it has been compared by Sol Cohen to Numbers 22:4;
cf. Hallo, Proverbs quoted in epic, Studies . . . Moran (Atlanta, 1990), 215
and n. 116, here: VIII.4.
649
Commentary
This brief text of 22 lines is so far unparalleled among the Lamashtu
incantations, whether canonical or non-canonical.14 It seems to consist
of three separate incantations. The first (lines 15) presumably begins
with a 2-line dicenda (ll. 12, now lost), a one-line agenda (l. 3) and a
2-line rubric (ll. 45). The second (ll. 611) begins with a 3-line agenda
(ll. 68), a one-line prognosis (l. 9), and what appears to be a 2-line
rubric (ll. 1011). The third (ll. 12-end) begins with a one-line heading
(l. 12), an 8-line agenda which includes allusion to the recitation of an
incantation (l. 16), a one-line prognosis (l. 21) and a one-line rubric (l.
22).
No. 2. MLC 1614 (78 48 mm)
Obv.?
1) [KA.AH].MUD.[DA / KA.K]A.AH.MUD.D[A]
2) KA.AH.MUD.DA / KA.KA.AH.MU[D.D]A
H.MUD.DA
3) KA.A[H.MUD.DA] / KA.K[A.A]
4) LUGAL.GI[S].GI.UR
/ [te-e-ni]-in-nu-ri-e!
5) si-pa-at d x DM.ME
Rev.?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
NIR.GL NIR.NIR.GL
NIR.NIR.GL
EN.KA NIR.GL
ABZU N[UN.KI.(GA?)]
si-tas-si ki-ma . . .
d-a dL.ASAR.HI
li-tas-si-ra an-ni
te-e!-en-nu!-ri-e
[si]-pa-at ka-ta-ar-ri
The tablet contains two incantations, one on each side. The one on the
obverse(?) is described as an incantation against Lamashtu, while the
one on the reverse(?) is described, if correctly restored, as an incantation against fungus. The fear of fungus is widely attested in Mesopota14 Cf. R. Borger, HKL III (1975), 86. s.v. Lama
stu. Add: Meissner, Babylonien und
Assyrien II, 222 .; Wiggerman apud Stol, Zwangerschap en Geboorte bij Babylonirs en in de
Bijbel (Leiden, 1983). OB forerunners: BIN 2:72; OECT 1:WB 169, etc. For the latest
survey see C. Michel, Une incantation paloassyrienne contra Lamastum, Or. 66
(1997), 5864, with earlier literature.
650
15
16
17
18
19
W.W. Hallo, The Book of the People (Brown Judaic Studies 225; Atlanta, 1991), 66 f.
Ibid., 145 f., with references; CAD K s.v. katarru.
Erica Reiner, Fortune-Telling in Mesopotamia, JNES 19 (1960), 2335.
CAD K 518c.
JNES 19 (1959), 24.
651
More recently, the Sultan-Tepe text has been described as an unusual first millennium text referring to impetrated practices by Ann
Guinan,20 who argues that
As the tradition (of divination) developed, scholars increasingly
turned to the investigation of unsolicited omens and, except for extispicy,
impetrated omens ceased to be part of the standard repertoire.21
All of the above could likewise be said of YBC 9863 (and LKA 137 f.).
Because of its heavy reliance on logographic orthography, it is in addition presented in transcription except for the strictly astronomical passages. Commentary is limited to pointing out parallels to STT 73.
YBC 9863
Transliteration
Obverse
(beginning lost)
A
1
[. . .] X [. . .]
2 [. . .S]I-at DI.A.X [. . .]
3 [. . .] X- TA 15-MU
4 [. . . TA I]GI.MU ana IGI.MU DIB-iq
5 [KA.AS.B]AR
MUL IGI.DU8
B
6
7
8
9
10
11
i-bi-ir
[se-am s h]ar-bi TI-q GURUS.TUR
s MUNUS NU ZU- SE
[. . .] e-nu-ma
ina GI6 UN.MES s. al-lu-ma qul-tum GAR-at GR.2 TAR-sat
H ana
12 [sum-ma MU]L.MAR.GD.DA
NU DB-iq NU SIG5 MUL.SU
S-bi
MUL.MAR.GD.DA
13 [KU4] BE-ma MUL.MUL ul-te-ez-zib
20 A.K. Guinan, Divination, in: The Context of Scripture I. Canonical Compositions from
the Biblical World (W.W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (eds.); Leiden/New York/
Kln, 1997), 421426, esp. p. 422, n. 9.
21 Ibid., p. 422. For the distinction between impetration (or induction) and oblation
(or intuition) in divination see also Hallo and William K. Simpson, The Ancient Near East:
a History (New York, 1971; second edition, Fort Worth, 1998), 160.
652
14 [MUL.SU.PA
SE].GA
MUL.SU.PA
SE.GA
MUL.SU.PA
ZI.ZI
15 [MUL.SU.PA
ZI.Z]I MUL.SU.PA
GUB.GUB MUL.SU.PA
GUB.GUB
16 [MUL.SU.PA
GIN].NA MUL.SU.PA.GIN.NA
(eras.)
17 [MUL.SU.PA]SG.SG
MUL.SU.PA
SG.SG MUL.SU.PA
DU8.DU8
18 [MUL.SU].PA
DU8.DU8
DINGIR
MU.UN.SI.S
DINGIR MU.UN.SI.S
19 [DI]NGIR MU.UN.DU11.GA SI.S DINGIR MU.UN.DU11.GA SI.S
[I]NIM.INIM.MA KA.AS.BAR
BAR.RE
Reverse
D
1 [. . .] XXX -tal-lal ina A.MES NAGA.SI-li u KI.A.dD
2 [. . .] SU.2
s LUH-si ina GI6 R SAR A.MES K.MES S
ZD.MAD.Gs SE.GAL
u SIM.LI
3 [. . .] X NG.NA GAR-an A.MES K.MES BAL-q-N 3-s ana IGI
MUL.SU.PA
SID-ma
ES.BAR
tam-mar
E
4 [MU]L.MUL SI.S
MUL.MUL SI.S
MUL.MUL
GIN.NA MUL.MUL GIN.NA
5 [MUL].MUL GUB.GUB
MUL.MUL GUB.GUB
MUL.MUL TUG.TUG
MUL.MUL TUG.TUG
6 [MUL.MU]L DU8.DU8 MUL.MUL. DU8.DU8 MUL.MUL SIG5.GA
MUL.MUL SIG5.GA
7 [MUL.MU]L GIS.TUG
MUL.MUL GIS.TUG
TE.N
8 [INIM.INIM].MA KA.AS.BAR
BAR.RE
F
9 [. . .] X SE.GA
ina GI6 R SAR A.MES K.MES SU ZD.MAD.G
s SE.GAL u SIM.LI
kul-lat i[na. . .]
dD
DIS-nis
I tam-mar N
SINIG
13 [. . .]-s SID-ma
su-kin-ma ES.BAR
.MAH SI-ma
653
KI.MIN L.DU11.GA.SE.GA
KI.MIN
15 [. . . S]E.GA
KI.MIN
L.MUL.BAN.DU11.GA.SE.GA
KI.MIN
L.MUL.BAN.SI.S.TUG.TUG KI.MIN
16 [. . .] GIS.TUG
KI.MIN
.ERIN .IR.ERIN dNIN.LL ra-mat
654
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
655
Reverse
D
1 [. . .] XXX utallal ina m uhuli qarnan(/t)i elluti u kibrti
2 [. . .] qatesu temessi ina musiura tasabbi.t m elluti tasallah mashata tasakkan(?)
SE.GAL
u burasi
3 [. . .] XXX niqnakki tasakkan m elluti tanaqqi sipta salasisu ana pani
MUL.dSU.PA
tamannima puruss tammar
E
4
5
6
7
9 [. . .] XXX SE.GA
ina musi ura tasabbi.t m elluti tasallah mashati sa
sipta
SE.GAL
u burasu kul-lat X kibrtu istenis samni tammar
11 [. . .]-su li-ka-ta-na tamannima bnu ina qate imittika tanassi
12 [. . . se]pe(?) sumelika tarassi(?) XXX-ma m elluti tanaqqima ana pani
MUL.MUL SI.S
13 [. . .]-su tamannima sukema puruss .MAH damiqma
KI.MIN L.DU11.GA.SE.GA
KI.MIN
15 [. . . S]E.GA
KI.MIN L.MUL.BAN.DU11.GA.SE.GA
L.MUL.BAN.
SI.S TUG.TUG KI.MIN
16 [. . .] GIS.TUG
KI.MIN saman erinni saman eresi erinni dNinlil ramat(?)
17 [. . .]rabt sam attma dEnlil add kusska
18 [. . . at]tma dipar sam namirtu lumur t sipti.
H
19 [. . . ina] musi ana uri telema(?) niqnakku burasi u mashati ina pani kakkab eriqqi
20 [. . .] kakkab eriqqi
(rest lost)
656
Botes accept (my prayer)! Botes accept! Botes drive out (the sorceress)!
[Botes drive ou]t! Botes be present! Botes be present!
Botes come! Botes come!
[Botes] strike (the sorceress)! Botes strike! Botes undo (the sorcery)!
[Bot]es undo! The deity who proceeded, the deity who proceeded.
The deity who spokeproceed! the deity who spokeproceed! the
deity who proceededhear!
The deity who proceededhear! My godhear (my) prayer!
My godhear (my) prayer! Formula of incantation.
657
(D)
1 [. . .] shall be purified in pure waters of sprouted alkali and sulphur
2 [. . .] you wash his hands, at night you sweep the roof, you sprinkle pure
water, scented flour of(?) large barley and juniper sap
3 you place [in] a censer, you libate pure water, you recite an incantation
three times in front of Arcturus (Botes) and you will see a sign
(decision).
(E)
4 [P]leiades proceed! Pleiades proceed! Pleiades come! Pleiades come!
5 [Plei]ades be present! Pleiades be present! Pleiades take possession!
Pleiades take possession!
6 [Pleiad]es undo (the sorcery)! Pleiades undo! Pleiades be gracious!
Pleiades be gracious!
7 [Pleiad]es hear! Pleiades hear! Formula of incantation.
(F)
9 [. . .] at night you sweep the roof, you sprinkle pure water, scented flour
of(?) large barley and juniper sap you gather(?) . . .
10 [. . .] in the fire you place bramble(?) on top of the censer, large barley
(and) sulphur you will see together (with) oil(?). An incantation(?)
11 [. . .]. . . and a tamarisk in your right hand you carry.
12 [. . .] in your left hand(?) you . . . and pure water you libate to (in) front
of the regular stars.
13 [. . .] times you recite and prostate yourself and the decision will indeed
be powerfully auspicious(??).
(G)
14 The wandering star; ditto; the bow-star (Canis Maior) of the favorable
utterance; ditto; the man of favorable utterance; ditto.
15 [The man of the wandering(?) star of favorable utterance; ditto; the man
of the bow-star of favorable utterance; ditto; the man who always
receives the regular bow-star; ditto.
16 [The man . . .]who listens; ditto. Oil of cedar, oil of incense of cedar. Oh
Ninlil, exalted
17 [. . .], great one of heaven you (fem.) verily are. Oh Enlil, I have set up
your throne.
18 [. . .] you (fem.) verily are. I will surely see the shining torch of heaven
(is) the formula of the incantation.
(H)
19 At night you go up(?) to the roof and a censer of juniper and scented
flour in front of the wagon-star
(Rest lost)
658
Subject
selecting it
82
the dead of night
105
shooting star passing from your left to your
right (unpropitious)
107 f.
ditto from your back to your front (propitious)
109
ditto entering Ursa Maior
67
cleaning roof, sprinkling water, and placing
incense in censer
68
repeating incantation three times
I cannot pretend to have solved all the problems inherent in the three
texts. But they may serve to illustrate the riches remaining unpublished
in the Yale Babylonian Collection, and to invite inquiries even before
the catalogue is fully completed and on line.
22 Cf. also Maql I 29, where the gods of the night (i.e., the stars and planets) are
invoked to strike the sorceress (on the check). (Reference courtesy Francesca Rochberg,
who also provided crucial help with sections C and E.) For parallels to the Maql.
passage, see I. Tzvi Abusch, Babylonian Witchcraft Literature (Atlanta, 1987), 8994.
x
sumerian literature and the bible
x.1
SUMERIAN LITERATURE:
BACKGROUND TO THE BIBLE
1 Or Arabian Gulf, depending on the point of view. A recent New York Times
editorial (September 20, 1987) suggested that, to avoid oense to either side in the
current hostilities, it should be renamed the Sumerian Gulf.
2 Samuel Noah Kramer, History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-nine Firsts in Mans Recorded
History (Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1981).
662
663
664
See M. Civil, Sumerian Riddles: A Corpus, Aula Orientalis 5 (1987), pp. 1737.
665
(Linen grows from a flax plant and clothes the divine statue, and the
extract from the plant is used medicinally.)
The most famous riddle in the Hebrew Bible is in the Samson
story. Near the Philistine town of Timnah, Samson tore a roaring
lion apart with his bare hands. The following year, he returned and
found a swarm of bees and their honey in the lions skeleton. At his
wedding feast Samsons first wife was an unnamed Philistine woman
from Timnah*Samson propounded a riddle:
Out of the eater came something to eat,
Out of the strong came something sweet.
Judges 14:14**
With tears and nagging, Samsons wife wheedled the answer out of him,
and then told the answer to the Philistines, who solved the riddle and
claimed the prize:
What is sweeter than honey,
And what is stronger than a lion?
Judges 14:18
666
This catalogue exhibits the typical biblical roster of seven items but,
otherwise, it is remarkably similar in form to the Sumerian example.
Interestingly, the Sumerian rosters of divine abominations more often
are concerned with manners and morals, while the Hebrew rosters are
more concerned with cultic errors.9
The Talmud is a collection of Jewish law and teachings, comprising the Mishnah
and the Gemara, a commentary on the Mishnah. It exists in two versions: the Palestinian or Jerusalem Talmud, compiled around 400 ad, and the Babylonian Talmud,
compiled around 500 ad.
8 William W. Hallo, The Lame and the Halt, Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), pp. 6670, here:
VIII.1.
9 See Hallo, Biblical Abominations and Sumerian Taboos, Jewish Quarterly Review
76 (1985): 2140, here: VIII.3.
667
668
just suerer vented his frustrations, while at the same time trying to
assert his belief in the ultimate justice of fate. One of these Sumerian
treatises has survived in nearly complete form; its resemblance to the
biblical Book of Job is close enough to suggest an ultimate dependence
of Job on the Sumerian version, or at least on later Akkadian variations
on this same theme. The structural parallels between the biblical and
Mesopotamian accounts are especially close in the poetic portions of
Job. And while these portions of the Book of Job are generally regarded
as having been composed quite late, they are nevertheless framed by a
prose prologue and epilogue that has many archaic features, including
vaguely patriarchal and specifically Mesopotamian allusions. For example, when Job was restored to his former state at the end of the prose
frame, he was given one qes. itah and one gold ring by each of his siblings
and former friends (Job 42:11). This enigmatic detail can now be seen as
a reflection of the token prize awarded to the winner at the conclusion
of some Sumerian disputations.12
Thus far we have dealt with wisdom literature, and hence with its
focus on the common man and his concerns: solving lifes little riddles,
observing ethical norms, making a living o the land and, through
it all, avoidingor at least coping withthe wrath of the gods. But
the common man was not the common reader, for literacy was not
widespread in Sumer. Though the scribal schools enrolled commoners
as pupils, the main markets for literary products of the schools were the
court and the temple.
Then as now, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Royal patrons
demanded royal themes, and priestly patrons required religious themes.
So let us turn to some of the genres specifically devoted to kings and
godsoften commingled, for kings were regarded as gods in their own
right during the half millennium between 2300 bc and 1800 bc when
Sumerian literary creativity was at its peakin what I consider the
classical period of ancient Mesopotamian culture.
We may begin again with antediluvian traditions. One of the earliest, and certainly the most important, of these is the so-called Sumerian
King List. This could better be called the Sumerian city list, for it is a
record of all the citiesfive before the Flood and eleven thereafter
that ruled Sumer from the dawn of history to the accession of Hammu12 J.J.A. van Dijk, La dcouverte de la culture littraire sumrienne et sa signification pour lhistoire de lantiquit orientale, Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia 1 (1957),
pp. 528, esp. pp. 1518.
669
rapi, in about 1800 bc The five antediluvian cities were ruled by eight
kings with incredibly long reigns, of whom the last became the hero
of the Sumerian Flood Story. There were also seven fabulous creatures
who, according to other Babylonian traditions, brought learning and
the arts of civilization to Sumer, and served as counselors to the antediluvian kings.
In the biblical version of antediluvian traditions, we hear of no kings,
and of only one city, named for the son of its builder Enoch, Irad,
reminiscent of the first Sumerian city Eridu.* And the biblical version
turns both lists of antediluviansthe Cainite line of Genesis 4 as well
as the Sethite line of Genesis 5into genealogies. But the similarities
in the names of both lines, the presence of culture-heroes in one of
them, and of the flood-hero, together with legendary life-spans, in the
other, all conspire to show the biblical record here ultimately indebted
to the Sumerian. The Bible diers, however, in deriving all mankind
from a common ancestor.13
Turning to the Flood itself, we have already met its royal Sumerian
protagonist, Shuruppak, in connection with the wisdom literature. But
we meet him again, this time as Ziusudra, king of the city Shuruppak,
in the context of a story of the Flood known from a single fragmentary
text which, in spite of its gaps, suces to indicate that, via various
Akkadian versions, it inspired the biblical tale of Noah.
In the Sumerian tradition, kingship came down from heaven a second time after the Flood and was domiciled in successive cities beginning with Kish and Uruk, the latter familiar to us as Erech in Genesis 10. Uruk was governed by a succession of rulers who became the
protagonists of Sumerian epicthough we cannot claim epic as a
separate genre in Sumerian. Instead we have a group of poems that
end in a formula of praise (the so-called doxology) in honor of these
semi-legendary, semi-divine rulers of Uruk. The tales of their conflicts
with Kish and with distant Aratta became the stu of a heroic age celebrated in the royal courts of later Sumerian dynasties. The most popular of these tales, notably those about Gilgamesh, were translated or
adapted into Akkadian and in this form passed from the Mesopotamian
scribal schools to those of Anatolia, Syria and Palestine; a fragment of
* Reading Genesis 4:17 thus: and Cain knew his wife and she conceived and gave
birth to Enoch, and he became the (first) city-builder, and hethat is, Enochcalled
the name of the city after the name of his son, on the analogy of Genesis 4:12.
13 Hallo, Antediluvian Cities, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23 (1970), pp. 5767.
670
a cuneiform tablet (dating from about 1400 bc) with an extract from the
Akkadian Gilgamesh was excavated at Megiddo, near Haifa in modern
Israel. Thus it is not wholly unexpected to find individual lines, usually
proverbial sayings, from these epics quoted, in entirely dierent contexts, in the Bible. For example, Ecclesiastes 4:12 contains the aphorism,
A three-fold cord is not readily broken, to illustrate the point that two
are better than one, and three better than two. This saving has been
traced to the Akkadian line in the fifth tablet of the Gilgamesh Epic
referring to a three-ply cord;14 its ultimate source is Sumerian, however
The three-ply rope will not (easily) be cut.15
Beyond these isolated echoes, however, Sumerian epic as a genre
found little place in the Bible: unlike the antediluvian Sumerian kings,
the later Sumerian hero-kings could not be construed as ancestral to
mankind as a whole, let alone to Israel. Nor could the Sumerian hymns
in honor of living kings, the so-called royal hymns, provide much that
would be useful to the Israelite psalmist The Sumerian royal hymns,
a large and characteristic genre or group of genres in Sumerian, were
intimately tied to the notion of divine kingshipa concept that, though
not at home in Mesopotamia in the sense or to the extent familiar from
Egypt, was the prevalent ideology of its classical period. In Israel,
even the notion of an earthly kingship was considered a late aberration,
a denial of the theocratic ideal in imitation of the surrounding world
and a divine kingship was totally unacceptable. On the contrary, it was
rather God who was acclaimed and glorified in royal terms. Nevertheless, a parallel of sorts to the royal hymns in honor of the Sumerian
kings may be seen in those psalms in the Hebrew Psalter that celebrate
Gods accession to kingship (or: his kingship)most particularly Psalms
93, 97 and 99, which begin, The Lord has become [NJV: is] king.
Such psalms typically employ the imagery of kingship and its regalia,
in lines such as Your throne stands firm from of old (Psalm 93:2) or
righteousness and justice are the base of His throne (Psalm 97:2), we
may hear echoes of such standard sentiments as He [the divine Enlil]
has made the foundation of my throne firm for me, which comes from
the coronation-hymn of king Ur-Nammu of Ur.16
14 Aaron Shaer, The Mesopotamian Background of Lamentations [sic!] 4:912,
Eretz-Israel 8 (1967), pp. 246250 (in Hebrew, English summary p. 75*).
15 Shaer, New Light on the three-ply cord, Eretz-Israel 9 (1969), pp. 159 f. (in
Hebrew, English summary pp. 138 f.).
16 Hallo, The Coronation of Ur-Nammu, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 20 (1966),
pp. 133141, here: III.2, esp. p. 141. line 15.
671
672
18 J.J. Finkelstein, Sex Oenses in Sumerian Laws, Journal of the American Oriental
Society 86 (1966), pp. 355372.
19 Martin Buber, Pointing the Way (London: Harper & Row, 1957), p. 197; republished
in On the Bible (New York: Schocken, 1968), p. 177.
* On Reed Sea versus Red Sea, see Bernard F. Batto, Red Sea or Reed Sea?
Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1984.
673
20 Hallo and J.J.A. van Dijk, The Exaltation of Inanna (New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
Press, 1968).
21 W.C. Gwaltney, Jr., The Biblical Book of Lemantations in the Context of Near
Eastern Lament Literature, in Scripture in Context 2, ed. Hallo, J.C. Moyer, and L.G.
Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), pp. 191211.
674
22 Jerrold Cooper, New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs, Journal of Biblical
Literature 90 (1971), pp. 157162.
675
comparison or by contrast, the rediscovery of Sumerian literature permits a profounder appreciation of the common, as well as of the distinctive, achievements of biblical literature.23
23 Hallo, Compare and Contrast: The Contextual Approach to Biblical Literature, in Scripture in Context 3 (forthcoming), here: X.2.
x.2
COMPARE AND CONTRAST: THE CONTEXTUAL
APPROACH TO BIBLICAL LITERATURE
678
679
680
rian.
7
See Hallo 1990, here: VIII.4, for a study of proverbs and intertextuality in SumeFor recent critiques of Nuzi parallels, see de Vaux 1978: 241256.
681
the Hebrew Bible availed itself of the idiom and the literary legacy of
all the descendants of Adam, and not just those of Shem, or Eber, or
Abraham, or Israel. If so, then we are entitled to look to all the people
of the Table of Nations (Genesis 10) for elements of that legacy, at least
in theory.
In practice, any alleged interchange of ideas or expressions between
biblical and other Near Eastern authors needs to face the questions as
to where, when and even in what direction it might have occurred.
The last question, in particular, has too rarely been raised. Yet we
should not rule out from the beginning the possibility that here and
there the biblical formulation, theme or institution may have conceivably influenced its Near Eastern counterpart. The tradition of seven
lean years in Egypt, for example, appears in an Egyptian tale set a millennium before Joseph but was composed no earlier than the Greek
period (ANET : 3132);8 it may well owe something to biblical precedent. The birth legend of Sargon of Akkad has many striking similarities to that of Moses, again a thousand years later; but it is probably
a product of the court scribes of Sargon II of Assyria in the eighth
century, and conceivably indebted to the story of Moses birth. Alternatively, both treatments may go back to a common folkloristic theme
(ANET : 119; cf. Lewis 1980). The provincial administration devised by
King Solomon preserved in structural outlinewhile it transformed
in essential spiritthe earlier tribal system of pre-monarchic Israel; it
thus may have been an adaptation to contemporary Egyptian taxation
systems or, on the contrary, their source of inspiration (Redford 1972;
Green 1979; Chambers 1983).
The fact that we cannot always be sure of the place, the date, or the
direction of the borrowing does not invalidate either the comparative or
the contextual approach: modern literary criticism properly investigates
literary parallels without necessarily or invariably finding the exact
route by which a given idea passed from one author to another. And
given the fragmentary nature of the ancient record, the answers cannot
always be forthcoming.
What can and must be answered is: what are to be the terms of
the comparison and the contrast? The answer depends on the level at
which the evidence is studied. One could do so on the purely linguistic
level, and many lexicographic, grammatical, and stylistic insights have
8 Cf. Redford 1970: 206207; Lichtheim 1980, vol. 3: 94103, and note the connection to Elephantine. Cf. below, n. 25.
682
9 Cf. the work of Moshe Held in this regard, which is catalogued in Hallo 1985a
and assessed in Hallo 1985b, here: VIII.3. Cf. Fisher 19721981.
683
1979) and in Transjordan (Hoftijzer 1976).10 The latter find also features a long list of curses, like the catalogue of blessings and curses in
Deuteronomy 28. But the closest connections of this catalogue are with
the loyalty oaths imposed on his vassals by the seventh century Assyrian
king Esarhaddon (680669 bce). In numerous exemplars dated three
years before his death, he adjured each of his eastern vassals to fealty
to himself and, after his demise, to his designated successors, on pain
of suering a lengthy succession of fearsome curses (ANET : 538539;
cf. Wiseman 1958; Frankena 1965; Weinfeld 1965; 1976). Some of these
curses occur in virtually identical form and even in the same order
in Deuteronomy.11 And the ecacy of such curses was described (in
Deut 29:2324) in what William L. Moran has aptly termed one of
the most striking parallels . . .between cuneiform and biblical literature
in any period (Moran 1963: 83; cf. Bickerman 1979: 75; 1986: 288).
So much for topoi. But perhaps the most fruitful literary comparisons
and contrasts can be drawn on the level of genre, that is, of a compositional type conforming to a given pattern and serving a specific function. This is not to throw in my lot with form-criticism (Tucker 1971),12
but rather to adhere to that other stricture of the proposed approach,
namely to juxtapose like with like, category by category and genre by
genre (Hallo 1968: 73; 1980b: 35, 1112; cf. Pardee 1985).13 In this concern for genre-analysis, I find myself in agreement with Parker (1980).14
I also share his preference for a functional and contextual definition of
genre (Parker 1980: 3940).15
My first illustration comes from the work of B.A. Levine, who began
his scholarly career in Ugaritic, a corpus which is predominantly literary or, as I would call it, canonical in character. But it includes a small
684
685
18
686
19 See Gwaltney 1983, which includes a survey of the relevant literature. For a short
genre-history of Sumerian congregational laments, see Vanstiphout 1986: 79.
20 Cf. most recently Malamat 1987.
687
21
n. 17.
Buber 1957: 197 = 1968: 177, cited by Hallo 1966: 234, n. 26; McFadden 1983: 131,
688
22
689
23
690
to mention only that and not the other kinds of biblical legislation,
finds many comparisons in the cuneiform corpus, even though here
we face the issue of when and where that particular relationship might
have been brought to bear, and the answer to that is a very dicult
one.
It is time to sum up. Biblical literature confronts us with a closed
corpus, the end product of a long redactional history. The comparative data in Mesopotamian cuneiform provides us with the documents
that went into the making of the successive Sumerian and Akkadian
canons (Hallo 1976b). Properly used, these documents can replace the
hypothetical documents that presumably went into the making of the
biblical canon, and this allows us a glimpse into the literary and cultural context on which the biblical authors drew to speak with the language of all mankind. I have chosen to illustrate the inherent possibilities of this approach in terms of literary genres. It could, with equal
profit, be attempted in terms of individual verses and pericopes or of
specific literary devices, such as acrostics, or of motifs and topoi. What
counts is that, in the understandable revulsion against parallelomania,
we not subject the biblical data to an equally unbridled parallelophobia.26
Bibliography
Ackroyd, P.R.
1982 Isaiah 3639. AOAT 211: 321.
Bickerman, E.
1967 Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther. New York:
Schocken.
1979 Nebuchadnezzar and Jerusalem. Pp. 4647, 6985 in PAAJR.
1986 Studies in Jewish and Christian History, Vol. 3 in Arbeiten zur Geschichte
des antiken Judentums und Urchristentums 9.
Biggs, R.D.
1985 The Babylonian Prophecies and the Astrological Tradition of Mesopotamia. JCS 37: 8690.
26 This term has been introduced into the discussion by Ratner and Zuckerman
1986: 52.
691
692
Fisher, L.
19721981 Ras Shamra Parallels. 3 vols. AnOr 4951. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.
Frankena, R.
1965 The Vassal-Treaties of Esarhaddon and the Dating of Deuteronomy.
OTS 14: 122154.
Gevirtz, S.
1969 A Fathers Curse. Mosaic 2/3: 5661.
Grayson, A.K.
1969 Assyrian and Babylonian King Lists: Collations and Comments. AOAT
1: 105118.
1975 Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5.
Locust Valley, NY: Augustin.
Grayson, A.K., and Lambert, W.G.
1964 Akkadian Prophecies. JCS 18: 730.
Green, A.R.
1979 Israelite Influence at Shishaks Court? BASOR 233: 5962.
Guinan, A.
1988 The Perils of High Living in summa alu. Abstracts RAI 35. Philadelphia.
Gwaltney, Jr., W.C.
1983 The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context of Near Eastern
Lament Literature. Pp. 191211 in SIC II.
Hackett, J.A.
1987 Religious Traditions in Israelite Transjordan, Pp. 125136 in Ancient
Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, eds. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson, S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Hallo, W.W.
1964 The Slandered Bride. Pp. 95105 in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim
June 7, 1964. Chicago.
1966 Akkadian Apocalypses. IEJ 16:231241.
1967 New Texts from the Reign of Sin-iddinam. JCS 21: 9599.
1968 Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition. Pp. 71
89 in Essays in Memory of E. A. Speiser, ed. William W. Hallo. AOS 53.
New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society, here: VI.1.
1970 The Cultic Setting of Sumerian Poetry. RAI 17: 116134, here: I.2.
1973 Problems in Sumerian Hermeneutics. Perspectives in Jewish Learning 5:
112, here: I.3.
1976a The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: I. A Sumerian Prototype for the
Prayer of Hezekiah? AOAT 25: 209224, here: V.1.
1976b Toward a History of Sumerian Literature. Sumerological Studies in Honor
of T. Jacobsen, AS 20: 181203, here: I.4.
1976c Women of Sumer. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 4: 2330, 129138.
693
694
Hillers, D.R.
1985 Analyzing the Abominable: Our Understanding of Canaanite Religion. JQR 75: 256269.
Hoftijzer, J.
1976 The Prophet Balaam in a 6th Century Aramaic Inscription. BA 39:
1117.
Hurowitz, V.
1986 Another Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near EastII Kings 12:517
and a Letter to Esarhaddon (LAS 277). JNES 45: 289294.
Jacobsen, T.
1974 Very Ancient Linguistics in Studies in the History of Linguistics, ed. Dell
Hymes. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Kaufman, S.A.
1982 The Temple Scroll and Higher Criticism. HUCA 53: 2943.
Kevin, R.O.
1931 The Wisdom of Amen-em-apt and Its Possible Dependence Upon the
Hebrew Book of Proverbs. JSOR 14:115157.
Klein, J.
1982 Personal God and Individual Prayer in Sumerian Religion. RAI
28=AfO Beiheft 19: 295306.
Kramer, S.N.
1960 Two Elegies on a Pushkin Museum Tablet. Moscow: Oriental Literature.
Kraus, F.R.
1936 Ein Sittenkanon in Omenform. ZA 43: 77113.
Levine, B.A.
1963 Ugaritic Descriptive Rituals. JCS 17: 105111.
1965 The Descriptive Ritual Texts of the Pentateuch. JAOS 85: 307318.
1983 The Descriptive Ritual Texts from Ugarit: Some Formal and Functional Features of the Genre. Pp. 467475 in The Word of the Lord Shall
Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman, eds. Carol L. Meyers
and Michael OConnor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Levine, B.A., and Hallo, W.W.
1967 Oerings to the Temple Gates at Ur. HUCA 38: 1758.
Lewis, B.
1980 The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero Who
Was Exposed at Birth. ASORDS4. Cambridge, MA: ASOR.
Lichtheim, M.
19751980 Ancient Egyptian Literature. 3 vols. Berkeley: University of California.
695
Longman III, T.
1985 Form Criticism, Recent Developments in Genre Theory and the Evangelical. Westminster Theological Journal 47: 4667.
1987 Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Foundations of Contemporary
Interpretation 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Loretz, O.
1984 Habiru-Hebrer, eine sozio-linguistische Studie. ZAW Beiheft 160.
McFadden, W.R.
1983 Micah and the Problem of Continuities and Discontinuities in Prophecy. Pp. 127146 in SIC II.
Malamat, A.
1987 A Forerunner of Biblical Prophecy: the Mari Documents, Pp. 3352
in Ancient Israelite Religion, eds. Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Paul D. Hanson,
S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Meshel, Z.
1978. Kuntillet Ajrud: A Religious Centre from the Time of the Judaean Monarchy
on the Border of Sinai. Israel Museum Cat. No. 175. Jerusalem: Israel
Museum.
1979 Did Yahweh Have A Consort? The New Religious Inscriptions from
the Sinai. BAR 5: 2435.
Meshel, Z., and Meyers, C.
1976 The Name of God in the Wilderness of Zin. BA 39: 610.
Michalowski, P.
1984 Review of Jerrold S. Cooper, The Return of Ninurta to Nippur (1978).
BASOR 253: 7576.
Moran, W.L.
1963 The Ancient Near Eastern Background of the Love of God in Deuteronomy. CBQ 25: 7787.
Noth, M.
1966 Numbers. OTL Philadelphia: Westminster.
Pardee, D.
1985 Review of SIC II. JNES 44: 221222.
Parker, S.B.
1980 Some Methodological Principles in Ugaritic Philology. Maarav: 741.
Rainey, A.F.
1970 The Order of Sacrifices in Old Testament Ritual Texts. Biblica 51: 485
498.
Ratner, R., and Zuckerman, B.
1986 A Kid in Milk? New Photographs of KTU 1.23, line 14. HUCA 57:15
60.
696
Redford, D.B.
1970 A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Genesis 3750). VTS 20.
1972 Studies in Relations Between Palestine and Egypt During the First
Millennium bc Pp. 141156 in Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World, eds.
J.W. Wevers and D.B. Redford. Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies 2.
Toronto: University of Toronto.
Roth, M.
1983 The Slave and the Scoundrel: CBS 10467, a Sumerian Morality Tale?
JAOS 103: 274282.
Sachs, A.J., and Hunger, H.
1988 Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Vol. 1: Diaries from
652 bc to 262 bc. Vienna: sterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Sandmel, S.
1962 Parallelomania. JBL 81: 113.
Shaer, A.
1967 The Mesopotamian Background of Lamentations 4:912. EI 8: 246
250. Hebrew English abstract, p. 75*.
1969 New Light on the Three-ply cord. EI 9: 159160. Hebrew English
abstract, pp. 138*139*.
Tadmor, H.
1982 Treaty and Oath in the Ancient Near East: A Historians Approach.
Pp. 127152 in Humanizing Americas Iconic Book: Society of Biblical Literature
Centennial Addresses, eds. Gene M. Tucker and Douglas A. Knight.
Chico, CA: Scholars.
Talmon, S.
1981 Did There Exist a Biblical National Epic? Pp. 1161 in Studies in the Bible
and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Seventh World Congress of
Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies.
Tigay, J.H., ed.
1985 Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Tucker, G.M.
1971 Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress.
Vanstiphout, H.L.J.
1980 Some Notes on Enlil and Namzitarra. RA 74: 6771.
1986 Some Thoughts on Genre in Mesopotamian Literature. RAI 32: 111.
de Vaux, R.
1978 The Early History of Israel. Trans. David Smith. Philadelphia: Westminster.
697
Weinfeld. M.
1965 Traces of Assyrian Treaty Formulae in Deuteronomy. Biblica 46: 417
427.
1976 The Loyalty Oath in the Ancient Near East. UF 8: 379414.
Weingreen, J.
1982 dibbarah trah kilsn ban-adam. Pp. 267275 in Interpreting the Hebrew Bible:
Essays in Honour of E.I.J. Rosenthal, eds. John A. Emerton and Stefan
C. Reif. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Wiseman, D.J.
1958 The Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon. Iraq 20/1.
x.3
THE CONCEPT OF CANONICITY IN
CUNEIFORM AND BIBLICAL LITERATURE:
A COMPARATIVE APPRAISAL1
700
701
included in the Mishnah, were nevertheless deemed worthy of preserving, were called beraitt in Aramaic (equivalent to h. is. nt in Hebrew)
and quoted widely in both Talmudim, though usually enjoying less
authority than the comparable Mishnah, if it existed. Collections of
such beraitt were added to the canon. One of them, the Tosefta, paralleled the Mishnah in structure and content, but went far beyond it
in its explicitness and in its citation of biblical proof texts. In the words
of Jacob Neusner, the translator of the Tosefta, Mishnah is the trellis, Tosefta the vine.13 Thus Leimans definition of canonicity is broad
enough to encompass various degrees of authority, with the Pentateuch
enjoying a higher status than the rest of the Bible, and the Mishnah
generally prevailing over the Tosefta and other beraitt.
But even this broader definition of canon is still more specifically
religious in its connotation than the original sense of the term. For
the Greek word was first applied to literature by the scholars
of the famous library and museum of Alexandria in the third century
bce. The great librarians such as Zenodotus, Callimachus and Apollonius Rhodus14 not only used the plural for collections of the
old Greek authors . . . as being models of excellence, classics,15 but also
established an entire Alexandrian Canon16 as the authoritative, standardized corpus of the great writers of the past, arranged according to
certain principles of order.17
According to Nahum Sarna, it was this model, rather than the later
Christian one, which inspired the rabbinic eorts at canonization.18
(Similarly, we might add, it was the still later Moslem model which
inspired the related activity of the Tiberian Masoretes). And both the
Alexandrian and the rabbinic impulse to the ordering of the canon,
according to Sarna, owed much to the needs of storage and retrieval in
a library setting. Leiman disputes this notion, arguing that the rabbinic
Neziqin (New York: Ktav, 1981), p. xiii. Neusner has also illustrated the relationships of Mishnah, Tosefta and Talmud by means of a single instance involving the Sabbath liturgy; cf. Formative Judaism 3 (= Brown University Studies 46; Chico: Scholars,
1983), 156168.
14 F.E. Peters, The Harvest of Hellenism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970), esp,
pp. 194196.
15 Liddell-Scott s.v.
16 Edward A. Parsons, The Alexandrian Library (Amsterdam: Elseviers, 1952) 223228.
For the Latin equivalent, cf. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria I-IV-3, cited ibid. 225, n. 2.
17 Nahum M. Sarna, The Order of the Books, Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History
and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev (ed. Charles Berlin; New York: Ktav, 1971) 411.
18 Ibid.
13
702
impulse came rather from the equally practical question of the order in
which to inscribe two or more biblical books on a single scroll.19 And
the whole subject of book-scrolls, Bible-scrolls and the related question
of book size has been a continuing pre-occupation of Menahem Haran
in recent studies.20
But we may follow Sarna in another regard, namely that both traditions ultimately derive from Mesopotamian precedent. And since he
bases himself on my own earlier findings, I will follow him in turn in his
definition of canonization, which he describes in terms of four discrete
manifestations, as follows: (1) the emergence of a recognized corpus of
classical literature (2) the tendency to produce a standardized text
(3) a fixed arrangement of content and (4) an established sequence
in which the works were to be read or studied.21 This is canonization
in the secular sense of the wordprecisely the way it has most often
been used in discussing the Mesopotamian evidence, to which I may
now at last turn.
In a recent thumbnail sketch of the history of the question by Miguel
Civil,22 the first systematic application of the concept of canonization to
cuneiform lexical and literary texts is attributed to Benno Landsberger
(1933)23 and his pupils. Among the latter Civil lists L. Matous (1933), W.
von Soden (1936) and H.S. Schuster (1938), although the last uses the
concept only casually.24 He might have begun the list with A. Falkenstein, who in his 1931 dissertation already defined canonization as a
normatively valid sequence both of the individual incantations with
respect to each other, and of the series [we could say books] composed
of successive tablets [we could say chapters].25
703
But it was W.G. Lambert who first gave the concept wider currency within Assyriology. In a 1957 article entitled Ancestors, authors
and canonicity26 he discussed, i.a., the colophon of a medical text
which claimed to be composed in the second year of Enlil-bani of
Isin (ca. 1859 bce) according to the old sages from before the flood
(sa p apkalle labiruti sa lam abubi), and that of a hemerology prepared
in the time of Nazimaruttas of the Kassite dynasty (ca. 13071282 bce)
according to the seven s[ages], and concluded:
There is a Babylonian conception which is implicit in the colophons just
cited and which is stated plainly by Berossus: that the sum of the revealed
knowledge was given once and for all by the antediluvian sages.27 This
is a remarkable parallel to the rabbinic view that Gods revelation in its
entirety is contained in the Torah.28
Hinrichs, 1931; reprint 1968) 10 f. (my translation). In notes 1 f (to p. 11), Falkenstein
allows for divergences in the sequence due to local or chronological dierences.
26 JCS 11 (1957) 114, 112.
27 For the passage cited here by Lambert, see now Stanley M. Burstein, The
Babyloniaca of Berossus, SANE 1 (1978) 13 f. S.J. Lieberman informs me that, according
to collation, the colophon of the hemerology can be restored as 7 um-[ma-ni] (7
(7 tablets) but not as 7 ap-[kal-le]. Cf. Hallo, Nippur
scholars) or 7 DUB.[MES]
Originals, DUMU.E2.DUB.BA.A: Studies in Honor of ke W. Sjberg (ed. H. Behrens, et
al.; Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11; Philadelphia, 1989)
239, n. 30, here: III.5.
28 Ancestors, 9.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid. For a dierent assessment of the Nazi-maruttas colophon see H. Hunger,
Babylonische und Assyrische Kolophone (= AOAT 2; Neukirchen-Vluyn; Neukirchener, 1968)
6 n. 1.
704
of such a text from its Sumerian beginnings. The evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic has been traced in all possible detail by Jerey H. Tigay
in what was originally his Yale dissertation,31 and the implications of
this and other ancient Near Eastern examples have been considered by
Tigay and others in his new volume on Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism.32 Suce it to say that, leaving aside such peripheral developments
as translations or reflexes of Gilgamesh in Hurrian and Hittite,33 we can
identify no less than four discrete stages in the evolution of the Epic,34
beginning with the separate Sumerian episodic compositions (some of
themlike Gilgamesh and the Land of the Livingthemselves tradited in two distinct recensions, one longer and the other shorter),35
that probably originated in neo-Sumerian times (ca. twenty-first century bce), continuing with an Akkadian adaptation of Old Babylonian
date (ca. eighteenth century bce) which was not a mere translation from
the Sumerian, and which may or may not have retained the episodic
character of the Sumerian,36 and expanding in a third stage37 to what
by now was indubitably a continuous, unitary epic, with a unifying
thread or theme, complete in eleven tablets or chapters, augmented
over the Old Babylonian recension by a prologue of twenty-six lines,38
including five that recurred verbatim at the end of the eleventh tablet
and thus provided a frame of sorts for the whole composition, and
no doubt by other, less obvious and, some might say, less felicitous
The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1982).
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1985).
33 Cf. Tigay, Evolution, 111119; H. Otten, RLA 3 (1968) 372.
34 See the convenient summary by Tigay in his Empirical Models, 3546, from which
mine diverges in details only.
35 As to the appropriateness of these terms see M. de J. Ellis, AfO 28 (19811982)
129131.
36 On this point see also Hope Nash Wol, Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the heroic
life, JAOS 89 (1969) 393 n. 2; J.H. Tigay, Was There an Integrated Gilgamesh Epic in
the Old Babylonian Period? Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of J.J. Finkelstein (ed. M.
de J. Ellis; Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, Transactions 1977) 215218. See
n. 83 below.
37 Middle Babylonian according to Tigay, late Old Babylonian according to Lambert, JCS 16 (1962) 77. For the 14th century (?) Akkadian Gilgamesh fragments from
Hattusha, of which Tigay had only one (Evolution, 121123), the 1983 excavations turned
up six more, including one with weitgehend wrtliche bereinstimmungen zur altbabylonischen Fassung der Pennsylvania-Tafel, womit fr die berlieferungsgeschichte
dieser bedeutsamen epischen Dichtung ein neuer, wichtiger Hinweis gewonnen ist,
according to H. Otten, Archologischer Anzeiger (1984/3) 375.
38 A. Shaer apud D.J. Wiseman, A Gilgamesh Epic Fragment from Nimrud, Iraq
37 (1975) 158 n. 22.
31
32
705
expansions,39 traditionally assigned to Sin-liqi-unninni, an exorcist (masmassu) of the Kassite period.40 The final stage, sometimes loosely alluded
to as the canonical version, is the twelve-tablet recension best known
from copies in the royal Assyrian libraries of the seventh century but
conceivably of older date, and expanded beyond the Kassite recension by the addition41 i.a. of a twelfth tablet made up entirely of a literal
translation of the second half of one of the Gilgamesh episodes of the
original Sumerian stage. This final canonical version is essentially
identical in all exemplars now known, whether from Nineveh, Assur or
provincial libraries such as Sultan Tepe in neo-Assyrian times, or from
the diverse Babylonian libraries that continued into Hellenistic or even
Parthian times.42 The very fact of the survival of these exemplars and
their uniformity argues persuasively if circumstantially for just such a
process of a selection and authoritative edition as Lambert requires of a
true canon.43
The case of Enuma Anu Enlil is also instructive, if complex. Like
most of the mantic texts, the astrological omens stand out in the cuneiform corpus by the thoroughness of their systematization. They are
the end-product of a long and deliberate critical eort which produced
the ancient equivalent of tables of contents, critical apparatus, commentaries and other elements of a scholarly and bibliographic apparatus. The mere survival of several variant ocial editions is thus not
necessarily an argument against their canonical status, as Lambert
held. But he has been followed closely in this regard by the specialists
in cuneiform astronomy themselves, most notably and most recently,
39 Cf. e.g. Jerrold S. Cooper, Gilgamesh Dreams of Enkidu: the Evolution and
Dilution of Narrative, Finkelstein AV (1977) 3944.
40 Lambert, JCS 16 (1962) 66 f. vi 10.
41 A trivial illustration of such expansion may be seen in the winds (of Shamash)
with whose help Gilgamesh and Enkidu overpower Huwawa. In the Sumerian version
(Gilgamesh and the Land of the Living) there are seven, in the Hittite version (based
on the Middle Babylonian one?) eight, in the neo-Babylonian version thirteen. See
J. Renger, Zur Fnften Tafel des Gilgameschepos, Language, Literature, and History:
Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner (ed. Francesa Rochberg-Halton;
AOS 67; New Haven, 1987) 320.
42 Tigay, Empirical Models, 39; Evolution, 251 and n. 2; CT 46:30; Hunger, Kolophone,
No. 148.
43 Tigay, Empirical Models, 43 and n. 91, where the late version is described as nearly
a textus receptus. For the contrary view see Lambert, Ancestors, 9 and n. 34. J. Renger,
Zur fnften Tafel des Gilgameschepos, Reiner AV, 317, also considers the possibility
that a newly excavated Uruk fragment, and other exemplars in neo-Babylonian script,
represent a recension diverging from the canonical version.
706
the
non-canonical] tablet of Enuma Anu Enlil.45 For Rochberg-Halton,
Jewish (and Christian) concept of canonicity implied divine authority,
the morally binding character of the texts, and its fixed. . . nature46
hardly the hallmarks of the Akkadian canon. The only shared features between the latter and the biblical canons are text stability and
fixed sequence of tablets within a series.47 On this narrow basis, only
the series themselves (Akk. iskaru) are our presumed canonical texts,
or ocial editions. The non-canonical literary texts include those
described as extraneous (ah), orally transmitted (sa p umman), com
mentaries (mukallimtu), explanatory
word lists (s. tu), excerpts (liqtu), and
48
other forms of scholia presumably including catalogues of literary
texts (which, themselves, acquired a certain fixity).49
Concentrating on the extraneous texts, Rochberg-Halton noted
that these are attested for the following classes of literature:50 divination (celestial, terrestrial, physiognomic, teratological); menologies
(iqqur ipus ); medical prescriptions (Hunger, Kolophone 329); lexicography
(MSL 14:168) and lamentations (4R53:34 f. = catalogue of balags);51 they
are contrasted not only with the (ocial) series (iskaru) but with texts
described as good (damqu) (ABL 453 rev. 14 and 13:25). Then she
examined one of the few available pairs of good and extraneous
recensions, namely the 15th22nd chapter of the astronomical omen
series and the assumed 29th chapter of its extraneous counterpart.
She found very little overlap between the two, so that the extraneous
ah material constitutes a genuinely separate tradition from that of
707
708
709
in an article67 which, with some modifications,68 has won wide acceptance.69 I have dealt with the archival category in other articles and
books70 and helped to establish a whole school of archival research
at Yale.71 In my Ancient Near East: a History (1971), I provided a broader
forum for my views72 (esp. pp. 154156), and I have refined and reapplied them periodically since then, most notably in The House of
Ur-meme,73 in Sumerian historiography,74 and in Notes from the
Babylonian Collection.75
While thus defining and analyzing the concept of canonicity in cuneiform literature, I was also developing the concept of a succession of
discrete canons. I distinguished four of these in 1968,76 and defended
this chronology more explicitly in 1976, tying each canon to a major
phase in the cultural and linguistic history of Mesopotamia.77 Specifically, I argued for the successive appearance of an Old Sumerian,
neo-Sumerian, Akkadian, and bilingual (Sumero-Akkadian) canon. I
followed each through its progression from the creation of its individual components, though their adaptation, to their final canonization,
and set each of these stages in its presumed context in the cultural and
political history of Mesopotamia. Much the same could be done, no
doubt, with the briefer histories of other corpora of cuneiform literature, notably those in Hittite and Ugaritic.
The Royal Inscriptions of Ur: A Typology, HUCA 33 (1962) 143.
G. van Driel, On Standard and Triumphal Inscriptions, Symbolae biblicae
mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodora de Liagre Bhl dedicatae (ed. M.A. Beek, et al.;
Leiden: Brill, 1972) 99106; idem, JAOS 93 (1973) 6774; A.K. Grayson, JAOS 90 (1970)
529 and Or 49 (1980) 156 f.
69 E. Sollberger and J.-R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumriennes et akkadiennes (= Litteratures anciennes du Proche-Orient 3; Paris: Cerf, 1971) 2436.
70 E.g. Sumerian Archival Texts (= TLB 3; Leiden: Netherlands Institute for the Near
East, 1973).
71 Hallo, God, King and Man at Yale, Slate and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near
East 1 (ed. E. Lipinski;
710
711
712
713
714
In the Jewish, as in the Christian experience, the process went all the
way. The biblical canon was closed and eventually this was true as well
of Mishnah and Talmudboth Talmudim. The Akkadian canon kept
growing, as is illustrated by the astronomical omina, which were in part
recorded from new observation on wax tablets allowing for alteration,
or from the astronomical diary texts which, beginning probably in
747 bce, were (as I think) intended to provide a new database to replace
the older astrology altogether.103 But such diaries were still being created
eight centuries later, when cuneiform writing ceased altogether and the
arts of the Chaldeans or diviners fell into disuse.104 And similarly,
all earlier canons fell victim to the destruction of the Mesopotamian
cultures that produced them before they had achieved fully canonical
shapei.e., the form of a single compendium that included all canonical texts and excluded all others. Parenthetically, it is an irony of modern scholarship that Assyriologists have been striving for a century to
finish this unfinished task, to produce such a final cuneiform canon
while, paradoxically, biblicists have been striving for over two centuries
(ever since Jean Astruc in 1753)105 to break down the biblical canon into
its hypothetical documents. But that is an aside. What counts is that by
the broad definition, both cuneiform and biblical literature arose out of
a wider context which also produced (and bequeathed to modern rediscovery) other kinds of written evidence best described, in the cuneiform
case (where it is vastly more extensive) as archival and monumental, in
the biblical case (where it is extremely limited) as occasional and monumental.106
103
See now Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related
Texts from Babylonia, vol. 1: Diaries from 652 bc to 262 bc (sterreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, Denkschriften 195, 1988).
104 Hallo, The Nabonassar Era and Other Epochs in Mesopotamian Chronology
and Chronography, Sachs AV (1988) 175190, esp. p. 188.
105 Conjectures on the Reminiscences which Moses Appears to Have Used in Composing the Book
of Genesis; cited by Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1975) 19. Original title: Conjectures sur les mmoires originaux, dont il parait que Moise sest servi
pour composer le livre de la Gense.
106 Alan R. Millard, The Question of Israelite Literacy, Bible Review 3/3 (Fall
1987) 2231. esp. p. 22: Ancient Hebrew inscriptions can be divided into three classes
monumental, formal and occasional. His occasional category is reserved for grati,
which have no obvious analogue in cuneiform, while his formal category combines
texts that I would regard as monumental (e.g. seals and seal impressions, inscriptions on
objects) with those best seen as archival (e.g. accounts on ostraca). Cf. also idem, The
Practice of Writing in Ancient Israel, BA 35 (1972) 98111; BA Reader 4 (1983) 181195;
715
716
x.4
SUMERIAN LITERATURE
718
Suruppak
and other southern sites, and texts subsequently discovered
at Ebla in Syria, the Abu Salabikh texts expanded the chronological
horizon of Sumerian literature back almost to the beginnings of writing. The significance of these early Sumerian texts for biblical scholarship remains to be seen.
Given the chronological extent and generic diversity of the corpus,
each genre will here be considered in the approximate order in which
it first appeared in the corpus. Within each phase, the genres will be
treated by focus, which is typically god, king, or (common) man, though
some few genres focus on two or all three. (For a general attempt at
the history of the corpus, see Hallo 1976; for a detailed typology and
bibliography, see Edzard RLA 7: 3548; for biblical analogies, see Hallo
1988.)
B. Genres First Attested in the Old Sumerian Phase (ca. 25002200 bc)
719
720
The deification of the Sumerian king during this phase led to a certain
commingling of sacred and royal literature and to the emergence of
several new genres responding to the new ideology. (Though known
from later copies, their composition can be dated here on internal
grounds.) The king was regarded at once as of divine and human
parentage, the product of a physical union in which the royal partners represented deities, most often Dumuzi and Inanna or their
Akkadian equivalents Tammuz (cf. Ezek 8:14) and Ishtar. An extensive
body of poetry celebrated these sacred marriage rites and, together
with more strictly secular love poetry addressed to the king or recited
antiphonally by him and his bride, anticipated the Song of Songs in its
explicit eroticism (Kramer ANET, 496, 637645; 1969; Jacobsen 1987).
Divine hymns now often concluded with a prayer for the reigning king,
presumably for recitation in the temple. But the courtly ceremonial
engendered a new genre of its own, the royal hymn, in which the chief
events and achievements of the royal lifetime were celebrated in nonliturgical form (Kramer ANET, 583586; Klein 1981).
True to their ambiguous status during this period, kings were both
authors and recipients of petitionary prayers which took the form of letters. Such letter-prayers were addressed to them, or to real deities, by
princesses, ocials, and ordinary mortals, and thus provide a precedent
of sorts for the individual laments of the Psalter (Falkenstein 1938;
Kramer ANET, 382; Hallo 1968; 1981). New wisdom genres also provided vehicles for describing individual concerns, albeit most often of
aristocratic circles in Nippur. The setting is authentic for this period,
though the details may be fictitious. Thus we have literary records of
trials (e.g., Jacobsen 1959), a letter of Ludingira, the man of God, to
his mother at Nippur (Civil 1964; Cooper 1971), and two elegies by the
same (?) Ludingira for his father and wife respectively, one described as
an incantation (tu6), the other as a wailing (i-lu) (Kramer 1960). But
perhaps most startling is the petition (r-sa-ne-sa4) to a mans personal
god in which an unnamed individual laments his fate until finally
restored to health and fortune by his personal deity (Kramer 1955;
ANET, 589591). The parallels between this text and the archaic prose
frame of Job are striking, and the gap between the two compositions is
in some part bridged by Akkadian treatments of the same righteous
721
722
723
The Babylonian Story of the Flood, by W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard. Oxford.
Cohen, M.E. 1974. balag-Compositions: Sumerian Lamentation Liturgies of the Second
and First Millennium bc. SANE 1: 2557.
. 1981. Sumerian Hymnology: The Ersemma. HUCASup 2. Cincinnati.
. 1988. The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. 2 vols. Potomac,
MD.
Cooper, J.S. 1971. New Cuneiform Parallels to the Song of Songs. JBL 90:
157162.
. 1972. Bilinguals From Boghazkoi. ZA 61: 122; 62: 6281.
. 1978. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur. AnOr 52. Rome.
. 1983. The Curse of Agade. JHNES 13. Baltimore.
Dijk, J.J.A. van. 1983. Lugal ud me-lm-bi nir-gl: Le rcit pique et didactique des
travaux de Ninurta, du dluge, et de la nouvelle cration. 2 vols. Leiden.
Falkenstein, A. von. 1938. Ein sumerischer Gottesbrief. ZA 44:125.
Finkel, I. 1980. Bilingual Chronicle Fragments. JCS 32: 6580.
724
Gadd, C.J. 1956. Teachers and Students in the Oldest Schools. London.
Geller, M.J. 1985. Forerunners to udug-hul: Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations. FAS 12.
Freiburg.
Gordon, E.I. 1959. Sumerian Proverbs. Museum Monographs 19. Philadelphia.
Gwaltney, W.C., Jr. 1983. The Biblical Book of Lamentations in the Context
of Near Eastern Lament Literature. Pp. 191211 in Hallo, Moyer, and
Perdue 1983.
Hallo, W.W. 1968. Individual Prayer in Sumerian: The Continuity of a Tradition. JAOS 88: 7189. [= AOS 53], here: IV.1.
. 1976. Toward a History of Sumerian Literature. Pp. 181203 in
Lieberman 1976, here: I.4.
. 1981. Letters, Prayers, and Letter-Prayers. PWCJS 7/1:101111, here:
IV.2.
. 1983. Sumerian Historiography. Pp. 920 in History. Historiography, and
Interpretation, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld. Jerusalem, here: VI.2.
. 1985. Back to the Big House: Colloquial Sumerian, Continued. Orientalia 54: 5664, here: IX.1.
. 1988. Sumerian Literature: Background to the Bible. BRev 4/3: 28
38, here: X.1.
Hallo, W.W., and Dijk, J.J.A. van. 1968. The Exaltation of Inanna. YNER 3. New
Haven.
Hallo, W.W.; Moyer, J. C; and Perdue, L.G., eds. 1983. Scripture in Context II:
More Essays on the Comparative Method. Winona Lake, IN.
Hirsch, H. 1967. Die Snde Lugalzagesis. Pp. 99106 in Festschrift fr
Wilhelm Eilers. Wiesbaden.
Jacobsen, T. 1939. The Sumerian King List. AS 11. Chicago.
. 1959. An Ancient Mesopotamian Trial for Homicide. AnBib 12: 130
150.
. 1985. Ur-Nanshes Diorite Plaque. Or 54: 5664.
. 1987. The Harps that Once. . . Sumerian Poetry in Translation. New Haven.
725
indexes
(compiled by R. Middeke-Conlin)
730
731
732
Hymn of Su-Sin
to Ninurta: 144
Hymn to Amar-Sin: 179
Hymn to Anam: 182
Hymn to Ba"u: 181, 182
Hymn to Enki and Ur-Ninurta: 149
Hymn to Enlil: 142, 163, 172, 192,
221222 see also dEn-ll-s-r-s
Hymn to Enlil-amah: 184
Hymn(s) to Enlil-bani: see Enlil-bani
hymn
Hymn(s) to Inanna: 64, 115, 127,
138, 176, 215218 (var. Hymns to
Innin)
Hymn to Ishtar as Agushaya: 123
Hymn to Meslamtaea and Lugalgirra: 424
Hymn to Nin-imma: 157
Hymn to Nanna: 145
Hymn to Nanshe: 62
Hymn to Nergal: 70, 153, 296
Hymn to Nintu: 25
Hymn(s) to Ninurta: 61, 63
Hymn to Nur-Adad: 176, 180, 374
733
734
letter of Puzur-Sulgi
to Sulgi
from Puzur-Numusda to Ibbi
Sin: see letter of Puzur-Sulgi
to
Ibbi-Sin
from Puzur-Sulgi
to Sulgi:
170,
397
from Puzur-Sulgi
to Ibbi-Sin: 398
from Sag-lugal-bi-zu to NurKabta: 285
from Sin-iddinam: 287, 336339
from Sin-iddinam to Nin-isina:
285, 325326, 341351, 363,
366
from Sin-iddinam to Nur-Adad:
23
from Sin-iddinam to Utu: 287,
326, 336, 338, 349, 353367,
423, see also Appeal to Utu
from Sin-samuh to Enki: 285,
311313, 328, 330, 350, 351,
364366
from Sulgi
to Irmu: 269
from the daughter (?) of Sinkasid, king of Uruk, to Meslamtaea-Nergal: 285
from Ugudulbi (the monkey) to
Ludiludi: 284, see also monkey
letter
(Sulgi):
284, 292, 422
from Utudug to Ilakn"id: 284
from Nanna: 285
to Utu: 206, 307, 336, 363, see
also Appeal to Utu
to Amurru: 323324, 329, 330
to Enki: 311313
to Rim-Sin: 6263, 265, 307, 326,
337
to Zimri-Lim: 325
to and from Iddin-Dagan and
Lipit-Ishtar: 292, 422
to Lugal-Murub: 308
Letter-orders of Isin: 270
Letter-orders of Ur: 270
Lexical text(s): 7, 13, 58, 77, 82, 159,
162, 168, 169, 290, 392, 394, 396,
511, 558, 578, 610, 616, 617, 627,
639, 713
Lipit-Ishtar Hymn: 13, 608
* 23: 169, 171, 206, 512, 513,
see also Lipit-Ishtar A, SelfPredication of Lipit-Istar
* 24: 35, 169, 171, 206, 210, 349,
see also Lipit-Ishtar B
* 25: 206
* 26: 206
* 26a: 206
* 26b: 206
* 26c: 206
A: 169, 171, 394, see also LipitIshtar * 23
B: 169, 171, 394396, see also
Lipit-Ishtar * 24
Litany for Enki: 542
Lord in heaven and earth: see enan-ki-a
Louvre catalogue: 26, 144, 145, 163,
172
L = sa: 15, 713
Ludlul bel nemeqi: 311, 608 (var. Poem
of the Righteous Suerer, Righteous suerer)
Lugal-e: 50, 59, 60, 63, 82, 169, 170,
735
Nabnitu: 616
Nabonidus inscriptions: 609
Nag Hammadi papyri: 399
Nanna-Suen 1: 145, 146, 153, 209
7: 208
Nanna-Suens Journey to Nippur:
486
Nanse-Hymn: 101
Naram-Sin Legend: 441
Naram-Sin inscriptions: 441
Nergal and Ereshkigal: 9, 68, 82,
123
Nigga: 162
ng-nam nu-kal: 622
nin-gest-s: see Lady of Wide
Understanding
nin-mah usu-ni gr-ra: 64, 82
nin-me-sr-ra: 219, 324, 497
nin-mul-an-gim: see Blessing of
Nisaba by Enki
nin-mu ms-za-gn-za na-dar-a: 144
(var. My lady, who in your bright
visage ever endures)
Ningal-hymn: 586
Nungal hymn: 362, 363, 385, 395,
583, 585
Nungal in the Ekur: 583, see also
Nungal hymn.
Ninurta and the Turtle: 82
Ninurta Balag: 61
Ninurta Hymns: 63, 64, 144
Ninurtas Journey to Eridu: 61
Nippur King List: 416, 417
Nisaba A: see Blessing of Nisaba by
Enki
Nisaba and the Wheat: 27
Nisaba Hymn C: see Lady of Wide
Understanding
Nur-Adad 3: 638
Odyssey: 663
Oh hero, laden with awe: see ur-sag
n-gal-gru
Oh king, fiery radiance: see Lugal
me-lm-hus
Oh lord, adorned with radiance: see
en-me-lm-s-s
736
Sama
s-ibni mortuary inscription:
531532
tamhari: 440 (var. King of Battle)
Sar
sr-gd-da of Martu: 144
sr-nam-gala of Ninisina: 206, 208,
243
sir-nam-su-ub dNisaba: 27
sr-nam-ur-sag-g of Ninsiana: 206,
208
Su-ili
su * 4: 206, 212
* 5: 206
Su-Sin
1: 190
4: 190
5: 190
9: 233
20: 179, 247
Su-Sin
correspondence: 291
Su-Sin
inscriptions: 75, 390, 459
Sulgi
3: 489
4: 179, 247
8: 193, 488
37: 194
41: 330
48: 139
54: 179, 247, 487
66: 330
71: 488
737
Sulgi
Hymn(s): 178, 204, 235, 481,
Sulgi
prophecy: 365
Sulgi
the Runner: 471, 473, see also
Sulgi
A
Summa
alu: 14, 687
Surpu:
544
TCL 15 10: 164
Tell Dan stela: 446
Temple hymn(s): 24, 40, 63, 64, 74,
77, 103, 111, 127, 138, 145, 241,
386, 553, 636
Temple Hymn No. 9: 64
No. 13: 363
No. 15: 348
No. 20: 62
No. 22: 540
Temple Hymns of Gudea: 719
Theogony of Dunnum: 556558
(var. Harab Myth)
Three Ox-Drivers from Adab: 616
Tigi for Isme-Dagan: 249, 611
Tigi of Enki: 206
Tigi-hymn to Ba"u: 62
Tigi of Nan: 206, 212215 see also
Isbi-Erra * 3a
Tigi-song for Nintu: 72, 249
Tigi-song(s) for Ninurta: 55, 72, 209,
249
Treaty between Marduk-zakir-sumi
si-Adad of
I of Babylon and Sam
Assyria: 609
Tukulti-Ninurta epic: 238, 294
738
u4-an-den-ll: 149
u4-SAR-an-den-ll-l: 6, 149
udug-hul: see Evil Spirits
ul4-ul4-la mu-un-gin: 250
Ur catalogue(s): 27, 144, 150, 204,
284
Ur-Dakuga 1: 194
Ur-Namma D: 481
Ur-Namma the Canal-Digger:
481
Ur-Nammu 3: 191
6: 191
7: 179, 247
9: 193
15: 194
19: 487
22: 193, 487
23: 193, 487
24: 193, 487
26: 487
27: 179, 193, 247, 487
28: 191, 193, 196, 487, 488
35: 489
37: 179
39: 487
40: 487, 488
C: 641
Ur-Nammus death and burial: 84,
184, 211, 304, 485 (var. Death of
Ur-Nammu)
Ur-Nammu hymn(s): 185, 187, 189
192, 481, 484
Ur-Nammu law code: see laws of
Ur-Nammu
Ur-Nammu royal inscriptions: 193
Ur-Nammu stele: 96, 471491 (var.
Stele of Ur-Nammu)
Ur Ninurta 2: 247
* 27: 206
* 28: 206, 212
* 29: 206
* 30: 206
* 31: 206
* 31a: 206
* 31b: 204, 206
Ur-Ninurta hymn: 185
ur5-ra=hubullu: see HAR-ra=hubullu
Genesis 1:1
1:29
2:16
2:4b5
2:15
4
4:12
4:17
5
9:3
9:4
9:5
9:13, 14, 16
9:5
10
10:10
11:19
11:3
11:9b
14
1820
19:19
22
33:19
43:32
46:34
557
519
520
523
523
225, 669
550551, 669
551, 669
225, 669
520
520
520
411
520
562, 669, 681
523, 721
562, 661
661
563
565
565
10
565
562
603
603
Exodus
8:22
15
2124
21: 2836
21:35
22:1516
23:15
34:20
559, 631
603
673
671
313
631
671
295
295
Leviticus
1726
17:11
18
18:23
19:36
20:12
Numbers 7:1288
21:2730
22:4
22:23
684
561
620
672
Deuteronomy
7:25
12:2913:1
12:31
16:16
17:1
17:18
18:9, 12
18:12
22:5
22:21
23:18 f.
24:40
25:1216
2731
27:2
27:15
28
29:22
29:2324
32:38
740
Joshua
6:26
10:1, 3
14:15
15:13
21:11
566
562
566
561
561
561
Judges 1
1:37
5:2
9:815
9:28
9:45
14:14
14:18
15:17
566
566
37
667, 722
562
562
665
665
564
Samuel
443
1 Samuel 24:13
24:14
28:15
28:19
629
613
535
535
433
1 Kings 5:10
5:12
6:1, 37 f.
7:1
12:2633
16:24
16:34
629
627
566
566
684
561
562
2 Kings 4:31
14:9
14:25
20
535
667, 722
148
333
Isaiah 1:3
5:8
11:7
14:9
619
593
520
535
2427
24:2
26:19
37:14
38
38:9
38:920
688
10
535
333
333, 685
296, 333
314
44
410
313, 673, 720
716
Hosea 4:9
10
Amos 3:12
8:5
617
602
Jonah
689
Psalms
Psalm 16
22:23
26:12
27:10
31:12
35:18
38:12
41:10
44
45
55:1315
56
57
58
59
60
68
716
671
313
564
313
313
313
269
269
670
670
670
670
670
545
565
601, 602, 629, 630,
719
630
630
602
601, 666, 719
630
630
627
615
602
602
602
603
602
602
602
602
603
602
602
602
602
629, 689
629
603
627
601
602
603
Job
3:12
11:18
14:12
19:2327
42:11
Song of Songs
4:1215
741
114, 125, 310, 311,
314, 668, 719, 720
478
622
535
536
121, 668
223, 240, 674, 700,
720
674
Lamentations
261, 686
Ecclesiastes
4:12
700, 719
627 670
Qoh 4:12
4:12b
11:1
12:5
12:11
12:1214
682
621
627
533
482
482
Esther
3:7
9:24
Daniel
1:4
12:2
333
333
1 Chronicles 8:12
564
2 Chronicles 3:1
21:12
25:18
30:1
35:25
565
333
667
333
314
742
Other Works
Al-Asatir: 551
Aramaic Targumim: 700
Ben Sira: 700
Book of Jashar: 314
Book of the Upright: see Book of
Jashar
Dead Sea Scrolls: 399
Genesis Apocryphon: 399
SUBJECTS
Abbreviation: 71, 149, 163, 219, 229
Abstract conceptualization: 543
Akkadian apocalypses: 688
Akkadian prophecies: 688
Alexandrian canon: 701
Anonymity: 59, 147
Anthropomorphic representation:
97, 306, 528
Archival: 12, 23, 26, 74, 98, 120, 155,
161, 192, 241, 248, 258, 262264,
294, 305, 336, 353, 385, 387, 389
392, 398, 421, 427, 428, 432, 437,
438, 455, 456, 459, 499, 511, 522,
556, 635, 680, 684, 707, 708710,
714, 717
Assurbanipals Library: 7, 1113, 16,
53, 55, 71, 244, 713
Babylonian Dark Ages: 137, 237
Basilomorphism: 97
Binding of Isaac: 565
Biographical collage: 224
Blessing of Moses: 527
Book of the Covenant: 313, 671
Cain and Abel: 667, 722
Canon: 8, 1417, 20, 50, 54, 64, 65,
73, 74, 76, 7781, 8789, 91, 114,
117119, 138, 168, 182, 208, 244,
257, 258, 288, 299, 301, 393, 399,
436, 454, 539, 564, 597, 629,
677, 680, 682, 685688, 690,
699701, 705707, 709, 710, 712
716
Canonical compositions: 5, 6, 15,
20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 52, 58, 62, 67,
73, 74, 87, 119, 123, 125, 140, 161,
164168, 186, 241, 244, 259, 261,
262, 293, 296, 321, 336, 387, 391
393, 399, 400, 421, 422, 428, 432,
744
subjects
Gemarah: 715
Genealogical record: 48
Generalization: 543
Genre-history: 59, 288, 314,421, 664,
680, 683, 685, 686
Gospels: 700
Great rebellion against Naram-Sin:
443
High Sargonic period: 77, 9697,
435
Historical kernel: 191, 434, 441, 442,
460
Holiness Code: 520, 602
Individual laments of the Biblical
Psalter: 53, 256, 267, 274, 287,
314, 333, 720
Legend psalms: 260
Letter-reports: 336
Lexicography: 45, 205, 392, 589,
604, 708
Library of Alexandria: 701
Literature as politics: 437
Long peace: 103, 186, 190
Model contracts: 74, 82, 165, 283,
389, 580, 710
Monumental: 12, 25, 26, 28, 74, 76,
77, 115, 119, 190, 191, 205, 223,
247, 258, 266, 294, 296, 335, 336,
340, 386, 389, 391, 393, 394, 397,
398, 421, 424, 427, 428, 432, 442,
459, 472, 477, 483, 611, 636, 663,
684, 685, 707, 708, 710, 714, 717
Moses tale: 229
Moses birth: 681
Myths of origin: 68
Narrative of the Aqeda: 565
New Year: 22, 23, 25, 232, 429, 559
Palace of Sulgi:
64, 386
Parody: 47, 61, 104, 300, 325, 424,
540
Pattern of usurpation: 193, 197, 291,
398
Pentateuch: 88, 499, 677, 684, 700,
701, 715, 716
Period of warring kingdoms: 186
Personal deity: 194, 237, 261, 293,
308, 324, 329, 641, 720
Pilgrim songs: 260
Poetic biography: 191
Prayer of Hezekiah: 296, 339, 340
Priestly Code: 521
Primeval history: 523, 550, 562
Promulgation (of date formulas): 23,
49, 520
Prophets: 700, 715
Psalm of Hezekiah: 314, 333335
Psalms of Sirah: 259
Psalms of Solomon: 259
Psalter: 20, 53, 255261, 267, 274,
287, 296, 313, 314, 333, 400, 670,
685, 686, 708, 719321
Pseudepigraphical attribution: 62,
148
Recension(s): 62, 67, 103, 115, 121,
123, 125, 126, 163170, 175, 302,
386, 416, 439, 491, 501, 529, 540,
549, 599, 615, 704707, 721
Renaissance: 99 (Neo-Sumerian),
230 (Lagash)
Rhetorical strategy: 328
Romance of Joseph: 689
Royal Cemetery of Ur: 63, 128
subjects
Sacraments: 21, 100, 233
Sacred marriage: 22, 71, 90, 101,
102, 179, 210, 229, 231236, 238,
304, 477479, 514, 673, 720
Scribal schools: 13, 15, 16, 49, 60,
69, 73, 7719, 86, 101, 102, 116,
118120, 165, 169, 171, 239, 240,
242, 266, 290, 296, 301, 310, 353,
385, 387, 389, 391, 392, 393, 397,
422, 458, 539, 590, 628, 629, 665,
668, 669, 715, 717, 721, 722
Song of Deborah: 37
Table of Nations: 523, 562, 563, 567,
681
Telescoping: 444
Temple of Amurru in Nippur: 162
Temple of Enki at Eridu: 197, 640
Temple of Enlil at Nippur: 191, 197,
235, 240, 539, 641
Temple of Enmesarra: 534
Temple of Inanna: 391
Temple of Nabu: 61
745
PERSONAL NAMES
Aba-indasa: 294
Abel: 526, 527, 567, 722
Abi-esuh: 65, 137, 180, 184, 241
Abimelech: 562
Abisare: 189
Abner: 314
Abraham: 47, 565, 681
Adda-guppi: 176
Adam: 87, 225, 289, 551, 681
Adapa: 6, 87, 149, 150, 289, 544
Agum II: 184
Agum-kakrime: 246, 597
Agur: 629
Ahab: 562
Akka: 560
Ahiqar: 51, 689
Alumb(i)umu: 320
Alulim: 289
Amar-Sin: 235, 291, 386, 390, 291,
391, 422, 484, 489, 560 (var.
Amar-Suen(a))
Amen-em-Ope(t): 90
Ammi-ditana: 183, 184, 190
Ammi-s.aduqa: 137, 320
Amos: 127, 662
Anam: 182, 184, 185, 231, 374, 375,
425
Aplaia: 244
Apollonius Rhodus: 701
Arib-atal: 390
Arrabu: 244
Assurbanipal: 53, 54, 243, 244, 246,
247, 441, 531, 609, 629
Ashur-etel-ilani: 532
Aviram: 562
Balaam: 672
Balih: 226
Baruch: 114
Bel-gasir: 196
748
personal names
Enlila-isag: 195
(En)mebaragesi: 66
Enmerkar: 227, 289, 409, 410, 510,
514, 560, 719
En-nirgalanna: 489
Enosh: 225
Epimenides: 464
Erra-imitti: 71, 185, 373
(E)saggil-knam-ubbib: 4
Esther: 689
Etana: 225227
Euechoios: 409, 410
Euechoros: 409
Ezekiel: 313
Gideon: 562
Gilgamesh: 66, 67, 87, 90, 122, 124,
125, 147, 304, 514, 530, 617, 627,
705, 719
Gudea: 24, 25, 27, 36, 3941, 61, 62,
95, 99, 101, 138, 145, 177, 181, 184,
194, 230, 235, 266, 267, 285, 329,
424, 483, 486, 719
Gulkishar: 184
Gungunum: 189, 190, 194, 373, 558
Hammurabi: see Hammurapi
Hammurapi: 6, 49, 54, 122, 129, 137,
175, 180, 183, 184, 186, 194, 237,
248, 301, 307, 321, 334, 335, 375,
385, 440, 441, 458, 472, 480, 481,
565, 610, 611, 613, 628, 721 (var.
Hammurabi)
Hamor: 562
Hardjedef: 626
Hazael: 446
Heidegger: 89
Hezekiah: 288, 340, 671, 685
Hummuru: 579
Hunz: 579
Iarlagan: 196
Ibbi-Sin: 147, 179, 192, 194, 236, 371,
372, 397, 422, 424, 456458, 461,
463
Iddin-Dagan: 179, 206, 292, 372,
422, 424, 462
Ilan-semea: 373
Imhotep: 626
Inannaka: 294
Inim-Inanna: 391
Iphuha: 390
Irad: 551, 669
Irdanene: 183, 374, 375, 426
Irmu: 291, 484
Isaac: 565
Israel: 681
Isbe-Irra: 70, 147, 148, 179, 206, 212,
291, 398, 424, 459, 462
Iskun-Dagan: 290, 437
Isme-Dagan: 71, 179, 190, 206, 215,
300, 372, 424, 441, 460, 462, 553,
610
Istar-suma-eres: 716
Isullanu: 617
Haman: 682
Humma: 181, see also Eannatum,
Lumma
Jacob: 672
Jeremiah: 3, 114, 314
Jerome: 399
Job: 121, 668
Jonah: 148
Joseph: 689
Joshua: 562, 566
Josiah: 53, 314, 520
Judah: 566
Kabti-ilani-Marduk: 5, 147
Kadashman-Enlil: 184
Kaku: 196
Kalibum: 410
Keret: 226
Khomasbelos: 410
Kirta: 226
Ku-Bau: 560
Kubbulu
Kunsi-matum: 389, 390, 459
Kur: 579
Lamassi(-Assur): 324
Lemuel: 629, 666
Lipit-Enlil: 185, 241, 373
personal names
Lipit-Istar: 70, 71, 179, 189, 206, 218,
292, 374, 387, 422, 462, 610, 671
Lisina: 689
Livy: 453
Lu-dingir(r)a: 240, 305, 689
Lukalla: 586
Lugina: 586
Lu-Nanna: 147
Lugalbanda: 194, 228, 374, 375, 498,
513515, 523527, 618, 619, 719
Lugal-melam: 391
Lugal-murub: 294, 308
Lugalzagesi: 26, 94, 228, 300
Lumma: 145, 181, see also Eannatum, Humma
Manana: 387
Manasseh: 53
Manistusu: 99, 138, 229, 439
Marduk-zakir-sumi I: 609
Melchi-zedek: 565, 566
Meli-sipak: 248
Mesa: 612
Mesannepada: 612
Mesilim: 228, 612
Meskiaggasir: 227
Miriam: 672
Mordechai: 689
Moses: 229, 672, 673, 681, 682
Mu-dam: 225
Muras: 249
Mursili I: 560
Naama: 225
Nabi-Enlil: 294, 391
Nabonassar: 599, 688
Nabonidus: 99, 305, 532
Nabu-sum-iskun: 599
Nabu-zer-zuqip: 716
Nammahni: 196
Namzitarra: 689
Naplanum: 462
Nazimaruttas: 15, 242, 703
Naram-Sin: 62, 65, 9597, 99, 100,
138, 177, 195, 228, 229, 236, 300,
370, 435, 439441, 443, 444, 455,
472, 482, 560, 563
749
Neriya: 114
Nietzsche: 89
Nin-Hedu: 196
Nin-kagina: 196
Nin-satapada: 307, 326, 370, 375,
388, 389, 423, 424, 427, 429
Nis-inisu: 375, 424
Ni"urum: 139
Noah: 51, 225, 520, 527, 545, 562,
667, 669
Nur-Adad: 22, 23, 176, 180, 182, 184,
185, 319, 336, 340, 374, 425
Oannes: 149, 150, 544
Odysseus: 122
Oedipus: 665
Omri: 561, 562
Plato: 86, 89, 91
Ptahhotep: 626
Pussulu: 579
Pusam: 390
Puzur-Assur: 390
Puzur-Marduk: 170, 291, 398, see
also Puzur-Sulgi
Puzur-Nirah: 560
Puzur-Numusda: 193, 291, 398, see
also Puzur-Sulgi
750
personal names
Sama
s-sum-ukin: 244
si-Adad (I): 440442, 455, 533,
Sam
609, 613, 628
Sargani-
sar-ali: 439
Sar-kali-
sarri: 96, 97, 100, 230, 435
Sarrum-bani:
291
Subburu:
579
Su-ili
su: 70, 71, 179, 189
Su-Marduk:
398
Su-Numu
sda: 398
Su-Sin:
63, 75, 102, 144, 178, 179,
190, 208, 231, 284, 386, 390, 428,
459, 462, 560, 642
Sulgi(r):
22, 34, 50, 77, 100, 101, 139,
147, 176, 178, 179, 186, 193, 194,
232, 234, 235, 237, 240, 265, 374,
390, 393, 425, 460, 472, 481,
483, 484, 488, 560, 610, 611,
671
Suruppak:
626, 667, 669
Tabnit: 536
Taqs(a)-Gula: 64, 242
Thucydides: 453
Tiglath-Pileser I: 54, 60, 243, 560
Titus: 464
Tukulti-Ninurta I: 243, 244, 249,
309, 560, 563
Tl-ta-p-da: 149
Tuta-napshum: 370
U4-an-du10-ga: 150
Ur-Abba: 196
Ur-Ba"u: 32, 230
Ubburu: 579
Ur-Dakuga: 194
Ur-dun: 291, 391
Ur-gar: 196
Urgigir: 370, 371
Ur-Meme: 391, 421, 428, 459
Ur-Nammu(k): 22, 62, 94, 96, 100,
101, 176, 178180, 184, 187198,
231, 234, 235, 304, 371, 374, 386,
428, 472, 480, 481, 483, 485, 487
489, 491, 671
Ur-Nanse: 576
Urnigin: 370
Ur-Ninurta: 71, 149, 179, 206, 373,
387
Ur-sagga: 266, 292, 294
Ur-Utu: 195, 325
Ur-Zababa: 560
Uruinimgina: see Urukagina
Urukagina: 138, 228, 299, 456, 592
Us.s.ulu: 579
Utnapistim: 533
-tu-abzu: 150
Utu-hegal: 66, 94, 191, 192, 195197,
371, 386, 442, 560
Utukam: 196
personal names
Warad-Sin: 180
Yasmah-Adad: 308, 613
Zabaia: 373
Zenodotus: 701
751
DIVINE NAMES
Agusaya: 123
Aliyin: 565
Amurru: 320, 321, 326, 329
An(u): 25, 64, 71, 95, 145, 156, 164,
211, 348, 371, 375, 425, 426, 525,
566
Anunna: 483
Anzu: 618, 619
Aruru: 244, 245, 249
Asalluhe: 350, 541
Asare: 641
Assur: 246
Astarte: 159, 603
Asimbabbar: 188, 193, 485, 486
Asnan: 35
Aya: 104
Ba"al: 565
Ba"u: 104, 182, 195, 228, 478, 540
Bel: 555
Clio: 453
Damu: 268, 273, 303, 339
Dingirmah: 348
Dumuzi: 22, 67, 68, 71, 87, 90, 101,
215, 231233, 303, 304, 310, 313,
370, 532, 673, 720
Duttur: 303
Ea: 150, 540542
El: 565
Elkunirsa: 565
Enki: 39, 40, 104, 188, 193, 211, 228,
265, 266, 306, 350, 375, 426, 476,
525, 539544, 548550, 640, 641,
646, 719
Enkimdu: 667
Enlil: 35, 39, 40, 56, 65, 66, 72, 87,
95, 103, 104, 141143, 156, 164,
754
divine names
Sama
s: 602, 705
Sara:
233
Serda:
104
Ti"amat: 559
Uras: 39, 348
Utu: 104, 193, 265, 270, 307, 329,
338, 423, 584, 591, 592, 594, 619
Za(n)qara: 515, 525
Zeus: 453
Bit-Dakkuri: 532
Byblos: 536, 614, 665
Canaan: 521, 561
Carchemish: 564
Chaldeans: 714
Cedar Forest: 627
Der: 9, 371, 373
Devir: 561
Dilmun: 348
Diyala: 270, 295
Drehem: 161, 372
Dunnum: 427, 556
Dur-Anim: 371
Dur-ilim: 371
Durum: 369376, 423, 424, 426, 427
Ebih: 127
Ebla: 87, 319, 320, 564, 635, 718
Ed-Der: See Ad-Dair
-engur: 640
Egalmah: 348
-gest: 36
Ekimar: 301, 460
-kis-nu-gl: 197
Ekur (in Nippur): 95, 191
Elam: 61, 338, 461
El-Amarna: See Amarna
Elamite(s): 290, 457, 459, 531
Emar: 232, 564, 628, 713
-mes-lam: 272
Eniggar: 348
Eninnu: 24, 41
Eridu: 40, 100, 104, 111, 149, 189,
192, 193, 197, 242, 426, 511, 539
541, 548554, 641, 669, 721
Eres: 36, 558
756
757
Ramat-Lehi: 564
Ras Ibn Hani: 166
Red Sea: 672
Reed Sea: 559, 672
Rome: 547
Rushalimum: 564, see also Jerusalem
Salem: 564, 565
Samaria: 561, 567
Sealand: 15, 49, 53, 79, 183, 184, 241,
242
Shalim: 564
Shechem: 117, 562, 614
Shin"ar: 563
Shomron: 561
Sidon: 536, 600
Sinai: 625, 629631, 672, 682
Sippar: 99, 167, 242, 244, 308, 323,
399, 427, 554, 558, 587, 610, 629,
712
Sippar-Yahrarum: see SipparYahrurum
Sippar-Yahrurum: 319, 325 (var.
Sippar-Yahrarum)
Sirara: 540, 641
Solomons palace: 566
Subarian(s): 338, 365, 645
Sultan Tepe: 11, 651, 705
Susa: 138, 203, 480, 488, 531, 609,
641, 722
Saduppm:
196, 204
Simanum:
390, 459
Sima
ski: 459
Suruppak:
138, 149, 554, 566, 669,
718, 719
Tello(h): 167, 478
Thessaly: 47
Tigris: 188, 303, 371, 459, 510,
661
Timnah: 665
Ugarit: 75, 78, 158, 167, 294, 306,
308, 321, 578, 579, 614, 721,
722
Umma: 104, 161, 196, 556
UNKIN.(KI): 556
758
760
.SE
587
edin: 642
eme-girx(15): 94, 717
eme-sal: 53, 271, 301, 717
emuqu: 515
en: 128, 141
n-DU: 146
n-du-lugal: 21
en-ki-en-gi
en-nu-un: 585
n-sa4: 146
n-tar: 362
n-tukun: 350
enuma: 149, 150
R: 301, 308
R.GU.LA: 305
r-s-hun-g: 73, 270, 308
r-sem-ma: 73, 301, 321, 532
(var. r-sm-ma,
r-sm-ma)
ere-a: 458
ersahung: 270
ernu: 527
erina: 511
eristu: 595
e"ru: 530
490
S:
es-kirix(KA): 480
e.temmu: 530
ga-an-sa-sa: 364
g-g: 592
gaba-ri: 282, 555
gal-zu: 282
GALA: 301, 532
GAN-ma: 491
gar-ensi2: 94
gattu: 515
gestu: 640
GI(N): 490, 716
GI R.RA: 300
GI.RA.NM: 300
gidim: 530
GIDIM4: 530
gil-gil: 282
GN: 458
giparu: 479, 591
gir4-mah: 638
GR.NITA: 195
gr-sil: 282
gr-tab-l-ux-lu: 576
gr-r-ra: 512 (var. gr-r-ra)
girranu: 300
girru: 512
girtablilu: 576
gis-bala: 639
(gis)-bi-za: 580
gis-dim-ma-na: 511
gis-gigir: 167
gis-ks-du: 193, 488 (var. gis-ksd-r)
gis-ma-nu: 530
gis-suhus: 282
761
id: 13
igaru: 515
IGI.DU: 640
IGI.DU8.A: 13
igi-gl: 282
igi-gl-s: 282
igi-hur-re: 364
igi-s: 146
igistu: 640
ikkibu: 363, 590, 591, 596, 601, 604
illilutu: 177, 193
m: 364
im-gd-da: 170, 712
IM.LI.GI4.IN: 712
im-ri-a: 282
IM-sub-ak: 282
im-su-nigin-na: 595
im-su-rin-na: 510
imgidd: 712
im.t: 515
inim-s-s-ga: 366
inim-sa6-(sa6): 366
iqqur pus: 706
r-s-hun-g: 151
r-sa-ne-sa4: 720
r-s-ma: 151
irina: 511
irr: 351
is-ka-ra-a-tu: 70
iskaru: 706, 707
it: 555
izi-sg: 513
ka-duh-a: 486
KA. . .-dun-ud: 34
ka-gars: 282
KA.KA. . .K: 34
ka-ka-si-ga: 611
ka-ks-da: 64
ka-luh-a: 486
ka-s(g): 23
ka-(sa)-an-sa-sa: 364
KA-sa6-(sa6): 366
ka-sag5-sag5: 366
KA-tar-si-il: 282
kb: 593
kab-du. . .-ga: 550
762
KI.KAS.GAR:
485, 525, 537
ki-kukk-ga: 282
ki-lul-la: 282
ki-n-db-bu-da: 534
ki-pl-l: 282
KI.RU.G: 300
ki-s-ga: 536
ki-tm/tm/tum: 282
kidud: 302
kimahu: 557
kimkimmu: 591
kippatu: 491
kir4-dab: 491
kirmahhu: 638
kiruda: 282
kisal-mah: 38
kispu(m): 485, 536
kisersu: 588
kisib: 510
kisib-db: 282
kisib-gl: 38
kisukku: 588
ku4-(ku4): 282
ku6-l-ux-lu: 576
k-s: 35
kubbulu: 576
KUD: 577
kukk-zalag: 363
kullu: 576
kulullu: 576
kunn: 37
KUR: 303
kur: 579
l: 282, 577
la-la: 282
la-la-gi4: 282
lagabizi: 514
lagabbu: 514
lam abubi: 455
lammassatu: 99
lanu: 515
lapatu: 593
lataku: 593
lku: 648
liginnu: 712
liqtu: 706
litiktu: 593
l: 128
(l)--ku5: 577
l--tuku: 610
l-n-tar: 362
l-gspu: 512
(l)gidim: 596
l-in-na: 282
(l)-kak-du8: 640
l-lirum: 512
l-ng-tuku: 610
l-n-a zi-zi: 532
l-usu(.KAL)-tuku: 610
l-zu-a: 282
lubaru: 648
lugal: 128
lugal-ki-en-gi ki-uri: 94
LUL-as: 282
lullu-amlu: 576
lum-a-lam-a: 68
lum-ma: 181
makkuru: 615
makkur sarri: 615
maltaktu: 148
man: 640
dmanzt: 410
mar kall: 638
marratu: 410
na4.dSE.TIR:
514
nad: 640
nabatu: 640
napahu: 640
nagbu: 544
nam-a-a: 511
nam-en-na: 35, 191
nam-g-(aka-a): 512
nam-l-ulu6: 128
nam-lugal-ki-en-gi-ra: 94
nam-mah-du11: 282
nam-mah. . . du11: 350
nam-mu: 282
nam-tar-ra: 363, 365
nam-s-(a): 363, 365
namtaru: 363, 365
nap.tartum: 640
nasaru: 365
nattila: 351
ne-sag: see nisag
nemelu: 610
n: 24
n-u4-rum: 139
ng-al-di: 595
ng-ga: 615
ng-ga lugal: 615
ng-gig-(ga): 363, 590, 596
ng-gig-ga . . . ak: 363
ng-si-s: 481
ng-su: 282
NG.ZU: 13
nin-m: 95
nqu: 527
nir-gl: 282
nisag: 35, 513 (var. ne-sag)
nisannu: 513
nissatum: 146
nittmelu: 576
nitt-amelu: 576
nub: 305
numun: 511
numun-br-(ra): 511
nussuru: 565
nutturu: 510
pa-sg-sg
p(d): 139, 149
(pa)dattu: 515
pahalliya: 479
paqidu: 362
parzillu: 512
passu: 580
patar sibbi: 512
pemtu: 514
pentu: 514
763
764
pent: 514
pertu: 37
pessu: 580
p nis: 611
p ummni: 87
pind: 514
pirigx: 148
pirig ka-s-an-sa-sa: 364
pirsu: 14, 707
piss: 579
pt p: 486
p: 516
p matim: 612
p nis: 612
puhhuru: 364
puru: 682
remenu: 367
rimmum: 146
ruggubum: 639
q-d-sum: 590
qan: 527, 716 (var. qanu)
qan bikti: 300
qassu: 590
qastu: 410
qinnazu u parussu: 482
qstu: 410
qubb: 305
quburu: 537
rakabu: 639
re"m knum: 481
ri: 620
rig7: 510
rittu: 510
s-s-ga: 510
sg-di: 282
sag-du: 282
sg-du11: 282
SAG.DUB: 14
sag-n-tar: 362
sag-sg: 282
sag-tm-tm: 282
sahab-(bi): 639
sahar. . .gi4: 594
sahar-ra-bala: 283
saharu: 639
salam ilani: 44
samm: 74
sapahu: 365
si-du11-ga: 498, 512
si-ga: 610
si-il-si-il: 510
si-im-si-im: 512
si-s: 481
sidug (LAGABDAR): 512
sihu: 587
sila-dagal: 363
sila si-ga: 363
sipa-zi: 481
s: 512
su-lim-ma: 143
su-lum-mar: 283
su-ub: 35
su-zi: 24, 188
shub-(bi): 639
sum: 640
snu: 478
supp: 366
SUR.GIBIL: 711
s. abatu: 711
s. alalum: 532
s. arapu: 513
s. tu: 706
s.eru: 642
s. erru: 512
s. ubbutu: 577
s. urru: 510
308
S:
sa abari: 512
sa p ummn: 706
sa umasi: 512
S.ABZU:
372
sax-(G)-dub-ba: 139
su-du11-ga: 593
sa-DU-lugal: 145, 146
sa-du-igi-s-m: 145
s-ki-bi-gi4-gi4: 283
sa-sg-ga: 510, 511
sa"alu: 362
sab-gal: 588
sab-tur: 588
sagammu: 639
tanittu: 74
tazzimtu: 301
te-en: 594
teltu: 611, 613
temqu: 366
tes. tu: 120
TS.(BI)
. . .K: 648
tigi: 22, 207, 249
tinuru: 511
TIR: 585, 638
tu6: 720
tu-da: 145
tg-es-tab-ba: 621
tg-ng-l: 350
TL.KA: 512
tumru: 512
tupsikku: 483
tr: 37
turru: 512
u4: 149, 150 (var. UD)
u5: 639
-db: 514
u4-gim. . . : 510
u4-HI-da: 283
u5-ig: 639
-kul: 536
-lul-la: 533
-na-a-du: 283
-nu-ku: 283
u4-SAR: 150
-sim: 350
-tu-a-ab-ba: 149
-u8-a-a-e: 283
udu-girx: 94
udu-kur-ra: 94
udug: 530
UG: 148
uktin: 283
uligi: 94
umu: 148, 149
umasu 511
umu muktassassu: 364
unnnu: 270
unu6: 516
r: 478
ur4: 364
765
766
UR.(BI) . . . K: 648
ur-dib: 512
ur-sa4: 146
urqtu: 350
uru: 22
urux: 141
usan3-bar-us: 482
us. s. ulu: 577
utlu: 478
utukku: 530
uturtu: 510
uzu: 555
z-dib: 283
za-la: 512
z-m: 20, 60, 68, 74, 205
za-ma-rumes te-ge-e: 70
za-na: 580
z-p: 283
za-ra-a: 711
z-tag: 283
zamaru: 146
ze"pum: 323
zihu: 587
. .tag-tag: 593
zag.
zag . . . s-s: 593
zaqqara: 515
ziqqurratu: 559
zirru: 479
zittam zzu: 592
na4z-sal-la: 510