Sumerian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection: Volume 1: Literary Sources on Old Babylonian Religion 9781646020119

Citation preview

SUMERIAN LITERARY TEXTS IN THE SCHØYEN COLLECTION VOLUME I

The publication of Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology Volume 38 was made possible thanks to a generous subvention from an anonymous donor

Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology (CUSAS) Volume 38 MANUSCRIPTS IN THE SCHØYEN COLLECTION

CUNEIFORM TEXTS XII

Sumerian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection Volume I

Literary Sources on Old Babylonian Religion by

Christopher Metcalf

Eisenbrauns University Park, Pennsylvania 2019

Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology EDITOR-­IN-­CHIEF David I. Owen (Cornell University)

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE Robert K. Englund (University of California, Los Angeles) Wolfgang Heimpel (University of California, Berkeley) Rudolf H. Mayr (Lawrenceville, New Jersey) Manuel Molina (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Madrid) Francesco Pomponio (University of Messina) Walther Sallaberger (University of Munich) Marten Stol (Leiden) Karel Van  Lerberghe (University of Leuven) Aage Westenholz (University of Copenhagen)

A Cataloging-in-Publication record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. Copyright © 2019 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802–­1003 Eisenbrauns is an imprint of The Pennsylvania State University Press. The Pennsylvania State University Press is a member of the Association of University Presses. It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-­free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—­Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ANSI Z39.48-­1992.

Contents Statement of Provenance, by Martin Schøyen............................................................................................ vi Series Editor’s Preface, by David I. Owen.................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................... x Conventions and Abbreviations................................................................................................................. xi Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 1 Catalog...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Concordances............................................................................................................................................ 7 Texts 1 A Hymn to Sud............................................................................................................................. 9 2 A Hymn to Lamma-­saga (“Bau A”)...............................................................................................18 3 The Birth of Enlil.........................................................................................................................30 4 Two Hymns to Enlil (“Hymn to the Ekur”) and Enki...................................................................35 5 A Hymn to Ninimma...................................................................................................................46 6–­7 A Lament of Lisin (“Lisin A”)........................................................................................................52 8 A Hymn to Ninurta (“Išme-­Dagan W”)........................................................................................57 9 A Hymn to Utu........................................................................................................................... 60 10 A Hymn to Nanše (“Nanše A”).....................................................................................................64 11–­13 A Hymn to Nisaba (“Išbi-­Erra E”)................................................................................................67 14 A Hymn to Nanaya.......................................................................................................................70 15 A Poem Mentioning Ezinam.........................................................................................................73 16 Two Hymns to Inana.....................................................................................................................74 17 A Poem about Ĝeštinana (“Dumuzi-­Inana J”)................................................................................76 References................................................................................................................................................79 Index........................................................................................................................................................91 Cuneiform Texts / Plates I–­LIV................................................................................................................95

v

Statement of Provenance THE NEAR EASTERN PICTOGRAPHIC TABLETS, CUNEIFORM TABLETS, AND SEALS

A. Ownership History

Pottesman Collection, London (1904–­78) Geuthner Collection, France (1960s–­80s) Harding Smith Collection, UK (1893–­1922) Rev. Dr. W. F. Williams, Mosul (ca. 1850–­60) Frida Hahn Collection, Berlin (1925–­73) Mixon Collection, California and UK (1920s–­1967) and heirs These collections are the source of almost all the tablets and seals. Other items were acquired through Christie’s and Sotheby’s, where in a few cases the names of their former owners were not revealed. The sources of the oldest collections, such as Amherst, Harding Smith and Cumberland Clark, were antiquities dealers who acquired tablets and seals in the Near East in the 1890s–­1930s. During this period, many tens of thousands of tablets came on the market: in the summers of 1893–­94 alone some thirty thousand tablets. While most of these were bought by museums, others were acquired by private collectors. In this way, some of the older of these collections were the source of some of the later collections. For instance, a large number of the tablets in the Crouse Collection came from the Cumberland Clark, Kohanim, Amherst, and Simmonds collections. The Claremont tablets came from the Schaeffer Collection, and the Dring tablets came from the Harding Smith Collection.

The holdings of pictographic tablets, cuneiform tablets, and seals in the Schøyen Collection were collected mainly in the late 1980s, with further items in the 1990s. They derive from a great variety of former collections and sources. It would not have been possible to collect so many items, of such major textual importance, if it had not been based on the endeavor of some of the greatest collectors in earlier times. Collections that once held tablets and seals now in the Schøyen Collection are: Institute of Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont Graduate School, Claremont, California (1970–­94) Erlenmeyer Collection and Foundation, Basel (1943–­88) Cumberland Clark Collection, Bournemouth, UK (1920s–­1941) Lord Amherst of Hackney, UK (1894–­1909) Crouse Collection, Hong Kong and New England (1920s–­80s) Dring Collection, Surrey, UK (1911–­90) Rihani Collection, Irbid (ca. 1935) and Amman, Jordan (before 1965–­88) and London (1988–­) Lindgren Collection, San Francisco, California (1965–­85) Rosenthal Collection, San Francisco, California (1953–­88) Kevorkian Collection, New York (ca. 1930–­59) and Fund (1960–­77) Kohanim Collection, Tehran, Paris, and London (1959–­85) Simmonds Collection, UK (1944–­87) Schaeffer Collection, Collège de France, Zürich (1950s) Henderson Collection, Boston, Massachusetts (1930s–­50s)

B. Archaeological Provenance, Findspots In most cases, the original findspots of tablets that came on the market in the 1890s–­1930s and later are unknown. Therefore, great parts of the holdings of most major museums in Europe and the United States are without archaeological provenance. This also applies to the Schøyen Collection. Based on the texts of the tablets themselves, the following provenances can nevertheless be identified:

vi



Statement of Provenance

About 85 percent of the Early Dynastic and Old Akkadian tablets come from palace and temple archives in Adab and Umma. About 90 percent of the Old Babylonian tablets come from Larsa. The Old Assyrian tablets all come from Kanesh (Kültepe) excavation level II, mostly from Bedřich Hrozný’s findspots 2, 3, 4, and 10, unearthed 1890–­1925. All Ugaritic tablets come from Ras Shamra, excavation level I, excavated under the direction of Claude Schaeffer, 1957–­58. Most Neo-­Assyrian tablets come from Assur, unearthed during the German excavations under Walter Andrae, 1903–­14.

vii

From Lagash and its vicinity, there are tablets from the E-Ninnu temple, the Ninkar temple in Nimin, the Ningishzida temple, the Nindara and Ningirsu temples in Girsu, the Ur-­Bau temple in Urukug, and the Inanna and Emush temples in Bad-­Tibira. From Nineveh: The Royal Library of Ashurbanipal and the Ezida temple of Nabu. From Nimrud: North-­West palace of Ashurnasirpal II, the library of Nabû-­zuqup-­kena, and the palace of Sargon II. In addition to other major sites like Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Isin, Babylon, Nippur, Susa, and Persepolis, there are tablets and seals from at least thirty further sites. Martin Schøyen

MANUSCRIPTS IN THE SCHØYEN COLLECTION

CUNEIFORM TEXTS Vol. I. Jöran Friberg, A Remarkable Collection of Babylonian Mathematical Texts Sources and Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences New York: Springer, 2007 Vol. II. Bendt Alster, Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 2 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2007 Vol. III. Stephanie Dalley, Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 9 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2009 Vol. IV. A. R. George, Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 10 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2009 Vol.V. Miguel Civil, Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 12 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2010 Vol.VI. A. R. George, Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions in the Schøyen Collection with contributions by M. Civil, G. Frame, P. Steinkeller, F.Vallat, K.Volk, M. Weeden, and C. Wilcke Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 17 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2011 Vol.VII. A. R. George, Babylonian Divinatory Texts Chiefly in the Schøyen Collection with an appendix of materials from the papers of W. G. Lambert† Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 18 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2013 Vol.VIII. A. R. George, Mesopotamian Incantations and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 32 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2016 Vol. IX. A. R. George, T. Hertel, J. Llop-­Raduà, K. Radner, and W. H. van Soldt, Assyrian Archival Texts in the Schøyen Collection and Other Documents from North Mesopotamia and Syria Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 34 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2017 Vol. X.Vitali Bartash, Sumerian Administrative and Legal Documents ca. 2900–­2200 BC in the Schøyen Collection Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 35 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2017 Vol. XI. A. R. George, Old Babylonian Texts in the Schøyen Collection, Part One: Selected Letters Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 36 Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press, 2018 Vol. XII. Christopher Metcalf, Sumerian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection Vol. 1: Literary Sources on Old Babylonian Religion Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 38 University Park: ­The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2019 Other volumes are in preparation

Series Editor’s Preface CUSAS 38, by Christopher Metcalf, initiates a series of volumes under the general editorship of Konrad Volk that will make available the extraordinary group of Sumerian literary texts in the Schøyen Collection. The publication of this selection of hymns, poems, and laments enhances our knowledge and understanding of the role that these literary compositions played both in the curriculum of the Old Babylonian schools as well as in the wider religious and cultic spheres of Babylonian society. Metcalf ’s meticulous analysis and extensive commentary expand upon his previous studies and provide many

new insights into the cultic role of these compositions. They also contribute to the clarification of the often obscure Sumerian terminology associated with these texts. In addition, Metcalf discusses the literary and religious-­historical evidence provided by these new sources and the likely links between the so-­called Sumerian sacred texts and the religious practices of the Old Babylonian period. Comments on the poetry of the hymns, lexical and grammatical issues, and the reconstruction of text editions combine to make this a welcome addition to the study of Mesopotamian literary tradition. David I. Owen Jonathan and Jeannette Rosen Ancient Near Eastern Studies Seminar Cornell University, Ithaca, New York April 2019

ix

Acknowledgments I am indebted to many colleagues and institutions for having supported me in writing this book. I first thank Konrad Volk, who entrusted to me the texts that are published here and provided constant advice and encouragement. My initial step in preparing this edition was to attempt to decipher the texts as fully as possible, and in this I benefited from presenting my preliminary results to a reading group in Oxford. I owe many important suggestions to the regular participants: Stephanie Dalley, Parsa Daneshmand, Marie-­Christine Ludwig, and Klaus Wagensonner. Pascal Attinger commented generously on a draft of most of the text edition, virtually every page of which has profited from his insights. At a later stage, I began to draw the hand-­copies of each text. Here I thank Andrew George, who painstakingly checked my copies with the help of the original texts, thereby allowing me to make many improvements, and encouraged me to use digital methods

to produce the final drawings. The copies of texts nos. 12 and 17 are owed to him. I express my collective thanks to the many further colleagues who have helped me in various ways and whose names are recorded in notes throughout this book. My work on this edition began at Wolfson College, Oxford, where I was fortunate to hold a Junior Research Fellowship from 2013 to 2016 and which funded some of my visits to the Schøyen Collection thanks to the generosity of the Ancient World Research Cluster. Further support was provided by the Governing Body of The Queen’s College, Oxford, and the Centre for Manuscript and Text Cultures, my academic home since 2016. I also thank the Schøyen Collection and Elizabeth Gano Sørenssen for their hospitality. I dedicate this book to my wife, Chiara, and to our child. Christopher Metcalf Oxford July 2018

x

Conventions and Abbreviations Readings of cuneiform signs generally follow Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerisch-literarischen Texte (aBZL = Mittermayer 2006). Square brackets indicate damaged or missing signs, indicates a sign erroneously omitted by the scribe, and {lu2} indicates an erased sign. General abbreviations follow the Reallexikon der Assyriologie, and names of Sumerian literary works are abbreviated according to the lists of texts and editions in aBZL 212–­22 and Metcalf 2015, 228–­34. Please note the following supplements:

KešHy LSF

LU lu2-­diĝir-­ra

mušen ku6

“Debate ed. ETCSL c.5.3.3 Between Winter and Summer” EJN “Enki’s Journey to Nippur,” ed. Ceccarelli 2012 ELA “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta,” ed. Mittermayer 2009 ELS P. Attinger, Eléments de linguistique sumérienne. La construction de du11/e/di «dire». OBO Sonderband. Fribourg and Göttingen, 1993 ed. Lambert 2013, 330–­45, “Enki and Ceccarelli 2016 Ninmaḫ” EnlSudr “Enlil A,” ed. Attinger 2015a EnmEns “Enmerkar and Ensuḫkešdanna,” ed. Wilcke 2012 “Hammurabi F” ed. Sjöberg 1972 Id-­D A “Iddin-­Dagan A,” ed. Attinger 2014a

“Nanna K” “Ninurta G” “Rim-­Sin F” “Samsuiluna E” SEpM SG SL

“Šulgi O” Tummal Chronicle UN D

xi

“Keš Hymne,” ed. Wilcke 2006 P. Attinger, Lexique sumérien-­ français, online manuscript (accessed September 9, 2017) “Ur Lament,” ed. Samet 2014 ed. Gadotti 2010 “Lumma A” ed. Römer 2001, 19–­33 ed. Herrmann 2010; see also Mittermayer 2014 ed. Sjöberg 1960, 80–­88 ed. Cohen 1975–­76 ed. Brisch 2007, 228–­33 ed. Sjöberg 1973a “Sumerian Epistolary Miscellany,” ed. Kleinerman 2011 D. O. Edzard, Sumerian Grammar. HdOr. 71. Leiden 2003 M.-­L. Thomsen, The Sumerian Language: An Introduction to Its History and Grammatical Structure. Mes. 10. Copenhagen 2001 ed. Klein 1976 ed. Oelsner 2003; Kleinerman 2011, 141–­43 “Urnamma D,” ed. Flückiger-­ Hawker 1999, 228–­59, Tinney 1999

Introduction The seventeen cuneiform texts published for the first time in this volume offer new perspectives on the rich corpus of Sumerian literature of the Old Babylonian period and on the history of ancient Mesopotamian religion. Most of the present texts can be described as religious poems: they are hymns composed in praise of various gods of the Mesopotamian pantheon and thus belong to a category of Sumerian literature that I have attempted to describe in earlier research.1 This introduction to the texts offers an opportunity to illustrate and clarify some essential points of interpretation in the light of past and present scholarship, in particular on the importance of literary sources in reconstructing the history of Mesopotamian religion. The main precursor and model to the present publication are the two-­volume Sumerische Götterlieder by A. Falkenstein and J. J. A. van Dijk, which offered editions of ten Old Babylonian Sumerian hymns.2 While the commentaries accompanying the texts necessarily concentrated on lexicography and grammar as well as on interpretation of the mythological content, Falkenstein occasionally remarked on the historical contexts in which these songs had been composed and performed: he thus observed in his preface to the great hymn “Enlil A” that the text “certainly had its place in the cult of the main god of Nippur in the Ekur.”3 In his introductory comments to an earlier anthology of Sumerian and Akkadian hymns and prayers, Falkenstein clearly articulated his view that Sumerian songs in praise of gods (Götterlieder) were composed for performance

in temple cults.4 Indeed, according to Falkenstein, an adequate appreciation of Sumerian literature had to start from the realization that these poems are primarily “testaments of the religious concepts and religious development” of Sumerian culture.5 While some subsequent scholars of Sumerian literature have taken a similar view,6 historians soon expressed doubts on the contribution that literary texts can be expected to make to the reconstruction of practical Mesopotamian religion. In a collection of essays dedicated to Falkenstein, J. Renger collected attestations of gods who were “actually worshipped” in the Old Babylonian period (“die in der altbabylonischen Zeit tatsächlich verehrten Götter”): in order to achieve this, Renger found it necessary to exclude references to gods in literary texts, stating that many such texts, including Götterlieder, described the gods in ways that could not be linked to any particular historical cults and adding that many Old Babylonian literary texts to some extent reflect the religion of earlier periods.7 In Renger’s view, Old Babylonian Sumerian literary texts, including songs in praise of gods, could therefore not necessarily be used as evidence for practical religion in this period, unlike royal inscriptions, letters, and administrative documents, on which

4 Falkenstein and von Soden 1953, 18–­19. 5 “Wollen wir die sumerische Dichtung in vollem Umfange würdigen, werden wir sie vor allem als Denkmal der religiösen Auffassung und der religiösen Entwicklung eines der ältesten Kulturvölker anzusehen haben” (Falkenstein and von Soden 1953, 31).

1 Metcalf 2015, 15–­49, 228–­34.

6 See, for example, RlA s.v.“Hymne”A.§8:“Götter-­H[ymne]n haben ihren Sitz im Kult—­dies ist zumindes[t] für diejenigen unter ihnen klar, die ein Gebet enthalten” (C. Wilcke) and Edzard 2004, 590.

2 Falkenstein 1959; van Dijk 1960. “Die Hymne en-­líl sù-­du-­šè hat sicher ihren Platz im Kult des Hauptgottes von Nippur im Ekur gehabt” (Falkenstein 1959, 10). See also his comments on the hymn now known as “Ninurta B” (80). 3

d

7 Renger 1967, 137.

1

2

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Renger based his collection.1 In a more recent and much fuller study of Old Babylonian religion, T. Richter has likewise given priority to nonliterary sources and has expressed hesitation in adducing Old Babylonian religious poetry as evidence for cultic practice, due, among other reasons, to the difficulties in dating individual poems and to the fact that the nonliterary evidence for a given cult may sometimes appear to contradict the literary texts.2 If some historians of Old Babylonian religion have questioned the evidential value of hymnic poetry, similar doubts have recently been voiced, from a different perspective, by scholars of Sumerian literature. Current research on the Old Babylonian Sumerian corpus has taken a particular interest in the school environment in which the extant literary manuscripts were produced, and it has now been demonstrated in detail that a wide variety of Sumerian literary texts, including certain songs in praise of gods such as “Enlil A,” formed an element of scribal education in this period.3 With regard to songs in praise of gods, some scholars have proceeded to question whether a poem that survives in a manuscript originating in a didactic setting can legitimately be assumed to have been performed in a religious cult. Thus in one recent study, N. Brisch has challenged the conventional view that hymns (including songs in praise of gods, as well as songs praising kings)4 were composed for performance in temple cults: “It should be stressed that we have no evidence at all that the songs that were transmitted in the Old Babylonian schools were actually the same that were sung in royal courts or in temples, nor that singers or musicians acted as composers of songs that became part 1 His concluding remarks (Renger 1967, 171) nevertheless suggest that he considered at least some aspects of the nonliterary evidence that he had gathered, in particular on divine genealogies, to invite comparison with the literary sources. 2 Richter 2004, 21–­22. 3 Beyond the works cited in Metcalf 2015, 16 n. 4, see now also, for example, Cohen 2013, 25–­27, 56–­62; Oelsner 2014, Peterson 2015a; Crisostomo 2015; Gadotti and Kleinerman 2017; Charpin 2017, 110–­15; Cooper 2017, 44–­46. 4 As explained elsewhere (Metcalf 2015, 16–­17), I do not refer to the latter type of song as a “hymn.”

of the school tradition.”5 Contributing to a journal issue devoted to the topic “How to Build a Sacred Text in the Ancient Near East,” C. J. Crisostomo has chosen to investigate interconnections between some Old Babylonian literary texts, such as the hymn “Inana C,” and lexical lists, which reflect the fact that both types of text “emerged from the same social sphere, namely scribal education.”6 It is a symptom of the current scholarly focus on Old Babylonian education that possible links between Sumerian “sacred texts” (however defined) and religious practice receive no mention in this study. The present corpus permits clarification, on the basis of concrete examples, of the literary and religious-­historical issues outlined so far. Text no. 1, a song in praise of the goddess Sud of Šuruppak, with prayers for King Bur-­Suen of Isin, is a classic example of an Old Babylonian Sumerian hymn composed according to the usual formal and thematic conventions. It is obvious that this song was created for performance in the cult of Sud, not only because the text itself contains a prayer that Sud accept the king’s offerings in her temple (ll. 44–­45), but also because it agrees with independent votive inscriptions that document the Isin dynasty’s interest in the veneration of this goddess. The cuneiform tablet on which this poem is attested (MS 5102) contains an unusual subscript as well as some apparent editorial remarks that suggest an intricate, now largely irrecoverable textual history, and the tablet may well have been produced in a didactic setting—­but that setting was no doubt secondary to the primary context of composition and performance in the cult of Sud, probably in her temples at Šuruppak that are named in the hymn. A similar situation obtains in the case of text no. 2, an extract from a hymn that praises the statue of Lamma-­saga in the temple of Bau at Girsu. This manuscript has the characteristics of a tablet written as a didactic assignment: it is a single-­column tablet containing a portion of text selected from a larger work, other copies of which are known from Nippur and Ur, and the extract ends with a brief colophon stating the day and month in which the copy 5 Brisch 2010, 158. For similar skepticism, see Veldhuis 2004, 59. 6 Crisostomo 2015, 121.

Introduction

was made. Yet as I argue in the introduction to the text, internal and external evidence strongly suggest that the song was originally composed for performance, to accompany the presentation of offerings to the goddess Bau in Girsu. Further examples of such hymns with clear cultic connections are the song in praise of Enlil and the Ekur of Nippur (no. 4, obverse), the solar hymn with prayers for King Sin-­iddinam of Larsa (no. 9) and the hymn to Nanaya with prayers for King Gungunum of Larsa (no. 14). In all these cases, the easiest way to explain the existence of the texts is to assume that they were primarily composed for performance in cult and may then have been secondarily copied in a didactic setting for the training of scribes.1 It is of interest in this connection that scholars of the Old Babylonian Sumerian literary corpus have recently begun to develop a distinction between “liturgical texts,” which tend to be attested only in very small numbers of manuscripts and may include rubrics and subscripts relating to their (cultic) performance, as opposed to those much more widely attested literary texts that can be shown to have formed part of the school curricula.2 If this distinction is valid, the texts described so far would belong to the former category, and S. Tinney has suggested that, in the case of such compositions, “individual interns working with active practitioners wrote texts as an aid to learning or comprehension, to demonstrate their knowledge or to rehearse their command of texts which were to be used in upcoming rituals.”3 While it is impossible to determine the extent to which Tinney’s broad hypothesis applies to the texts published here, it is clear in any case that these are valuable sources for the history of ancient Mesopotamian religion, particularly when 1 Compare the scenario of transfer from cultic to didactic usage that has been envisaged by Charpin 1986, 280–­302, 432–­34, 485–­89, for a series of Sumerian prayers for Rim-­Sin of Larsa, composed for the king’s visit to the temple of the moon god at Ur and perhaps reused as educational material. On the scribal training of future priests, with discussion of a particularly well-­documented example from Sippar, see Tanret 2002, 168–­71, and 2011, 275–­78.

3

a given hymn can be situated in a particular temple in the time of a particular king4 and when it can be contextualized with the help of independent, nonliterary sources (see the introductions to nos. 1, 2, and 9). Two other tablets published here, however, offer a different perspective on Old Babylonian Sumerian religious poetry. Text no. 5 at first sight appears to represent yet another conventional hymn, composed in praise of the goddess Ninimma. The style of the hymn is however unusually learned, long-­winded, and repetitive, and while the hymn ends with prayers for the life of a king, as is conventional, the ruler in question is named Nanni—­not a historical figure of the Old Babylonian period but a mythical early ruler who was known to Old Babylonian scribes from frequent occurrences in the Sumerian proverb collections and the Sumerian King List. This poem is highly unlikely to have been composed for an actual Old Babylonian cult of Ninimma but was rather written by a scholar who, in purporting to praise a goddess of scribal wisdom, in fact glorified his own knowledge and art. The remarkable text no. 3, while not strictly a hymn, offers a further illustration of this fascinating and esoteric manner of poetry. One side of the tablet, which has the unusual format of a book page that is to be rotated around its vertical axis, begins with a birth narrative followed by conventional praises of Enlil, which the other side of the tablet resumes and elaborates in a series of playful but often obscure lexical, grammatical, and graphic variations. The result is a tablet containing two versions of the same text, one in slightly unorthodox but nevertheless intelligible Sumerian, the other in the form of a learned enigma that was probably composed with the help of lexical lists.5 Nos. 3 and 5 therefore appear to be good examples of what has been called the “hermetic world of Old Babylonian schools.”6

4 On the historical questions raised by references to kings in literary texts, see below.

2 See now Delnero 2015, 89–93, Tinney 2018.

5 See Crisostomo 2015, with further references, on interactions between lexical lists and Sumerian literary texts.

3 Tinney 2011, 589.

6 Michalowski 2006, 163; see also Michalowski 2013.

4

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Text no. 5, with prayers for King Nanni, further raises important questions on the relationship between history and literature. When a song in praise of a god contains a prayer for a named historical king, it has traditionally been assumed that the song dates to the time of that ruler.1 It has however been shown that references to kings in Sumerian literary texts were sometimes manipulated or secondarily inserted, which may cast doubt on the historical reliability of such sources, particularly in the case of compositions attributed to the Ur III dynasty.2 It seems to me that such doubts do not affect the first group of texts described earlier: there exists contextual, nonliterary evidence to support the view that, for example, text no. 1 is a genuine document of the Isin dynasty’s cult of Sud and text no. 9 originates in the solar cult at Larsa, and it would furthermore be difficult to explain why some later scribe felt it necessary to interpolate the name of Bur-­Suen of Isin or Sin-­iddinam of Larsa.3 Text no. 5, in contrast, gives an impression of what such a work of scribal imagination looks like: its turgid academic style clearly sets it apart from conventional religious poetry. The present volume further contains duplicates that usefully help restore the text of compositions that are already known from other sources (nos.  6–­7: the lament “Lisin A”; no. 8: the hymn to Ninurta “Išme-­Dagan W”; no. 10: “Nanše A”; nos. 11–­13: the hymn to Nisaba “Išbi-­Erra E”; no. 17: 1 See, for example, Falkenstein 1953, 16–­17; compare Richter 2004, 21 n. 93. 2 See Tinney 1999, 42–­43, and the recent discussions by Lämmerhirt 2012, 17–­22, Attinger 2015b, 3, and Ludwig 2015, 256–­61, with further references. See also Klein 1998 for an example involving a substitution of Išme-­Dagan of Isin for Dumuzi as lover of Inana. On the latter point, compare the recent critical discussion by Steinkeller 2017, 168–­73 of past scholarship on literary texts and the writing of early Mesopotamian history. 3

“Dumuzi-­Inana J”), as well as two shorter texts of uncertain interpretation (no. 15: an extract mentioning Ezinam; no. 16: hymnic praises of Inana). But the main texts of interest, as outlined here, illustrate the broad spectrum of Old Babylonian Sumerian religious poetry, including conventional Götterlieder that were composed for worship in temples and then copied in secondary, perhaps didactic, settings as well as learned poems that merely imitated hymnic form and served to glorify the scribe’s own knowledge. Both kinds of texts inform us, in different ways, on the history of Old Babylonian religion.4 The key to an adequate appreciation is to distinguish between primary contexts of composition and secondary contexts of subsequent reuse and to contextualize each composition with the help of both literary and nonliterary evidence, where available.The individual introductions to each of the following texts are first attempts to achieve these two aims. It is worth stating, if only briefly, the final aim of this edition: to reconstruct the original version of each composition as closely as possible, in the knowledge that our ability to do so is limited by the evidence available to us. This approach may be questioned by some,5 and it is certainly true that variants and corruptions arising during subsequent copying should not be discarded, as they may be interesting and worthy of study in their own right. They should nevertheless be regarded as secondary, and my principal editorial aim remains to reconstruct the text as it was first composed.6 4 It could be said of texts nos. 3 and 5 that “there is no good to reason to deny religious relevance to academic speculation about the gods” (Veldhuis 2004, 16). 5 See the recent critiques, with respect to Sumerian literature, of Veldhuis 2004, 111–­12, and Delnero 2012, 6–­11, 179–­80. 6 For a restatement of the conventional approach to textual criticism, to which I subscribe, see Janko 2016, who offers a critique of what he calls the “multitextual chimera,” and further West 2017 and Bernsdorff 2018.

Catalog Text no.

Description

Measurements (mm) (HxWxD)

MS no.

1

“ser3-­gid2-­da” hymn to Sud with prayers for King Bur-­ Suen of Isin

142×63×27

5102

115×66×27

3329

70×65×24

3312

79×76×20

3392

90×65×22

2700

89×59×29

3274

105×62×25

3347

97×72×25

3355

Tablet, complete, portrait format, single column, 30+19 ll. + subscript of 2 ll. 2

Hymn to the goddess Lamma-­saga (“Bau A”) Tablet, complete, portrait format, single column, 25+12 ll. + subscript of 1 l.

3

Poem about the god Enlil Tablet, lower part missing, single column, 17+19 ll.

4

“ser3-­nam-­šub-­ba” songs about the gods Enlil and Enki Tablet, complete, portrait format, two columns, 30+25+1+27+19+2 ll.

5

Hymn to the goddess Ninimma Tablet, lower part missing, portrait format, single column, 25+16 ll. + subscript of 1 l.

6

Lament of the goddess Lisin (“Lisin A”) Tablet, complete, portrait format, single column, 15+3 ll.

7

Lament of the goddess Lisin (“Lisin A”) Tablet, complete, portrait format, single column, 22+1+12 ll. + subscript of 1 l.

8

Hymn to the god Ninurta (“Išme-­Dagan W”) Tablet, complete, portrait format, single column, 14+15+3+2 ll.

5

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

6

Text no.

Description

Measurements (mm) (HxWxD)

9

Hymn to the god Utu with prayers for King Sin-­iddinam 130×66×29 of Larsa

MS no. 2243/2

Tablet, complete, portrait format, single column, 25+8 ll. 10

Hymn to the goddess Nanše (“Nanše A”)

130×62×31

2294

70×51×28

2715

55×50×28

3297

57×66×20

3351

79×52×23

5107

64×96×21

3390

113×62×34

3301

68×67×28

3314

Tablet, reconstructed from fragments, portrait format, single column, 21+29 ll. 11

Hymn to the goddess Nisaba (“Išbi-­Erra E”) Tablet, lower part missing, portrait format, single column, 13+9 ll.

12

Hymn to the goddess Nisaba (“Išbi-­Erra E”) Tablet, middle part, portrait format, single column, 11+11 ll.

13

Hymn to the goddess Nisaba (“Išbi-­Erra E”) Tablet, complete, lenticular format, single column, 7 ll.

14

Hymn to the goddess Nanaya with prayers for King Gungunum of Larsa Tablet, lower part missing, portrait format, single column, 17+8 ll.

15

Poem mentioning the goddess Ezinam Tablet, complete, landscape format, single column, 8 ll.

16

Hymns to the goddess Inana Tablet, lower part, portrait format, single column, 19+24 ll.

17

Poem about the goddess Ĝeštinana (“Dumuzi-­Inana J”) Tablet, upper part, portrait format, single column, 20 ll.

Concordances 1. Concordance of tablet numbers in the Schøyen Collection (MS) and text numbers in this volume. MS no.

Text no.

MS no.

Text no.

MS no.

Text no.

2243/2

9

3301

16

3355

8

2294

10

3312

3

3390

15

2700

5

3314

17

3392

4

2715

11

3329

2

5102

1

3274

6

3347

7

5107

14

3297

12

3351

13

2. Concordance of text numbers in this volume with entry numbers in the database of the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (CDLI), http://​cdli​.ucla​.edu, which offers color images of all the tablets published in this book, sometimes in a fuller photographic record. Text no.

CDLI No.

Text no.

CDLI No.

1

P254171

7

P252288

13

P252292

2

P252270

8

P252296

14

P254175

3

P252253

9

P251427

15

P252331

4

P252333

10

P251534

16

P252242

5

P251713

11

P251728

17

P252255

6

P252215

12

P252238

7

Text no.

CDLI No.

Texts NO. 1: A HY MN TO SUD from her worshipper (King Bur-­Suen) and finally emphasizes Sud’s compassionate attitude toward mankind. In a reference to her shrines, which are probably located in Šuruppak, she is called the “lady of the Ekisiga” and the “pleasant woman of the Edimgalana.”

MS 5102 is a single-­column tablet of forty-­nine lines that contains a hymn to the goddess Sud of Šuruppak composed for King Bur-­Suen of Isin. The poem, which was not previously known, sheds unexpected light on the nature of Sud and her cult during the Isin period. MS 5102 also contributes significantly to the history of Old Babylonian literature, as the text contains what is likely to be an editorial remark on the subject of liturgical rubrics.

The Goddess Sud and Her Cult The content and structure of the song follow the conventions of Old Babylonian Sumerian hymnic poetry: the close and affectionate relation of Sud to the chief gods An and Enlil, her important position among the other gods of the pantheon, and her vital importance to the existence of mankind are commonplaces, and the tripartite structure consisting of invocation, amplification of praise, and final prayer is equally predictable (Metcalf 2015, 22–­49). Within the framework imposed by these conventions, the hymn offers several new and unexpected perspectives on Sud, who is well attested in the Early Dynastic period but was hitherto considered to be almost forgotten in Old Babylonian times. This development has been thought to coincide with the changing fortunes of her city of Šuruppak, which prospered in the mid third millennium BC but is supposed to have been all but abandoned by the early second millennium BC.1 MS 5102 thus invites a fresh look at the evidence on the goddess Sud and her cult, particularly in the Old Babylonian period. The association of Sud and Šuruppak is attested in the Early Dynastic “za3-­me” hymns (OIP 99, 51,

Summary The opening section of the hymn announces, in conventional terms, the singer’s intention to praise Sud, who is called the “beloved” of her husband Enlil (ll. 1–­3).The main body of the song amplifies these praises by describing Sud’s important role in the pantheon (expert of the Ekur, decider of fate among the Anuna gods: ll. 6–­7) and her significance to the well-­being of mankind (ll. 9–­10). Her divine gatekeeper is Asallu ḫi; her vizier is the god Nin-­pa (ll. 15–­17). Lines 18 to 23 introduce King Bur-­Suen, to whom Sud has granted the mandate to govern the “teeming peoples” in all her “settled lands.” In a partly fragmentary passage (ll. 27–­35), the second part of the hymn proceeds to enumerate the names that Sud has been given by An and Enlil, a theme to which the poem’s opening line alludes. Assigning the city of Šuruppak to her as her cultic seat, An and Enlil have called Sud the “princely daughter,” but in her capacity as the wife of Enlil, she is also the “Greatness of the Ekur” and “pleasant Ninlil.”The final section of the hymn returns to Šuruppak and to Sud’s cult there (ll. 44–­4 9). The singer prays that the goddess will accept prayers and offerings

1 See recently RlA s.v. Pantheon A. §14 (W. Sallaberger), Lisman 2013, 136, and Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, 74.

9

10

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

180–­81), and two enigmatic literary compositions of the same period from Šuruppak also seem to revolve around her (SF 36, 40).1 Recent scholarship has identified references to Sud’s shrine in the Early Dynastic administrative texts from Šuruppak, in which she is frequently attested in theophoric personal names.2 But these sources tell us little about Sud’s nature. Until now, the best-­known and most informative piece of evidence in this respect was the poem “Enlil and Sud” (ed. Civil 1983), attested in Old Babylonian and later manuscripts, which tells how Enlil, as a young bachelor, wooed Sud and, after an unsuccessful approach, eventually persuaded her mother Nisaba to let him marry her, at which point Sud was turned from a “no-­name goddess” (diĝir mu nu-­tuku) into Ninlil, a goddess who “has a great name” (mu gal tuku, EnlSud 171). The close association among Sud, Ninlil, and Ninlil’s Tummal sanctuary near Nippur is also documented in Old Babylonian god lists, and scholars have concluded that Sud’s marriage to Enlil and her transformation into his wife Ninlil caused Sud to be forgotten (see note on ll. 34–­35).3 The present hymn indeed alludes to Sud’s marriage to Enlil (“In the Tummal, Lord Nunamnir has named you ‘pleasant Ninlil,’” ll. 34–­35; see also the note on l. 3), but it also praises Sud as a distinct deity in her own right—­namely, as the city goddess of Šuruppak. This shows that Sud, while being the wife of Enlil, was not necessarily seen to have lost her identity. It has often been overlooked that the poem “Enlil and Sud” never actually refers to Sud as the city goddess of Šuruppak: she is portrayed there as completely subordinate, first to her mother

1 On these texts, see Civil 1983, 44, Krebernik 1998, 240, and RlA s.v. “Ninlil” §3.4.1 (M. Krebernik). 2 Pomponio 2001, 112–­13. See now also Steible and Yıldız 2015, 111. 3 A manuscript of the Nippur god list containing the entry d su.kur.ru-­um has prompted the suggestion that an Old Babylonian scribe was even capable of misunderstanding the sequence dsu.kur.ru = dSud3 as an Akkadian name (SLT 122 col. vi 3′ [P227745]; see Peterson 2009, 72). M. Krebernik (RlA s.v. “Ninlil” §3.1.3), however, interprets the entry as a form of the word šukurrum—­that is, as a “spear” representing a sacred emblem (“hat mit dSùd nichts zu tun”).

Nisaba in Ereš and then to her husband, Enlil, in Nippur. While Sud owes her position in Šuruppak to An and Enlil, according to the present text, this cultic seat guarantees a degree of independence. Conversely, Nisaba is nowhere mentioned in MS 5102. In accordance with the usual structure of Old Babylonian Sumerian hymns, the singer ends with a prayer (ll. 44–­49) on behalf of Sud’s worshipper (King Bur-­Suen), whose offerings the goddess is asked to accept. This clearly points to the cultic setting in which the hymn was performed. Two shrines of Sud, the Ekisiga and the Edimgalana, are mentioned in MS 5102, and the same pair occurs in TCL 15.1 (P345345), a difficult Old Babylonian Sumerian lamentation that bemoans the destruction of Sud’s city and temple.The latter shrine was maintained by King Enlil-­bani of the Isin dynasty, according to an inscription of which two versions were found in Isin and one supposedly near Fara/ Šuruppak (RIM E4.1.10.7). This evidence, when seen in conjunction with Bur-­Suen’s veneration of Sud in MS 5102, naturally leads to the conclusion that the cult of Sud persisted until (at least) the Isin dynasty. Richter (2004: 251) has suggested that the Isin dynasty’s interest in Sud might be explained by her association with the healing goddess Gula in an Old Babylonian version of the Weidner god list (VS 24.20 col. v 6–­8):4 since healing goddesses were prominent in Isin, the cult of Sud might have appealed to its rulers. But the present hymn does not describe Sud as a healing goddess (the reference to her life-­g iving powers, ll. 9–­10, is a conventional element of divine praise). Rather, Bur-­Suen extols Sud specifically as the city goddess of Šuruppak. Since it would be unusual for a ruler to attribute his kingship to the forgotten goddess of an extinct city, the question of Šuruppak’s status in the Isin period must be raised. The detailed archaeological study of Fara/ Šuruppak by Martin (1988) has noted that the site, having flourished in the Early Dynastic period, “appears to lose all importance about 2000 BC and is no longer heard of as a city after this date,” 4 See now also Shibata 2009, 39 on T07–­1 col. iii 2′.



Te x t s : A H y m n t o S u d

possibly because of the shifting course of the Euphrates (Martin 1988, 14). At the same time, it is admitted that very heavy wind erosion “has meant that most levels later than ED III have been worn away on the main mound” (116), where the extensive German and American excavations have taken place. Administrative records show that Šuruppak was in fact still an independent provincial capital in the Ur III period (Sallaberger 1999, 210).1 Martin (1983, 29–­30) estimates that it was perhaps fifty or even eighty-­five hectares in size at that time and observes that the impression of a city that became practically extinct after the Early Dynastic period, as the excavations would suggest, is probably “totally misleading,” as the settlements may simply have spread beyond the main mound. The assumption that Šuruppak finally consisted only of a “handful of houses” in the Isin-­Larsa period is based on the lack of written evidence to the contrary (30).2 In light of the new evidence provided by MS 5102, it seems likely that Šuruppak retained some of its ancient significance even as late as the Isin period. The last section of the hymn, which emphasizes that Sud is the city goddess of Šuruppak and prays for her acceptance of offerings before mentioning her shrines Ekisiga and Edimgalana (ll. 38–­49), supports the suggestion of Richter (2004, 251 n. 1049) that the latter shrine, maintained by Enlil-­bani of Isin (RIM E4.1.10.7) and attested also in the lament TCL 15.1, could have been located at or near Šuruppak itself. This does not mean that the site was necessarily of any significance as an urban center at this stage, and the maintenance of Sud’s ancient cult does not contradict (and indeed perhaps agrees with) the notion that the venerable city of Šuruppak

1 Sallaberger 1993, I 58–­59 notes the existence of one document (RA 9, pl.V SA 200 [P127539]) that records an offering to Sud at Šuruppak. 2 See more recently also Krebernik 1998, 241–­43, Starzmann 2007, 93–­111, and RlA s.v. “Šuruppag” B. §2 (H. P. Martin). I am grateful to Professor Adelheid Otto, who initiated a new survey of the site in autumn 2017, for some discussion of the archaeological data.

11

had begun to attract an antiquarian interest by the beginning of the Old Babylonian period.3

MS 5102 and Old Babylonian Literary History MS 5102 is an addition to the two hymns composed for King Bur-­Suen (“Bur-­Suen A,” “adab” to Ninurta; “Bur-­Suen B,” “adab” to Enlil) that were previously known.4 The present text is identified in the subscript as a song of the “ser3-­g id2-­da” type. As well as shedding light on the goddess Sud, the text is of some significance for the literary history of the Old Babylonian period. Between ll. 23 and 24, and again at the very end of the song, MS 5102 contains a line with the comment nu-­tar. Another attestation of this comment occurs in Ni 4369 rev. 24′–­25′ (ISET 1, p. 73), a manuscript of the hymn “Bau A,” a duplicate of which is published in the present volume (text no. 2). In his edition of that hymn, Sjöberg (1974, 173) asked, “What is [n]u-­tar written between the two lines?,” and referred to a further text in Philadelphia that provides another example (see note on ll. 23–­24).The additional evidence now available in MS 5102 makes it possible to formulate at least a tentative explanation of the meaning of nu-­tar. In MS 5102, nu-­tar is found in two places where Old Babylonian Sumerian hymns often contain liturgical rubrics (such as sa-­gid2-­da, sa-­ĝar-­ra, etc.) that relate to the musical accompaniment of the song. The first nu-­tar (between ll. 23–­24) occurs about halfway through the song, where there is a clear change of topic: the hymn moves from 3 For a possible example of antiquarian interest in the city, see Cavigneaux 2013, 73 n. 22, who proposes an ingenious interpretation of the late colophon AOAT 2, no. 533, translated by him as “Onguents et colliers éprouvés et examinés, qui sont prêts à l’emploi (?), tradition des antiques apkallu d’avant le déluge, (recettes) qu’Enlil-­ muballi ṭ, apkallu de Nippur, a déterrées ( ┌ip ┐pu-­l a) à Šuruppak (LAMxKUR.KI) en l’an 2 d’Enlil-­bani, roi d’Isin. Que le savant le montre au savant, mais pas à l’ignorant!” Collation of the tablet in question (K 4023) in November 2015 suggests that the reading ┌ip-­pu┐-­la is possible. See also Frahm and Payne 2003–­4, 53, on tablets possibly excavated at Šuruppak in antiquity. 4 Note also the lenticular tablet TIM 10.122, where Bur-­Suen’s name is written before Ur-­Ninurta’s.

12

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

the coronation of Bur-­Suen by Sud to a description of Sud’s elevation by An and Enlil. The second occurrence is at the end of the song (after l. 49). But nu-­tar is not itself a liturgical rubric. Rather, it appears to be an editorial remark that refers to the “division” (tar = ku5) of the text into liturgical rubrics. In the case of the hymn “Bau A,” nu-­tar is found in Ni 4369 rev. 24′–­25′ but not in the corresponding part of the text in MS 3329 (l. 35), the duplicate edited in the present volume (text no. 2). All of this suggests that nu-­tar is meant to signal a problem relating to the presence or absence of rubrics in the textual transmission. The scribes of MS 5102 and Ni 4369 perhaps wished to indicate the absence of an expected liturgical rubric in their model text and thus wrote that the text that they were copying was “not divided (nu-­ku5)” at certain points.The absence of a liturgical rubric in a model text would not be surprising, since it is known that duplicate manuscripts of Old Babylonian Sumerian religious poems can differ in their arrangement of such rubrics: a new example is now offered by the obverse of MS 3392 (text no. 4), which contains a version of the so-­called “Hymn to the Ekur” that omits many of the rubrics contained in the previously known manuscript (UM 29-­16-­51; see the introduction to text no. 4 in this volume, where further examples are given). In the present text, the second occurrence of nu-­tar (after l. 49) is followed, in the same line, by the partly erased signs {sa-­gid2-­da-­an}.“sa-­gid2-­da” is a common liturgical rubric, but here it is probably misplaced: the “sa-­gid2-­da” rubric normally occurs in tandem with the “sa-­ĝar-­ra” rubric, and it should not stand at the end of a song.The aborted notation {sa-­gid2-­da-­an} in MS 5102 was probably inspired by a perceived (but false) analogy to the song’s generic designation as a “ser3-­gid2-­da” in the subscript. In my view, the partly erased {sa-­gid2-­da-­an} after nu-­tar lends support to the assumption that nu-­tar is connected to the notation of liturgical rubrics and that its purpose is to signal an uncertainty as to how the text should be divided. The exact reading of nu-­tar is likely to be nu-­ku5, and ku5 would then be comparable to pirsum, which designates text “divisions” in Akkadian technical terminology. If this interpretation is correct, nu-­tar can

be compared to a passage in “Examenstext A” (ed. Sjöberg 1975) that speaks of “dividing” Sumerian songs “into their sections” (pirsīšunu parāsu, l. 24; Sumerian version not preserved).1 In sum, I propose to read nu-­tar as nu-­ku5 and to interpret the phrase as an editorial remark meaning “(the model text) is not divided (by a rubric).” If this suggestion goes in the right direction, the few attestations of nu-­tar in Sumerian sources offer a glimpse of Old Babylonian literary history from an unusual perspective. Editorial remarks on literary manuscripts are a familiar feature in later periods but are not usually associated with Old Babylonian sources; it has been denied that such redactional comments are even conceivable in the Old Babylonian period, which was supposedly not yet reliant on the purely written transmission of literary texts.2 But it is obvious that redactions of transmitted texts took place even in this early period. Otherwise, it would not be possible to explain, for instance, the existence of Old Babylonian Sammeltafeln, on which literary compositions from various sources were compiled and organized.3 I see no reason why an Old Babylonian scribe should not be able to record a noteworthy feature of his model text, whatever interplay there may have been between oral and written forms of transmission. In this perspective, the existence of the editorial remark nu-­tar should not come as a surprise, especially since it agrees well with the state of Old Babylonian Sumerian literature as it is preserved today: the comment that a model text was “not divided” into rubrics reflects the fact that duplicate versions of the same composition could disagree on precisely this point, as extant literary manuscripts confirm.

1 The term pirsu(m) was later in use as an editorial term referring to “sections” of a series, such as in the compendium of Lamaštu texts from the Assurbanipal library (Farber 2014, 20–­22). 2 Sallaberger 2008, 96. See now Worthington (2012: 24–­28) on “multiple exemplars” and “annotations by transmitters.” 3 See RlA s.v. “Sammeltafel” A. §2.3 (M. Worthington) and Metcalf (2015, 18, 53–­54).



Te x t s : A H y m n t o S u d

The Manuscript MS 5102, while beautifully written with elaborately formed signs, is characterized by numerous glosses, erasures, and grammatical errors.The highly multivalent sign ka is glossed twice (eenim, l. 11; giri17-­zal, l. 43), and erasures occur in ll. 9, 10, 15, gi 17, 31, and 44 and in the erroneous rubric after l. 49. The first of these erasures was caused by uncertainty on the spelling of the name “Sud”: in l. 3, the name of the goddess is followed by a determinative ki (a spelling for which there are parallels; see note on l. 3), but the determinative sign is erased at the next occurrence of the name, in l. 10. In some common syntactical constructions, superfluous case endings seem to have been added ([dnin-­l]il2 sa6-­ga-­e mu-­še3 mu-­r i-­i[n-­š]e21, l. 35; d┌sud3┐ kur-­gal-­la-­ra ša3-­ka-­ĝal2-­la-­ni-­me-­en, l. 41). These glosses, erasures, and mistakes suggest that the scribe struggled with the Sumerian text despite the skillful execution of the tablet. Also notable is the form of ḫu and ri chosen by the scribe, with a low horizontal in the place of the more usual Winkelhaken.

Transliteration obv. 1 2

[x x x]1-­┌e mu┐ du10 še21-­a [x x] den-­┌lil2┐-­la2 ki aĝ2-­ĝa2-­ni za-­e-­┌me-­en┐ 3 ┌ama gal┐ dsud3ki-­a ser3 ku3-­zu ga-­┌an-­i┐-­i ĝu10 du11-­ga-­zu diĝir maḫ-­gen7 rib-­ba 4 nin-­ 5 igi il2-­la en dnu-­nam-­nir-­re 6 ┌gal┐-­zu e2-­kur-­ra nin gal ki-­ur3-­ra 7 nin nam zi tar-­tar-­re da-­nun-­na-­ke4-­ne 8 munus zi ┌me┐ gal-­gal-­la an ki-­da nu-­sa2 9 igi bar-­ra-­┌zu┐ lu2 {lu2} mu-­un-­til3-­le 10 dsud3 {ki}-­a ka ┌ba-­a-­zu┐ lu2 mu-­un-­sa6-­ge 11 eenim-­zu niĝ2 nu-­kur2-­ru-­dam 12 ka-­ta e3-­a-­zu saĝ-­bi-­še3 ┌e3┐-­a 13 ┌dsud3┐-­a nam-­maḫ-­zu da-­nun-­na-­ke4-­ne 14 a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2 zi-­de3 ši-­im-­ma-­ra-­an-­su8-­ge-­eš 15 i3-­du8-­gal-­zu ┌ĝeš┐-­tuku dasal-­lu2-­ḫi 16 šu-­luḫ me ku3-­ga si ḫu-­mu-­ra-­ab-­sa2 17 [su]gal7-­zu dnin-­pa-­ke4 {lu2} a-ra-­z[u] enim!(saĝ)-­ma-­še3 ša-­ra-­ab-­du 1 The tablet has here been patched with material that may be extraneous: see the note about this line.

18 19 20

13

bur┐-­suen-­e aga zi dalla mu-­ni-­in-­e3 [me]n zalag-­ga-­zu saĝ-­ĝa2-­na u3-­mu-­e-­ĝal2 ┌ ┐ x [x] ┌x ĝedru uĝ3 si sa2-­sa2-­e saĝ-­e┐-­eš ┌ mu-­ni-­in-­r ig7┐ 21 ┌dbur┐-­suen sipa nun-­bi na-­nam 22 si[bir2] uĝ3 lu-­a e-ne-­ra u3-­mu-­na-­e-­šum2 23 kur-­kur ki-­ĝar-­zu kilib3-­bi ḫa-­ra-­ab-­laḫ5-­e nu-­ tar 24 [ĝ]eš-­ḫur-­zu niĝ2 šu nu-­te-­ĝe26-­dam 25 [ni]n-­ ĝu10 ┌a-­ra2┐ ak-­a-­zu igi nu-­ĝa2-­ĝa2 26 [ĝar]za-­┌zu┐ ḫur nu-­┌bal-­e┐-­dam 27 [x x]-­zu me an-­na saĝ-­e-­┌eš rig8┐-­ga-­a 28 [iri]ki-­zu šuruppagki-­e an-­ne2 ma-­┌ra-­an-­x┐-­[ . . . ] 29 [k]i-­tuš ša3 ḫul2-­la-­ka ┌d en┐-­lil2-­d[a . . .]-­┌x┐ 30 [ni]n-­ ĝu10 ┌iriki nam┐-­maḫ-­za šu[ruppagki]-­ga-­ke4 rev. 31 [x] dsud3 dumu nun mu-­še3 ḫu-­{ri}-­in-­š[e21] 32 [nibr]u ki-­a kur-­gal den-­lil2-­le 33 [na]m-­maḫ e2-­kur-­ra mu-­še3 mu-­r i-­in-­š[e21] 34 [tum-­m]a-­alki-­a en dnu-­nam-­ni[r-­re] 35 [dnin-­l]il2 sa6-­ga-­e mu-­še3 mu-­r i-­i[n-­š]e21 36 ┌x x x x x┐ zi edin-­na-­[k]e4 37 ┌x┐[x] ┌x x x┐-­┌zu┐ me-­t[e] ┌x x┐-­[n]i-­┌me┐-­en 38 ┌šuruppag┐ki-­še3 dlamma-­sa6-­┌ga-­ni┐-­me-­en 39 za3-­gu-­la2 iriki-­za-­ke4 ḫu-­┌mu┐-­ni-­lum-­lum-­mu-­ne 40 enim ┌uru16┐ an ki-­a me maḫ-­┌ta┐ saĝ il2 41 d┌sud3┐ kur-­gal-­la-­ra ša3-­ka-­ĝal2-­la-­ni-­me-­en 42 para10 gal-­┌e(?) dur2┐ ĝar-­ra-­zu-­ne 43 šuruppagki gigiri17-­┌zal-­la┐ asila3 ḫa-­ra-­┌su3┐-­e 44 lu2 a-ra-­zu siškur2 ┌ ma-­ra-­x┐(?)-­da-­ab-­be2{-­en} a 45 kadra2 -­ni šu ti-­ba-­ab lu2 kaš-­zu ḫe2-­a 46 saĝ gegge-­še3 ┌ama arḫuš┐-­a-­me-­en ┌ 47 kur-­ kur-­re┐ saĝ-­en3-­tar-­bi-­┌me-­en┐ 48 ḫe2-­d[u7] e2 maḫ-­a nin e2-­ki-­si3-­ga 49 munus ┌sa6┐-­ga e2-­dim-­gal-­an-­na nu-­ tar {sa-­g id2-­da-­an(?)} ┌d sud3┐-a za3-mi2 ┌ ser3┐-­gid2-­da dsud3-­kam ┌d

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

14

Translation

30

1 2 3

31

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

[ . . . ] called by a pleasant name, [ . . . ] you are the beloved of Enlil, Great Mother Sud, let me perform your holy song! My lady, what you have uttered is as excellent as (the utterance of) a great god, Chosen by Lord Nunamnir, Expert of the Ekur, great lady of the Ki-­ur, The lady who decides true fates for the Anuna gods, True woman of the great divine powers, unequaled in(?) heaven and earth, Your glance lets man live, Sud, your pronouncement makes man well, Your word is something that is not to be altered, Your declaration has taken precedence. Sud, your greatness—­the Anuna gods Are at your disposal for (your) rightful instructions. Your attentive doorkeeper Asalluḫi Shall perform the purification rites and the sacred ordinances for you! Your vizier Nin-­pa . . . (?) to your requests and orders, He has made the true crown radiantly manifest over Bur-­Suen. Since you have placed your gleaming [crown] on his head, (The vizier) has bestowed upon (the king) [ . . . ] the scepter to guide the people. Bur-­Suen—­he is truly their shepherd and prince! Since you have given him the staff (to direct) the teeming peoples, May he govern the entirety of your settled lands for you! Not divided(?). Your designs are something that is not to be grasped, My [lady,] your ways are not to be seen, Your rites are never to be overturned. Your [ . . . ], having bestowed the divine powers of heaven, An has [ . . . ] your city to you, to Šuruppak, In the happy dwelling, with Enlil [ . . . ],

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

My lady, the city, the site of your greatness, in(?) Šuruppak, [ . . . ] Sud, he has named you “princely daughter,” In Nippur(?), the Great Mountain Enlil Has named you “the Greatness of the Ekur,” In the Tummal, Lord Nunamnir Has named you “pleasant Ninlil,” [ . . . ] life(?) of the plain, [ . . . ] fitting, you are his [ . . . ]. For Šuruppak, you are its benevolent protective deity, For the shrine of your city, let them make things prosper! (The one of the) mighty word in heaven and earth, proud among the great divine ordinances, Sud, you are the Great Mountain’s intimate counselor. Now that you have taken your seat on the great dais, Let him fill Šuruppak with prosperity and joy for you! A man is praying and making offerings in front of you—­ Accept his gift; let him be the man (of) your beer (offerings)! To the black-­headed, you are a compassionate mother, To the lands, you are their caretaker. Ornament of the great temple, lady of the Ekisiga, Pleasant woman of the Edimgalana! Not divided(?). {It is(?) the “sa-­gid2-­da.”} Praise be to Sud. It is a “ser-­gid2-­da” of Sud.

Commentary 1. The suggestive traces of signs that are visible at the beginning of the line are not to be trusted, since the upper left corner of the tablet has been patched and reconstructed with mud and with fragments that may not necessarily belong where they now stand. I therefore prefer not to venture a restoration.



Te x t s : A H y m n t o S u d

3. At the start of the line, I adopt the restoration ┌ ama gal┐, “great mother,” suggested to me by A. Glenn: this is a common epithet of Ninlil (see, e.g., text no. 8, l. 24, in this volume) and would thus again illustrate the close association between the two goddesses, in this text and elsewhere (see especially ll. 34–­35 and the introduction). ser3 i-i, literally “to make the song emerge,” is probably a conflation of two verbs that commonly occur in hymnic openings: me-­teš2 i-i, “to praise,” and ser3 du11, “to sing” (Metcalf 2015, 25–­28). In other instances, ser3 is in the locative or adverbiative case: lugal-­ĝu10 nam-­maḫ-­zu ser3-­ra ga-­am3-­i-­i, “My king, (Haia,) let me praise your greatness in song” (Rim-­Sin B, 29), and perhaps dmes-­lam-­[ta-­e3-­a se]r3-­r[e-­e]š(?) ḫe2-­i-­i, “Meslamtaea, I shall praise you by singing!” (Nergal C, 51).The present poem, in which Sud is very likely invoked as Ninlil (l. 35), may seem to be the kind of hymn envisaged at the difficult conclusion of “Enlil and Sud,” 175, where the (future?) performance of “holy songs” (ser3 ku3) of Enlil (and Ninlil) is mentioned. But the correspondence between our hymn and “Enlil and Sud” is probably not direct, given that ser3 ku3, “holy song,” is not the name of a specific type of composition but a broad heading for various kinds of religious poetry. See Shehata (2009, 266–­68) for a discussion of “Enlil and Sud,” 175, and a survey of further evidence. The present hymn is identified in the subscript by the narrower technical term ser3-­gid2-­da, literally “extended song.” In this line, the name of the goddess is written with a ki determinative, which is erased in l. 10 and omitted thereafter. The spelling dsud3ki is otherwise attested in documents of the Ur III period, according to Krebernik (1998, 239), as well as in CBS 10673, col. ii 18′ (P265876) = Sumerian “Flood Story,” Segment B15 (OB). Another oddity in connection with the divine name is the occurrence of the genitive suffix -­a(k) (here as well as in ll. 10 and 13 and the doxology), which in all instances except the doxology seems to indicate an anticipatory genitive construction (literally “of Sud, your holy song”). 5.The syntax presumably reflects confusion between constructions of the type mes an-­ne2 pa3-­da and

15

mes pa3-­da an-­na. See ELS § 137 R. 1 with n. 478 and Brisch (2007, 110–­12). A similar instance with the same verb is UN D, 10: dur-­dnamma sul igi il2-­la kur-­┌gal┐ den-­lil2-­le, “Ur-­Namma, the hero chosen by the Great Mountain Enlil” (Yale tablet, provenance unknown) (// kur-­gal ud d en-­lil2-­la2-­ke4, Ur version). 7. See now Lämmerhirt (2010, 77) on nam zi tar, “to decide a true fate.” 8. In this line, the scribe first wrote an-­da and then remembered to insert the omitted ki (an ki-­da). an ki-­da nu-­sa2 would mean, literally, “who does not rival heaven and earth,” but the sense must be that Sud has no rival in heaven and on earth. According to a suggestion by Pascal Attinger, the phrase could thus be interpreted as an ablative in a locative sense (*an ki-­ta,“in heaven and earth”), the ablative ending -­ta being here represented as /-­da/ (ELS §165), perhaps under the influence of the frequent use of the comitative (-­da) with the verb sa2. 15. The name and nature of Asalluḫi have recently been discussed by Barberon (2012, 135–­38) and Lambert (2013, 252, 480–­81). Asalluḫi here assumes an auxiliary function that resembles his role in Old Babylonian incantations, on which see Geller (1985, 14–­15), but he is otherwise not normally associated with Sud. 17. Nin-­pa is mentioned in connection with Sud in a fragment of an Old Akkadian votive inscription by an unknown ruler of Šuruppak (RIM E2.1.2.2001; see Frahm and Payne 2003–­4). The vizier’s name is to be read dnin-­g idru or dnin-­ ĝešdurux according to Marchesi and Marchetti (2011, 113 n. 158); on cultic aspects, see Pomponio (2001, 110–­11) and Richter (2004, 83–­84). The line is not easily translated: the scribe appears to have written lu2 before a-ra-­z[u] but then erased the sign. lu2 a-ra-­zu would normally refer to the worshipper supplicating the deity, as, for example, at LU 430 and l. 44, but here the sense must be that the vizier stands ready at the request of Sud or that he executes everything at her request. 18. This is a conventional description of the king’s coronation by a god. Compare, for example, aga3 nam-­lugal-­la2-­zu-­u3 dalla ḫe2-­em-­e3, “(Enlil to

16

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Šulgi:) ‘May your crown of kingship be radiantly manifest!’” (Šulgi D, 390). 20. The verb written here as saĝ-­e-­eš rig7 (pa.ḫub2. du), “to bestow,” abbreviated to saĝ-­e-­eš rig8 (pa. ḫub2) at the end of l. 27, has recently been studied by Meyer-­Laurin (2012, 233–­35). 23–­24. nu-­tar is attested here and at the end of the present text (after l. 49) as well as in two other manuscripts of Old Babylonian Sumerian literary compositions: (a) UM 29-­16-­534, rev. 2′–­3′, a ms. of “ku3 urudu,” in an indented line inserted between ll. 8 and 9 of “Segment C” (following ETCSL c.5.3.6; photo kindly provided by J. Matuszak), where nu-­tar is followed by some erased and illegible signs, and (b) Ni 4369, rev. 24′–­25′ (ISET 1, p. 73), a manuscript of the hymn “Bau A,” where it is important to observe that nu-­tar does not appear in the corresponding passage of MS 3329, a manuscript of the same composition edited in the present volume (no. 2). nu-­tar seems to be an editorial note rather than part of the transmitted text. In MS 5102, nu-­tar occurs at points where liturgical rubrics are often found (about halfway through the song, where there is a change of topic, as here, or at the conclusion of the song), but it is probably not itself a rubric, as it does not appear in the list of Sumerian rubrics in Proto-­Lu 606–­12 (MSL 12, 54–­55; see Shehata 2009, 337–­38). The other attested Sumerian “ser3-­g id2-­da” songs never contain rubrics, according to Shehata (276), but perhaps the scribe expected to find one here and wished to mark its absence in his model text. As already proposed in the introduction to this tablet, the reading of nu-­ tar would then be nu-­ku5, meaning “(the model text) is not divided (by a rubric).” See also the note on the subscript, below. 26. On ḫur + negation (“ever . . . not . . . ,” i.e., “never . . .”), see Römer (2004, 123) ad LU 168. I owe the correct reading of the first word to Nils P. Heeßel. 27–­37. The elevation of the deity by the chief gods An and Enlil is one of the principal topoi of Sumerian hymnic poetry. See Metcalf (2015, 37–­40). 30–­37. This passage is an early instance of another well-­attested topos of Sumerian and Akkadian religious poetry: the god receives his name and

epithets from the chief gods. Other examples can be found in Lambert (2013, 147–­49). The main name normally stands at the head of the list, followed by secondary names and epithets. 30. The function of the genitive suffix attached to the city name is unclear. 31. dumu nun, “princely daughter,” is an established epithet of Sud. See the attestations in Bergmann (1964, 38–­39) and perhaps also the Fara text SF 36 col. i 13 (P010618). The expected verbal form would be *ḫu-­mu-­r i-­in-­še21. 34–­35. The restoration at the beginning of l. 34 has been suggested to me by Klaus Wagensonner and is certainly correct. Lines 34 and 35 allude to the marriage of Enlil and Sud as told in the well-­ known tale edited by Civil (1983), in particular l. 171 (ms. S2): diĝir ┌mu┐ nu-­tuku ┌mu┐ gal tuku, “the deity who had no name (i.e., Sud) (now) has a great name (i.e., Ninlil).” Ninlil, Sud, and the Tummal sanctuary are associated already in the Old Babylonian god list TCL 15.10 col. i 48–­50 and later in An = Anum I 176–­80. It has been claimed that Sud was forgotten after she became Ninlil (Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, 77, 145–­46), but the present text shows that Sud continued to exist as an independent goddess in religious practice. In l. 35, note the probably superfluous case ending -­e (sa6-­ga-­e), a mistake that has occurred despite the parallel constructions in the preceding lines. The alternative is to consider -­e to be the enclitic demonstrative (“this pleasant Ninlil”), but the contextual motivation for this would be unclear. 38. There are possible traces of a gloss (perhaps a very reduced la?) before lamma. 39. On za3-­gu-­la2,“shrine,” see recently Michalowski (2011, 443–­44). P. Attinger notes that an alternative interpretation of this line would be “May the sanctuaries of your town make (all things) prosperous there,” if za3-­gu2-­la2 is taken as a collective ergative with a plural verb (cf. ELS §103 nos. 2 and 6), although the terminative/directive sequences in ll. 46–­47 would favor the rendering that I have adopted. 40. For the phrase “mighty word” in connection with a divine utterance, compare enim ku3-­zu



Te x t s : A H y m n t o S u d

uru2ru, “(Ninurta,) your holy word is mighty” (Ur-­Ninurta C, 50–­51), and text no. 14, rev. 6′–­7′. 41.The dative suffix -­ra (kur-­gal-­la-­ra) is redundant and reflects confusion between two possible possessive constructions, the expected form being either *kur-­gal-­la ša3-­ka-­ĝal2-­la-­ni, literally “of the Great Mountain, his intimate counselor” (anticipatory genitive), or *kur-­gal-­ra ša3-­ka-­ĝal2-­la-­ni, “for the Great Mountain, his intimate counselor.” See Sjöberg (1973b, 43) and Attinger (2003, 24 n. 41) on ša3-­ka-­ĝal2 (ad Nungal A, 70). 43. On the verb su3 in this context, see Klein (1981, 165) ad Šulgi X, 149 (but note that P. Attinger now takes this passage to show that su3 in the sense “asperger, éclabousser, répandre” represents /su/, not /sug/, and is thus to be distinguished from su3.g,“rassasier, combler,” as he informed me in June 2017). 44. See ELS ex. 352 and §147a on the sense of the dative-­comitative sequence (“in front of you”) in the verb.This form is problematic: no further element is expected between -­ra-­and -­da-­, where a sign resembling an was possibly erased, and the final -­en too seems to be partly erased. 45. If correctly interpreted, the second part of this line refers to the libation of beer as a cultic offering to Sud: compare, for example, Huber Vulliet (2010, 127–­28) and Paoletti (2012, 247) on ceremonial beer libation (kaš de2) in the Ur III and OB periods. An alternative translation is “let him be the man who knows beer (offerings) (kaš zu)”: compare perhaps NL 106, which speaks of the end of the days when milk and beer were known (ga zu kaš zu), and LSU 335–­36, where men inexpert in cream and milk (lu2 i3/ga nu-­zu-­ne) are placed in charge of these products (references courtesy P. Attinger). 48–­49. The Ekisiga and the Edimgalana are two shrines of Sud that are also mentioned in the Old Babylonian lamentation TCL 15.1 obv. 3–­4,

17

25 (P345345, ed. Witzel 1935, 340–­46), where the reading of the former name is e2-­ki-­si3-­ga, not e2-­ki-­imin-­ga as given by Witzel (1935, 341) and others (George 1993, 110; Krebernik 1998, 240, corrected in RlA s.v. “Ninlil” § 3.4.1). The Isin dynasty’s interest in the maintenance of Sud’s shrines is shown by an inscription of King Enlil-­ bani on the construction of the Edimgalana (RIM E4.1.10.7), two copies of which were found in Isin and another supposedly near Fara/Šuruppak. The present text indicates that Sud’s cult was still active in Šuruppak (ll. 42–­43), and the sanctuaries may well have been located there, as Richter (2004, 251 n. 1049) suggests. Subscript. The partly erased liturgical rubric {sa-­g id2-­da-­an} is unexpected in this context, since “sa-­g id2-­da” rubrics typically occur as a pair with “sa-­ĝar-­ra” rubrics and are not found at the ends of songs. The rubric {sa-­g id2-­da-­an} seems to have been written in error, motivated by an analogy between ser3-­g id2-­da (i.e., the generic designation of the poem as a whole) and sa-­g id2-­da; but “ser3-­g id2-­da” songs containing rubrics are not otherwise attested, according to Shehata (2009, 276). Confusion about liturgical rubrics is probably reflected also by the editorial remark nu-­tar, on which see the introduction to this tablet and the textual note on ll. 23–­24. The scribe perhaps expected to find a liturgical division in his model text, marked its absence with nu-­tar (to be read: nu-­ku5?), and then inserted the spurious rubric {sa-­gid2-­da-­an}, based on the false analogy with the song-­category ser3-­gid2-­da, but finally attempted to erase the rubric. Note that in UM 29-­16-­534, rev. 2′–­3′ (a ms. of “ku3 urudu,” see note on ll. 23–­24), nu-­tar is likewise followed by a group of erased and mostly illegible signs (ending: den-­lil2-­an?). A liturgical rubric would not be expected in a composition of that sort, but nu-­tar could similarly signal an uncertainty about the division of the text.

NO. 2 : A H YM N TO LAMMA- ­S AGA (“BAU A”) Summary

MS 3329 is an almost-­complete single-­column tablet containing thirty-­seven lines of text written in a careful, archaizing script. A colophon dates the tablet to the twenty-­eighth day of the sixth month of the southern Mesopotamian calendar. The significance of MS 3329 is that it preserves an almost intact section of a composition that was previously attested only by a set of fragments edited by Sjöberg (1974). Although these fragments have been classed under the title “Bau A” (ETCSL c.4.02.1), the poem is really about the protective deity Lamma-­ saga, who is described as a benevolent intermediary between the goddess Bau1 and her human supplicants. The hymn is both unusual and important in that its praises of Lamma-­saga consist largely of a description of her elaborately adorned statue, which is located in a temple of Bau in the “Sacred City” sanctuary of Girsu. Because of this unfamiliar subject matter, the song contains many words that are not normally found in Old Babylonian Sumerian literary compositions. Sjöberg (1974) left several passages untranslated, and Ludwig (2009, 81) commented that the text is often incomprehensible, as parts of it deviate strongly from the usual vocabulary and phraseology of religious poetry. Parallels often have to be sought elsewhere, especially in lexical lists and in documents relating to the administration of temples. For instance, the “kiše4-­kiše4” headband (l. 9), the nāmarum garment (l. 11), and the kamkammatum ring (l. 25), all of which Lamma-­saga is said to wear, are well attested in connection with divine statues but are not familiar to the Sumerian literary corpus: these correspondences show that the description of Lamma-­saga’s statue in the present poem is grounded in reality and cannot be dismissed as a mere literary fiction. Although some passages remain problematic, MS 3329 now permits a fuller reconstruction of the text, which can be summarized as follows.

The opening section (ll. 1–­8) is a conventional hymnic invocation: the singer begins by announcing his intention to praise Lamma-­saga, whom he describes as the “great vizier of Mother Bau” who delivers the “tablet of life” from heaven and who helps introduce offerings made by human supplicants to Bau. The poem continues with an extensive description of Lamma’s statue, which a recurring refrain divides into three sections: first Lamma’s head, nape, forehead, lips, ears, and jaws (ll. 9–­19); then her skin, neck, sides, limbs, and fingers (ll. 20–­29); and finally her navel, hips, and pudenda (ll. 30–­37). All these body parts are praised for their remarkable and precious ornamentation. The refrain in the concluding verse (l. 37) addresses the statue as a whole. A comparison with the pertinent fragments edited by Sjöberg (1974) suggests that MS 3329 may in fact contain only an extract of a larger poem or cycle of poems. The invocation with which MS 3329 begins is clearly the start of a song (“Let me praise the true woman, the sun goddess of the land, Lamma”) and is identical to the beginning of a fragment from Ur, U 16868 (UET 6.72). The obverse of U 16868 is parallel to MS 3329, until U 16868 breaks off at obv. 13 (= l. 13 of MS 3329). Thanks to the new manuscript, it is now possible to see that the obverse of a second fragment, Ni 4369 (ISET 1, p. 73), carries on at precisely this point. MS 3329 and Ni 4369 continue in parallel as far as Ni 4369 rev. 26′–­27′, where MS 3329 ends. But there is at least one more line of text on the reverse of Ni 4369, and the reverse of U 16868 is inscribed with further praises of Lamma-­saga that are not contained on MS 3329. A third fragment, CBS 10986 (P266176), presents a bilingual version of a thematically related poem on Lamma-­saga that uses the same recurring refrain as the other manuscripts and may thus belong to the same song or song cycle. The text of MS 3329 could therefore be an extract from a larger composition, as it contains only the section that describes the statue of Lamma-­saga. Apart from restoring significant elements of that section, MS

1 On the reading of the name of the goddess dba-­u2, and on the information that MS 3329 offers on this point, see the note on l. 2.

18



Te x t s : A H y m n t o L a m m a - ­s a g a ( “ B a u A ” )

3329 also clarifies that the text on the obverse of U 16868 is continued without interruption on the obverse of Ni 4369 (see the following score transliteration, at l. 13).1

Lamma-­saga and Bau In a passage that was not previously understood, our poem describes Lamma-­saga as an “ornament of the Sacred City” (iri-­ ku3-­ga ḫe2-­du7-­bi-­im, l. 5), referring to the holy precinct at or near Girsu that contained the main temple of Bau, the e2-­tar-­sir2-­sir2-­ra.2 CBS 10986, which is probably part of the same song or group of songs to which our text belongs, mentions “the shrine of Girsu” (eš3 ĝir2-­suki // i-na bi-­tim gir-­ši-­i-­im), which was inspected daily by Bau or Lamma (“rev.” 14′).These references clearly point to Bau’s “Sacred City” precinct in Girsu as the scene in which the poem is set. The association between the major goddess Bau and her helper Lamma-­saga is ancient and well documented. Administrative records from Old Sumerian Lagaš show that Lamma was seen to belong to the circle of Bau (Selz 1995, 158–­60). In the time of the second dynasty of Lagaš, a human-­ headed bull was devoted to the “Lamma-­goddess of Bau” by the wife of Ur-­Ningirsu I in the Ebabbar temple of Larsa (RIM E3.1.1.1.4), a bowl from Girsu was dedicated by Ur-­Bau to the “Lamma-­goddess of the tarsirsir” (E3/1.1.6.8), and an inscription on 1 This apparent coincidence raises the remote possibility that the fragments U 16868 and Ni 4369 are part of the same tablet. The fragments could have been separated in antiquity or in modern times, since it is known that in some rare instances texts with “Ni” numbers in the Museum of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul were purchased on the art market and may come from sites other than Nippur (such as Sippar: Çığ, Kızılyay, and Kraus 1952, 58; Kraus 1958, 12–­13). No measurements of Ni 4369 are given in ISET 1, and I have not yet been able to collate the fragment. A join is in any case unlikely because the verb contained in the recurring refrain is spelled differently in the two fragments (ga-­mu-­e-­i-­i-­de3-­en in U 16868 vs. ga-­mu-­u8-­en-­de3-­en in Ni 4369, as in MS 3329), and the lineation may also be different (line-­by-­line lineation in U 16868 vs. lineation by larger groups of verses in Ni 4369, to judge from the copy in ISET 1). 2 See most recently RlA s.v. “Uru-­kù(-­g)” (G. J. Selz).

19

a damaged female statuette from Girsu speaks of the time when “the Lamma-­goddess of the tarsirsir enters the courtyard of Bau” (dlamma tar-­sir2-­sir2-­ra kisal dba-­u2-­ka ku4-­ku4-­da-­ni, E3/1.1.12.6 col. ii 2–­3). A city lament bemoans her departure from the same temple (LU 27–­28). An “adab” hymn in praise of Bau, composed for an unnamed ruler, states, “Bau, in the courtyard of your Sacred City, the Lamma-­goddess directs your black-­headed people for you” (dba-­u2 dlamma-­re kisal iri-­ku3-­ga-­za / saĝ-­geg2-­ge-­zu si ša-­ra-­ab-­sa2-­e, Lumma A, 20–­21). The last example makes it clear that Lamma was seen as a helper of Bau with particular responsibility for her worshippers, which agrees with her image in our text: she is “the Lamma-­goddess who, (regarding) the man who presents offerings, says something favorable to Bau: ‘Beloved mankind—­their gifts are your source of joy!’” (ll. 6–­7). A later verse speaks of the “storehouse” (uš.gid2, l. 13) of Lamma-­saga, where the gifts that she helped present to Bau were perhaps deposited. It should be noted that, according to one view, Lamma was not actually an independent figure but rather a manifestation of Bau as a protective deity, at least in Old Sumerian times (Selz 1995, 160).This interpretation has also been suggested for some of the later attestations (Steible 1991, I 143–­44; Marchesi and Marchetti 2011, 158 with n. 27) and even for our poem (Lämmerhirt 2010, 487 n. 407; Metcalf 2015, 75 n. 70). While the evidence may sometimes seem ambiguous, and practices may have varied in different periods, our text makes it plain already in the invocation that Lamma is here to be considered a distinct deity in the service of Bau: “Let me praise the true woman, the sun goddess of the land, Lamma, / The great vizier of Mother Bau” (1–­2).3

The Description of the Statue Commenting on the fragment Ni 4369, Sjöberg (1974, 161) noted that “part of this text describes the appearance of the goddess, or more precisely, her 3 As realized by Sjöberg 1974, 158–­60, RlA s.v. “Lamma/ Lamassu” A.I. §5 (D. Foxvog/W. Heimpel/A. D. Kilmer) and Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, 194; compare also the earlier observations of Spycket 1960, 74–­76.

20

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

statue.” MS 3329 now permits an almost complete reconstruction of this aspect of the poem. Some of the passages cited in the previous section allude to the introduction of Lamma-­statues to the temple of Bau, and Old Babylonian sources indeed suggest that Lamma-­deities were often present in various temples. The sixth year of Samsuiluna’s reign was named after the introduction of “statues for prayer, various golden Lamma-­ deities” (alan šudu3-­de3 d lamma ku3-­si22 dili-­dili) in the Ebabbar of Utu and the Esagil of Marduk; similarly, Ammiditana in his twenty-­third year brought statues of himself as well as Lamma-­deities into the Ebabbar; and the same ruler in his twenty-­ninth year built Lamma-­ deities “to pray for his life, finished with yellow gold and precious stone” (nam-­til3-­la-­ni-­še3 šu-­am3 mu2-­mu2-­am3 ku3-­si22 ḫuš-­a na4 kal-­la-­bi-­da-­ke4 šu-­ am3 bi2-­in-­da-­ra-­du7-­a) for Inana of Kiš (Horsnell 1999, II 185–­87, 302–­3, 310–­12).1 Our text mentions a “king” (ll. 2, 12), who remains anonymous but can be assumed to be the supplicant whom Lamma-­saga is supposed to assist.2 Lines 9–­37 then present what seems like a literary cult inventory detailing the features of the statue. Some elements described in the text can be recognized in the frequent depictions of protective deities on cylinder seals as well as in a few extant figurines. These features include her diadem, her headband and ribbons (ll. 9–­10), and her necklace (l. 21), all of 1 See also the year-­name Enlil-­bani O (Lamma-­statues for Ninlil; Sallaberger 1996, 191), and compare the inscription RIM E4.3.10.1 (Ammiṣaduqa, Lamma-­deity probably for Ištar). A statue of what is likely to have represented a Lamma-­ goddess was found in a small chapel among private houses in Ur (Isin-­Larsa period), where it may have stood near the statue of a more important deity that was also found there; see Wiseman 1960 and Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, 232–­34. On the introduction of statues and images of Lamma into temples, see in general Spycket 1960, 78–­79, RlA s.v. “Lamma/Lamassu” A.I. §6e, Seidl 2013, 482, Guichard 2017, 12, and Peterson 2017. 2 Compare the prayer Rim-­Sin F, 32–­42, with the comments of Charpin 1986, 295: Lamma-­deities are said to be located “in the middle, on the outside and in the four corners” of the Ekišnugal of Nanna at Ur, where they are asked to receive the finest offerings from the king so that these may then be given to Nanna and his spouse.

which are to be expected in a representation of this deity.3 Standard elements of divine statues in general are the various precious materials and garments (l. 23) as well as the “spine of cedar wood” that forms the kernel (l. 32). The text also refers to Lamma’s specifically female features, like her “broad hips” and pudenda (ll. 33–­34). Ritual and liturgical sources show that the making, repairing, and consecrating of cult statues was thought to be of great religious significance, and some passages in the text seem to reflect cultic concerns. When our poem affirms that the statue is “standing through its own power” (ni2-­bi gub, l. 29), according to the text of MS 3329, it is probably suggesting that Lamma-­saga is to be seen as an autonomous divine entity rather than as an image created by human hands: this notion is later made explicit in an incantation recited in the Mīs pî-­r itual for the induction of a cult image (see note on l. 29). Further, the final line of MS 3329 seems to refer to the whole statue as being “safely delivered” (šu-­a gi4, l. 37). The Sumerian verb, which literally means “to return in the hand,” could be interpreted in various ways (see note on l. 37), but if “safely delivered” is an accurate translation in the present context, then the hymn was perhaps intended to celebrate the installation of Lamma-­saga in the “Sacred City.” The hymn could then be seen as another document of the elaborate cultic practices that accompanied the induction of a divine statue.4 References to such practices have a place in Sumerian religious poetry. The hymn “Nanna E,” which begins with conventional praises of the moon god as scion of Enlil and bearer of his “Enlilship,” clearly refers to the bathing and anointing of the divine statue and has thus been interpreted by Charpin (1986, 373–­79) as a “sorte de

3 For descriptions and illustrations, see Spycket 1960, Spycket 1981, 231–­35, RlA s.v. “Lamma/Lamassu” B. (A. Spycket), Braun-­Holzinger 1984, 45–­49, and Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, 191–­99. 4 See, for example, Walker and Dick 2001, 4–­31, Farber 2003, Tohru 2008, Löhnert 2009, 27–­29, and Lambert 2013, 463. The secondary literature on ancient Mesopotamian cult statues is vast; recent studies include Hundley 2013, 207–­83, Braun-­Holzinger 2013, 2–­8, and Pongratz-­Leisten and Sonik 2015, 11–­16.



Te x t s : A H y m n t o L a m m a - ­s a g a ( “ B a u A ” )

prologue hymnique adressé à Nanna” at the time when the priests blessed the oil that was used to anoint the statue after its ritual bathing.1

The Transmission of the Text and the New Manuscript According to Spycket (1981, 231), Lamma was one of the most popular Mesopotamian deities between the time of the Ur III dynasty and the end of the Old Babylonian period, and our text was composed presumably in the cult of Bau at Girsu at some point within those chronological boundaries. The exact date cannot be determined in the absence of a reference to a named king; while the cults of Girsu are particularly well attested in the Ur III period, the city remained significant until the dynasty of Hammurabi.2 In the Old Babylonian period, the song of Lamma-­saga clearly had some degree of currency. U 16868 (which I collated in February 2014) was found at No. 1 Broad Street in Ur, the building called a “school house” by Woolley and Mallowan (1976, 136–­37). While this interpretation has been questioned,3 U 16868 and the Nippur manuscripts clearly illustrate the poem’s broader circulation, as observed by Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz (2013, 77). The new text MS 3329 is of unknown provenance. As noted earlier (under “Summary”), MS 3329 preserves only an extract of the poem, and the day and month on which the copy was assigned or produced are recorded in the colophon.Thus it was probably not a model text but an exercise for a particular day (see the later note on the colophon).The 1 See now also Peterson 2016a on UET 6.74, a letter-­prayer to Ninšubur that possibly describes the physical appearance of the statue. Hallo 2010, 24–­25, proposed that “many if not all the neo-­Sumerian hymns to deities were perhaps originally commissioned together with statues, and first recited at their dedication.” This idea was based on general considerations (importance of the cult statue in ancient religion, frequent references in hymns to the appearance of the deity) that remain to be elaborated in detail. 2 See Sallaberger 1993, I 277–­303, Huh 2008, 310–­22, and Richardson 2008. 3 See most recently RlA s.v.“Ur”A. II. §4 (M.Van De Mieroop) and B. §3.3.1 (R. L. Zettler / W. B. Hafford).

21

text is carefully written in archaizing sign forms, but the scribe enjoyed mixing these with cursive sign forms: compare and contrast the shapes of ga in ll. 19 (ga-­mu-­ . . .) and 20 (dadag-­ga, sa6-­ga), the two forms of ta in l. 31, and u8 in l. 19 versus ll. 8, 29, and 37. The following score transliteration of the available manuscripts shows that MS 3329 contains some phonetic variants (mir // ĝir3, l. 4; ge-­en // gen7, l. 24; ge4-­na // gen7-­na, l. 34; mu-­ mu // mu2-­mu2, l. 35; tuku-­tuku // tuku4-­tuku4, l. 36), unexpected grammatical forms (gunu3.gunu3. gunu3 // gunu3.gunu3-­gu2, l. 10; u6 di-­e // u6 di-­zu, l. 11), and possible misinterpretations of the Vorlage (ka.ni = giri17-­zal rendered as ka.a.nim, l. 14). The text of the poem is unusual and in places uncertain, which can make it difficult to distinguish between correct and faulty variants, but MS 3329 generally creates the impression of an exercise text copied from a model that was perhaps not fully intelligible to the scribe.

Transliteration obv. 1

[munus z]i dutu kalam-­ma dlamma me-­teš2 g[a-­i-­i] U 16868 obv. 1: munus zi dutu kalam-­ma dlamma me-­teš2 ga-­i-­┌i(?)┐ 2 [sugal7 ma]ḫ ama dba-­u2 zi lugal-­l[a u3-­du2] U 16868 obv. 2: sugal7 maḫ ama dba-­u2 zi lugal-­la u3-­du2 3 [ra-­gaba k]u3 an-­┌ša3-­ta┐ dub nam-­til3-­la-­ ┌ na┐ [x]-­┌de3┐ U 16868 obv. 3: ra-­gaba ku3 an-­ša3-­ta dub nam-­til3-­la-­na e11-­de3 4 [im an]-­┌ta┐ mir-­a ┌du┐ ḫe2-­ĝal2-­e ┌e11┐ U 16868 obv. 4: im an-­ta ĝir3-­a du ḫe2-­ĝal2-­e ┌e11┐ 5 [saĝ šum2] ┌me-­te dba-­u2 iri┐-­ku3-­ga ḫe2-­ d[u7-­b]i-­im U 16868 obv. 5: saĝ šum2 me-­te dba-­u2 uru2-­ku3-­ga ḫe2-­du7-­bi-­im ┌d 6 lamma lu2 siškur2-­ra┐ dba-­u2-­ur2 ┌enim┐ du10-­ga di U 16868 obv. 6: dlamma ┌lu2┐ siškur2-­ra d ba-­u2-­ur2 enim du10-­ga di 7 nam-­lu2-­┌lu7┐ [ki-­a]ĝ2 [ni]ĝ2-­┌ba┐-­bi ḫ[ul2]-­le-­zu

22



S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

U 16868 obv. 7: nam-­lu2-­lu7lu ki-­aĝ2 niĝ2-­ba-­bi ḫul2-­le-­za 8 dlamma ┌sa6-­ga┐ [m]i2-­┌bi su3-­ud-­še3┐ [g]a-­┌mu┐-­u8-­en-­de3-­en U 16868 obv. 8: dlamma sa6-­ga dba-­u2 mi2-­bi su3-­ud-­še3 ga-­mu-­e-­i-­i-­de3-­en 9 suḫ10 saĝ si3 ┌ḫi-­li-­na(?)┐ kiše4-­┌kiše4┐-­a na4 za-­gin3-­a U 16868 obv. 9: [su]ḫ10 ┌saĝ┐ si12 ḫi-­li guru3ru kiše4-­kiše4 na4za-­gin3-­a 10 gu2-­bar ┌x x x┐ tug2niĝ2-­sila3-­e gunu3. gunu3.gunu3 U 16868 obv. 10: [gu2-­bar . . .] ┌si12┐-­ga tug2 niĝ2-­sila3-­e gunu3.gunu3-­gu2-­┌a┐ 11 saĝ-­ki si12 ┌x x x┐ na-­ma-­┌ru┐-­um ┌u6┐ di-­e U 16868 obv. 11: [saĝ-­ki . . .] ┌x┐ du ┌ ┐ x [n]a-­ma-­ru-­um u6 di-­zu 12 niĝ2-­nam šu daĝal-­e-­zu lugal-­še3 ḫ[u]-­mu-­un-­ši-­ni-­a-­ĝal2 U 16868 obv. 12: [niĝ2-­nam šu daĝal-­e-­z] u lugal-­še3 ḫe2-­em-­ši-­ni-­ĝal2 d 13 lamma-­ĝu10 nin igi sa6 ┌uš.gid2┐-­za lal3 šu2-­šu2 Ni 4369 obv. 1′: dlamma-­ĝu10 ni[n . . .] ┌ x x┐; U 16868 obv. 13: [ . . . ] ┌x┐ ┌ uš┐.gid2-­zu lal3 ┌šu2-­šu2┐ 14 munus zi ka.a.┌nim┐ il2-­il2-­i šudu3 enim-­ma zi-­zi-­i Ni 4369 obv. 2′: munus zi giri17-­zal il2-­il2-­i šudu3 enim-­┌ma┐ [ . . . ] 15 dimma eme si ┌sa2┐ nin niĝ2-­ge-­na ki aĝ2 Ni 4369 obv. 3′: dimma eme si sa2 nin niĝ2-­ge-­e ki ┌aĝ2┐ ┌x┐(?) 16 sugal7 maḫ ama dba-­u2 numdum ku3 babbar-­ke4 Ni 4369 obv. 4′: [su]gal7 maḫ ama dba-­u2 numdum ku3 babbar-­ra-­ke4 17 tun3 si sa2 ĝeš-­tu9ĝeštu me-­┌ze2┐ babbar-­re si-­a Ni 4369 obv. 5′: [t]un3 si sa2 ĝeštu me-­ ze2 babbar2-­e si-­a 18 munus zi dlamma-­ĝu10 ┌uktim lu2┐ nu-­si3-­ g[a-­z]u Ni 4369 obv. 6′: munus zi dlamma-­ĝu10 uktim lu2 nu-­si3-­ke-­zu 19 [ig]i-­bar-­lu2-­til3-­ĝu10 mi2-­bi ┌su3-­ud-­ su3┐-­ud-­še3 / ga-­mu-­┌u8┐-­en-­de3-­en

Ni 4369 obv. 7′: igi-­┌bar┐-­[l]u2-­til3-­ĝu10 mi2-­bi su3-­ud-­še3 ga-­mu-­u8-­en-­de3-­en 20 [kuš k]u3 me-­a dadag-­ga sa6-­ga gal-­bi diri-­g[a] Ni 4369 obv. 8′: kuš ┌ku3(?)┐ me-­a dadag-­ga sa6-­ga gal-­bi diri-­ga-­┌am3┐ 21 [a]d za3-­la2 su2(?)-­un-­su2-­┌un┐-­ne ┌ ┐ zi -­pa-­aĝ2 ┌x x x x┐ Ni 4369 obv. 9′: ad za-­la2 ┌su2(?)-­un-­ su2┐-­ḫu(?)-­ne zi-­pa-­aĝ2 ┌x x x┐ 22 [g]u šal-­šal siki sur-­sur ┌gar3┐ mun-­┌na┐ sa keše2-­[d]a Ni 4369 obv. 10′: gu2 šal-­šal siki sur-­sur gar3 mun-­na sa-­┌x┐(?) ke[še2-­ . . .] 23 [un]u2 subi2 ḫe2-­du7 za3-­si tug2zulumḫi Ni 4369 obv. 11′: [u]nu2 subi2 su3-­su3 za3-­še sik2 [ . . . ] 24 [m]en zi ge-­en il2-­il2-­i a2-­ur2 zalag-­ge Ni 4369 obv. 12′: [me]n zi gen7 il2-­il2-­i a2-­ur2 u4-­gen7 zalag-­g[e] 25 [na4]šal-­la-­gen7 la-­la ┌ĝal2┐ a2-­1-­kuš3 kam-­kam-­ma-­tum Ni 4369 obv. 13′: [n]a4šalše3-­┌la┐-­gen7 la-­ la ĝal2 a2-­1-­kuš3 k[am-­kam-­ma-­tum] rev. 26 [x x] ┌x┐ t[um2]-­ma šu-­si ┌ku3-­babbar-­ke4┐ Ni 4369 obv. 14′: ┌x┐-­ge ka tum2-­ma šu-­si ku3-­babbar [ . . . ] 27 [na4nir7-­r]a si3-­ga-­bi ┌ubur lipiš(?) x x x ┐ Ni 4369 rev. 15′: [n]a4nir7 si3 [ . . . ] 28 [. . . ama kal]am-­ma ma-­sila3  ad-­gi4 si-­sa2 Ni 4369 rev. 16′: [x] e2-­gal ┌ama┐ kalam-­m[a . . .] 29 [munus zi dlamm]a-­ĝu10 alan ni2-­bi gub-­gub-­bu-­za / [m]i2-­bi su3-­ud-­še3 ga-­mu-­u8-­en-­de3-­en Ni 4369 rev. 17′–­18′: [munus] zi d lamma-­ĝu10 uk[tim] lu2 nu-­si3-­ k[e . . .] / [mi2]-­bi su3-­ud-­še3 ga-­mu-­u8-­┌en┐-­d[e3-­en] ┌ 30 sugal7 niĝ2┐ nu-­ḫa-­lam-­e nin ki-­ur5-­sa6 iriki-­na Ni 4369 rev. 19′: sugal7 niĝ2 nu-­ḫa-­lam-­e nin ki-­ur5-­sa6 [iriki-­na] 31 ša3-­┌su3┐-­ta dim3-­gen7 gub en3-­dur-­ta saĝ gi4-­a Ni 4369 rev. 20′: ša3-­su3-­ta dim3-­gen7 gub en3-­[dur . . .]



Te x t s : A H y m n t o L a m m a - ­s a g a ( “ B a u A ” )

32 ĝurgu ĝešeren šu ri-­a dib ti-­za zu2 keše2-­da Ni 4369 rev. 21′: ĝurgu2 ĝešeren šu ri-­a {ib2}-­ib2 ti ta(?) [x] ┌x┐ ┌ 33 ib2-­ib2 daĝal┐ u2-­šal tuku saĝ-­dul5-­bi me-­te-­bi-­im Ni 4369 rev. 22′: ib2-­ib2 daĝal u2-­š[al tu]ku sa[ĝ(?) . . .] me-­te(?)-­┌x┐ 34 gurum-­zu šu-­ur2 ge4-­na galla4la ḫi-­li-­a nam-­munus-­a Ni 4369 rev. 23′: gurum-­zu šu-­┌ru(?)┐ gen7-­na galla4 [x x n]am-­nu-­nus-­a 35 niĝ2-­šu sa2 si mu-­mu nin keše2-­da gu-­gen7 la2 Ni 4369 rev. 24′: niĝ-­šu sa2 {x} si mu2-­mu2 nin keše2-­d[a] ┌gu-­gen7┐ la2 / nu-­tar 36 ku-­šal-­la ┌ka tuku-­tuku┐-­a munus zi d lamma-­ĝu10 Ni 4369 rev. 25′–­26′a: ku-­šal-­la ka tuku4-­tuku4-­e / munus zi dlamma-­ĝu10 37 alan šu-­a gi4-­a-­za mi2-­bi su3-­ud-­še3 / ga-­mu-­u8-­en-­de3-­en Ni 4369 rev. 26′b–­27′: ┌alan┐ šu-­a gi4-­a-­za / [mi2-­b]i ┌su3┐-­ud-­še3 ga-­mu-­u8-­en-­de3-­en iti kin ┌dinana┐ u4 ┌28┐-­kam

Translation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Let me praise the true woman, the sun goddess of the land, Lamma, The great vizier of Mother Bau, who creates the king’s life, The sacred courier who from the midst of heaven brings down(?) the tablet of his life, The tablet from heaven—­who, walking in (his) footsteps, brings it down for (the king’s) prosperity, Hastening on,1 worthy of Bau, she is an ornament of the Sacred City, The Lamma-­goddess who, (regarding) the man who presents offerings, speaks favorably to Bau: “Beloved mankind—­their gifts are your source of joy!”

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Lamma-­saga,2 let us say your praises far and wide! The diadem adorning the head, the wig that is borne, the headband of lapis lazuli, The ornately(?) dressed nape, much bedecked with ribbons(?), The ornate forehead [ . . . ], your admirable nāmarum garment—­ As you provide everything generously, you let it all be present before the king, My Lamma-­goddess, lady of the benevolent glance, whose storehouse is replete with syrup, True lady, bearing prosperity(?), raising up prayer-­words, Directing counsel and speech, lady who loves truthfulness, Great vizier of Mother Bau with lips of silver—­ The evenly proportioned upper lip, the ears affixed to the bright jaws—­ True woman, my Lamma-­goddess, your appearance that cannot be matched, My goddess of the life-­g iving glance, let us say your praise far and wide! The skin of pure metal which has been made clean, fine and very excellent, The necklace, a radiant(?) hanging ornament, the throat . . . (?), The thin thread, spun wool, . . . (?), a net that is tied, Adorned with jewels and precious stones, the side (that is adorned with) a fleece, Bearing the true and firmly established crown, letting the limbs shine like the sun,3 Alluring like a precious stone, the forearms (that are adorned with) a kamkammatum ring, [ . . . ] fitting(?), fingers of gold, Its precious stone that is enclosed, . . . (?) the breast(?),

2 Thus MS 3329; U 16868: “Lamma-­saga of Bau.” Or “Causing to make haste.” See note on this line. 1

23

3 Thus Ni 4369; MS 3329 omits “like the sun.”

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

24

28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

[ . . . ] palace, mother of the country, who embraces, the just counselor—­ True woman, my Lamma-­goddess, let us say the praises far and wide of your statue that stands through its own power,1 The vizier who forgets nothing, the lady who is her city’s source of happiness, Standing like a pillar as to (her) bare body, filled up (with ornaments) as to (her) navel, The spine (of) cedar wood that has been put firmly in place, the ornate plaque of your ribcage that is tied (to it), Broad hips, having fine herbage, its cover being its decoration, Your pudenda . . . (?), a vulva of charm, of femininity, A valuable item that is designed and restored, lady, it is fitted together and stretched out like a net! . . . (?), true lady, my Lamma-­goddess—­ Let us say the praises far and wide of your safely delivered statue! Month: kin dinana, 28th day.

Commentary 1. Ludwig (2009, 81) has noted upon collation that the addressee of the invocation in U 16868 is dlamma(kal), not diĝir-­ĝa2 (“my goddess”) as read by Sjöberg (1974, 163), and the correction is confirmed by MS 3329. The predication “sun goddess of the land” does not imply a solar aspect but expresses the special reverence in which the benign deity is held by her worshippers. For other attestations in Old Babylonian Sumerian and Akkadian religious poetry, see Sjöberg (1961, 68) and VS 10.215 obv. 1 (ša-­ma-­aš ni-­┌ši┐-­i-­┌ša┐, of Nanaya, ed. Streck and Wasserman 2012, 184–­96). The phrase “Sun-­god of the gods” was exploited with similar flexibility by ancient theologians; see Lambert (2013, 164). 2. On the controversial reading of the divine name d ba-­u2, see recently Rubio (2010, 35–­39), who 1 Thus MS 3329; Ni 4369 repeats the words of l. 18 before the refrain.

favors “Baba” (dba-­ba6). But in the present composition, at least, the correct reading is certainly d ba-­u2, as noted by Ludwig (2009, 81), since the dative form is written dba-­u2-­ur2 (l. 6, in both the extant mss.); compare the evidence collected by Marchesi (2002, 171). 3–­4. These somewhat elliptical lines describe how Lamma-­saga, as a courier for her mistress Bau, brings down from heaven the king’s “tablet of life,” which will guarantee his prosperous rule, and attends the king by walking behind him. On the king’s “tablet of life,” the gods might inscribe attributes such as justice (Nungal A, 77) or a happy and lasting rule, never to be altered (Rim-­ Sin B, 51–­52).2 In l. 4, im has been translated as “rain” (ETCSL) that Lamma-­saga supposedly sends from heaven, but in the light of the previous line, im is here likely to stand for well-­attested im nam-­til3-­la, “tablet of life”; see the notes of Focke (1998, 205–­6) on Ninimma A, 5.3 Also in l. 4, MS 3329 presents the variant mir-­a du where U 16868 has ĝir3-­a du. Both presumably stand for ĝiri3-­a du, perhaps “walking in (his) footsteps,” which could describe the protective deity attending her devotee. Compare phrases such as diĝir-­ĝu10 a2-­taḫ-­ĝu10 ḫa-­am3 / egir-­ĝa2 ḫa-­du, “May my personal god be my helper, may he walk behind me” (RBC 2000 = Or 54, 57, 2 There exists a further parallel in a prayer contained in a Hurrian ritual, in which the gods are asked to grant benefits to a royal subject by means of a “tablet of life” (šeġorni=ve=ni tuppi=ni, ChS 1/1 9 col. iii 39–­42; see Campbell 2015, 229–­30). 3 P. Attinger draws to my attention UN A 164, where im an-­ta clearly means “rain from the sky”; in the present passage, the parallelism between an-­ša3-­ta dub (l. 3) and im an-­ta (l. 4) nevertheless leads me to think that im means “tablet” in this instance.The alternation dub/im in ll. 3–­4 may be explained simply as variatio. The suggestion of Focke 1998, 205 n. 32, that im might refer specifically to uninscribed tablets seems to disagree with the evidence of administrative documents of the Ur III period, which frequently refer to im as a piece of writing. See, for example, Boese and Sallaberger 1996, 29, Metcalf 2010, §2.6. In OB literature, the use of im as meaning both “clay” and “clay tablet” can probably be observed in EnmEns 76: [im-­e d]ub-­gen7 šu bi2-­in-­ra im-­gen7 igi i-ni-­in-­ bar, “He flattened [clay] as for a tablet, he looked at it like at a clay tablet.”



Te x t s : A H y m n t o L a m m a - ­s a g a ( “ B a u A ” )

rev. 12–­13) and u2-­dug4 sa6-­ga-­zu igi-­še3 ḫa-­ma-­ du / dlamma sa6-­ga-­zu ĝiri3-­a ḫa-­mu-­da-­du,“May your good demon walk in front of me, may your good protective deity walk along in my footsteps!” (Gud. Cyl. A iii 20–­21, coll. Peust 2014), which is parallel in sense to u2-­dug4 sa6-­ni igi-­še3 mu-­na-­du / dlamma sa6-­ga-­ni egir-­ni im-­ us2, “His good demon walks in front of him, his good protective deity follows on behind him” (Cyl. B ii 9–­10). The image is familiar to depictions of Lamma-­deities in presentation scenes, on which see Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz (2013, 192–­93).1 In l. 4, the sign following ḫe2-­ĝal2 in U 16868 is a simplified form of e (aBZL no. 167, lower right), and both mss. are therefore to be read as ḫe2-­ĝal2-­e e11. This e in U 16868 differs in shape from the more elaborate versions of e in ll. 8 and 10 of the same manuscript, in which sign forms are sometimes inconsistently written: Sjöberg (1974, 163 n. 14) and Ludwig (2009, 81) have already noted e11 (iti.du in l. 3, but du6.du in l. 4) and perhaps zi (a pair of vertical wedges in l. 1, but only one clear vertical wedge in l. 2). 5. saĝ šum2 is glossed as mu-­iš-­ḫi-­iš-­tum in U 16868, apparently a unique Š-stem participle of the verb ḫiāšum, “to hasten.” A transitive translation may thus seem appropriate, but it remains unclear to me why the protective deity should “hasten,” in the intransitive or transitive sense. The sign preceding ku3 was read as itima by Sjöberg (1974, 163) and as ĝa2×sal by Ludwig (2009, 81), but collation suggests that it is in fact uru×kar2 (uru2). The sign has the typical step-­like shape of uru (see photo provided by Sjöberg 1974, 176), and the inscribed sal represents a simplified kar2 (cf. aBZL no. 187, bottom right); what may appear to be a wedge in the upper left corner could be a trace of an erased sign underneath; compare Ludwig (2009, 81). U 16868 thus has a banal variant of iri, “city,” which

1 It may be thought that ĝir3/mir-­a in such contexts represents a variant spelling of egir-­a, “behind”—­see already Klein 1981, 112 ad Šulgi D, 294—­but Attinger 2005–­6, 256 rejects this possibility for Gud. Cyl. A iii 20–­21 on orthographic grounds.

25

is clearly legible in MS 3329. iri-­ku3, the “Sacred City,” was a sanctuary at or near Girsu, in which Bau was thought to reside; see most recently RlA s.v. “Uru-­kù(-­g)” (G. J. Selz). 6. See note on l. 2 on the significance of the spelling d ba-­u2-­ur2. 7. My translation assumes that these are the words with which Lamma-­saga introduces offerings from human supplicants to Bau. 8. See ELS §646 on the verb. 9. The sign muš3 is in this context probably to be read suḫ10,“diadem” (see Rubio 2010, 30 and Civil 2008, 67 with earlier literature), and si3/12.g refers to the act of beautifying the diadem or to looking beautiful with it: aga za-­g in3-­[na . . .] si12-­ga // ša i-na a-g[i nam-­r]i bu-­nu-­u2, “(The king) who is beautiful in (his) shining crown” (FM 3, 79–­82, obv. 21, ed. Charpin 1992); men suḫ10 ku3-­ga mu-­ni-­in-­si12 (// men ku3-­ga mu-­ni-­in-­si3, Ni 4150 = Belleten 16 pls. 61–­62 col. iii 9), “(Enlil) made the crown, the holy diadem beautiful” (EnlSudr 96);2 men . . . si12-­ga-­ĝu10-­ne, “When I have made the crown beautiful . . .” (ELA 59–­60, with Mittermayer 2009, 228); ur-­saĝ aga-­na gal si12-­ga, “The hero, very beautiful in his crown” (Lugale 140). “Wig” would seem to be an appropriate translation of ḫi-­li in this particular context, since the phrase ḫi-­li nam-­munus, “charm (of) femininity,” describes the stone wig of a Lamma-­statue dedicated for the life of Šulgi (RIM E3.2.1.2.2030). See further Jaques (2006, 252 n. 520), and compare l. 34. The damaged text of MS 3329 is not quite clear: if correctly deciphered, the presence of the third sg. possessive suffix in MS 3329 (┌hi-­li-­na┐ // ḫi-­li, U 16868) is troubling, given that Lamma-­saga is otherwise addressed in the second sg., but the traces of the final sign of

2 Attinger 2015a renders this line as men muš3 ku3-­ga mu-­ni-­in-­si12, “(Plaça) sur (sa) tête splendide une couronne ornée de verdure,” or more literally, “Fit verdoyer la couronne sur (sa) face splendide.” This accurately renders the locative -­ni-­, which my translation omits, but I nevertheless prefer the reading suḫ10(muš3) in view of the parallels and because of the difficulty of interpreting muš3 as meaning “head.”

26

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

the group do seem to me to represent na rather than the end of li. kiše4-­kiše4, corresponding to Akkadian muttatum, in this instance designates a type of headband that was commonly placed on statues: see the later attestations collected by CAD s.v. muttatu A 3 and Zawadzki (2006–­13, 132–­33). In other contexts, kiše4-­kiše4 is known to refer to a type of injurious haircut that could be prescribed for the punishment of criminals; see recently Johnson and Geller (2015, 186–­87). The signs kiše4-­kiše4 are clear in U 16868, but the reading and the syntactical interpretation of kiše4-­┌kiše4(?)┐-­a in MS 3329 are less obvious. At the end of the line, the alternative reading za-­gin3 duru5 is also possible, in which case the translation would be “headband (of) gleaming lapis lazuli”; see Mittermayer (2009, 225) on possible identifications of this stone (“heller Lapislazuli”). 10. gu2-­bar = pursāsum (OBGT 15, 18 = MSL 4, 125), a term denoting a headdress that covers the nape, is mentioned throughout the Babylonian Göttertypentext (ed. Köcher 1953; see also Biggs 1996 and Pongratz-­Leisten 2015, 125–­28), which describes the appearance of twenty-­seven statues of gods and demons. It can also be observed, for example, in a terracotta depiction of a Lamma-­ goddess from the time of the Hammurabi dynasty (Spycket 1960, 74 fig. 1). The closest literary Old Babylonian parallel to the present line seems to be: gu2-­bar niĝ2-­sila3-­e mu-­na-­an-­gunu3.gunu3-­ne-­eš (Id-­D A, 47 after ms. A = SRT 1 col. ii 13), which Attinger (2014a) translates as “Ayant chamarré pour elle (i.e., Inana) la coiffure de (leur) nuque de rubans”; see his note ad loc. on the reading of niĝ2-­ sila3. gunu3.gunu3-­gu2 (U 16868) is the expected imperfective base of gunu3, “to have many colors” (Krecher 1995, 158–­60), as opposed to the otherwise unattested form gunu3.gunu3.gunu3 in MS 3329. 11. nāmarum is in this case a type of garment (Ḫḫ. 19, 171 = MSL 10, 132; CAD s.v. nāmaru C) attested since the Ur III period; see Leemans (1952, 30) and Paoletti (2012, 154). Sources from Mari (ARM 25, 400 and 401) indicate that it could be part of a headdress made with gold or silver. This

may illuminate some problematic instances in various other texts where nāmarum is mentioned in connection with statues of gods; see Groneberg (1990, 176–­77) and Arkhipov (2012, 64–­65, “un type d’ornement ou une technique de décoration avec les métaux précieux et les figurines”). The verb u6 du11, “to admire,” is elsewhere used to describe the viewing of a statue; see Volk (1995, 136–­37) ad InŠuk 3 and in general Winter (2000, 30–­36). Since the imperfective participle of du11 is /did/ (ELS §130), the variant u6 di-­e, “for admiring(?),” in MS 3329 is an unexpected spelling, possibly paralleled at TplHy 296 (gu3 nun-­bi di-­e, ms. Pa = BE 31.40 “obv.” 9, coll. Kramer 1940, 249), cf. ELS ex. 275. 12. šu daĝal seems to be similar in meaning to the better-­attested verb šu daĝal du11 (ELS §804), compare: [aia] ┌den┐-­ki-­ke4 tur3 amaš šu bi2-­in-­ daĝal,“[Father] Enki increased the pens and folds” (mušen ku6 l. 9).1 See also text no. 8, l. 14, in this volume. In the form ḫ[u]-­mu-­un-­ši-­ni-­a-­ĝal2 in MS 3329, -­ni-­a-­contains /a/ instead of the expected /e/ (*-­ni-­i-­ or *-­ni-­e-­); see ELS §§ 139 b 2, 153 n. 597 for parallels; compare also uĝ3 saĝ gegge-­ga aia-­bi-­gen7 igi-­bi [š]u-­mu-­a-­ši-­ĝa[l2], “The black-­headed people look upon you (Nanna) as their father” (Iš-­D M, B12 = Ni 2781 [ISET 1, pp. 96–­97], rev. 11). 13. Lamma-­saga is here receiving an offering of syrup from the king. The passage is damaged in both texts, but I propose to interpret what appears to be the sequence uš.gid2 as a version of (e2.)uš.gid2.da = araḫ4, “storehouse”; see RlA s.v. “Speicher” A. §2 (T. Breckwoldt), Pfitzner (2017, 269). Compare perhaps araḫ4 (uš.gid2.da) ┌ ┐ x lal3-­za, “In your (i.e., Nanna’s) storehouse (of) . . . and syrup” (Nanna K, B17). Compare also DI T, 30–­31 (with Heimpel 1981, 116–­17), which locates an araḫ4 within Inana’s Eana temple, and MS 3392, col. i 25 (storehouse of the Ekur in Nippur; text no. 4 in the present volume). Note also the remarks of Evans (2012, 105–­7) on the various 1 // [. . . am]aš šu bi2-­in-­ni10-­ni10, “. . . he enclosed the folds” (MS 2110/1 col. i 11, P250837, ed. Mittermayer 2014), cf. LSUr 45.



Te x t s : A H y m n t o L a m m a - ­s a g a ( “ B a u A ” )

possible locations, including storehouses, where statues of gods could be placed within a temple. 14. This line appears to mean that Lamma selects certain words of prayer and elevates them to the attention of Bau, thereby ensuring the material well-­being for which mankind prays.The relation between prayer and prosperity is expressed by the admonition enim šud3-­de3 mu ḫe2-­ĝal2-­la-­am3, “Words to pray mean years (of) abundance” (Instr.Šur. 140). If this interpretation is correct, the scribe of MS 3329 has misunderstood the sequence ka.ni (giri17-­zal) and written ka.a.nim instead.The highly multivalent sign ka could pose a challenge to Old Babylonian scribes—­see, for example, the glosses in text no. 1 (eenim, l. 11; giri17-­zal, l. 43) in this volume. gi 15. On dimma,“counsel,” see ELS §334 and Pfitzner (2017, 268); the reading enim du10, “pleasant words,” is also possible here. niĝ2-­ge-­e, “truthfulness” (Ni 4369), is a form of niĝ2-­ge-­na (MS 3329), attested mainly in royal inscriptions of the Isin period and later (Lämmerhirt 2010, 394–­95). 17. tun3 is in this context a term referring to the region of the upper lip (šaptum, OB lex. col. iii 13 = MSL 14, 134; Selz 1997, 33), while me-­ze2 denotes the region of the jaw (Wilcke 1969, 57 n. 206). It seems that the ears were in this case thought to be affixed to (literally “filling”) the side of the head (I owe this suggestion to P. Attinger). 18. This line explicitly refers to the physical appearance of the statue that the song is describing—­compare the remarks of Berlejung (1998, 66–­68). The verb si3.g/ke can be translated as “to match” (Mittermayer 2009, 254 n. 581). 19. The “life-­g iving glance” is a topos of religious poetry—­compare, for example, igi bar-­ra-­zu lu2 mu-­un-­til3-­le, “(Sud,) your glance lets man live” (no. 1 obv. 9 in the present volume). It is also a divine appellation: digi-­bar-­lu2-­til3 (An = Anum IV 138). Note also a possible parallel in a riddle from pre-­Sargonic Lagash: i7-­bi dlamma igi-­bar / diĝir-­bi dlamma sa6-­ga, “Its river is ‘Lamma who glances,’ its goddess is Lamma-­saga” (2H-­T25, col. v 2′–­3′, ed. Biggs 1973). 20. Accounts from the Ur III period document the use of gold and silver for the “skin” of Inana. See Zettler (1990, 88) on 6 NT 460 and 6 NT 39 (with

27

the reading “su” rather than “kuš,” but translated as “skin”), further Zettler and Sallaberger (2011, 23) and Evans (2012, 98). On ku3 me-­a, “pure metal” (vel sim.), see recently Mittermayer (2009, 237). 21. See Attinger (2005, 260–­61) on ad, “necklace.” za(3)-­la2 is presumably some ornament that was likewise hung around the neck. Compare UN C, 84–­85, where za3-­la2 is parallel to ĝeššutul4, “yoke.” A necklace was part of the iconography of Lamma-­statues, according to Spycket (1981, 231–­33). The difficult word su2(?)-­un-­su2-­un(// ḫu?)-­ne, if correctly interpreted, is perhaps to be compared to su4-­un-­su4-­na, an epithet of Bau at Iš-­D B, 4, which Römer (1965, 242) has proposed to translate as “radiant.” The reading is however questionable, since the first sign in MS 3329 is ba (rather than su2) and the corresponding traces in Ni 4369 are ambiguous. At the end of the line, a possible restoration of MS 3329 that agrees with the traces in the copy of Ni 4369 is zi-­pa-­aĝ2 ┌bulug2 nam-­nun-­na┐, “the throat, the pins of rulership”; compare perhaps bulug niĝ2 zi-­pa-­aĝ-­[ĝa2]-­na, “Pins, which (are) of her throat” (Ninisina D, A13), but this is quite uncertain. 22. While MS 3329 supports the reading gar3 mun-­na (Sjöberg 1974, 164), I am unable to suggest a translation. 23. A possible actual example of such a jewel (Sum. subi) adorning a divine statue has been published by Abrahami (2008). ḫe2-­du7, “(it is an) ornament,” in MS 3329 is parallel in sense to su3-­su3, “(the statue) is adorned (with)” (see Marchesi 2000, 677–­79), in Ni 4369. za3-­si means “side” (see Attinger 2014a, 52 ad Id-­D A 127), which is close in meaning to (or perhaps an alternative form of) za3-­še, on which see Mittermayer (2009, 230).1 24. The restoration [m]en, “crown,” in MS 3329 seems certain; for the combination with il2, compare Gud. Cyl. A xix 14 (men ku3 an-­ne2 il2-­la), xxi 14 (an nisi-­ga men il2-­la-­[a]m3). The variant [m]en zi ge-­en // zi-­gen7 (cf. the similar variant ge4-­na // gen7-­na, l. 34) is perhaps best understood as a sequence of adjectives: men zi ge-­en, 1 P. Attinger draws to my attention the comparable alternation umbin-­si/še, “claw (of a predator).”

28

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

“the true and firmly established crown.” This is suggested by passages such as an-­ne2 aga zi maḫ saĝ-­ĝa2 mu-­ni-­in-­ge-­en, “An has firmly established the true and great crown on my (Lipit-­ Eštar’s) head” (Lipiteštar A, 24), cf. Šulgi A, 87, and Lämmerhirt (2010, 57–­59, 126–­27). 25. If Ni 4369 indeed presents a gloss še3, then the reading of na4munus.la, previously discussed by Schuster-­ Brandis (2008, 441–­42), is presumably na4šal-­la. The kamkammatum is a kind of ring worn on the arms and fingers (see Civil 2008, 56; Maggio 2012, 36; Paoletti 2012, 140; Arkhipov 2017, 152). On la-­la, “allure,” see recently Jaques (2006, 263–­64). 27. na4nir7 (za.mir) is the ḫulālum-­stone (OB Diri Nippur 256 = MSL 15, 20), characterized by black and white stripes; see Molina (1989, 82–­83), Schuster-­Brandis (2008, 436), and Paoletti (2012, 142). It is mentioned as a component of the divine statue in the Mīs pî ritual, incantation tablet 3, 65ab–­66b (ed. Walker and Dick 2001). On si3.g, “to enclose” (in the context of precious stones), see Molina (1989, 85), Paoletti (2012, 162), and Paoletti (2013, 340–­43). 28. The rare word (ma-­)sila3 occurs as a laudatory epithet in TplHy 172; lexical sources identify it inconsistently with various body parts—­in particular, the shoulder. See Sjöberg and Bergmann (1969, 87) ad loc. and CAD s.v. naglabu A lex. In the present context (“mother of the country”), the equation sila3 = epēqum (Proto-­Aa 84: 6 = MSL 14, 92), which is derived from the meaning “shoulder,” suggests a translation such as “embracing.” Well-­attested early theophoric personal names such as Ipiq-­DN, “Embrace-­of-­DN” (CAD s.v. ipqu), suitably illustrate the use of this root in context. 29. Ni 4369 repeats the words of l. 18 before the refrain, whereas MS 3329 states that the statue is “standing through its own power”: like certain sections of the Mīs pî ritual, this line is perhaps supposed to banish any notion that the statue was created by human hands, describing it instead as an autonomous divine entity in its own right. Compare the opening line of the incantation: an-­na ni2-­bi-­ta du2-­ud-­da-­a, “(Statue) born in heaven by its own power,” recited, for example, in the house of the craftsmen in the Babylonian ritual text BM

45749, obv. 3 (ed. Walker and Dick 2001, 69–­82). In the expanded form of the refrain that occurs here and in l. 37, the first element of the refrain probably stands in the locative (. . . -­za)—­literally, “Let us speak in the way of praise, far and wide, of your statue . . .” (cf. ELS §217 d 1). 30. Compare kalam-­ma ki ur5 sa6-­ge-­bi ĝe26-­e-­me-­en, “I (i.e., Ur-­Namma) am the source of the land’s happiness” (UN C, 51), as translated by Flückiger-­ Hawker (1999, 212–­13). 31. ša3-­su3, for which several interpretations could be envisaged (see Peterson 2010a, 602–­3), is in this context expected to refer to some visual aspect of the statue. One lexical explanation of [š]a3-­su3 is mērênu, “bareness” (literally “bare stomach”), in Erimḫuš III, 19 (MSL 17, 47), and this seems a plausible approach to the present passage, since the Babylonian Göttertypentext (see note on l. 10) attests the phrase pagru mērênu, which similarly seems to mean “the body is bare” (col. iv 46, v 8, vi 21). The same usage of ša3-­su3 occurs in Lgbd II, 124: ša3-­su3-­zu kiri6 si12-­ga u6-­e gub-­ba-­me-­en, “(As to) your bare body, you are a verdant garden that stands there to be admired!” in a description of the bird. See the comments of Wilcke (1969, 168–­69) and Black (1998, 91 n. 231) ad loc. The term dim3, to which ša3-­su3 is compared, has been rendered as “figurine” (Jaques 2014, 64; Sefati 1987), but the lexically well-­attested translation “pillar” (makūtum) seems more appropriate here; compare dlamma na4ĝeš-­nu11-­gal ki-­gal na4 za-­gin3-­na gub-­ba-­am3 / dim3-­ma zu2 til-­la // d lamma na4ĝešnux(šir)-­gal [š]a ina uq-­ni-­i i-za-­az / ma-­ku-­ut zu9(ka×ud) qu2-­ut-­tu3-­tu3, “(My mother is) a Lamma-­goddess of alabaster, standing on a base of lapis lazuli, / (She is) an accomplished pillar of ivory” (lu2-­diĝir-­ra 30–­31, with the literal Akkadian translation from Ugarit, ed. Kämmerer 1998, 164–­68). This offers a clear parallel to the image in our text: with her bare body, the statue of the Lamma-­goddess is “standing like a pillar.” The mention of the “navel” (en3-­dur) in this connection perhaps explains the equation en3-­ dur = ṣiprum offered by the eccentric Old Babylonian lexical text UET 7.93 obv. 17 (ed. Sjöberg 1996) in the context of other types of ornaments and garments: ṣiprum is well attested in the sense



Te x t s : A H y m n t o L a m m a - ­s a g a ( “ B a u A ” )

“decoration made of precious stone” (see CAD s.v.)—­in particular of lapis lazuli, for example, in LB 1090 obv. 8 (ed. Leemans 1952) and Ḫḫ. 16, 67–­71 (MSL 10, 6)—­and the lexical equation with the “navel” suggests that this body part was regularly decorated. 32. It seems that statues were generally made of a kernel of cedarwood (RlA s.v. Kultbild A. §4, J. Renger), which was then elaborately decorated.1 The appropriate translation of ĝurgu1/2 is thus probably “spine,” “backbone” (= eṣemṣērum, Proto-­Izi I, 277 = MSL 13, 26). According to earlier sources from Ebla, dib is a plaque that could be adorned with precious stones or metals; see esp. Civil (2008, 54–­55) and Waetzoldt (2001, 76–­77).There appears to be some textual corruption in Ni 4369, but if ti is ṣēlum,“rib,” the present line may contrast the cedarwood kernel with an ornate plaque covering the front side. 33. I have gratefully adopted the suggestion of P. Attinger that u2-­šal tuku, literally “having fine herbage,” refers to pubic hair.The recent survey of Akkadian metaphorical descriptions Sumero-­ of female genitalia by Couto-­Ferreira (2017) suggests that this usage is so far without exact parallels. Presumably saĝ-­dul5 denotes a “cover” for the pudenda, which are further described in the following line. 34. gurum must in this instance mean “pudenda” (ḫurdatum, Proto-­Aa 449: 1 = MSL 14, 99); compare the gold and silver vulvae assigned to Ištar in LB 1090, obv. 2 and rev. 26 (ed. Leemans 1952; see also George 2013, 121). I am unable to offer an interpretation of šu-­ur2 ge4-­na // šu-­┌ru(?)┐ gen7-­na, except to suggest that it represents yet another term meaning “tied fast, affixed” (compare šu-­ur2 ĝar = u2-­u2-­lum in SIG7.ALAN XVII, 207 = MSL 16, 161?). Ni 4369 for some reason has the variant (nam-­) nu-­nus, the Emesal form of (nam-­)munus (Emesal Voc. II 68 = MSL 4, 16).

1 As in ancient Greece: Pausanias 3.15.10–­11, 6.19.12.

29

35. My translation assumes that sa2 si stands for sa2 si3.k, “to design,” and that mu2-­mu2 (// mu-­mu) has the particular connotation “to restore,” as is common in connection with statues (CAD s.v. edēšu 2b). On gu la2, “to stretch a net,” see Cavigneaux and al-­Rawi (2002, 36–­37). See notes on text no. 1, ll. 23–­24, on the editorial remark nu-­tar inserted after the present line in Ni 4369. 36. Sjöberg (1974, 165) read ba? sal-­la in Ni 4369, leaving the line untranslated.The first sign is however ku in both texts. If ku(-­)šal-­la is an appellation of Lamma-­saga, it can perhaps be compared to the name nin9(munus.ku)-­šal-­la, a seer mentioned in an receipt from Girsu of the Ur III period (TUT 256 obv. 2; the same name in CT 7, pl. 17 BM 12940 obv. 13). Is it conceivable that, as in the case of egi2 (munus.še3) and egi (še3), “princess” (see Steinkeller 2005, 305–­6), the sign ku could stand on its own as a spelling of some female epithet (munus.)ku? The sequence ┌ka tuku-­tuku┐-­a (// ka e), obscure in meaning, is damtuku4-­tuku4-­ aged (ka in MS 3329 was possibly inscribed with another sign) and seems to have been partly erased in MS 3329. 37. The verb šu-­a gi4, studied in detail by Römer (1992), seems to be used as an epithet of Lamma in an inscription of Kudur-­Mabuk and Rim-­Sin (RIM E4.2.14.3 26) that requests a joyful kingship, a good rule, and perhaps “a protective deity that saves” (dlamma šu-­a gi4-­gi4), in the sense that Lamma, as a beneficent intermediary, could help return a worshipper to the hand of his god (cf. the phrase šu-­še3 gi4, as employed at Nungal A, 106–­9). In the present context, the verb šu-­a gi4 is however more likely to refer to the state of the statue itself rather than to the activity of Lamma: the statue is complete and has been safely delivered to its purpose in the temple of Bau (thus also Römer 1992, 318). Colophon. The day and month in which the copying of the text was assigned or completed are frequently recorded on Old Babylonian school tablets. See recently Ludwig (2012, 206).

NO. 3 : THE BI RTH O F ENLI L MS 3312 instantly strikes the reader as unusual: the text on both sides runs from top to bottom in the same direction, giving the tablet the uncommon format of a book page. A glance at the content suggests that this format must have been deliberately chosen because the two sides of the tablet are inscribed with two versions of a single text that correspond to each other line by line.1 The convex side of the tablet, which would normally be called the “reverse,” contains a strange but broadly intelligible narrative: a man and a woman are married, she conceives, a child is formed in her womb.The child then emerges as a king, who is praised extensively and referred to as the god Enlil. The flat side of the tablet, which would usually be called the “obverse,” contains a secondary text that modifies the primary version by substituting different words and grammatical forms and by generally engaging in what seems to be highly creative lexical speculation.2 The considerable challenges posed by this text are compounded by the fact that, unfortunately, only a little more than the top half of the tablet is extant. It is particularly intriguing that, at the point at which the text breaks off, wedges written backward or upside down begin to appear on the “reverse” side.

not yet take place. The narrative then introduces a man and a woman. They are married, his semen is cast into her womb, and an offspring emerges. This offspring seems to be described as a “king” (l. 5), who is then praised in conventional hymnic terms: he is great in heaven and earth, he is worshipped in prayer, his utterance is important, he holds the great divine powers, his hand is suited to the ruler’s staff. It is then stated that the “king” is in fact the god Enlil (l. 12), whose temple Ekur is mentioned at the fragmentary end of the preserved text (l. 16). The beginning of the primary text is reminiscent of Old Babylonian Sumerian birth incantations like UM 29-­15-­367 and VS 17.33 (ed. van Dijk 1975), which begin with a brief prologue on the creation of the child in the womb (see note on l. 5). Such a prologue is also found at the opening of the tale “Enlil and Sud” (ed. Civil 1983), which relates how the goddess Sud was fathered by Haia and conceived by Nunbaršegunu (Nisaba). If it is true that in our text the resulting offspring is Enlil, the prologue is of some mythological interest: whereas Enlil is frequently described as the “father” of other gods in religious poetry, his own genealogy is not often mentioned. There exists a conventional (but difficult) “theogony of Enlil,” according to which he is descended from Enki and Ninki, while other sources call An his father (Lambert 2013, 405–­17; George 2016, 11–­12; see also Peterson 2009, 83–­84); the extant text of MS 3312, however, refers only to unnamed male and female partners, and so the theogonic element remains obscure (see also note on l. 3). The most interesting feature of MS 3312 is no doubt the correspondence between the primary text on the one side of the tablet and the secondary interpretation of this text on the other. The secondary version (written on what would normally be called the “obverse”) is generally based on the principle of synonymity: a word in the primary text is replaced by a different word that is in some sense similar or related. While a few correspondences remain obscure, the reasoning can be discerned in many cases. The most straightforward of

Summary and Interpretation The primary text, which is written on the “reverse” side, can be summarized as follows. After an opening line in which only a few traces of signs are preserved, the fragmentary second line introduces the theme of procreation, possibly alluding to a mythical early time in which copulation did 1 A similar book-­page tablet is MS 3346 (unpublished), which contains a Sumerian composition about Šulgi on the one side and an Akkadian translation on the other. See Taylor 2011, 14, for various other, nonliterary examples; compare also the exercise tablet VS 24.123. 2 For another literary tablet where obverse and reverse are inverted, in comparison to their usual shapes, see the eccentric Gilgameš fragment from the first Sealand period edited by George 2007, with the further remarks of George 2013, 130.

30



Te x t s : T h e B i r t h o f E n l i l

31

these involve simple substitution of a different word that has roughly the same meaning: thus ad-­ad-­da, “grandfather,” in the primary text (l. 6) corresponds to bil2-­ga, “male ancestor,” in the secondary version. In other cases, however, the synonymity is not quite so obvious: whereas the Sumerian word in the primary text is perfectly natural to Old Babylonian literature, the corresponding word on the other side of the tablet is employed in a rare sense that is known mainly from lexical sources rather than from Sumerian literary texts. Thus isimu2sar, “offspring,” in the primary text (l. 5) corresponds to bil2 in the secondary version.The latter word is known mainly from bilingual lexical sources, which translate bil2 with the Akkadian term pir’um, “offspring,” and in this way, bil2 can be seen as a synonym of isimu2sar. Similarly, dugud, “heavy,” in the primary text corresponds to dilmun in the secondary version because both words can be translated in Akkadian as kabtum (l. 10); šu, “hand,” corresponds to kišeb because both can be rendered in lexical texts as rittum (ll. 13 and 15); mu2, “to grow,” corresponds to du3 because both can be equated with the Akkadian verb banûm (l. 15). Two correspondences involve substitution of related verbal forms. Thus du11-­ga in the primary text corresponds to di-­da in the secondary version (l. 11) because both are participial forms of the verb “to speak”; a verb ending with the suffix -­ene probably corresponds to a verb ending in -­eš (l. 8) because these are both suffixes of the third-­person plural. If my interpretation is correct, these correspondences illustrate the Old Babylonian scribe’s interest in the peculiarities of the Sumerian verb.1 In one case, finally, the synonymity is founded not just on semantic (or grammatical) considerations but also on the cuneiform sign with which the word in the primary text is written: sibir, “ruler’s staff,” corresponds to nun, “lord,” because nun is a synonym of en, which is the simple sign on which the complex sign sibir (u.en×gana2) is based (l. 13). The secondary text sometimes takes one of these correspondences as the starting point of further lexical explorations that are quite puzzling but

might also be based on synonymity, at least in part (see notes on ll. 5, 8, 9, 11). In other instances, words from the primary text are simply repeated, either literally or with minor variations (e.g., an ki-­a // an ki-­e, l. 6).The secondary text thus presents a mixture of more or less transparent lexical and grammatical correspondences, which are sometimes further expanded, and repetitions of the primary text. The result is (to my mind) incomprehensible on its own, a warped version of the primary text on the other side of the tablet. Perhaps the purpose of this exercise was to illustrate how easily a conventional Sumerian literary composition could be turned into a hermetic riddle: by substituting synonyms derived from bilingual lexical lists, it becomes possible to transform a familiar phrase like šu mu2-­mu2, “to pray,” into something rather more enigmatic (kišeb du3-­du3, l. 15). The author of MS 3312 clearly took an interest in the lexicon and grammar of the Sumerian language and used this knowledge to create two versions of a single text, only one of which conforms to the conventions of Old Babylonian Sumerian literature. The hermeneutic principle of synonymity, the use of associative chains, and the reliance on lexical lists are reminiscent of ancient scholarly commentaries (Frahm 2011, 60–­62, 64–­66, 88–­94), but in our text, the purpose is to obscure rather than illuminate. In this respect, MS 3312 resembles the composition known as the “Scholars of Uruk” (MS 2624, ed. George 2009, 78–­112), an Old Babylonian bilingual text that employs a highly artificial, “academic” form of Sumerian.There too a primary (Akkadian) text underlies a secondary (Sumerian) version, and the latter could hardly be understood without the former. As in the case of MS 3312, the correspondences can frequently be revealed only with the help of lexical sources. Playful and creative engagement with the Sumerian language has previously been observed in some seemingly abstruse variants that occur in Old Babylonian literary texts (Civil 1972) as well as in a letter that plagiarizes a well-­known model from the royal correspondence of Ur by substituting periphrastic expressions and homophones (Huber 2001, 180–­82).2 MS 3312 offers

1 For another example of such interest, see Civil 2002.

2 See now also Michalowski 2011, 344–­47.

32

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

another illustration that what has been called “speculative philology” (Veldhuis 2014, 220–­22) is not an exclusively post-­Old Babylonian phenomenon. The following transliteration presents the text of the primary version (“rev.”), each line being accompanied by the corresponding secondary version (“obv.”). A tentative translation of the primary text is also offered, along with notes that seek to explain the correspondences (as far as they seem intelligible) between the two versions.

Transliteration 1 “rev.” traces “obv.” [x] ┌x gal x x x┐ [x x] 2 “rev.” [u4(?)]-­bi-­ta ĝeš dili ┌du11-­ga-­a-­ni x x x┐ “obv.” [x x x x x] ┌x x┐ [x x x] 3 “rev.” ninta munus-­bi dam im-­ma-­an-­šum2 a ┌ša3┐-­ga mi-­ni-­r i ┌ ┐ “obv.” x šim ┌e┐(?) ┌x x┐ [x x x x] ┌ ┐ 4 “rev.” a ri-­a-­ba nuĝun pa ┌ba-­ni-­in┐-­e3 “obv.” nuĝun nuĝun-­a niĝ2-­┌x┐ niĝ2-­┌x┐ [x x] 5 “rev.” isimu2sar isimu2sar-­ba lugal ba-­an-­šum2-­m[u] “obv.” bil2 bil2 ḫenbur ak kissaa(ki.šeš. gag.a) ┌x┐ 6 “rev.” an ki-­a ba-­maḫ ad-­ad-­┌da┐ a-ba ┌ ka(?)┐ “obv.” an ki-­e ba-­┌x┐ bil2-­ga bi[l2 x] 7 “rev.” [di]li(?)-­ni an ki-­ba ša3-­ba igi mi-­ni-­ĝal2 “obv.” aš ┌ĝen┐(?)-­na ĝar-­re ša3-­bi ┌x┐ ┌ ┐┌ ┐ 8 “rev.” a ki -­ta de2-­a-­na a-­[r]a-­zu-­a mu-­un-­na-­ni-­ib2-­be2-­e-­ne “obv.” lul lul ša3-­ga mu(?)-­na-­┌eš┐ a ┌ ┐ x [ . . . ] 9 “rev.” [x] isimu2sar gurun-­gen7 pa e3-­a-­ĝu10-­a šu zi ĝa2-­ĝa2 “obv.” bi2-­lu5 bi2-­lu5-­da mu-­┌gi4┐-­g[i4] 10 “rev.” [e]nim-­ma-­na du11-­ga dugud-­dam “obv.” dilmun si-­il-­la-­na lul-­bi na-­┌x┐ [ . . . ] 11 “rev.” ka-­aš du11-­ga-­a-­ni ba-­an-­gi4 ba-­ab-­šum2-­mu-­un “obv.” ka-­aš di-­da-­a-­ni du12-­du12 ba-­e-­[x x]

12 13

“rev.” me gal-­gal-­ba den-­lil2 lugal-­bi-­im “obv.” gal-­gal-­ra den-­lil2 [x] ┌ri x x┐ [x] “rev.” šu sibir-­e du7-­┌ta┐ ul-­še3 nu-­kur2-­ru-­dam “obv.” kišeb nun-­e du7 ┌x┐ [x] ┌x x x┐ 14 “rev.” za3 til-­la-­na-­┌ta(?)┐ nir-­┌ĝal2 nu┐-­e3 uĝ3 šar2-­ra zu-­zu “obv.” za3-­ga-­a-­ni nir nu-­┌e3┐ [x] ┌x┐ zu-­zu ┌ ┐ 15 “rev.” šu mu2-­mu2-­a-­┌zu┐ mi-­ni-­in-­┌x┐-­e-­ne “obv.” kišeb du3-­du3-­e x [x x x] ┌x┐ 16 “rev.” [x x] ┌x┐ [t]i-­la sikil e2-­kur ┌x x x x┐ “obv.” me-­te a ti-­la ┌sikil x┐ [x x x] 17 “rev.” [x x x z]a3 an ki-­ke4 ┌x x x x┐ ki-­tuš ši-­mi-­ni-­ĝal2 ┌ “obv.” x x x x x ┐ [x x x x x x] (then breaks off) 18 “rev.” [x x x x] ┌x x┐ [x x x] ┌x x┐ 19 “rev.” [x x x x x] ┌x┐ [x x x x x]

Translation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

[ . . . ] In those [ancient times(?)], when [ . . . ] made love together(?) [ . . . ], A man and a woman were given in marriage, he poured his semen into the womb, In that semen which was poured, he made a seed emerge, (As) an offspring of that offspring, she delivered(?) a king. He has been made great in heaven and earth, a grandfather [ . . . ] He [alone(?)] has seen the innermost parts of heaven and earth. In pouring his libations, people address him in prayer, Attending my offspring that has emerged like a fruit. The word that he utters is important, When he has made his decision, I reply(?), Enlil is the king of the great divine powers By his hand, fit for the ruler’s staff, never to be altered. By his perfection(?), no proud (challenger?) emerges, all the people know it,



15 16 17

Te x t s : T h e B i r t h o f E n l i l

In praying to you, they [ . . . ], [ . . . ] pure, the Ekur [ . . . ], [ . . . ] border of heaven and earth [ . . . ] has created a dwelling, (remainder fragmentary)

Commentary 2. The verb is no doubt ĝeš3 du11, “to make love,” written here in the common form ĝeš du11 (ELS §481).The sense of the slightly damaged sign preceding du11 is difficult to determine: it appears to be simply dili(aš), for which the lexically attested meaning “together” (dili = mitḫariš, Proto-­Aa 100, 2 = MSL 14, 93) might be suitable. 3. The male and female characters who unite to create the offspring that later becomes Enlil remain anonymous, as in other literary passages that refer to the nameless “mother and father” of Enlil (CA 207; GiM N3 18; Šulgi R, 65). 5. When written with the ĝeš determinative that the present text omits, isimu2sar and bil2 are associated semantically by the lexical equation with pir’um, “offspring”—­for example, OB Diri Nippur 221, 224 (MSL 15, 20), Ḫḫ. III, 264a–­66 (MSL 5, 114). For a rare juxtaposition in a literary context, compare bil3-­bil3-­(//bil2-­bil2)-­me-­en ĝeš isimu2sar nu-­tuku-­me-­en, “I am a new shoot, I am one that has no offspring” (SEpM 7, 22).1 From there, the associative chain in “obv.” leads to the sign gag, since this can be read as ḫenbur, “offspring,” another synonym. Perhaps the resemblance between gag and pap, which is an element of the sign bil2 (ne×pap), is also relevant. Another reading of gag is du3, “to make,” which is roughly synonymous to the verb ak. The final element in the sequence is kissaa, a logogram involving the same sign du3(gag) in the sequence ki.šeš.gag(.a), which is to be read as kissa according to OB Diri Oxford 341 (MSL 15, 44), Diri IV 313–­14 (ibid. 164), and Antagal G 42 (MSL 17, 222) and is possibly connected to the architectural feature better known as ki-­sa2, as discussed by CAD s.v. kisû and Suter (1997, 6–­7). See also Jacobsen (1990, 1 On bil2 and ĝešbil2 (= bil3) in this sense, see Sjöberg 1998, 363, Rubio 2012, 5, and Attinger 2013, 2 n. 18.

33

41*–­42*), Löhnert (2009, 209–­10), Bauer (2009, 255 ad 432), and Attinger (2015a, 59 n. 239). In “rev.,” the verb šum2 could refer to the act of “delivering” a child, as in the phrase lu2-­ra dumu šum2-­mu, “to deliver a child to man,” which is attested in some OB birth incantations after a similar conception prologue (UM 29-­15-­367, col. i 4, ii 2;VS 17.33 obv. 4, ed. van Dijk 1975, as corrected by Veldhuis 1998, 851; see also Tinney 1999, 36–­37). 6. ad-­ad-­da, “grandfather” // bil2-­ga, “male ancestor,” compare Proto-­Lu 410–­11 (MSL 12, 47): ad-­ad-­da, pa4-­bil2-­ga; Lu III col. iv 74a: pa4-­bil2-­gi = abi abi (MSL 12, 127). 7. Various sequences starting with aš, including some involving du and gar, are listed in Izi E, 171–­75a (MSL 13, 188), but the reasoning in “obv.” eludes me. 8. If correctly restored,“rev.” probably refers to water libations accompanied by prayers, for which compare, for example, ELA 248–­50.The starting point for the correspondence between this and “obv.” seems to be the common equation de2 = šaqû,“to pour out,” which can lead to lul via the derived noun šāqû, “cupbearer,” a well-­established logographic writing of which is kaš.lul (Ea V, 44 = MSL 14, 398; Aa V/1 179 = ibid. 412; Secondary Proto-­Ea/Aa no.  4, 73 = ibid. 115). Note also the Akkadian homophones contained in further lexical interpretations of lul such as šaqummatum, “silence” (Aa VII/4, 122 = MSL 14, 469); šâqu, of unknown meaning (Aa VII/4 136 = ibid.); and ki lul-­lul = ašar šaggašte, “place of murder” (Izi 16 C, 11′–­12′ = MSL 13, 175–­76). This makes it easy to see why “obv.” finally explains lul with the Sumerian homophone ša3-­ga—­that is, šaga. The first sign of the ensuing sequence in “obv.” is bur2 and could thus be read sun5(-­na), but it may be easier to interpret it as a variant of mu-­. This would produce a verbal form mu-­na-­eš, inspired by mu-­un-­na-­ni-­ib2-­be2-­e-­ne in “rev.,” since /-­eš/ is the usual intransitive counterpart to the transitive verbal ending /-­ene/ in the third-­ person plural. The spelling -­Ce-­e-­ne (plural base /e/, “to speak,” followed by /-­ene/) is regular (ELS §19 h), whereas the form mu-­na-­eš seems highly artificial (/mu-­na-­n-­e-­eš/, or /mu-­na-­{no

34

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

base}-­eš/?), being based perhaps solely on the contrast between /-­ene/ and /-­eš/. 9. If correctly interpreted, isimu2sar corresponds to bi2-­lu5, which is then expanded to bi2-­lu5-­da, “ordinances.” bi2-­lu5 can be interpreted as a phonetic variant of bil2, which corresponded semantically to isimu2 in l. 5. There may have been a further association between lu5(lul) and the determinative sar via the Akkadian word sarrum, “false,” a common lexical rendering of lul. 10. The sense of “rev.” seems clear despite the faulty syntax (the expected form being *enim du11-­ga-­ni dugud-­dam). dilmun in “obv.” is to be explained by the equation dilmun = kabtum, “heavy,” which is synonymous with dugud in “rev.” This equation is known from lexical sources (Ea II 39 = MSL 14, 248) and bilingual liturgies (incipit: dilmun niĝen2-­u3 // kabtum nasḫiramma,“Important one, turn to me!”; see Maul 1988, 87–­88 and Gabbay 2015, 217). 11. In “obv.,” di.d is the imperfective participle of du11.g, “to say,” in “rev.,” and du12-­du12 is semantically related as a term of speaking, being equated to atwûm and qabûm in OB Diri Nippur 53–­53a (MSL 15, 14). No verb ka-­aš du11.g is listed in ELS, but ka-­aš bar,“to decide,” is very common, and an interpretation in that sense would agree with the previous line (“important utterance”).1 Less likely readings for ka aš are enim dili, “unique word,” not attested elsewhere, and ka-­aš as a syllabic spelling of kaš (kaš du11.g, “to libate beer”; note 1 Compare perhaps the name Ika-­aš2-­du11-­ga, attested in the late Babylonian cultic list BM 54725+, col. i 10′ (ed. Jursa 2001–­2; reference courtesy P. Attinger).

also the technical term kaš dida, “Trockenbier,” Sallaberger 2012, 320–­21), which is improbable, since “rev.” otherwise seems to follow conventional orthography. The second part of the line in “rev.” can perhaps be compared to a phrase in an inscription of Rim-­Sin: ba-­an-­gi4 šum2-­mu diĝir-­gal-­gal-­e-­ne-­er, “(Ninšubur) who gives answers to the great gods” (RIM E.4.2.14.13 6), although the sense remains enigmatic (reference courtesy P. Attinger). 13. It appears that here, as in l. 15, kišeb corresponds to šu because of the common lexical equation kišeb = rittum, “hand” (e.g., Proto-­Aa 189: 3 = MSL 14, 97). kišeb in this sense is probably a reduction of kišeb-­la2,“wrist, grip” (Cooper 1978, 129 n. 1). The correspondence between sibir and nun is to be explained by the semantic association between en, “lord” (the basic sign in u.en×gana2 = sibir) and nun as a sign strongly connected to notions of rulership (e.g., nun = bēlum in Aa V/3, 32 = MSL 14, 422). 15. On šu // kišeb, see note on l. 13. mu2, “to grow,” corresponds to du3,“to build,” because these verbs can in some contexts be almost synonymous; compare ensi2-­ke4 e2 mu-­du3 mu-­mu2 / kur gal-­ gen7 mu-­mu2,“The ruler built the (Eninnu) temple, he let it grow, / he let it grow like a great mountain” (Gud. Cyl. A col. xxii 9–­10). This synonymity in Sumerian is reflected in Akkadian usage, where the verb banûm can mean both “to build” and “to grow” (in stative forms). See Lambert (1998, 193) and Lambert (2013, 469), cf. Aa VII/4 116 (MSL 14, 468). In Akkadian contexts, the sign gag = du3 can as a Sumerogram be used in both senses. See Jiménez (2014, 103 with n. 9).

N O. 4 : T WO H YM NS TO ENLI L (“HY MN TO THE EK UR”) AN D EN K I Two poems are contained on MS 3392, a small, almost square-­shaped tablet: on the obverse, a version of the text previously known as the “Hymn to the Ekur” (ETCSL c.4.80.4); on the reverse, a new song in praise of Enki.The compositions are related in structure and type, as they are both divided into two “ki-­ru-­gu2” stanzas and are identified by subscripts as “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” songs. MS 3392 is thus one of those Old Babylonian Sammeltafeln on which religious poems of identical or similar type were collected.1 The surface of the tablet is abraded in many places, which in some cases makes it difficult to interpret the signs with complete confidence.

the subscripts and liturgical rubrics of Old Babylonian Sumerian poetry were not necessarily written down consistently in every manuscript, since they can vary or be omitted in duplicate versions of one and the same composition.3 The identification of the “Hymn to the Ekur” as a song of the “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” type offers a key to the interpretation of the poem. While the criteria that define a “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” song are rather diffuse (Shehata 2009, 270–­72), it is relevant that the “Hymn to the Ekur” has some subject matter in common with certain cultic laments, a genre to which “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” songs are in general known to be related (as discussed in more detail below). The poem is however not a lament but, as the final section of the text makes clear, a celebration of the temple of Enlil and his family (ll. 40–­42), and it seems possible that the song was composed to accompany building work on the Ekur. This is suggested by the generic term “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba),” “song of the nam-­šub,” since other sources connect the building or restoration of temples (including the Ekur) to the performance of nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub, a difficult term that seems to denote a fateful utterance. For instance, in “Ur-­Namma B,” a “tigi” hymn of Enlil that commemorates the restoration of the Ekur by Ur-­Namma, Enki utters a nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub just as the building work is being prepared: ĝeš-­šub (// nam-­šub) galam-­ma-­na nam-­ d en-­ki-­ke4 e2-­e ul ba-­ni-­in-­si12-­ga d sipa ur-­dnamma-­ke4 e2-­kur maḫ dur-­an-­ki-­a-­ka an-­še3 mi-­ni-­in-­mu2

The So-­Called Hymn to the Ekur The obverse of MS 3392 contains a version of a well-­known text that was previously attested only by a single manuscript, UM 29-­16-­51 (P256659), edited by Kramer (1957).2 Apart from presenting some textual variants, the new manuscript adds one major piece of information by identifying the hymn as a “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” song of Enlil. MS 3392 also differs from UM 29-­16-­51 in that it marks fewer liturgical rubrics: in the new manuscript, only the “ki-­r u-­gu2” rubric at l. 39 is explicitly indicated, while the “sa-­gid2-­da”/“sa-­ĝar-­ra” rubrics and the corresponding “ĝeš-­gi4-­ĝal2” antiphons that are contained in UM 29-­16-­51 are absent (see notes on ll. 33–­34, 39, 41–­42, 55). This serves as a reminder that 1 Compare esp. BM 23631, which contains “Utu E” and “Utu F” and concludes: 2 ser3-­nam-­šub dutu-­┌kam┐ (ed. Kramer 1985); also STVC 65, which gathers various Sumerian songs of the “adab” type, and the Akkadian Sammeltafel BM 139964, which has “1 pārum” to Papulegara followed by “2 ser3 tanittim” to Papulegara, totaling “3 ser3” of Papulegara (Metcalf 2015, 18–­19 n. 12, 54).

3 See Wilcke 1975, 254 and Peterson 2011, 180, and note the particularly striking example recently published by Peterson 2015b, 45, 48: a new manuscript identifies the hymn “Nergal C” as an “adab” composition, whereas the version previously known refers to it as a “tigi.” For an example of comparable generic confusion involving an archaic Greek hymn, see Metcalf 2015, 111–­12 with n. 22. It is argued in the introduction to text no. 1 in the present volume that such variation sometimes caused an ancient scribe to indicate the absence of a liturgical rubric in a Vorlage by means of the editorial remark nu-­tar/ku5, “(the model text) is not divided (by a rubric).”

2 Now reedited by Klein 2017. While some of Klein’s views are contradicted by the new duplicate (see, e.g., note on ll. 51–­55), his frequent comparisons with the hymn “Ur-­ Namma B” point in a similar direction as the interpretation of the text that is proposed here. For another Old Babylonian liturgy on the Ekur (and Ki’ur), see recently Avila, Sigrist, and Gabbay 2017.

35

36

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s



After Enki made the temple prosper with his crafty utterance that determines fate, The shepherd Urnamma made the great Ekur grow as far as the sky in Duranki (UN B, 19–­20). In a detailed discussion, Mittermayer (2009, 74–­77) interprets nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub as an abstract term meaning “etwas Schicksalweisendes,” which is contained both in nam-­šub, “spell” (= šiptu), and ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba).This would then be a song about “fate,” in the sense that it is concerned with something that has been ordained (cf. ELS §673). The passage from “Ur-­Namma B” indicates that a favorable nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub was necessary when work was to be undertaken on a sacred building, and this seems relevant to the theme of the present “ser3-­nam-­ šub(-­ba)” song: the elements of the Ekur and other sacred areas of Nippur are praised in a long litany (ll. 1–­33), after which the temple emerges for the one who uttered its praise (ll. 34–­39), raising its head as the residence of Enlil and Ninlil as well as of their sons Ninurta and Nanna/Suen (ll. 40–­55). It is possible that the litany was imagined to have been pronounced by Enlil, who created his temple with his word.This pronouncement may have been thought of as a favorable nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub, like the utterance of Enki in “Ur-­Namma B.” The present hymn may thus have been composed on the occasion of building work on the Ekur: the recitation of the litany would ritually reenact the original creation of the temple by Enlil and would thereby guarantee that the sacred elements of the Ekur and Nippur remained in their correct and divinely determined order, in accordance with their nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub.1

Compare Ambos 2004, 50–­52 and 2013, 22, on the perceived importance of the temple’s original form in Mesopotamian mythology. An association between nam (-­ĝeš)-­šub and singing in connection with the building of temples is suggested also by Gud. Cyl. A col. xxvii 12 (nam-­ šub and ser3 ḫa-­mun inside the Eninnu); ELA 134–­35/206–­7 (ser3 ku3 and nam-­šub to be sung in a temple once it has been constructed); EJN 125 (quoted below, in the note on ll. 68–­71). 1

One particular challenge posed by the temple litany that makes up more than half of the “Hymn to the Ekur” (ll. 1–­33) is to reconcile the literary information with the archaeological evidence from the Ekur complex that modern excavations at Nippur have produced. The site of the Ekur as it is preserved today consists essentially of a courtyard containing the ziqqurrat and an adjacent temple of Enlil.2 A “courtyard of Enlil” and the ziqqurrat are mentioned in the “Hymn to the Ekur” (ll. 12–­13 in MS 3392), but in the absence of contextual information, it remains difficult to locate the many other “houses” and “gates” that occur in the litany, particularly as the function of the temple of Enlil alongside the ziqqurrat, tentatively interpreted by the excavators as a “kitchen temple” for the production of offerings (McCown and Haines 1967, 32–­33), is not clear.3 It should also be noted that the widely used title “Hymn to the Ekur,” which Kramer (1957) applied to the composition, is potentially misleading: the new manuscript MS 3392 identifies the poem as a “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” song of Enlil, which is not necessarily devoted exclusively to the Ekur, and the final part of the litany may in fact include items that were important to the general cultic topography of Nippur without belonging to the Ekur itself (such as the “gate of Nanna” and the “garden of prosperity”; see note on ll. 26–­27). In general, it is plausible to assume that, as Löhnert (2009, 166) suggests, the litany 2 See the report of McCown and Haines 1967, 1–­33. For more recent overviews and studies, see RlA s.v. Nippur B. §3.2.2 (M. Gibson, D. P. Hansen, R. L. Zettler) and Heinrich 1982, 160, George 1999, 83–­86, Richter 2004, 36–­38, van Ess 2013, 63–­65, Clayden and Schneider 2015, and Schneider 2017.The evolution of Nippur as a religious center is described by Sallaberger 1997. 3 The notion of a “kitchen temple” is possibly supported by an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I (RIMB 2.4.2) that was found there; note that Jacobsen 1990, 45* with n. 31 changed his mind about the reading of a crucial term, later preferring gir4 maḫ (“great oven”) to unu maḫ (cf. the reference to gir4 maḫ in connection with offerings presented in the Ekur at Iš-­D A+V, 154 = TCL 15.9 col. iv 15′).The supposedly related inscriptions of Melišipak mentioned by Jacobsen appear to belong to the unpublished and largely illegible material discussed by Brinkman 1976, 253–­54.



Te x t s : Tw o H y m n s t o E n l i l ( “ H y m n t o t h e E k u r ” ) a n d E n k i

begins in an inner sanctum (“the house of the bedchamber, the house that knows no light,” ll. 5–­6) and then moves outward: from major elements of the Ekur complex (the ziqqurrat, l. 13; the assembly, l. 16) to various storehouses (the “house of the great harvest,” l. 21) and into the city (the “garden,” l. 27). The information given by the literary text is sporadically complemented by the Kassite map of Nippur HS 197, now fully edited by Oelsner and Stein (2011),1 and by administrative sources, which independently document certain institutions such as the “assembly” (l. 16) and the “holy hill” (l. 28). Most of the elements of the temple listed in the “Hymn to the Ekur” are however unattested in the contemporaneous Old Babylonian administrative records, according to the survey of Richter (2004, 41 n. 190). Other literary sources are therefore the main comparanda to the items mentioned in the text, above all the extended version of the litany contained in the laments “dutu-­gen7 e3-­ta” and “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” recently edited by Löhnert (2009).2 In the former composition, the litany forms part of a narrative in which Enlil leaves his seat and thereby causes extensive lamentation and supplication; the structure of the latter is fragmentary and less clear. While the litany broadly follows the same course in all the sources, MS 3392 does contain some variants compared to UM 29-­16-­51, and these variant readings often find parallels in the manuscripts of “dutu-­gen7 e3-­ta” and “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3” (see notes on ll. 8–­10, 23, 25, 26–­27, 29, below). The sporadic usage of Emesal forms (in ll. 10, 32, 33 of MS 3392) further documents the litany’s close association with the cultic laments.This is a genre to which songs of the “ser3-­nam-­šub” type are known to be related (Shehata 2009, 272), and there exists another case where stock elements of a

1 Gibson 1978, 118–­19, discussing the correct orientation of the map, notes that the doorways around the ziqqurrat that it depicts do not agree with the results of the excavations and suggests that the tablet “may have been a projected development plan, to be carried out under the Kassite kings.” 2 See also Kramer 1988, 7–­12 and Jacobsen 1990 on literary descriptions of the Ekur and Löhnert 2013 on literary descriptions of temples in general.

37

“ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” song appear also in a lament; see Cohen (1975–­76, 36) on Ninurta G, 165–­71. Löhnert (2009, 212–­37, 429–­30) provides a general commentary on the temple litany, and my notes on ll. 1–­33 of MS 3392 are designed only to complement her remarks.

The Hymn to Enki The reverse of MS 3392 contains a “ser3-­nam-­ šub(-­ba)” song of Enki that was previously unknown.3 Like the “Hymn to the Ekur” on the obverse of the tablet, the song is divided into two parts by a “ki-­ru-­gu2” rubric. The first stanza (ll. 56–­80) consists of conventional praises of Enki: he is the wise and famous god of Eridu, the first-­born son of An, and a dragon. There are many affinities here to well-­known compositions like “Enki and the World Order” (EWO) and “Enki’s Journey to Nippur” (EJN), as indicated in the notes to the text. The first stanza also introduces a creation theme: Enki utters a spell (nam-­šub) in Eridu, in a possible allusion to a topos (nam-­šub eriduki-­ga) that occurs in incantations (ll. 68–­71),4 and creates an ideal vision of the natural and civilized worlds (ll. 74–­80). The second stanza (ll. 81–­103) is marked at the beginning by a peculiar refrain: nu-­uš-­(ši-­)in-­ga-­du3-­e, “will he not build it?” (ll. 84–­92). The first signs of many lines in this section are missing or damaged, but a cultic seat seems to the object of this phrase: Enki is perhaps engaged in the creation of his temple. Enki then addresses his vizier Ara, who “does not (yet) know of the temple” that Enki has created (ll. 93–­102). Enki’s words are elliptical and difficult to understand 3 The existence of further unattested “ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba)” songs is suggested by the quotations in the catalogs VS 10.216 (= B1) and TMH NF 3.53 + 4.53 (see Wilcke 1976, 41). 4 While it was previously denied that the “ser 3-­n am-­ šub(-­ba)” song is connected to nam-­šub in the sense of “spell,” since songs of this type have nothing in common with incantation literature and are not otherwise addressed to Enki (Cohen 1975, 592), the present text offers at least a vague possibility that such a connection may once have been perceived. But it probably remains correct to understand the term ser3-­nam-­šub(-­ba) as a song concerned more generally with “fate,” that is nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub. See Mittermayer 2009, 74–­77 and the introduction to the “Hymn to the Ekur.”

38

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

but apparently refer to his temple in the Abzu that “embraces the sky” and to some cultic activity there. The song ends with an exhortation to sing the temple’s song (l. 103). This composition to some extent resembles the “Hymn to the Ekur” in that it likewise contains a “building” theme, but its nature is much more mythological. The occurrence of Enki’s vizier Ara is of particular interest, as he is not normally mentioned in literary contexts.

The Manuscript MS 3392 has the unusual tablet format of an almost perfect square, inscribed in a very small and regular script. The text mainly conforms to orthographical conventions, except for variants based (mainly) on homophony (ĝeškiri6 giri17-­zal-­la-­na // ĝeš kiri6 giri17-­zal an-­na; en-­e(-­)dumu-­zi-­da // e2 nam-­dumu-­zi-­da; see notes on ll. 26–­27, 45) as well as an intrusive possessive suffix that, in an isolated line, attributes the elements of the temple litany to Enlil (see note on l. 24). In the second part of the hymn to Enki, the recurring verb nu-­uš-­(ši-­)in-­ga-­du3-­e is spelled inconsistently (see note to ll. 81–­92).The final subscript “2 ser3-­meš” displays a common grammatical irregularity that is typical of artificial late-­or post-­ Old Babylonian Sumerian usage.

Transliteration col. i 1 ┌e2 gal kur-­ra an┐-­gal 2 [x] ┌x┐ [ . . . ] ┌x kur x┐ an-­┌gal┐ 3 e2 ┌den-­lil2┐-­[la2] ┌kur-­ra┐ an-­gal 4 e2 ┌dnin┐-­[lil2-­la2] ┌kur-­ra┐ an-­gal 5 ┌e2 itima ku3(?) kur-­ra┐ an-­gal 6 e2 u4 nu-­zu ┌kur-­ra┐ an-­gal 7 e2 ka2 ┌maḫ┐ kur-­┌ra┐ an-­gal 8 ┌x suḫ┐-­a kur-­┌ra┐ an-­gal 9 ĝeškun4 e2-­e kur-­ra an-­gal 10 ┌e2 aĝ2┐ sikil-­la kur-­ra an-­gal 11 ┌ka2 gal(?) silim-­ma┐ kur-­ra an-­gal 12 kisal ┌ den┐-­[lil2-­l]a2 kur-­┌ra┐ an-­gal 13 ḫur-­┌saĝ-­galam-­ma┐ kur-­r[a a]n-­gal 14 ┌ka2 gal ki ku3┐ kur-­r[a an-­]gal 15 ┌ka2 še(?) nu(?)┐[-­ku5(?) k]ur-­r[a an]-­gal ┌ šu(?)-­unken(?)-­na(?)┐ ┌kur-­ra┐ 16 [ub]-­ [an-­g]al 17 ┌x x x┐ [. . . kur-­ra] an-­gal

18 ┌e2 x x┐ [. . . kur-­r]a an-­gal 19 ┌e2 x┐ [. . . kur]-­ra an-­gal 20 ┌x x x x┐-­a kur-­┌ra┐ an-­gal 21 e2 ┌buru14 maḫ┐-­a kur-­ra an-­gal 22 ┌e2 x x x x┐ kur-­ra an-­gal 23 ┌e2 ĝa2-­nun maḫ┐ kur-­ra an-­gal 24 en-­du gal-­zu kur-­ra an-­gal 25 ┌araḫ4┐ gid2-­da kur-­ra an-­gal 26 ┌ka2 d┐suen-­na kur-­ra an-­gal 27 ĝeškiri6 giri17-­zal-­la-­na kur-­ra an-­gal 28 ┌du6 ku3 ki┐ ku3 kur-­ra an-­gal 29 ┌ša3┐ e2-­dim3-­ma kur-­ra an-­gal 30 ┌e2┐-­tilla2 ┌maḫ┐ kur-­ra an-­gal col. ii 31 ĝa2 ĝeš┌apin-­na┐ kur-­r[a an-­gal] 32 ┌an┐-­ne2 mar-­┌ra┐ kur-­ra a[n-­gal] 33 aš-­te ki sikil kur-­ra an-­[gal] 34 a-­ar bi2-­┌in┐-­pa3 bi2-­in-­du11-­ga 35 bi2-­in-­┌du11-­ga-­ra bi2┐-­in-­┌du11┐-­ga-­ra 36 [x x] ┌x x ┐ [x x] ┌u4-­da┐ šu-­mu-­un-­na-­[i]l2 d 37 [e2 ]en-­lil2-­[la2-­k]a bi2-­in-­du11-­ga-­ra 38 e2 dni[n-­lil2-­la2-­k]a bi2-­in-­du11-­ga-­ra ┌ ┐ 39 a-­ ar [x x x x] ┌u4┐-­da šu-­mu-­un-­na-­il2 [ki-­ru-­g]u2 1-­a-­kam 40 e2-­e me ┌gal┐-­la saĝ mi-­ni-­ib2-­il2 41 ša3-­bi-­ta kur šem ┌ĝešeren┐-­na-­gen7 42 e2-­a ┌en-­bi┐ am3-­da-­ḫul2-­e 43 e2 den-­┌lil2┐-­la2 me gal-­la [sa]ĝ mi-­ni-­ib2-­il2 44 e2 dnin-­┌lil2┐-­[la2] ┌me┐ gal-­la saĝ mi-­ni-­ib2-­il2 45 lugal-­bi ┌en-­e(-­)dumu-­zi┐-­da 46 lugal den-­lil2-­ra [tum2]-­┌ma┐-­am3 47 den-­lil2-­la2 lu2 ša3-­┌ga-­na┐-­kam 48 ur-­saĝ ┌dnin┐-­urta 49 me-­teš2 e2-­kur-­┌ra┐ 50 dumu gal den-­lil2-­la2 ┌en-­e┐(-­)dumu-­┌zi┐-­da 51 dnanna sul dsuen 52 en ddili-­im2-­babbar 53 ur-­saĝ den-­lil2-­la2 en-­e(-­)dumu-­zi-­da 54 lugal den-­lil2-­ra tum2-­ma-­am3 55 den-­lil2-­la2 lu2 ša3-­ga-­na-­kam ┌ ser3-­nam┐-­šub den-­lil2-­la2-­kam col. iii 56 ┌lugal ka šu du3┐ da-­nun-­na-­ke4-­[n]e 57 ĝeš-­tu9ĝeštu maḫ šum2-­ma eriduki-­ga ┌til3-­la┐ 58 aia den-­ki ka šu du3 da-­nun-­┌na-­ke4-­ne┐



59

Te x t s : Tw o H y m n s t o E n l i l ( “ H y m n t o t h e E k u r ” ) a n d E n k i

ĝeštu ┌maḫ┐ šum2-­ma eridu┌ki┐-­ga

ĝeš-­tu9

til3-­la 60 lugal-­ ĝu10 za-­e maḫ-­me-­en dumu-­saĝ an-­┌na┐-­me-­en 61 an-­ur2 an-­┌pa-­še3┐ mu-­zu ši-­in-­ga-­me d 62 en-­ki za-­e maḫ-­me-­en dumu-­saĝ an-­┌na┐-­me-­en 63 an-­ur2 an-­pa-­še3 mu-­zu ši-­in-­ga-­me 64 e2-­zu ┌an-­dil2┐-­gen7 ab-­ša3-­ga ša-­mu-­un-­la2 65 za-­e ušumgal an ki-­a ša3-­ba ša-­mu-­til3-­le 66 eš3 ┌abzu┐ an-­┌dil2┐-­gen7 ab-­ša3-­ga ša-­mu-­un-­la2 67 za-­e ušumgal an ki-­a ša3-­ba ša-­mu-­til3-­le 68 en-­e eriduki-­ga nam-­šub ba-­an-­si3 69 ┌nam-­šub┐ eriduki-­ga igi-­ni-­še3 [mu-­u]n-­dib-­be2 70 aia den-­ki eriduki-­ga nam-­┌šub ba┐-­an-­si3 71 ┌nam┐-­šub eriduki-­ga igi-­ni-­še3 mu-­un-­dib-­be2 72 den-­ki-­e-­ne ┌d┐nin-­ki-­┌e-­ne┐ 73 im a an ┌ki(?)-­ke4 pa(?)┐-­e3 mu-­ra-­an-­ak-­eš 74 i7-­da a-aštub a-ša3-­ga še gu-­nu 75 den-­ki-­ĝu10 šu(?)-­ta ḫe2-­ši-­im-­ta-­du3-­du3 76 ┌abbar-­ra┐ ku6-­da suḫur ĝeš-­gi gi-­šumun gi-­ḫenbur 77 dnu-­dim2-­mud-­ĝu10 šu-­ta ḫe2-­ši-­im-­ta-­du3-­du3 78 tir-­tir-­re šeg9 šeg9-­bar an-­edin-­na ĝeš maš-­gurum d 79 en-­ki-­ĝu10 šu-­ta ḫe2-­ši-­im-­ta-­du3-­du3 80 pu2-­ĝeškiri6 lal3 ĝeštin e2-­gal zi s[u3-­ud ĝal2] ki-­ru-­gu2 1-­[a-­kam] 81 ┌abzu(?)-­gen7 ab(?)┐-­a nu-­uš-­ši-­i[n-­ga-­du3-­e] 82 ┌eriduki eš3(?) abzu┐-­gen7 a[b-­a(?) nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­du3-­e] ┌ 83 en-­ bi dur2 kal-­zu x┐ [ . . . ] col. iv 84 [x x] ┌u4┐ su3-­ra-­gen7 ┌abzu┐ nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­du3-­e 85 [x ki-­t]uš kal-­zu nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­du3-­e 86 [x x] ┌u4┐ su3-­ra-­a-­gen7 nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­du3-­e 87 [x x] ┌abzu┐-­a nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­du3-­e 88 gu4 an-­na šem eren-­zu ki-­tuš kal-­zu nu-­uš-­in-­du3-­e 89 ┌x x x┐ dur2 kal-­zu nu-­uš-­in-­ga-­du3-­e ┌

┐

39

x x┐ maḫ dnin-­gal(?) e2 ┌ki-­tuš kal┐-­zu nu-­uš-­in-­ga-­du3-­e 91 ┌x x x┐ dur2 kal-­zu nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­du3-­e 92 ┌an x x x┐-­zu ki-­tuš kal-­zu niĝ2 an-­da nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­du3-­e 93 ┌enim┐ gal-­la-­na gu3 mu-­na-­an-­┌de2┐-­e 94 [ki]nda2-­ĝu10 ĝa2-­nu dara-­še3 an-­na-­ab-­be2 95 dara-­e ki nu-­zu e2 nu-­zu niĝ2 an-­da 96 ┌kiĝgal┐-­ĝu10 ĝa2-­nu dara-­še3 an-­na-­ab-­be2 97 niĝ2-­zu ┌lu2(?)┐ ki gu-­┌la(?)┐-­a niĝ2 an-­da 98 ┌e2┐ gu2 um-­mi-­in-­la2 gu3 mu-­na-­an-­de2-­e 99 ĝešrab3-­ĝu10 gu2 um-­mi-­in-­la2 gu3 ┌ mu-­na┐-­an-­┌de2┐-­e 100 abzu x sugal7-­za gul-­a-­ni su3-­ra 101 a su-­su a am3-­ma-­ni-­in-­de2 102 ┌en(?)┐-­za gul-­ni su3-­ra 103 en3-­du-­bi ḫe2-­em-­me-­e-­a-­ke4-­eš ḫe2-­eb2-­┌e┐-­ne ser3-­nam-­šub-­ba den-­ki-­ga-­kam 2 ser3-­me-­eš 90

┌

Translation 1

The great house—­it is great in the mountain! 2 [ . . . ] . . . (?) 3 The house of Enlil—­it is great in the mountain! 4 The house of Ninlil—­it is great in the mountain! 5 The house of the holy(?) bedchamber—­it is great in the mountain! 6 The house that knows no light—­it is great in the mountain! 7 The house of the great gate—­it is great in the mountain! 8 The . . . (?) of the pinnacle—­it is great in the mountain! 9 The staircase of the temple—­it is great in the mountain! 10 The house of pure things(?)—­it is great in the mountain! 11 The great(?) gate of welcome—­it is great in the mountain! 12 The courtyard of Enlil—­it is great in the mountain! 13 The ḫur-­saĝ-­galam-­ma—­it is great in the mountain!

40

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

The great gate, the holy place—­it is great in the mountain! The gate where the grain supply is not cut off(?)—­it is great in the mountain! The assembly(?)—­it is great in the mountain! [ . . . ]—­it is great in the mountain! The house [ . . . ]—­it is great in the mountain! The house [ . . . ]—­it is great in the mountain! . . . (?)—­it is great in the mountain! The house of the great harvest—­it is great in the mountain! . . . (?)—­it is great in the mountain! The house of the great storeroom—­it is great in the mountain! Your great watercourse—­it is great in the mountain! The long storehouse—­it is great in the mountain! The gate of Suen—­it is great in the mountain! The garden of his prosperity1—­it is great in the mountain! The holy hill, the holy place—­it is great in the mountain! The inner e2-­dim3—­it is great in the mountain! The great e2-­tilla2—­it is great in the mountain! The room of the plow—­it is great in the mountain! Founded by An—­it is great in the mountain! The throne, the pure place—­it is great in the mountain! He has manifested its praise, having spoken of it—­ To the one who has spoken of it, to the one who has spoken of it,2 [ . . . ] it has raised [ . . . ] to him (as if) it were daylight,

37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

1 Or “The garden of heavenly prosperity.” See note on ll. 26–­27. 2 The reference is probably to Enlil. See note on ll. 34/39.

65

The house of Enlil—­to the one who has spoken of it, The house of Ninlil—­to the one who has spoken of it, Its praise [ . . . ] it has raised to him (as if ) it were daylight. The first ki-­ru-­gu2. The house has raised its head amid great divine powers, On the inside it is like a mountain of fragrant cedar, The temple’s lord rejoices in it, The house of Enlil—­it has raised its head amid great divine powers, The house of Ninlil—­it has raised its head amid great divine powers, Its king, (in) the house of true sonhood, Is suited to King Enlil, He is the man of Enlil’s heart, The hero Ninurta, The pride of the Ekur. The great son of Enlil, (in) the house of true sonhood, Nanna, young Suen, The lord Dilimbabbar, The hero of Enlil, (in) the house of true sonhood, He is suited to King Enlil, He is the man of Enlil’s heart. It is a “ser3-­nam-­šub” of Enlil. King, informer(?) of the Anuna gods, To whom great wisdom has been given, who lives in Eridu, Father Enki, informer(?) of the Anuna gods, To whom great wisdom has been given, who lives in Eridu, My king, you are great, you are the first son of An, As far as the horizon and the zenith, your name exists! Enki, you are great, you are the first son of An, As far as the horizon and the zenith, your name exists! Your temple reaches into the midst of the sea like a protective cover, You are the dragon of heaven and earth, you live in their midst,



66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91

Te x t s : Tw o H y m n s t o E n l i l ( “ H y m n t o t h e E k u r ” ) a n d E n k i

The Abzu shrine reaches into the midst of the sea like a protective cover, You are the dragon of heaven and earth, you live in their midst. The lord uttered a spell in Eridu, The spells of Eridu passed before him, Father Enki uttered a spell in Eridu, The spells of Eridu passed before him. The Enki gods (and) Ninki gods Make the . . . (?) in heaven and earth(?) manifest(?) for you! The early flood in the river, the crops in the field, My Enki, they were made by (your) hand! The “ku6-­da”(-­fish), the carps, the canebrake, the old reeds, the fresh reeds in the marsh, My Nudimmud, they were made by (your) hand! The rams(?), the deer(?) in the woods, the plants in the high steppe, My Enki, they were made by (your) hand! Syrup and wine (in) the orchard, long life (in) the palace! It is the first ki-­ru-­gu2. Like the Abzu—­will he not build it in the sea(?)? Eridu, like the Abzu shrine(?), will he not build it in the sea(?)? Its lord, like your precious seat [ . . . ], [ . . . ] like distant days, the Abzu—­will he not build it? [ . . . ] your precious dwelling—­will he not build it? [ . . . ] like distant days—­will he not build it? [ . . . ] in/of the Abzu—­will he not build it? The “bull of heaven,” your fragrant cedar, your precious dwelling—­will he not build it? Your . . . (?), your precious seat—­will he not build it? Great . . . (?), Ningal(?), the temple, your precious dwelling—­will he not build it? . . . (?), your precious seat—­will he not build it?

92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 1 00 101 102 103

41

To the sky(?) . . . (?), your precious dwelling that (embraces) the sky—­will he not build it? In making his great pronouncement, he was telling him there, “Come, my chamberlain!,” he said to Ara, Ara did not (yet) know the place, he did not (yet) know the temple that (embraces) the sky. “Come, my leader of the assembly!” he said to Ara, “(These are) your affairs, man(?) of the great place(?) that (embraces) the sky—­ “Once the temple has embraced (the sky),” he was telling him there, “Once the shackle has embraced (the sky),” he was telling him there—­ . . . (?) Abzu, your vizier’s . . . (?) is profound, Flowing water he libated there, The lord(?) . . . (?) is profound. May its songs be performed, let people sing them! It is a ser3-­nam-­šub of Enki. Two songs.

Commentary 1. Following Kramer (1957), the refrain has generally been rendered as kur-­ra-­am3 gal and translated as “it is a mountain, a great one,” “it is as great as a mountain,” or similar (see most recently Klein 2017, 174). This interpretation seems intuitively justified, since the phrase kur gal, “great mountain,” alludes not only to the name of the Ekur and Enlil’s ancient epithet kur gal, “Great Mountain,” but also to a common metaphor applied to major temples or cities in general. Compare, for example, ensi2-­ke4 e2 mu-­du3 mu-­mu2 / kur gal-­gen7 mu-­mu2, “The ruler built the (Eninnu) temple, he let it grow, / he let it grow like a great mountain” (Gud. Cyl. A col. xxii 9–­10, cf. col. xxvii 11, Cyl. B col. i 6), unuki kur gal, “Uruk, the great mountain” (ELA 4). The isolated verb or adjective gal at the end of the clause nevertheless poses a syntactical problem, and the variant spelling kur-­ra an gal in MS 3392 now confirms that the correct reading must in fact be

42

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

kur-­ra an-­gal (MS 3392) // kur-­ra am3-­gal (UM 29-­16-­51), as anticipated by Krecher (1966, 81 n. 208) and ELS §185 n. 814. The phrase therefore involves a locative construction (“it is great in the kur”) and an alternation between an-­/am3-­ in the verbal prefix chain (cf. ELS §30 R. and ex. 104). This raises the question of the meaning of kur in the present context, since the translation “TN ist im (oder: dem) Fremdland groß” (Krecher 1966, 81) would seem to be a strange way to describe the seat of Enlil in Nippur. The simplest explanation is that kur here means “mountain” and represents the Ekur temple as a whole; the refrain then situates the various rooms and gates within the temple: “the bedchamber—­it is great in the mountain,” “the assembly—­it is great in the mountain,” and so on. Note also the phrase lu2 kur-­ra bi2-­in-­du11-­ga-­ra, “to the one who has spoken of the mountain” in UM 29-­16-­51 col. ii 10, where kur is in subsequent iterations replaced by e2 den-­lil2-­la2 / dnin-­lil2-­la2, “temple of Enlil/ Ninlil.” 2. This almost illegible line seems not to be found in the corresponding section of UM 29-­16-­51; before an-­gal, the reading ┌e2-­kur-­bi┐ is possible, but the sense eludes me. 5.The production of beds “for Enlil” is documented in administrative records from the time of Išbi-­ Erra that are to be attributed to Enlil’s cult in Nippur (BIN 9, 254; 255; 303), according to Richter (2004, 38). 8–­10.These damaged lines are not in UM 29-­16-­51 but can be interpreted at least in part with the help of a longer version of the same litany contained in the lament “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” which mentions a “gate of the pinnacle” (ka2 suḫ/suḫ10-­a), a “main staircase” (kuĝ2-­saĝ), and an “e2-­sikil, a place of pure things (// of purity)” (e2-­sikil-­la ki aĝ2 sikil-­la // ki na-­aĝ2-­sikil-­e) in between the “great gate” and the ḫur-­saĝ-­galam-­ma (ll. 20–­24, ed. Löhnert 2009, 410–­11). In l. 8, the damaged first sign is however not necessarily ka2. In l. 9, e2-­e is probably genitive (< e2-­a-­k with vowel harmony); see Samet (2014, 82) ad LU 26–­27 and Attinger (2014b, 4 n. 25), who notes that this seems to be a later Old Babylonian feature.

13. This is the name of the ziqqurrat that “reaches the sky” (an-­da sa2), according to the parallel litany in the lament “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” l. 25; see the comments of Löhnert (2009, 221), Such-­ Gutiérrez (2003, I 76–­77). 14–­16. The traces in these almost completely destroyed lines seem to agree with the text of UM 29-­16-­51, obv. 10–­12. In l. 14 // UM 29-­16-­ 51 obv. 10, the reading ka2 gal ki ku3 (Jacobsen 1990, 44* with n. 25) seems preferable to Kramer’s ka2-­gal-­di-­ku3 (followed by ETCSL and Löhnert 2009, 429). The line therefore agrees with the text of ms. X8 (= Akkadica 117, 20) of “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” l. 26: ka2 gal ki ku3 . . . (Löhnert 2009, 221–­22, 412). 23. The restoration of this line, which does not appear to be in UM 29-­16-­51, is based on “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” l. 34: [ma/ĝa2]-­nun-­maḫ (Löhnert 2009, 413). 24. As Löhnert (2009, 229) notes, the enigmatic term en-­du gal does not seem to refer to a building. “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” l. 35, describes it as ḫi-­li su3-­su3 (ms. S4 = VS 2, 8) // ḫe-­nun su8-­su8 (ms. X7 = CLAM 835–­36)—­that is, as “filled (with) lushness” // “filled (with) plenty” (if su8.g can be assumed to be a purely orthographic variant of su3.g, “to be filled”). This would be an appropriate description of a river or a canal, which are often associated with prosperity and abundance, and en-­du gal is then perhaps to be compared to the term ki en-­du, which has been interpreted as “watercourse.” See Klein (1981, 92–­93) ad Šulgi D, 32, who notes the gloss ki en-­du on šita3, “canal,” at Šulgi Z, rev. 15 (Ni 4171 [ISET 1, p. 82], rev. 15′); aBZL no. 432 proposes a reading šiteny? for ki.en.du.The basic meaning of the term seems to be “place (where) one goes,” “course” (ki.en.du = mālakum, Diri Oxford 340 = MSL 15, 44); see Attinger and Krebernik (2004, 67) ad Ḫendursaĝa A, 94, Lämmerhirt (2012, 79) ad Šulgi F, 61. If this interpretation is near the mark, the en-­du gal is perhaps a watercourse within Nippur; compare the i7 ša3 iriki, the “canal within the city,” depicted on the Kassite map HS 197 (item J in Oelsner and Stein 2011), and the various canals mentioned in a Kassite letter on construction and irrigation work in Nippur (ed. Biggs 1965).



Te x t s : Tw o H y m n s t o E n l i l ( “ H y m n t o t h e E k u r ” ) a n d E n k i

The possessive suffix -­ zu is not otherwise attached to the elements of the temple listed in MS 3392 and thus seems like an intrusion here, but it does occur both in the parallel line and in the following element (in-­nam-­gid2-­da-­zu) in UM 29-­16-­51 as well as in every element listed in ms. X7 of the parallel litany in “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” where the reference is to Enlil (“Enlil, your . . .”). 25. This line is omitted in UM 29-­16-­51 but occurs in “zi-­bu-­u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” l. 36 (Löhnert 2009, 413), which likewise juxtaposes the storehouse and the “gate of Suen.” 26–­27. A “gate of Nanna” is depicted on the Kassite map of Nippur HS 197 (item N in Oelsner and Stein 2011) near the “garden within the city” (ĝeškiri6 ša3 iriki, item E), which are plausible matches for the “gate of Suen” and the “garden of his prosperity” mentioned in the present text. The litany thus encompasses elements beyond the actual Ekur, and there is no need to emend the “gate of Suen” to a “gate of Enlil,” as Richter (2004, 47) proposed in his comments on UM 29-­16-­51. The “great garden” of Nippur is well attested in administrative documents and other sources and was perhaps even deified, according to Old Babylonian personal names attested in Nippur (Peterson 2010b; Peterson 2015a, 104 with n. 89). It is omitted in UM 29-­16-­51 but occurs in “zi-­ bu-­ u3 zi-­bu-­u3,” l. 37 (Löhnert 2009, 413), with the reading ĝeškiri6 giri17-­zal an-­na, “garden of heavenly prosperity” (in two out of two available manuscripts), versus the homophonous variant ĝeškiri6 giri17-­zal-­la-­na, “garden of his prosperity,” in MS 3392.“Heavenly prosperity” is a recognizable topos (Metcalf 2015, 88 with n. 32), but the version of MS 3392 is equally intelligible, since the “garden of his prosperity” could refer to the moon god mentioned in the previous line, and the moon god and prosperity are also commonly associated (Metcalf 2015, 36); indeed the moon god is said to create giri17-­zal an-­na, “heavenly prosperity” (Nanna A, 33). The variant may therefore be based on semantic considerations as well as on homophony. 29. UM 29-­16-­51 obv. 23 writes a-ša3 e2-­dim3-­ma, versus ša3 e2-­dim3-­ma in MS 3392 and in three

43

parallel versions of the litany (Löhnert 2009, 413). The e2-­dim3-­ma is mentioned in other laments, but its function is unknown (Löhnert 2009, 233–­34). 33–­34. The final line of the “kur-­ra am3/an-­gal” litany is followed by the rubric sa-­g id2-­da in UM 29-­16-­51, col. ii 5, and complemented by a ĝeš-­gi4-­ĝal2 (col. ii 29–­30) that corresponds to l. 34 of MS 3392 but has a different, apparently abbreviated text (bi2-­in-­du11 an-­še3). 34/39. a-ar is a spelling of ar2, “praise,” attested also at Nungal A, 112 (ms. I = CBS 14183 [P269158]), SLTNi. 79, rev. 16 = Šulgi O, 44, and so on (see ELS §270). The subject of the verb is probably Enlil himself, who has created the temple by his word (Jacobsen 1990, 46* n. 5). The recitation of the liturgy in performance may have ritually reenacted the creation of the temple, perhaps in the context of building work, in order to guarantee the continued existence of the Ekur according to its original plan. On the syntax of bi2-­in-­du11-­ga + locative (“who has spoken of . . .”), see ELS ex. 129. This interpretation is superior to the translation of the corresponding refrain in UM 29-­16-­51 given by Klein (2017, 183): “For him who declared that he is of the mountain.” 36. // e2 u4-­dam ša-­mu-­na-­e3, “the temple emerged for him (as if) it were daylight” (UM 29-­16-­51, col. ii 9). 39.This coincides with the end of the first ki-­ru-­gu2 in UM 29-­16-­51, col. ii 19. 40. The same phrase is applied to Lagash and to the Eninnu at Gud. Cyl. A col. i 2, B col. xvi 3. 41–­42. The former line is followed by the rubric [sa-­ĝar-­r]a in UM 29-­16-­51, and the latter line restores the fragmentary text described in UM 29-­16-­51 as the ĝeš-­g i4-­ĝal2 (col. iii 10–­13). The sense corresponds to one of the interpretations considered by Klein (2017, 177), although the new duplicate disagrees with his new restoration ┌d en┐(?)-­[lil2(?)] at the start of the latter verse in UM 29-­16-­51. 45.The present line is damaged, but MS 3392 writes en-­e(-­)dumu-­zi-­da in ll. 50 and 53, which appears to be a phonetic variant of e2 nam-­dumu-­zi-­da, “house of true sonhood” (UM 29-­16-­51). This is a descriptive epithet of the Ekur, where Ninurta and Suen behave like faithful sons of their

44

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

father Enlil: compare the way in which Ninĝirsu describes the Eninnu as his “kingship-­house” (e2-­nam-­lugal) at Gud. Cyl. A col. xi 4. 50. See the note on l. 45. 51–­55.While UM 29-­16-­51 omits the primary name Nanna, the duplicate confirms that this passage praises the moon god. Klein (2017, 178–­80) offers a historical reconstruction according to which the original (Ur III) version of the hymn praised Nanna, while the “somewhat corrupted” (OB) version represented by UM 29-­16-­51 replaced the moon god with Ninurta, supposedly for political reasons. But it seems inherently implausible that the epithet ddili-­im2-­babbar, which is retained in UM 29-­16-­51, could have been transferred from the moon god to Ninurta, and comparison with MS 3392 suggests the simpler explanation that UM 29-­16-­51 merely contains an abbreviated version of the text in which the principal name of the moon god was omitted. 53. See the note on l. 45. 55. This final line is the ĝeš-­gi4-­ĝal2 in UM 29-­16-­ 51, col. iv 9. 56/58. A similar incipit is attested in the catalog CBS 8086 (= OB N6, ed. Michalowski 1980), obv. 8: ur-­saĝ kal-­kal-­la(?) ka šu du3.The lexical equation ka šu du3-­du3 = munaggiru (Lu III col. i 28 = MSL 12, 122; cf. OB Lu D 143 = MSL 12, 207, and CUNES 48-­06-­383, ed. Gadotti and Kleinerman 2015, obv. 1: lu2 ka šu du11 lul-­la = mu-­na-­gi-­ir sa3-­ ┌ ┐ ra -­tim, see also Mittermayer 2014, 212) suggests the meaning “informer,” perhaps in the sense that Enki is usually the one who possesses the most intelligence in the divine assembly. 57/59. Here, as in ll. 68/70, the shape of the sign sum (šum2, si3) is unlike the versions given in aBZL no. 388. This form has a single large wedge on the right (Labat 1988, 106 no. 164) and thus looks like a rotated form of the older sum. Compare, for instance, the same shape at CBS 10220+ rev. 9′ (P265460) = STVC 91 (Ninisina F, D9). 60/62. Compare EWO 68: dumu-­saĝ an-­na-­me-­en, “I (Enki) am the first son of An.” 61/63. The expected verb would be ĝal2, “to exist.” Compare the similar phrase at Ur-­Namma B, 45/51: mu-­zu an-­za3-­še3 kur-­ur2-­še3 ḫe2-­ĝal2, “May your (Urnamma’s) name exist as far as the

end of the sky and the base of the mountains!” The independent copula (-­me) is only rarely used in this sense (ELS §206b). 64/66. I owe the reading ┌an-­dil2┐ to Klaus Wagensonner.The sense is probably that the temple, like a protective cover, casts a shade that extends as far as the sea. For that image, see, for example, EJN 53 and Nanna G, rev. 14′: e2 ĝessu-­bi ab-­ša3-­ga la2-­a, “The temple whose shade has reached the midst of the sea.” 65/67. Enki is described as a dragon also at EWO 5. 68–­71.These lines revolve around the complex term nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub that has recently been discussed in detail by Mittermayer (2009, 74–­77; see also George 2016, 9–­10). On the one hand, the phrase nam-­šub eriduki-­ga (ll. 69/71) is common in the ritual sections of incantations, where it means “spell (šiptum) of Eridu” and refers, according to Finkel (1980, 47–­48, 51–­52), to a magic formula that accompanied the ritual actions but was not written down. Perhaps the expression nam-­šub si3, “to cast a spell” (= šiptam nadûm, CAD s.v. nadû lex., p. 70b), is then relevant to ll. 68/70. Compare i3-­nun-­e nam-­šub ba-­an-­si3, “(Ninisina) cast a spell on the butter” (Ninisina A, 38); nam-­šub eriduki-­ga u3-­me-­ni-­si3, “You cast the spell of Eridu” (CBS 1509, col. ii 15, OB incantation, ed. Finkel 1980, 38–­40).The present passage, while elliptical, might thus allude to the magical “spell of Eridu,” which is here said to have been uttered—­and thus created?—­by Enki himself. On the other hand, nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub can also be translated more generally as a “fateful utterance” (“etwas Schicksalweisendes,” Mittermayer 2009, 76) that is sometimes associated with songs in a temple. Compare in particular the description of Enki’s temple in Eridu at EJN 125: e2 tigi umun7-­e si sa2-­e nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub šum2-­ma, “Das Haus, in dem die sieben Tigi-­Trommeln korrekt gespielt werden, dem ein Namšub bestimmt (= ‘gegeben’) worden ist” (transl. Mittermayer 2009, 75). In this sense, the meaning of ll. 68/70 would be that Enki made a (favorable) utterance regarding the fate of (his temple in) Eridu. Since the different concepts attached to nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub are related, according to the analysis of Mittermayer (2009, 76), the ambiguity can perhaps not be resolved.



Te x t s : Tw o H y m n s t o E n l i l ( “ H y m n t o t h e E k u r ” ) a n d E n k i

72–­73.The Enki and Ninki gods are ancestral deities, sometimes associated with the underworld, who commonly appear in incantations: see recently George (2016, 11), with further references. The first sign of l. 73 seems to be im (kindly confirmed by Andrew George, compare the shape of that sign in l. 103), which might point to the sequence im-­a, probably meaning “rain(storm).” But while storms as forces of evil are sometimes mentioned in incantations (see Cavigneaux and al-­Rawi 1995, 190–­91, with discussion of im-­a), this reading does not seem satisfactory in the present context, and I remain unsure how to interpret the second verse. 74–­8 0. These lines present a version of a well-­ attested Sumerian litany that has been studied by Falkenstein (1952–­53) and Ferrara (1995, 95–­100). Some of the animals and plants remain to be identified exactly; see the commentaries of Ferrara (1973, 150–­55), al-­Rawi and Black (2000, 38), and Ludwig (2006, 34–­35). In the present text, the litany is adapted to a creation theme; it thus resembles the episodes in EWO 88–­99, 274–­77, 326, 349–­57, UET 6.29+498//30+499 15′–­24′ (ed. Ludwig 2006), and the bilingual fragment VS 24.27 rev.(?) 5–­13. 75/77/79. The precise interpretation of these lines, which describe Enki’s act of creation, is difficult, as the sign preceding -­ta is not written consistently: I hesitate between šu and zu. An alternative reading would thus be den-­ki mu-­zu-­ta, “Enki, by your word,” but this seems less idiomatic than šu-­ta, “by (your) hand.” 81–­92. The recurring verbal form at the end of these lines contains the prefix or interrogative particle /nuš(-­)/ followed by /-­(i)nga-­/ (ELS §195, SG §12.12.2.7, Civil 2000 [2005], 39–­40). The expected spelling is either *nu-­uš-­in-­ga-­or *nu-­ši-­in-­ga-­(see the variants at LU 101); MS 3392 writes both nu-­uš-­in-­ga-­ (ll. 88–­90) and, redundantly, nu-­uš-­ši-­in-­ga-­ (ll. 84–­87, 91–­92). A similar sequence of verbs (nu-­uš-­in-­ga-­zu-­am3) occurs in another song of the “ser3-­nam-­šub” type, at the end of Ninurta G, 174–­83. 83–­92. These lines describe the residence of Enki, which is referred to as his dur2, “seat,” and tuš, “dwelling.” A similar alternation his ki-­

45

between ki-­tuš and dur2 occurs at Nanna E, 26–­30. In l. 88, the phrase “bull of heaven” probably refers to the Abzu that Enki inhabits: “bull of heaven” is an epithet given to the Abzu’s roof beams at EJN 28. Compare also the description of Eridu as a “pure place, a very precious place” (ki ku3 ki kal-­kal) at EWO 138/172. 92. niĝ2 an-­da seems to be an abbreviated form of a phrase like niĝ2 an-­da gu2 la2, “(the temple) that embraces the sky” (cf. KešḪy 15; Gudea Cyl. A col. xxi 16), and is thus probably to be connected to ll. 98–­99, which speak of the temple’s “embrace.” 94/96. The speaker is presumably Enki, since Ara (dša) is the name of his “great vizier,” according to An = Anum II 298, and also the title of a cultic official; see Charpin (1986, 380), Cavigneaux (1996, 33), and Peterson (2009, 48–­49) with further references.The term kinda2 is here parallel to kiĝgal, “chief of assembly”; compare the variant kindagal (// kiĝgal) in ms. A1 (Ni 4150 = Belleten 16 pl. 61–­62 col. iii 17) at EnlSudr 104 (describing Nuska, Enlil’s vizier) and the similar variant at An = Anum III 145. 99. The “shackle” seems to be a metaphor of the temple. Compare e2-­gal e2 na de5 kalam-­ma-­ka ĝeš rab3 kur-­kur-­ra-­kam, “In the palace that governs the land—­it is the shackle of the lands” (Id-­D A, 167); e 2 (// uri 5ki) me gal-­zu rab 3 (// a-ra2-­ab) diĝir-­re-­e-­ne kalam-­ma la2-­am3 (// ĝal2-­la), “Temple (// Ur), your great divine powers are the shackles of the gods that are fastened to the land” (UN EF, 13); see further George (1993, 136–­37 nos. 935–­39). 100. Another difficult line: the reading šu-­luḫ-­ḫa is excluded, as the sign preceding sugal7/luḫ is not šu. The sequence za.gul could be read gug, “carnelian,” but this would produce no obvious sense. Subscript. The enclitic copula /-­meš/ normally belongs to the Personenklasse but serves here as a general marker of plurality (SL §76). Compare, in a similar context, the summaries in the Middle Babylonian(?) catalog TMH NF 3.53 + 4.53 col. ii 43, 48, col. iii 61, 82: ser3-­nam-­gala-­me-­eš, ser3-­nam-­sipa-­da-­dinana-­me-­eš, tigi-­[m]e-­eš, a-da-­ab-­me-­e[š], and probably [ser3-­nam-­šub (-­ba)]-­me-­eš in col.  i 25 (see Wilcke 1976, 41).

NO. 5 : A HY MN TO N I N I MMA MS 2700, a single-­column tablet of forty-­nine lines, of which all but seven are preserved, contains a previously unattested hymn to the goddess Ninimma. This is a valuable piece of evidence, as Ninimma appears only rarely in the Old Babylonian Sumerian literary corpus and is consequently little known. MS 2700 confirms some features of Ninimma that are documented elsewhere—­ in particular, her close association with Nippur and Enlil—­and adds others that are new.The hymn is of great literary-­historical interest, as it contains prayers for a ruler called Nanni, who was probably a king of the mythical past who had become a literary figure in the Old Babylonian period.

Ninimma is asked to obtain a favorable decision for him, to listen to his entreaties, and to secure his happy rule by intervening with the great gods on his behalf (ll. 42–­48). The final verse calls on Ninimma by her secondary name Ababa and describes her as a priest of the Ekur. Until now, only one Old Babylonian hymn to Ninimma (“Ninimma A”) was extant: it was edited by Focke (1998), who also published a detailed study of the deity (Focke 1999–­2000).1 As in that hymn, Ninimma in MS 2700 is depicted as a goddess with particular responsibility for the cult of Enlil in the Ekur: she is the “lady of the Ekur, distributing all the divine powers, making known the sacred purification rites” (ll. 15, 35). Her connection to Nippur is strengthened by her marriage to Ninurta, an aspect that was not clearly attested so far (see note on ll. 38–­41, below). The fact that Ninimma is also depicted as a helper of the mother-­goddess Aruru agrees with other literary sources and can be compared in particular to her role in the poem “Enki and Ninmaḫ” (see note on ll. 3–­7). But given that both the literary and the nonliterary evidence from the third and early second millennia BC closely associate Ninimma with Nippur, it is remarkable that MS 2700 portrays her as the helper and adviser of a greater variety of gods, including not just the deities and shrines of Nippur but also Enki in Eridu, Kish, and Inana. It is an idiosyncrasy of this hymn that it avoids mentioning the names of the great gods: the text speaks of Ninimma’s position in Eridu and calls her the “counselor of her own father” (ll. 8–­9), without making it explicit that this is Enki; Inana is introduced not by her name but by her epithet in-­nin9, “mistress” (l. 22); and Ninimma’s own husband Ninurta is referred to only by his secondary name Uta-­ulu (u4-­ta-­ulu3lu, l. 38). It is true that Aruru and Enlil are named in

Summary and Interpretation The content of MS 2700 can be summarized as follows. Ninimma is praised as a goddess of great beauty, whose fate was decreed in her (unnamed) mother’s womb (ll. 1–­2). She assists the mother-­ goddess Aruru in creating life on earth and is present at the cutting of the umbilical cord, when fate is determined for the black-­headed people (ll. 3–­7). In Eridu, she is an adviser to her father (i.e., Enki, ll. 8–­9). She is the purification priest of Kiš and the “great lady” of the Kiur (ll. 12–­13). Ninimma knows how to instruct the other gods, and they pay attention to her requests (ll. 16–­17). She is also the counselor of Enlil, whose temple Ekur could not function without her (ll. 18–­20). The warlike “mistress” (in-­nin9, i.e., Inana) similarly relies on Ninimma (l. 22). After an interruption caused by seven missing lines, the text continues with general praises of Ninimma as a helper of Enlil and instructor of the great gods (ll. 35–­37) and then describes a domestic scene involving her husband Uta-­ulu (i.e., Ninurta) in his temples Ešumeša and Ešamaḫ in Nippur: Ninimma is Uta-­u lu’s companion, she prepares his bed for him, and he embraces her there when he sleeps (ll. 38–­41). In accordance with the usual formal conventions of hymnic poetry, the final section of the song presents the prayers of the deity’s human worshipper—­in this case, an individual referred to as “the shepherd Nanni”:

1 See also her entry in RlA. s.v.“Nin-­imma” and more recently Such-­Gutiérrez 2003, I 280–­84, Richter 2004, 93–­95, Lambert 2013, 434–­36, 504, and Goddeeris 2016, 160–­61, no. 72 seal. Rubio 2000 (2005): 203 mentions an unpublished lament of Ninimma dating to the Ur III period.

46



Te x t s : A H y m n t o N i n i m m a

the extant text (ll. 5 and 45), and a divine name is missing due to tablet damage in l. 7, but Enlil too is initially identified only by his epithet kur-­gal, “Great Mountain” (ll. 18, 34). Another notable feature of the text is its redundant style. Ninimma’s features are detailed in a tedious iteration of synonyms: we are constantly told that she is a wise counselor (ad-­gi4-­gi4, ša3-­kuš2-­u3, a-ra2 šum2-­mu), a caretaker (saĝ-­en3-­tar), and an expert who has acquired special knowledge (gal-­zu, banda3da zu-­a), all in the service of greater gods. A coherent arrangement of these praises is difficult to perceive. While an Old Babylonian Sumerian hymn can usually be described as a carefully structured piece of rhetoric in which a human worshipper strives to obtain divine favor and blessings in return for praising the deity, the present text has the appearance of a compilation of phrases. Its allusive and redundant style thus makes the hymn seem like a rather artificial, academic piece of work. This impression is confirmed by the lack of a subscript and of any liturgical rubrics that indicate performance and also by the surprising reference to Ninimma’s human worshipper, “the shepherd Nanni,” in the concluding prayer (ll. 42–­48). A conventional Sumerian or Akkadian hymn is expected to contain a prayer for a human ruler, who requests a happy and prosperous rule from the deity: examples are attested from Gudea of Lagaš until Ammiditana of Babylon (Metcalf 2015, 19, 71–­72). The present text prays for the typical blessings (again in long-­ winded elaboration: “a respected palace, a peaceful abode, a pleasant rule, days of joy, years of abundance,” l. 48), but Nanni cannot, to my knowledge, be identified with any historically attested royal subject who might have commissioned a hymnic poem in the Old Babylonian (or neighboring) period(s). Rather, Nanni appears to refer to a ruler of the mythical past who has become a literary figure in Old Babylonian times. Nanni, father of Meskiaĝnanna, was a member of the second dynasty of Ur (SKL 193–­94) and is mentioned in the “Tummal Chronicle” as the creator of the “great garden” belonging to the temple of Enlil in Nippur (l. 17). In Old Babylonian Sumerian proverbs, he is depicted as a long-­lived king who again did religious work

47

for Enlil but could not complete it and so was ultimately frustrated (SP 3.31, cf. 3.35, 14.16, 25.4).1 If this is the same Nanni who is mentioned in the present poem, MS 2700 is a composition that imitates the conventions of Sumerian hymnic poetry but substitutes a literary figure in the place of a historical Old Babylonian ruler. The association of the literary King Nanni with Nippur (in the “Tummal Chronicle,” and in SP 3.31, 25.4) is probably relevant, as our hymn is clearly focused on Ninimma’s role in the cult of Enlil in that city. It is also to be noted that Focke (1998, 223–­24) regarded the other Old Babylonian hymn to Ninimma (“Ninimma A”) as a learned composition originating in Nippur. Focke based this view on the fact that “Ninimma A” is essentially a compilation of divine epithets and on the explicit references to Ninimma’s role as a divine scribe (e.g., dub-­sar an-­na-­me-­en, “You are the scribe of heaven,” Ninimma A, 4).2 The latter aspect is not mentioned in the preserved text of MS 2700, but our hymn makes a similarly artificial and learned impression, as just outlined. It is not difficult to imagine that a goddess endowed with the wisdom that the hymn so constantly emphasizes would have seemed appealing to the mind of an ancient scholar of Sumerian literature. I thus propose to interpret MS 2700 as an academic composition that was probably created in Nippur. While there is some slender nonliterary evidence that Ninimma was worshipped there in the Old Babylonian period (Richter 2004, 93), the reference to the mythical Nanni means that this text cannot be directly connected to any historical cult. As in the case of “Ninimma A,” the hymnic form 1 On this King Nanni/Nanne (and his possible other incarnations elsewhere in SKL), see Sallaberger 1993, I 111 n. 504, Alster 1997, 380, Steinkeller 2003, 278, Marchesi 2004, 167–­68 with n. 97, and Michalowski 2006, 159–­60. A ruler in the “period of confusion” after the dynasty of Sargon was named Nanum (SKL 287), for whom the variant form na-­ni is also attested (ms. P3+BT 14, col. viii 11′, ed. Klein 2008). 2 Tinney 2011, 585, citing a forthcoming study, seems to assign this text to a “hymnic archive” in Nippur, which he describes as “a collection of texts written as part of internship training.” See now also Tinney 2018, 88.

48

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

serves primarily to glorify the scholarly author’s own craft.1

The Manuscript MS 2700 is a well-­written tablet, marking every tenth line and including a total line-­count.The surface of the tablet is in places damaged and worn, especially on the upper part of the obverse, which can make it difficult to identify the cuneiform signs with complete confidence. The orthography and grammar are unremarkable, except for the occasional omission of the expected suffix -­a in some verbal constructions: ul si12 (not *ul si12-­ga, l. 1), a-na lu (not *a-­na lu-­a, l. 6), la2-­ni and ku-­ku-­ni (not *la2-­a-­ni and *ku-­ku-­a-­ni, l. 41).2 Note also du10 bara3, “to spread out (the bed) pleasantly,” where an adverbial formation like *du10-­(ga-­)bi/*du10-­ge-­eš bara3 is expected (l. 40).

Transliteration obv. 1 [munus(?)] ┌ul┐ si12 ┌mi2 zi-­de3┐-­eš du11-­ga me ┌gal-­gal šu ĝal2-­le┐ d 2 [ ]nin-­imma3 nin gal ša3 ku3-­ta ┌nam┐ du10-­ga ┌tar-­ra┐ ša3-­ga ši-­in-­da-­ĝal2 ┌ 3 [x] x ak┐-­zu-­še3 kilib3 ki-­ta ĝal2 niĝ2-­nam-­ma-­ni ib2(?)-­dib(?) 4 ┌enim(?)┐ maḫ niĝ2-­nam dim2(?)┌x┐ [x] ┌x ulutim2┐-­bi [x] ku3-­┌ge┐ d┌ ┐ 5 a -­ru-­ru ša3 kukku2-­g[a x x] ┌x┐-­e(?) šu du-­a-­ni ┌saĝ┐ gegge ĝal2 ┌x x x┐ a-­┌na lu zi-­ĝal2┐-­a dur 6 zi-­ ku5-­bi nam tar-­ra ┌ ┐ šu -­ma ┌x┐ [x] ┌x┐-­da ša3-­kuš2-­u3 7 bur-­ du11-­ga-­ni an-­da si sa2 8 eridu┌ki┐ galam ┌kad4 temen┐ an ki-­a-­ka(?) [x] ┌x┐ x du10 til3-­i 9 ad-­gi4-­gi4 ša3-­kuš2-­u3 aia uugu6-­na un-­gal ma-­da maḫ kilib3 ur4 1 Compare the recent comments of Farber 2015, 70, on the “Song of the Hoe”: “Obwohl das ‘Lied von der Hacke’ äußerlich einer hymnisch-­religiösen Form zu folgen scheint, gehört es eindeutig in den Bereich der Schule und den Kreis der Schriftgelehrten.” 2 For scribal idiosyncrasies of this type, compare Delnero 2012, 123–­41.

10

an maḫ nam(?)┐-­bi i-ri-­in-­┌ta3(?)-­ra┐ niĝ2 mu-­┌ni┐-­mu2-­mu2 ┌ 11 nin x x┐ maḫ-­di nir ┌il2┐ buluĝ3 d a-­nun-­na diri-­ga d nin-­imma3 a2-­ĝal2 isib keš3ki-­a nin gal maḫ 12 an ki-­a šu ┌x┐ ┌ 13 nin gal┐ ki-­ur3-­ra a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2-­bi zu-­zu me diri-­ga ur4-­ur4 ┌ 14 saĝ-­il2┐ igi.du diĝir gal-­e-­ne nam-­nin-­e za3 dib 15 nin e2-­kur-­ra me kilib3 ḫal-­ḫa šu-­luḫ ku3-­ga zu-­zu 16 dnin-­imma3 [x x] du-­ni a ┌x x┐ ┌a2-­ aĝ2(?)┐-­ĝa2 šum2-­mu zu-­a 17 ┌šu mu2-­mu2┐ nam-­šita du11-­ga-­ni d a-­nun-­na ĝeš la2 18 nin ša3-­kuš2-­┌u3┐ [nib]ruki dkur-­gal-­la [x] ┌ x-­a┐ nu-­zu 19 ad-­gi4-­gi4 k[i(?)] [x] ┌x┐-­ba enim taḫ-­ḫe e-­┌x┐-­a 20 e-­ne-­da-­nu ┌x┐ [x] ┌a2┐-­aĝ2-­ĝa2 e2-­kur-­ta nu-­e3 21 dnin-­imma3 an ki-­a a-ra2 šum2-­mu za-­e ši-­in-­ga-­me-­en-­na 22 in-­nin9-­da ša3-­kuš2-­u3 gal-­zu me3 šen-­┌šen┐ gu2 la2-­e 23 ┌x x┐-­bi diĝir na-­me nu-­dib ki-­us2-­be2-­eš mu-­un-­ge-­ne2 24 [x x x] ┌x x x┐ [x x] ┌x┐ pa3-­da im-­ḫulu ge17 nin-­bi 25 [           ] ┌x x x x┐ (7 ll. missing) rev. 33 [       ] ┌x x x x x x x┐ 34 ┌ka x x šudu3-­da┐-­ni u18-­ru-­na a-ra2-­ni ki ┌ gal(?)┐-­le / kur-­gal-­la a-ra2-­ni ┌saĝ di(?)┐ 35 nin e2-­kur-­ra me kilib3 ḫal-­ḫa šu-­luḫ ┌ ku3-­ga┐ zu-­zu 36 saĝ-­en3-­tar me niĝ2-­nam-­ma ┌kad4┐ du11-­ga-­ni ki-­bi-­še3 ĝar-­ra 37 diĝir gal-­gal-­e-­ne ki-­us2-­be2 su8-­ga u4-­šu2-­uš-­┌e┐ zu-­a 38 e2-­šu-­me-­ša4 ki-­tuš ku3 u4-­ta-­ulu3lu tab-­ba-­ni gal-­me-­en 39 e2-­ša3-­maḫ ki-­nu2 ku3 ur-­saĝ gal-­la a2-­ĝal2 maḫ-­bi-­me-­en ┌



Te x t s : A H y m n t o N i n i m m a

40 a2-­nu2-­da ki ni2-­tub2-­bu-­da-­ni du10 bara3-­ga-­zu-­ne 41 ĝešdan-­ni-­ta gu2 la2-­ni u3 du10 ku-­ku-­ni 42 enim-­ ĝar ┌sa6┐-­ga-­ĝu10 na-­an-­ni e-ne-­ra du11-­mu-­na-­ab 43 dnin-­imma3 gaba(?)-­ĝal2(?) e2-­zu(?) sipa zi na-­an-­ni / u4-­šu2-­uš-­e lu2 sa6-­ge-­bi ḫe2-­me-­en 44 nin ki-­┌ur3┐-­ra munus zi du11-­ga du10 ku3-­ga peš-­a 45 dnin-­imma3 ki nam-­tar-­ra den-­lil2-­la2 sun5-­na maḫ di(?) 46 šudu3 a-­┌ra-­zu┐-­a sipa na-­an-­ni u4-­bi-­še3 ĝeš-­tu9 ĝeštu-­ga ri-­ga d 47 nin-­imma3 nin banda3da zu-­a enim niĝ2 galam du12-­du12 48 na-­an-­ni e2 ni2-­tuku ki-­tuš ne-­ḫa bala du10 u4 asila+la2 / mu ma-­dam u4-­šu2-­uš al du11-­ga-­ni-­ib 49 dnin-­imma3 da-­ba4-­ba4 mar-­maḫ e2-­kur-­ra za3-­mi2-­zu du10-­ga-­am3 mu šid-­bi 49

Translation 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

Beautiful [lady(?)], rightly honored, who attends to the great divine powers, Ninimma, great lady, destined to a good fate since the pure womb—­(the fate) was in the womb with her—­, Letting all things down below come into existence at your [ . . . ]—­she makes all her creations surpassing(?)—­, The great word(?), creating(?) everything, [ . . . ] whose form(?) [ . . . ] to be pure, Aruru, in the dark womb [ . . . ] handling, the black-­headed, [ . . . ] the living creatures, numerous as they are, having decided the fate (at) the cutting of the living creatures’ umbilical cord, The matron who counsels [ . . . ], whose word is just like that of An. In Eridu the well-­crafted, the foundation of heaven and earth [ . . . ] that lets live pleasantly,

9

49

The adviser, the counselor of her own father, the queen who assembles all the great lands—­ 10 Since great An has decreed(?) this fate(?) for you, he has allowed things to flourish. 11 Lady, . . . (?), important, noble, lofty, accomplished, superior among the Anuna gods, 12 Mighty Ninimma, purification priest of Keš, great lady, lofty in heaven and earth, . . . (?), 13 Great lady of the Kiur, who makes known its instructions, gathering the superior divine powers, 14 Proud, foremost among the great gods, surpassing in rulership, 15 Lady of the Ekur, distributing all the divine powers, making known the sacred purification rites, 16 Ninimma, [ . . . ] . . . (?), who has learned how to give instructions, 17 The Anuna gods are attentive to the prayer and supplication that she utters, 18 Lady, counselor, Nippur, the Great Mountain’s . . . (?) that knows no . . . (?), 19 Adviser, [ . . . ] to add words . . . (?), 20 Without her [ . . . ], instructions would not be issued from the Ekur—­ 21 Ninimma, who sets the courses of action in heaven and earth, this is who you are indeed! 22 Who counsels the mistress, expert who embraces battle and combat, 23 [ . . . ] who lets no god pass by—­as to their ways, she makes them secure. 24 [ . . . ] called, a debilitating, harmful wind, its ruler, 25 (fragmentary) (7 ll. missing) 33 (fragmentary) 34 Words . . . (?) her prayer, powerful, . . . (?), the Great Mountain’s course is accomplished(?). 35 Lady of the Ekur, distributing all the divine powers, making known the sacred purification rites,

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

50

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Caretaker, binding together all the divine powers, her utterances are well founded, She who has learned day by day the places where the great gods are established—­ (In) the Ešumeša, the sacred residence of Uta-­ulu, you (Ninimma) are his great companion, (In) the Ešamaḫ, the sacred resting place of the great hero, you are its great force, When you have spread out well his place of relaxation in the bedroom, When (Ninurta) embraces his wife and sleeps pleasantly—­ (Ninimma,) tell him the positive decision concerning me, Nanni! Valiant(?) Ninimma, may I, the shepherd Nanni, be the one who makes your temple pleasant every day! Lady of the Kiur, woman who has declared the truth, raised on a sacred knee, Ninimma—­(at) Enlil’s site where fate is decided, she humbly utters important words(?)—­ Pay attention to the prayer and supplication of the shepherd Nanni until those (future) days! Ninimma, lady who has acquired understanding, who speaks skillfully, Request daily for Nanni a respected palace, a peaceful abode, a pleasant rule, days of joy, years of abundance! Ninimma, Ababa, priest of the Ekur—­your praise is sweet. Its line count: 49.

Commentary 1. Compare the similar incipit of an unidentified composition: nin ul-­ la si12-­ ga an ku3-­ge du2-­da-­me-­en, preserved as a catchline in Ni 4105 rev. 11′ (ISET 1, p. 95) and 3 N-T 500 (Sjöberg 1974–­75, 166). The phrase ul(-­ a/e) si12.g refers to a “flourishing”—­that is, particularly beautiful—­form: it is applied to Inana (ul-­e ḫi-­li-­še3 si12-­ga, Inana E, 1/3; see now Attinger

2016 ad loc.) and became an epithet of that goddess, see RlA s.v.“Ulsiga” (M. Krebernik), but also to Ninurta (Šu-­Suen D, 1) and the Ekur-­Temple (UN B, 19). 2. It was commonly thought that fate was determined while the individual concerned was in the womb; see van der Toorn (1996, 96–­97) and Polonsky (2006, 305–­10). For the application of this notion to a deity, compare in the present volume text no. 14, obv. 1 with note. 3–­7. In these fragmentary lines, Ninimma seems to be described as a helper of the mother-­goddess Aruru, assisting in creating life on earth. This aspect of Ninimma was previously known from her epithet dnin-­tu-­babbar-­re and from an episode in the poem “Enki and Ninmaḫ,” I 34, where she is one of the assistants of the creatrix Namma (Focke 1999–­2000, 96, 100–­102). The reference to the “dark womb” in connection with Aruru (l. 5) can probably be compared to the ša3 ki kukku2-­ga,“the womb, the dark place,” where the mother-­goddess Nintu does her work according to TplHy 501.1 For the phraseology of l. 3, compare en niĝ2-­nam-­ma-­ni dib, “Lord (Enlil), all of whose things are surpassing” (Išme-­Dagan H, 11). 6. For a-na lu(-­a), “as numerous as they are,” compare in a similar context saĝ gegge zi-­ĝal2 a-na lu-­a, “The black-­headed, the living creatures, as numerous as they are” (Samsuiluna E, 18). In the phrase dur ku5, “to cut the umbilical cord,” the expected determinative gi (gidur ku5, thus LSF s.v. ku5, but often transliterated gi-­dur ku5) is omitted. On the common connection between birth and the decree of fate, see the literature adduced in the note to l. 2. 8–­9. Enki is the father of Ninimma according to the poem “Enki and Ninḫursaĝa,” 126A, where he unites with her incestuously. For the epithets of Eridu mentioned in the present passage, compare eš3 ku3-­ga-­am3 ša3-­bi galam kad5-­am, “The (e2-­engura) shrine is pure, its interior is well crafted” (EWO 285/286), and TplHy 2 (temen an ki, of Eridu). On un-­gal, “queen,” see 1 Sjöberg and Bergmann 1969, 142 ad loc., however, took this to be the “dark cella” where the goddess dwells.



Te x t s : A H y m n t o N i n i m m a

Sjöberg and Bergmann (1969, 93) ad TplHy 207 (un-­gal an ki-­a dinana). 20. For this phrase, compare, for example, KešḪy 57j: e2 e-ne-­da-­nu ka-­aš-­bar nu-­ĝa2-­ĝa2, “The temple—­without her (Ninḫursaĝa), no decision is imposed.” 21. On the verbal form ši-­in-­ga-­me-­en-­na, and particularly on its well-­attested but puzzling final -­a, see the discussion by Attinger and Krebernik (2005, 68–­69) ad Ḫhy 164. 22. Ninimma is described here as a helper of Inana: the epithet in-­nin(9), “mistress,” usually (but not exclusively, cf. Nanše C, 7–­9) refers to that goddess and is particularly suited to Inana’s warlike aspect (“battle and combat”); see Jaques (2004, 219–­22). 23. dib is written over an erased eš, possibly influenced by the phrase ki-­us2-­be2-­eš that follows. 38–­41. The god in question is Ninurta, identified here by his secondary name Uta-­ulu (OB Diri Nippur 10:52 = MSL 15, 36) and by his shrines Ešumeša and Ešamaḫ in Nippur. This passage clearly depicts Ninimma as the spouse of Ninurta, an aspect that was not previously known but that can easily be explained by her close connection to Enlil (the father of Ninurta) and Nippur.1 The imagery of ll. 40–­41 is however conventional—­compare, for example, ĝeš-­nu2 u2 za-­gin3 ba-­ra-­ga-­na / u3 du10 ku4-­ku4-­da, “So that (Ningirsu) might sleep pleasantly on his bed that is spread with bright flowers” (Gud. Cyl. B ix 8–­9), and the bilingual prayer to Ninurta CTMMA 2, 104–­8 rev. 2′–­3′ (Ninurta entering the Ešumeša, 1 In An = Anum I 316 and in cultic lamentations, Ninimma’s husband is said to be Kusibanda (Focke 1999–­2000, 108–­9). Note however that at An = Anum I 312, one manuscript (ms. D = CT 24, 2–­10 col. iv 1, P365749) explains Ninimma’s name da-­ba4-­ba4 sag10-­ga (for which cf. l. 49 of our text) with the comment: nin dnin-­┌urta┐-­ke4, “lady of Ninurta.” In the light of the new evidence for Ninimma as spouse of Ninurta, it is no longer necessary to interpret this entry as meaning “sister (nin9) of Ninurta” (thus Focke 1999–­2000, 94 with n. 23), a relationship for which there is no other support.

51

his ki ni2-­tub2-­bu // ašri tapšuḫti); see also Gabbay (2015, 63) ad Eršema 4 I a+2.2 The association between Ninurta and Ninimma is also implied by the later “Nippur Compendium,” where a chapel in the temple of Ninimma at Nippur is said to be called Ešumeša (§14 col. v 12–­13, ed. George 1992, 143–­62; see also Focke 1999–­2000, 108). 44. Compare dsuen amar za-­g in3 du10 ku3-­ga peš-­ a, “Suen, shining calf, raised on a sacred knee” (Nanna A, 28). 46. On the readings ĝeštu-­ga ri/de5(ri).g, see recently Ceccarelli (2016, 156–­58). 47. banda3 here means “understanding, intelligence” (tašīmtum, OB Diri Nippur 6:28 = MSL 15, 30), cf. DuDr 23 (lu2 banda3da ša3 enim-­ma zu) with Zgoll (2006, 424 n. 822). In this connection, du12-­du12 is probably best translated as “to speak (publicly)” (atwûm, qabûm, Diri Nippur 53–­53a = MSL 15, 14). 48. On mu ma-­dam, “years of abundance,” compare u4 ma-­dam mu ḫe2-­ĝal2-­la, “Days of abundance, years of plenty” (Hammurabi F, 19), with Sjöberg (1972, 71) ad loc. The verb al du11, “to request,” implies that Ninimma is supposed to obtain these blessings from a higher authority—­in this case, Enlil or Ninurta. A similar prayer is found in an inscription of Rim-­Sin of Larsa, where Nanaya is asked to request a “kingship of joy” and a “pleasant rule” from An and Inana (ki an dinanna-­ta / al ḫu-­mu-­un-­ne-­de3-­be2, RIM E4.2.14.3 27–­28 = ELS ex. 202). 49. Ababa is a common epithet of Ninimma, attested in cultic lamentations and god lists (Focke 1999–­2000, 96–­97). According to SIG7.ALAN XXIII 334–­36 (= MSL 16, 221), mar-­maḫ (possibly an Emesal term; see Schretter 1990, 209–­10) is synonymous with gudu4 / pašīšum, a type of subordinate priest with general cultic responsibilities; see recently RlA s.v. “Priester” A. I. §5.3.1 (W. Sallaberger / F. Huber Vulliet). 2 The cultic act of preparing the divine bed with flowers and other plants has parallels in Mycenaean Greek and archaic Roman religion (the rituals of the lechestrōtērion/lectisternium): see Janda 2014, 620–­27.

NOS. 6 – 7­ : A L AMEN T O F LI SI N (“LI SI N A”) No. 6. MS 3274 Transliteration

Two tablets, MS 3274 and 3347, belong to a lament of the little-­known goddess Lisin. The published manuscripts of the lament, known as “Lisin A” (ETCSL c.4.10.1), were compiled by Civil (1974–­77, 67), who noted the existence of further unpublished sources.1 The “future publication” of the Lisin tale announced by Civil has not appeared, and while some of the unpublished manuscripts mentioned by him are now accessible thanks to the CDLI, the interpretation of MS 3274 and MS 3347 that is attempted here will require modification once all known sources are available. Further work is also needed on the broader corpus of laments concerning Lisin and related deities, which Kramer (1982) surveyed. MS 3274 contains snippets of text that are elsewhere attested in a fuller version in UET 6.144+574 (P346229; collated in February 2015).2 Lisin laments the killing of her son, who is the “donkey” mentioned in l. 12. Her mother Ninḫursaĝa is apparently to blame, and Lisin’s accusations are the topic of MS 3347, a duplicate of SLTNi 38 (obv.), UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii (P256684), and 3N-­T 326+3N-­T 360 col. iii.3 The horizontal ruling after l. 23 of MS 3347 could mean that the fragmentary text that follows belongs to a different composition, possibly mentioning Lisin in ll. 29–­30. The surface of this tablet is abraded, which makes it difficult to discern smaller wedges—­for example, those inside tug2 or še3.

obv. 1 gaba-­ ĝu10 utul3 tu9-­ba-­zu ┌x x┐ [x x x] UET 6.144+574 obv. 15: [. . . utu]l3 tu9-­ba-­ĝ[u10 x x x] mu-­un-­na-­še22-­še22 2 a2 tu11-­ba-­ĝu10 ĝešdalla2 si-­ga-­zu [x x] UET 6.144+574 obv. 16: [. . . da]lla2 si-­ga [x i]r2-­r[a(?)] mu-­un-­na-­še22-­še22 3 u4-­ba ĝešu3-­suḫ7(mu) mu-­da-­an-­ku5 ĝešl[am mu-­da]-­an-­n[u2] UET 6.144+574 obv. 17: [ . . . ]┌u3┐-­suḫ5 mu-­da-­an-­ku5 ĝešlam-­ba mu-­da-­an-­nu2 3N-­T 360+ col. v 2′–­3′: u4-­ba ĝeš┌u3-­ suḫ5┐-­ĝu10 mu-­da-­an-­ku5 / ĝešlam-­ĝu10 mu-­da-­an-­nu2 d 4 lisin ša3 sag3-­ga-­a-­ni dili-­ni ┌ ba-­da┐-­a[n-­tuš] UET 6.144+574 obv. 33: dlisin-­na ša3 sag3-­ge-­ni-­ta dili-­ni ba-­da-­an-­tuš 3N-­T 360+ col. vi 13–­15: dlisin-­na / ša3 sag3-­┌ge(?)┐-­ta / dili-­ni ┌x┐-­tuš 5 me-­e-­le-­me-­a šu ba-­ni-­ib-­ti UET 6.144+574 obv. 34: me-­le-­me-­e šu ba-­ni-­in-­ti 6 saĝ-­dili-­gen7 ga-­tuš ga-­ir2 UET 6.144+574 lower edge 35: saĝ-­dili-­ gen7 ga-­tuš ga-­ir2-­ra 7 ušur(a.lal2×sar)-­gen7 nu-­tuku ni2-­ĝu10-­še3 ga-­gu7 UET 6.144+574 l.e. 36: ušur-­gen7 nu-­ tuku ni2-­te-­ĝu10-­še3 ga-­gu7 8 ma-­la-­gen7 nu-­tuku ni2-­ĝu10-­še3 ir2 še22-­še22 UET 6.144+574 l.e. 37: ma-­la-­gen7 nu-­ tuku ni2-­te-­┌ĝu10┐-­še3 ga-­gu7 ┌ 9 [i]-­ dub┐ e2-­ĝu10 nin9-­ĝu10 ḫe2-­am3 UET 6.144+574 rev. 38: [ĝe]ši-­dub e2-­ĝu10 nin9-­ĝu10 ḫe2-­am3 10 [si-­ ĝar(?)] ┌e2┐-­ĝu10 ses-­ĝu10 ḫe2-­am3 UET 6.144+574 rev. 39: ĝešsi-­ĝar e2-­ĝu10 ses-­ĝu10 ḫe2-­am3 11 ┌ka-­ĝu10 ze-­ba x x┐ sug sug ba-­┌an-­du-­du┐ UET 6.144+574 rev. 40: ka-­ĝu10 ze2-­ba sug sug mu-­un-­du12-­du12

1 See also RlA s.v. “Lisin” (P. Michalowski) and Falkowitz 1983–­84, 21 n. 15, 27. Three unpublished tablets from Meturan have been mentioned by Cavigneaux and al-­Rawi 1993, 92. 2 Some extracts of UET 6.144+ have been translated by Jacobsen 1973, 284 (= Jacobsen 1976, 106). 3 I have used the image of 3N-­T 360+ (= A 30218) that is available under the CDLI number P274955. Photographs of a partial cast of 3N-­T 326 (= IM 58427)+360 can be found in Alster 2005, pls. 36–­39, and Cooper 2017, 47; according to the cast, the obverse of 3N-­T 326+ is badly damaged and mostly illegible.

52



Te x t s : A L a m e n t o f L i s i n ( “ L i s i n A ” )

12 dur3-­ĝu10-­š[e3 ir2]-­┌ra-­ni┐ ga-­┌til┐ UET 6.144+574 rev. 41: dur3ur3-­ĝu10-­še3 ir2-­ra ga-­an-­na-­an-­ti 13 [š]u-­ni u[l] ┌x x-ĝa2┐-­ni-­še3 UET 6.144+574 rev. 63: šu-­ni ul e3 [ . . . ]-­ĝa2-­a-­ni-­še3 ┌ 14 in-­ ḫar┐ ul te-­ĝa2-­ni-­še3 UET 6.144+574 rev. 64: in-­ḫar-­re ul e3 [ . . . ]-­ĝa2-­a-­ni-­še3 15 ┌ab2-­gen7 bil-­la2┐-­bi gu3 im-­me UET 6.144+574 rev. 45 = 65: ab2-­gen7 bil-­la2-­bi g[u3 i]m-­me rev. 16 ┌x x x x x x x x┐ 17 traces 18 dli[sin]

Translation 1

“My breast!”—­Your stricken shepherd1. . . [ . . . ], 2 “My arm that is stricken!”—­Your thorn that is lodged(?) [ . . . ], 3 “She then cut down the fir tree; she laid low the [almond] tree.”2 4 Lisin was distressed; she [sat] there on her own. 5 “Ah, ah, she has seized him! 6 “I shall sit there and cry like a bachelor, 7 “Having nothing like a neighbor, I shall eat for myself, 8 “Having nothing like a girlfriend, shedding tears for myself!3 9 “The threshold, my house! She is my sister, 10 “[The door bolt,] my house! He is my brother. 11 “My mouth(?), sweet . . . (?),” she sang. 12 “As for my donkey, . . . (?),” 13 “. . . (?),” 14 “. . . (?).” 15 Like a cow, she was lowing feverishly. 16–­17 . . . . (?) 18 Lisin [ . . . ]. 1 Thus MS 3274; “[ . . . ] My stricken shepherd [ . . . ] she wept for him” in UET 6.144+574. 2 Thus UET 6.144+574 and perhaps MS 3274 (see note); “my fir tree” and “my almond tree” in 3N-­T360+. 3 Thus MS 3274; “I shall eat for myself ” in UET 6.144+574.

53

Commentary 1–­2. While the ends of the opening lines are not extant, it does appear that MS 3274 presents a dialogue in which an exclamation by Lisin is followed by an address to her in the second person. This differs from the parallel text UET 6.144+574, where Lisin’s lament is quoted in the first person, followed by the phrase ir2-­ra mu-­un-­na-­še22-­še22, “she cried to/for him.” Both the alternative spellings tu9.b/tu11.b (“to strike”) in these opening lines are current in lamentations—­see Löhnert (2009, 282–­83); here they seem to occur in the same manuscript. amaš is perhaps to be read utul3 (utullu) in this context; for this reading, see Proto-­Ea 827 (MSL 14, 62). 3. This line can probably be interpreted with the help of the OB Nippur ĝeš-­ list, which has the consecutive entries ĝešlam (aBZL: eš22-­), “almond,” and ĝešu3-­suḫ5, “fir” (23–­25, ed.Veldhuis 1997, 151–­252; for the older sources, see Bonechi 2016, 5). See Focke (2015, 206–­7, 417–­18) on the readings and identifications. In UET 6.144+574, the reading u3-­suḫ5 is clear (while Gadd’s copy suggests that the second sign is ma, collation confirms that it is a slightly scratched ku), but the sequence ĝešlam-­ba is difficult to explain (perhaps: ĝeš lam-­ma!). MS 3274 presents a variant spelling ĝeš u3-­suḫ7(mu), with a rare value of mu that is known from Ea III 178 (MSL 14, 311), unless the text is to be emended to ĝešu3-­-­ĝu10(mu), “my fir tree.” 5. Krecher (1970, 204) compared Inana B, 23: me-­ta me-­ḫuš-­bi šu ba-­e-­re-­ti,“From among the divine powers, you have taken the most terrifying.” But me-­e-­le-­me-­a is more likely to be a variant of the common exclamation me-­le-­e-­a (e.g., LU 284–­321). 7. Whereas UET 6.144+574 spells ušur, “neighbor,” in the expected way (lal2×sar), MS 3274 has a.lal2.sar, which is familiar as a writing of “Aššur” (i.e., a-šur4) from the Ur III period onward (e.g., UET 8.14 col. v 6′; CH col. iv 58: see Hallo 1956, 225). MS 3274 has the expected form of the first sg. reflexive pronoun (ni2-­ĝu10), versus ni2-­te-­ĝu10 in UET 6.144+574 (an “isolated form” according to ELS §111, see also SG §9.5.1).

54

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

9. A “threshold of tears” and a “house of sorrow” are attested at Inana B, 24–­25 and possibly allude to some lamentation topos. 11. While I am unable to translate sug sug du/du12, the phrase seems to indicate a plaintive exclamation: compare UET 6.144+574 rev. 47–­48: d lisin-­na ge17-­ga-­bi gu3 im-­me / dlisin-­na sug-­e gu3 ḫe2-­ni-­de2-­a-­ba. 13–­14. Is the verb ul ti/te, “to be joyous” (Jaques 2006, 45)? But the sense of the variant ul e3 [ . . . ] in UET 6.144+574 would then be unclear. la2-­ 15. On bil-­ bi, “feverishly,” see now Gabbay (2015, 84–­85). The recurring phrase gu3 im-­me also appears in another ms. attributed to “Lisin A,” TMH NF 4 48, rev. 3′–­4′.

No. 7: MS 3347 Transliteration obv. 1 u2numun2-­e dlisin-­na mu-­┌x┐-­[x x] SLTNi. 38 obv. 7′: u2numun-­e dli[sin . . .] 2 ama-­zu ba-­an-­ga ama-­┌zu┐ b[a-­an-­ga] SLTNi. 38 obv. 8′: ama-­zu ba-­an-­g[a . . .] 3 du5-­mu-­zu ama-­zu b[a-­an-­ga] SLTNi. 38 obv. 9′: ┌du5-­x x┐ [ . . . ] 4 ḫenzer(igi.dim)-­zu ama-­zu b[a-­an-­ga] 5 du5-­┌mu-­zu┐ ama uugu6-­zu d ga-­ša-­an-­ḫ[ur-­saĝ] d 6 lisin-­na ┌gu3┐ an-­ne2 ┌ba-­te gu3 ki┐-­[še3 ba-­te] 7 gu3 šu niĝen2-­na-­{ni}-­ni adabuki tug2-­g[en7 dul] 8 siki-­ni u2┌numun2┐-­bur2-­gen7 mu-­un-­ze2-­ze2 9 gaba-­a-­ni ub7 ku3-­ga-­am3 i3-­sag3-­ge-­en 10 igi-­ni mu-­un-­na-­┌ḫur┐ giri17-­ni mu-­un-­na-­ḫur 11 ki lu2-­da nu-­zu ḫaš2-­gal-­a-­ni mu-­un-­ḫur 12 ĝeš-­tu9ĝeštu-­ni-­┌še3┐ in-­ba-­al-­ba-­al-­e 3N-­T 360+ col. iii 11′: ┌ĝeštu┐(?)-­ni ba-­al-­ba-­al UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 1: [x x x]-­ni-­še3 i3-­ba-­al-­ba(?)-­al-­e 13 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 3N-­T 360+ col. iii 12′–­13′: me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 / ┌me┐-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2



UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 2: me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 14 ┌du5-­mu┐-­ĝu10-­ta me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 3N-­T 360+ col. iii 14′–­15′: ┌ du5┐-­mu-­ĝu10 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 / me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 3: du5-­mu-­ĝu10-­še3 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 ┌ 15 ḫenzer┐-­ĝu10 ┌x x┐ me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 3N-­T 360+ col. iii 16′–­17′: ḫenzer-­ĝu10 mu me-­še3 ga-­sa2 / me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 4: ḫenzer-­ĝu10-­še3 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 16 ama uugu6-­┌ĝu10-­ta┐ me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­e me-­še3 ga-­sa2 UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 5: ama u ugu6-­ĝu10-­še3 me-­še3 ga-­sa2 me-­e me-­ še3 ga-­sa2 17 a-­na-­g[en7 x] ┌x a-na┐-­gen7 ┌mu-­un┐-­ak UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 6: a-na-­gen7 ib2-­ak a-na-­gen7 ib2-­ak 18 ┌ama┐ uugu6-­ĝu10 d ga-­ša-­an-­┌ḫur-­saĝ┐-­ĝa2-­┌ke4┐ 19 teš2 nu-­tuku-­┌gen7┐ ĝiri3-­┌ni-­še3┐ ga-­šub-­┌bu┐ UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 7: teš2 na-­an-­tuk. tuk uugu6-­na ga-­šub 20 uugu6-­na ḫu-­mu-­un-­lu ḫu-­mu-­ši-­ib2-­gaz UM 29-­16-­79a col. ii 8: ┌uugu6-­na mu-­ lu x x-ni-­in-­gaz┐-­e 21 ┌niĝ2 du11-­ga┐ in ┌niĝ2 du11┐ in-­nu 22 ama uugu6-­ĝu10 ┌dur3ur3┐ mu-­da-­an-­┌x┐ [ . . . ] lower edge 23 ama uugu6-­ĝu10 dga-­ša-­an-­ḫur-­saĝ-­┌ĝa2┐-­[x] / lu2-­še3 ma-­┌ra-­te-­en┐ [ . . . ] (horizontal ruling) rev. 24 dutu silim-­ĝu10 ḫe2-­ni-­ib-­┌x┐ [ . . . ] 25 ĝeš┌ig┐ e2 me saĝ ┌x┐ [ . . . ] 26 ┌ĝešig┐ e2 gu ┌x┐ [ . . . ] 27 ša3 [ . . . ] 28 nu-­uš-­┌x┐ [ . . . ] 29 dli[sin(?) . . .] 30 dli[sin(?) . . .] 31 ┌x┐ [ . . . ]



Te x t s : A L a m e n t o f L i s i n ( “ L i s i n A ” )

3 2–­34 traces ┌ im-­gid2-­da x┐ [ . . . ]

Translation 1 2

As for the rushes, [ . . . ] Lisin [ . . . ], Your mother has taken him, your mother has [taken him], 3 Your son—­your mother has [taken him], 4 Your little one—­your mother [has taken him], 5 Your son—­your own mother Ninḫursaĝa! 6 Lisin’s cries reached the heavens and reached the earth, 7 All her cries covered Adab like a garment, 8 She tore her hair like rushes, 9 She beat her breast like a holy drum, 10 She tore at her eyes for him, she tore at her nose for him, 11 She tore at her groin, the place not spoken of with men,1 12 Up to her ears she was scratching herself deeply(?). 13 “Where will I arrive, where will I arrive, O me, where will I arrive? 14 “From my son,2 O me, where will I arrive? 15 “My little one, [ . . . ] where will I arrive, O me, where will I arrive? 16 “From my own mother,3 where will I arrive, O me, where will I arrive? 17 “How [ . . . ] how did she do it? 18 “My own mother Ninḫursaĝa, 19 “Like some shameless person, I shall throw myself(?) at her feet, 20 “On her/him . . . (?), it has struck(?)! 21 “It is not what was said, it is not what was said, 22 “My own mother has [ . . . ] my donkey, 23 “My own mother Ninḫursaĝa, to the man [ . . . ].” 24–­34 (remainder fragmentary) [ . . . ] “im-­g id2-­da” (tablet) [ . . . ] 1 The text says “the place not known with men”; see the note on this line. 2 Thus MS 3347; “my son” in 3N-­T 360+, “to my son” in UM 29-­16-­79a. 3 Thus MS 3347; “to my own mother” in UM 29-­16-­79a.

55

Commentary 3.The compound sign igi.dim in this context probably means “little one” (ṣeḫrum, šerrum, etc.), the reading being ḫenzer (OB Diri Nippur 148–­49 and Canonical Diri II 163–­6 6 = MSL 15, 18 and 126; see also Selz 2011, 84). Compare also SLTNi. 38 rev. 4′: ┌ḫenzer┐-­ĝu10 [ . . . ]; UET 6.144+574 obv. 22: ḫenzer-­ĝu10 me-­e i-lu ga-­am3-­du11; 3N-­T 360+ col. iv 10′–­11′: ḫenzer-­{x x x}-­ĝu10 mu-­da-­an-­ku5; ibid. col. v 5′–­6′: ḫenzer-­ĝu10 dur3ur3-­ĝu10 mu-­da-­an-­gur. 6–­7. This is a variation of a conventional expression of pain. See Wagensonner (2009, 373), to whom I owe the correct restoration of l. 6, on BM 120011, rev. 13′–­14′ (gu3 an-­e ba-­te gu3 ki-­še3 ba-­te / gu3 šu-­niĝen2-­na-­ni an-­ur2-­ra tug2-­gen7 ┌im-­mi-­in┐-­ dul, referring to Inana). Here Lisin’s cries reach as far as Adab, the e2-­maḫ in Adab being one of the main cultic seats of Ninḫursaĝa. See RlA s.v. “Muttergöttin” A. I. §5.1 (M. Krebernik) and Wilson (2012, 98–­101). 8–­9. Compare LU 299–­300 and Gabbay (2014, 142) on the imagery of the drum. The first-­or second-­person suffix /-­en/ attached to the verb i3-­sag3-­ge-­en is a mistake. 10–­11. Compare DuDr 242–­44 and further parallel passages adduced ad loc. by Alster (1972, 120–­21) and U 16896 obv. 15 // MS 3314 obv. 15 (text no. 17 in this volume). The usual description of the groin seems to be ki lu2-­da nu-­di, “the place not spoken of with men,” although for the verb, the variant nu-­du8 also exists (UET 6.8 col. ii 19 = InDesc 180;YBC 4621 [JCS 4, 1950, 212–­13] obv. 39 = InDesc 320, classed as a “non-­standard spelling” of di, ELS §216 6). The present manuscript clearly has nu-­zu, “not known,” which could be a genuine variant or (more likely) the result of confusion between zu and the similar sign di (compare other examples of “visual error” given by Delnero 2012, 50–­51). The damaged top of col. iii in 3N-­T 360+ may duplicate these lines, but the CDLI image (P274955) is only partly legible to me. 12. Is ba-­al, “to dig,” a more drastic form of ḫur, “to scratch”? 13–­16. Since me-­še3, “to what place?,” is expected to be accompanied by a verb of motion, sa2 should in this context perhaps be interpreted

56

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

as “to reach, to arrive at” (kašādum), a meaning that more commonly belongs to the resultative verb sa2 du11—­for example, ma2 an-­na me-­a sa2 ba-­an-­du11, “The boat of heaven, where has it arrived?” (InEnki II i 5, 39, etc. = ELS ex. 372, cf. §§116 b 1, 706). 14–­15. The restorations in MS 3347 are based on the parallel texts, where du5-­mu and ḫenzer-­ĝu10 are clearer, but the presence of the ablative -­ta (contrast the terminative -­še3 in UM 29-­16-­79a) is a riddle. 19. Compare possibly the fragmentary manuscript SLTNi 134 a 11′: [te]š2(?) nu-­tuk.tuk. 20. The parallel manuscript UM 29-­16-­79a seems to refer to a “man” (mu-­lu), who has “struck”

Ninḫursaĝa, or who was struck by her. If this is correct, the enigmatic verb ḫu-­mu-­un-­lu in MS 3347 is probably an erroneous reinterpretation of the Emesal noun mu-­lu, “man,” which was converted into a verbal form with a prefix chain partly borrowed from ḫu-­mu-­ši-­ib2-­gaz. 23. For this form of ḫur, which differs from the other instances of this sign on this tablet, see aBZL no. 281 (NL 89 N10) Colophon. Compare the fully preserved colophon of MS 3338, a manuscript of an unidentified literary composition that resembles MS 3347 in shape and script: im-­g id2-­da na-­bi-­i3-­li2-­šu iti gan-­gan-­e3 u4 13-­kam.

NO. 8 : A H YM N TO N I N URTA (“I ŠME- D ­ AGAN W”) This manuscript, MS 3355, belongs to a collection of songs classed under the heading “Išme-­Dagan W” (ETCSL c.2.5.4.23) and formed of partly overlapping hymns to Enki, Ninurta, and Nuska. The complicated reconstruction of “Išme-­Dagan W” has recently been summarized by Zólyomi (2010, 421–­25), whose sigla are adopted here.1 MS 3355 contains what is known as “Segment B,” a hymn to Ninurta, and restores parts of the text that were previously missing from the other extant sources (mss. C, D). Although MS 3355 is damaged and very fragile, it now emerges in greater clarity that the hymn describes an assembly of the great gods called by Enlil in the Ekur (ll. 13–­17), where a decision is taken to entrust Ninurta with the divine powers of heaven and earth, among other attributes (ll. 18–­25). The new information is discussed in the notes; see Ludwig (1990, 150–­56) for a general commentary on these conventional praises of Ninurta. The main significance of the new manuscript lies in its role in the reconstruction of “Išme-­Dagan W”: MS 3355 shows that “Segment B” can stand on its own as a separate text outside the collection of related hymns, and it confirms the suggestion of Tinney (1996, 71) that the beginning of “Segment B” is preserved on N 3544 col. ii 14′–­15′ (ms. F) and that its ending is identical to the text of N 2176+ rev. 1′–­4′ (ms. G). A title or catchline was inscribed on the damaged left edge of the MS 3355, but I have not succeeded in making sense of the remaining signs.



[ . . . ] mu-­ni-­in-­┌x┐ [ . . . ]-­in-­┌x x┐-­eš [.  .  .  m]i-­ni-­in-­ku4-­re [ . . . ]-­in-­tuku-­uš ┌ x x x x┐[ . . . ] ┌x┐ saĝ ┌il2-­la┐/ mu-­ni-­in-­[x x x]-­┌x-­eš┐ C col. iii 2′: saĝ ┌x x┐ mu-­[ . . . ] D obv. 1′: sa[ĝ . . .] 10 ┌an ki kilib-­a-­ba x┐ [x x x] ki / ┌x┐ [ . . . ] ┌ ┐ x C col. iii 3′: an ki kilib-­ba a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2-­bi [ . . . ] D obv. 2′: an ki kilib-­a-­b[a . . .] 11 lugal-­a ĝeš-­tu9ĝeštu bad [enim] ┌šar2┐-­šar2-­ra ┌ zu-­zu┐ C col. iii 4′: lugal-­la ĝeš-­tu9[ĝeštu] bad niĝ2-­nam z[u(?) . . .] D obv. 3′: lugal-­la ĝeš-­tu9[ĝeštu . . .] 12 enim ┌ku3 du11┐-­ga ┌ama aia┐ uugu6 ┌ ki-­bi-­še3(?) ĝar(?)┐ C col. iii 5′: enim ku3 du11-­ga ama aia u ugu6-­b[i . . .] D obv. 4′: enim ku3 du11-­ga ama aia u ugu6 [ . . . ] 13 ┌da-­nun-­na ub-­šu-­unken-­na┐-­ka C col. iii 6′: da-­nun-­na ub-­šu-­unken-­na [ . . . ] D obv. 5′: da-­nun-­na ub-­š[u-­  .  .  .] 14 ┌den-­lil2 d┐nin-­lil2-­ra su8-­su8-­g[e] / [ . . . ]┌x┐-­bi šu-­ni daĝal-­e(?) C col. iii 7′: den-­lil2 dnin-­lil2-­ra su8-­su8-­u[b . . .] D obv. 6′: den-­lil2 dnin-­lil2-­ra su8-­s[u8 . . .] rev. 15 ┌e2-­kur eš3 maḫ-­še3┐ igi-­bi si sa2 ┌si3-­ge┐ C col. iii 8′: e2-­kur eš3 maḫ-­še3 igi-­bi s[i . . .] D obv 7′: e2-­kur eš3 maḫ-­še3 igi-­bi [ . . . ] 16 ki-­aĝ2-­ĝa2 ┌dugud┐ den-­lil2 dnin-­┌lil2┐-­la2 / e-ne-­e-­ne-­ra e3-­e C col. iii 9′: a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2 dugud den-­lil2 d nin-­[lil2 . . .] D obv. 8′: a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2 dugud den-­lil2 d ni[n-­lil2 . . .]

Transliteration obv. 1 2 3 4

[ . . . ] dnu-­nam-­nir-­ra F col. ii 14′: dnin-­[urta] dumu d nu-­n[am-­nir-­ra] [ . . . ] ┌x x┐-­ni-­[x] F col. ii 15′: [x] ┌x en┐ nam-­sul-­l[a-­ . . .] [ . . . ] ┌x┐ [x x] ┌x┐ [ . . . ]-­┌x┐

1 ms. C = UM 29-­15-­254 (P256082), ms. D = UM 29-­13-­594 (P255525), ms. F = N 3544 (P278570), ms. G = N 2176+ (P255525).

57

5 6 7 8 9

58

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

17 maḫ du11-­ga-­ni-­še3 gu2 ┌ĝeš ĝa2-­ĝa2┐ / ni2-­bi-­še3 ┌x x┐-­ni C col. iii 10′: maḫ du11-­ga-­ni-­še3 ┌gu2 ĝeš(?)┐ [ . . . ] D obv. 9′: maḫ du11-­ga-­ne2-­eš ┌gu2 ĝeš ĝa2-­ĝa2┐ n[i2(?) . . .] 18 ur-­saĝ gal en dnin-­urta-­┌ra┐ šu-­ni im-­mi-­[ . . . ] C col. iii 11′: ur-­saĝ gal en dnin-­[urta . . .] D obv. 10′: ur-­saĝ gal en dnin-­urta-­ra šu-­ ni im-­m[i-­ . . .] 19 du11-­ga-­ni i3-­li ku7-­ku7-­┌da┐-­gen7 C col. iii 12′: du11-­ga i3-­li [ . . . ] D obv. 11a′: du11-­ga-­ni i3-­li ku7-­ku7-­da-­gen7 20 enim ku3-­ga ak-­de3 mu-­┌un-­du6┐-­le-­eš C col. iii 13′: mu-­un-­du6-­le [ . . . ] D obv. 11b′–­12a′: e[nim(?) . . .] / mu-­un-­du6-­le-­eš 21 me an-­na me ki šu-­ne2 im-­ma-­an-­┌šum2-­mu-­uš┐ D obv. 12b′: me an-­na me ki šu-­ne2 i[m-­ . . .] 22 dnin-­urta ur-­saĝ gal a2-­tuku mu-­še3 mu-­ni-­┌in┐-­[še21(?)] C col. iii 14′: dnin-­urta [ . . . ] D obv. 13′: [dnin]-­urta ur-­saĝ gal a2-­tuku mu-­še3 [ . . . ] 23 sul kur gurum-­gurum en iri laḫ5 udug2 mu-­ni-­in-­┌x-­eš┐ C col. iii 15′: sul kur gurum [ . . . ] D obv. 14′: [x x x] gurum en iri laḫ5 udug2(munus.tug2) m[u-­ . . .] 24 [ai]a ┌den┐-­lil2 ┌ama gal┐ dnin-­lil2-­bi D obv. 15′: [aia den]-­lil2 ama gal dni[n-­lil2 . . .] 25 [ur-­s]aĝ e2-­kur-­ra-­┌ka┐ mi-­ni-­in-­ku4-­re-­ [eš] / en ┌gal x┐ te ┌x┐-­be2-­eš D obv. 16′: [. . . e2]-­kur-­ra-­ka mi-­ni-­in-­[ku4 . . .] 26 [nibruki ma]ḫ en nin-­┌zu┐-­gen7 diĝir na-­me nu-­┌dib┐ D obv. 17′: (traces) 27 [e-­ne-­ne nun i]r9-­me-­[eš diĝir pa] e3-­m[e-­eš] 28 [den-­lil2 dnin]-­lil2-­gen7 ┌diĝir na┐-­[me nu-­dib] 29 [e-­ne-­ne nu]n ir9-­me-­eš en n[am-­ . . .] G rev. 1′: [e-­ne-­n]e ┌nun ir9-­me-­eš en nam-­tar-­re-­me-­eš┐

30 [ša3-­zu-­a en d]nin-­urta-­ra me mu-­na-­ni-­[in-­šum2-­mu-­uš] G rev. 2′: ša3-­zu-­a en dnin-­urta-­ra me mu-­na-­ni-­in-­šum2-­mu-­uš lower edge 31 [dnibru se]r3 ┌ku3-­zu niĝ2 kal-­kal ar2-­eš┐ dib G rev. 3′: dnibru ser3 ku3-­zu niĝ2 kal-­kal a-re-­eš dib-­ba-­am3 d 32 [ iš-­me-­dda-­gan]-­┌x(-­)me-­en du-­r i2-­še3┐ G rev. 4a′: diš-­me-­dda-­gan-­me-­en du-­r i2-­še3 33 [ka-­k]a ┌mu-­ni-­i-­ĝar┐ G rev. 4b′: ka-­ka mu-­ni-­ĝar left edge 1 [ . . . ] ┌x┐ 2 [ . . . ] ┌x bi ku┐

Translation 1 2 3–­6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

[. . . son] of Nunamnir, [ . . . ] his [ . . . ], too damaged for translation [ . . . ] they have made him into [ . . . ], [ . . . ] they have [ . . . ], [ . . . ] proud, they [ . . . ], In all of heaven and earth [ . . . ], The king (Ninurta) who is wise, who knows how to discuss matters vigorously, Who carries out(?) the word of (his) mother and father. The Anuna gods, in the assembly, Standing by for Enlil and Ninlil, [ . . . ] so that by his hand their [ . . . ] may increase(?)—­ Their gaze1 is(?) directed at the Ekur, the great shrine, For the issuance of the important orders of Enlil and Ninlil to them. Submitting to his (Enlil’s) great utterance, to themselves [ . . . ]. He (Enlil) has [ . . . ] his hand on Ninurta—­ His pronouncement (is) like the finest oil—­ (The Anuna gods) have gathered there so that the holy order may be carried out: They have entrusted the divine powers of heaven and earth to his hand,

1 That is, of the Anuna gods.



22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Te x t s : A H y m n t o N i n u r t a ( “ I š m e - D ­ agan W”)

They have [called(?)] him Ninurta, the great hero, the one endowed with strength, The hero who subdues lands, who carries away cities—­they have [ . . . ] the weapon to him. The father Enlil, and great mother Ninlil, Have made him the hero of the Ekur, the great lord [ . . . ]. Great Nippur, which, like your lord and lady, no god can surpass, They, the mighty princes, the gods who are manifest, Whom, like Enlil and Ninlil, no god can surpass, They, the mighty princes, the lords who will decide fate, Have, in your midst, allotted the divine powers to the lord Ninurta, Nippur, your holy song is a most precious thing, surpassing praise—­ I, Išme-­Dagan, have forever Laid (the song) into the mouth.

Commentary 9. ms. C was read by Sjöberg (1974–­75, 163) as saĝ ┌ ┐ x xa (sic) x mu [ . . . ] and by Ludwig (1990, 103) as saĝ ┌x┐ a-ba mu-­x[ . . . ]. It might not be impossible to read saĝ-­┌il2-­la(?)┐ mu-­[ . . . ], according to the CDLI image of ms. C (P256082). 12–­14. MS 3355 disagrees with the earlier reconstruction of l. 12—­enim ku3 du11-­ga ama aia u ugu6-­b[i-­gen7 igi-­bi im-­ši-­ĝal2], “(The Anuna) [look upon] the holy utterance [as upon] their own father and mother”—­which is based on Iš-­D W, A90–­96 and seems implausible here, since the Anuna gods are mentioned only in the following line. The damaged remains of l. 12 in MS 3355 suggest that the text is still praising Ninurta at this point; my proposed restoration is admittedly uncertain, the absence of a possessive suffix following ama aia uugu6 being especially problematic. In l. 14, su8-­su8.g (MS 3355) is the plural base of gub, “to stand,” whereas su8.b (ms. C)1 is the 1 Following Sjöberg 1974–­75, 163; the sign following su8-­su8 is not clear on the CDLI image.

59

imperfective plural base of ĝen, “to go.” A similar variant occurs at Ur-­Ninurta E, 40: dlama sa6-­ga nam-­en nam-­lugal-­la zi-­de3-­eš / ḫa-­ra-­su8-­ge-­eš (VS 10.199 col. ii 48′) // [ . . . ]-­ra-­su8-­be2-­eš (STVC 65 col. i 9′, P268462), although it must also be remembered that ge1/4 and be2(bi) can look very similar in Old Babylonian texts (see, e.g., ge4 in text no. 2, rev. 31 and 34, in the present volume) and may thus be easily confused. For the verb šu daĝal, “to increase” (l. 14), see the commentary on text no. 2, l. 12, in this volume. 16. While ki-­aĝ2-­ĝa2, “beloved,” in MS 3355 is a mistake for a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2, “instructions” (for the shape of the ki-­sign in this manuscript, compare l. 21; contrast a2 in l. 22), the new text restores the end of the line. For a similar image, compare Nuska B, rev. 6′: den-­nu-­gi4-­ra a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2 e3-­[a-­me-­e]n, “You (Nuska) are the one who issues orders for Ennugi.” 17.The new reading gu2 ĝeš ĝa2-­ĝa2, “submitting (to Enlil’s lofty utterance),” looks clear on the CDLI image of ms. D (P255525) and seems at least possible in ms. C (P256082); this supersedes the earlier readings an-­ki x x x (Sjöberg 1974–­75, 164) and an-­ki tuk4!?-­tuk4!? x (Ludwig 1990, 103). 20. enim ak can be translated as “exécuter un ordre,” according to Attinger (2005, 222), which suits the present context: following the orders of Enlil, the Anuna gods have gathered to entrust Ninurta with the divine powers. The verb du6.l here means “to gather,” as at Lugale 15 (with Civil 1994, 92 and n. 109); compare J. Krecher apud Ludwig (1990, 156). 23. Given the warlike context, the sign munus.tug2 that Tinney (1995, 17) identified in ms. D can be read šita2, as in MS 3355. For šita2/udug2 as a weapon of Ninurta, see, for example, Lugale 123, 698. 26–­28. These concluding praises of Nippur can be reconstructed with the help of the parallel passages in ms. C col. iv 5′–­7′ // D rev. 12′–­14′ = Iš-­D W, Segment C 12–­14 (hymn to Nuska), and ms. F col. ii 7′–­9′ (hymn to Enki). 32. While the expected restoration is *[diš-­me-­dda-­ gan]-­me-­en, -­me-­is preceded by a mostly lost sign ending with a final vertical wedge, perhaps -­na. 33. If the faint traces are correctly deciphered, the verb mu-­ni-­i-­ĝar displays a surprising plene spelling that records the first person sg. ergative subject (-­ni-­i-­ reflecting /-­ni-­ʾ-­/, see ELS §139a).

NO. 9: A HY MN TO UTU MS 2243/2 is a well-­preserved tablet containing an extract of a solar hymn that concludes with a prayer for King Sin-­iddinam of Larsa. The tablet is significant as a piece of literary evidence that complements the historical information on the cult of the sun god Utu in the Ebabbar temple in Larsa. It also contributes to the modest extant corpus of Sumerian religious poetry from the time of Sin-­ iddinam and his dynasty. UM 29-­16-­633 (P257068), a fragment from Nippur that duplicates ll. 17–­25 and 28–­31 and also preserves some extra verses, has recently been identified and published by Peterson (2016b, 135–­39).

Summary and Interpretation The hymn begins with praises of the sun god Utu: he is the son of the moon god, the bearer of light for the people of the earth, and the caretaker of mankind (ll. 1–­14). Utu assembles the Anuna gods and assigns their shares of sacrifices to them. No good counsel can be given without him, and heaven and earth are placed in his trust (ll. 15–­20). King Sin-­iddinam is then introduced: Utu has rightly appointed him to the kingship of Larsa, having made a great declaration in the Ebabbar temple, and has bestowed life on him (ll. 21–­25). The remaining lines, on the reverse of the tablet, are fragmentary, but it is clear at least that the song ends, in the “ĝeš-­g i-­ĝal2” refrain, with the usual prayer for the life of the king (l. 31). The reference to Sin-­ i ddinam’s appointment by Utu in the Ebabbar temple obviously situates this hymn in the cult of Larsa. Sin-­ iddinam’s religious works in the Ebabbar of Larsa are documented by inscriptions (RIM E4.2.9.1, E4.2.9.3–­6, E4.2.9.9; CUSAS 17.45) and by the name of his third regnal year (Sigrist 1990, 24).1 Utu also features as the king’s patron in some of the few literary compositions from the time of Sin­iddinam, such as “Sin-­iddinam B,” esp. col. v 1 On the cult of Utu in Larsa, see Arnaud 2001 and Richter 2004, 338–­46. For an archaeological study of the Ebabbar temple, based mainly on later remains, see Huot 2013.

4′–­10′, as well as in the “Letter of Sin-­iddinam to Ninisina,” 12, and the “Letter of Sin-­iddinam to Utu” (ed. Brisch 2007, 122–­78).2 MS 2243/2 is, however, the first attested conventional solar hymn to illustrate Sin-­iddinam’s veneration of this deity in poetry. The ruler’s appointment to kingship in the temple and his role as its provider are conventional elements that can be found in similar works of Sumerian religious poetry (see note on l. 23). The depiction of Utu in the present text (as source of light, decider of important matters, and caretaker of mankind) likewise conforms to expectation.3 As Peterson (2016b, 135) notes, MS 2243/2 contains only an extract from a larger composition: the texts ends after the refrain to the “sa-­g id2-­da” section, whereas the duplicate UM 29-­16-­633 (P257068) preserves fragments of four further verses that presumably formed the beginning of a now lost “sa-­ĝar-­ra” section.

The Manuscript MS 2243/2 is written in a cursive, highly simplifying script that makes no distinction between, for example, ḫi (l. 4), še (in še.ša = li, also l. 4) and din (l. 21). The text contains some syllabic spellings (ul instead of ul4, l. 5; possibly na de-­ga instead of na de5-­ga, l. 7) as well as a clear Akkadian calque that departs from normal Sumerian usage (e3-­a ka-­ka = ṣīt pî, l. 13). Case endings are often unmarked, and the grammatical distinction between the second-­and third-­person singular is ignored (ll. 19, 24). It may be tempting to attribute these errors to the wider phenomenon of “Larsa Sumerian,”4 but some features seem idiosyncratic: a serious confusion between the third and first/second person threatens to make the 2 The negative depiction of Sin-­iddinam in the letters leads Brisch 2007, 80–­81, to suggest that they were composed after his reign. Arguments against this view are given by Charpin 2008, 152, and Ludwig and Metcalf 2017, 2. 3 See recently RlA s.v. “Sonnengott” A.I. §5 (M. Krebernik); also ibid. §7.3.4 for a list of other Sumerian solar hymns. 4 Brisch 2007, 91–­113; Attinger 2015b, 3 with n. 13.

60



Te x t s : A H y m n t o U t u

final prayer for the king’s life unintelligible (l. 31). A mistake of this kind suggests that the scribe had a very uncertain command of the Sumerian language in general.

Transliteration obv. 1 [x] ┌x x┐ gal an ┌ki┐ ka-­aš bar uĝ3 ┌si sa2(?)┐ d ┌ 2 utu nir┐-­ĝal2 dumu dsuen-­na 3 a nun-­na kur-­gal ša3-­b[al-­ba]l dnin-­lil2-­la2 4 u4 ku3 ┌nun┐ ḫi-­li-­a gu2guru3ru 5 nir pa-­e3 an ┌daĝal┐-­la ĝiri3 ul 6 saĝ-­en3-­tar kalam-­┌ma uĝ3┐ kilib3 zalag ĝa2-­ĝa2 7 ĝeš-­ḫe2-­ta ni2 ┌guru3ru┐ kalam na ┌de(?)┐-­ga 8 še-­er-­zi-­da ri ┌kalam┐ diri-­ga an-­ur2-­ta ┌ piriĝ(?)┐ 9 ┌gal┐-­la-­an-­zu a-ra gal-­gal-­la ┌x x┐ du2-­da 10 ad-­gi4-­gi4 en3-­tar enim ┌šar2-­šar2┐ sa2 pa3-­de3 mu-­zu 11 enim ku3-­zu niĝ2 saĝ-­ba du-­e me sag3saga7 nu-­di-­de3 12 na[m(?)-­gal]am-­ma-­zu niĝ2 šu nu-­te-­en a-ra-­zu ku3 šen-­na 13 e3-­a ka-­ka-­zu niĝ2 šu nu-­┌kur2┐-­ru x x me da-­r i2(?) 14 e3-­da-­zu kur-­kur zi ĝal2-­┌e┐ igi-­bi ma-­ra-­ši-­ĝal2 15 diĝir an ki gu2 si-­a-­zu-­ne2 nam ši-­mu-­┌da┐-­ab-­tar-­re UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 1′: [diĝir an] ki ┌x┐ [ . . . ] 16 da-­nun-­na-­ke4-­ne za-­e šu[ku] ḫa-­la mu-­ni-­ib-­šum2-­šum2-­ne UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 2′: [da]-­nun-­na-­ke4 ┌ ┐ x [x x x] ┌x x┐ [ . . . ] 17 nu-­gub-­ba-­zu ad kur-­kur-­ra-­┌kam┐ mi-­ni-­ib-­┌gi4-­gi4┐-­ne UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 3′: [nu-­gu]b-­ba-­zu a[d kur-­k]ur-­ra-­ka im-­mi-­[ . . . ] 18 a2-­aĝ2 an ki-­a šu-­zu im-­mi-­in-­si igi mu-­na-­ni-­ib-­du8 UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 4′: [a2-­a]ĝ2-­ĝa2 an k[i-­a š]u-­zu im-­mi-­si igi ┌x┐ [ . . . ] ┌ 19 [kur]-­ kur-­re┐ ka-­aš-­bi mu-­bar-­re si-­bi um-­mi-­in-­sa2



61

UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 5′: [kur-­kur]-­re ka-­aš-­bi mu-­un-­bar-­re-­en ┌x┐-­bi [ . . . ] ┌ sul┐ [ĝal2] taka4 ĝešsi-­ĝar an ┌ki┐ kukku2 20 zalag ĝa2-­ĝa2 UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 6′: [su]l dutu taka4 si-­ĝar an ki kukku2 zal[ag . . .] / ša3-­ba-­tuku-­a[m3] 21 si[pa z]i ┌ša3┐-­ge pa3-­da-­zu nun d suen-­i-­din-­nam UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 7′: [. . . ša3]-­ge pa3-­da-­zu nun [ . . . ] ┌ nam┐-­lu[gal] ┌larsamki┐-­ma zi-­de3-­eš 22 ┌ mi┐-­ni-­ku4 / nam-­sipa-­bi mu-­un-­šum2 UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 8′: [. . . larsa]mki-­ma zi-­de3-­eš-­e mu-­ ┌ ┐ x -­[ . . . ] / nam-­sipa-­bi mu-­u[n-­šum2] 23 e2-­babbar ┌x du10(?)-­du10-­ga-­ba┐ gal ┌ nam-­mu┐-­ra-­an-­du11 UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 9′: [ . . . ] ┌x┐ x du10-­ga-­ba gal-­bi ┌x┐ [ . . . ] 24 nam-­til3-­┌la-­a┐-­ni nam-­til3 ma-­ra-­ni-­in-­taḫ / nam-­til3-­la ḫa-­ma-­su3 UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 10′: [ . . . ] x nam-­ til3 tar mu-­na-­ab-­┌x┐ [ . . . ] / [b]ar-­sud 3 [ . . . ] 25 [na]m-­lugal-­bi ┌u2 nam-­til3┐-­la-­gen7 ka(?)-­za ḫe2-­du10 UM 29-­16-­633 obv. 11′: [. . . u2] nam-­til3-­la-­gen7 [ . . . ] rev. 26 [x x] ┌x x x┐-­ba ┌mu┐-­un-­si12 til3 niĝ2-­ba [x] ┌x┐ ┌ 27 [x x] x nam┐-­lugal-­┌la-­bi x┐ zi-­ni su3 u3-­du2 ┌d 28 suen-­i┐-­[din-­n]am u2-­┌a e2┐-­babbar2-­ra u4 -­r i-­še3 ḫe2-­┌til┐ UM 29-­16-­633 rev. 1′: [ . . . ] x x x [ . . . ] 29 bala ┌x┐ [x] ┌nam-­til3 su3 x x┐ šu mu-­na-­x UM 29-­16-­633 rev. 2′: [ . . . ] su3-­ra2 x x x [ . . . ] 30 ┌x┐ [x g]e ku3 ┌x x x x x┐-­bi ḫe2-­eb-­┌zu-­zu┐ UM 29-­16-­633 rev. 3′: [ . . . ] x x x x x [ . . . ] ┌ sa-­gid2┐-­[da-­a]m3

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

62

sul dutu sipa ša3-­ge pa3-­da┐ [si]pa dsuen-­i-­ nam / ┌nam-­til3┐ ḫa-­┌la┐-­ni ḫe2-­me-­en ĝeš-­g i-­┌ĝal2┐-­bi-­im UM 29-­16-­633 rev. 4′: [ . . . ] nam-­til3 ḫa-­l[a . . .] / [ĝeš]-­g i4-­ĝal2-­[bi-­im]

20

Translation

23

31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

┌

Great [ . . . ] (of) heaven and earth, the decider, who directs(?) the land, Noble Utu, son of Suen, The princely seed (of) the Great Mountain, the offspring of Ninlil! The holy light, the prince clad in splendor, The noble one who is manifest, making haste across the broad sky, Who cares for the land, who illuminates all the people, From the horizon, he is awe-­inspiring, directing the land, Casting forth radiance, having glided (over) the land, a lion (appearing) from the horizon(?), Wise one, great ways . . . (?), The adviser, the one who cares, he knows how to debate and give counsel, Your (Utu’s) holy word is a preeminent thing, (your) divine powers are not to be reversed, Your skillfulness is a thing that cannot be grasped, your ways (are) sacred and pure, Your utterance is a thing that cannot be altered, . . . (?) When you emerge, the lands and living creatures gaze upon you, When you assemble the gods of heaven and earth, you can decide their fates, You assign the shares and lots to the Anuna gods, Without you, do they give counsel in the land? They(?) have entrusted the ordinances of heaven and earth to you, you(?) look upon them, For the lands, you take their decision. When you(!) have settled their case,

21 22

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Hero who draws the bolt of heaven and earth, turning darkness into light, The true shepherd, the one chosen by you, prince Sin-­iddinam—­ You (Utu) have rightly made him (Sin-­ iddinam) king of Larsa, you(!) have given (him) shepherddom over it. In the Ebabbar, its very pleasant [ . . . ], he (Utu) has said great things to you (Sin-­iddinam), (To) your (Sin-­iddinam’s) life, (Utu) has added (further) life for you, may life be long for you(!), May (Larsa’s) kingship be as sweet in your mouth(?) as the food of life! [ . . . ] he made flourish, life [ . . . ] gift, [ . . . ] its kingship [ . . . ] a long life [ . . . ] gave birth. May Sin-­iddinam, the provider of the Ebabbar, live for days without end, A [ . . . ] rule, a long life . . . (?), . . . (?) may he make known! It is the sa-­g id2-­da. Heroic Utu, your chosen shepherd, the shepherd Siniddinam—­may life be(!) his share! It is its ĝeš-­gi-­ĝal2.

Commentary 3. While the epithet kur-­gal (“Great Mountain”) lacks the expected genitive ending, this line can nevertheless be understood to refer to the parents of the moon god Suen—­that is, to Enlil (“Great Mountain”) and Ninlil. 4. I tentatively assume that gu2 is intended to gloss guru3ru, even though there is no such gloss in l. 7, where the verb occurs again. Admittedly, ḫi-­li would then be expected to stand in the absolutive rather than in the locative case (cf., e.g., text no. 14, obv. 6, in this volume), and the alternative is to read gu2 guru3ru, literally “to raise up the neck,” which seems also to occur at Šulgi C, 34: bad3 an ki-­še3(?) gu2 guru3ru (following CBS 13907 rev. 30, P268917). 5. ĝiri3 ul = ĝiri3 ul4, “to make haste.” 7. na de.g = na de5.g, “to advise, to direct,” if the reading is correct.



Te x t s : A H y m n t o U t u

8. kalam, “land,” lacks a case ending, but the sense seems to be that the sun god “glides” across the land in the daytime. For this use of the verb diri.g, compare EnlSudr 99, where Enlil is compared to a “gliding” cloud (duggu diri-­ga-­gen7) in the sky. 10. On sa2 pa3.d, “to give counsel,” see Sjöberg and Bergmann (1969, 130) ad TplHy 420. 13. The strange phrase e3-­a ka-­ka is no doubt a calque of the common Akkadian expression ṣīt pî, literally “emergence of the mouth,” “utterance.” The usual equivalent in Sumerian is ka-­ta e3-­a (e.g., EnlSudr 169; text no. 1, l. 12, in this volume). I have failed to interpret the second half of the line, where a sign has been erased under the na-­ shaped sign preceding me. 16. The verb does not seem to end on the expected second sg. suffix but rather on a plural suffix that was probably inspired by mi-­ni-­ib-­g i4-­g i4-­ne in the following line. For a similar image, also set in a divine assembly, compare: da-­nun-­na-­ke4-­ne šuku šum2-­mu, “(Utu,) having given the Anuna gods their shares . . .” (Utu the hero, 7). 17. Peterson (2016b, 138) translates the beginning of this line in MS 2243/2, “Your pure(?) opening/ distance(?),” and thus presumably reads bad-­ra2 at the start of the line, but on this interpretation, the meaning of the third sign would be unclear. The sign preceding kur-­kur is a clear ad in MS 2243/2, which excludes the translation “ruler/ throne(?)” (Peterson). Even though the line is fully preserved and legible in MS 2243/2, the initial negation is difficult to explain, and the correct reading may well have eluded me. My proposed translation, which assumes that this verse poses a rhetorical question, follows a suggestion by P. Attinger. 18.The first verb has a third-­person singular subject, but the gods are likely to be meant.The syntax of the second part of the line is not clear to me, but it is presumably Utu who, as all-­seeing sun god, is looking upon the gods or upon heaven and earth. 19. In this line, it seems that Utu is addressed both in the second-­ (mu-­bar-­re) and in the third-­ (um-­mi-­in-­sa2) person singular. 20. In UM 29-­16-­633, Peterson (2016b, 136) hesitantly reads tak4 la2?. See his discussion ad loc., but

63

I cannot see any trace of the latter sign on the CDLI image (P257068). 22. According to the recently published inscription CUSAS 17.37 col. iii 15–­18, kingship of Larsa was given to Sin-­iddinam by An, Enlil, and Enki at the request of Utu and Nanna. In the “Letter of Sin-­iddinam to Ninisina,” l. 12, Sin-­iddinam’s shepherddom is derived from Utu directly, as in the present passage. 23.The subject of this line is Utu, who has granted kingship to Sin-­iddinam. The use of gal du11, “to say something great,” in such contexts can be compared, for example, to a similar passage at the conclusion of an “adab” hymn to Enlil for Šulgi: gal bi2-­du11 šul-­g i bal zi-­da ša3-­ge ba-­ni-­pa3, “(Enlil) has said something great: he has chosen Šulgi (for) a good reign” (Šulgi G, 68). For a fuller example of such an elevation to kingship in the temple, compare, for example, Išme-­Dagan B, 34–­60 (appointment by Enlil in the Ekur). At the start of the line, Peterson (2016b, 137) reads [ . . . ] x-e in UM 29-­16-­633. Perhaps the second sign could instead be read dag,“dwelling,” but this does not necessarily agree with the shape of the third sign in MS 2243/2. 24. Here it is King Sin-­iddinam who is referred to both in the third-­(nam-­til3-­la-­a-­ni) and in the second-­ (ma-­ra-­ni-­in-­taḫ) person singular. 25. In reading ka(?)-­za, “in your mouth(?),” I tentatively adopt the interpretation of Peterson (2016b, 137), which seems semantically attractive.The disjointed sign, written on the edge of the tablet, is however hardly an obvious ka and could instead represent two separate, unidentified signs. 30. The rubric that follows this line identifies the da, if correctly preceding text as the sa-­ g id2-­ ┌ restored.The alternative reading bar-­su3┐-­[da-­a] m3 is less likely, since the first sign seems to have two horizontal wedges. 31. The first/second sg. form of the verb is a mistake: the third person is required, since nam-­til3, “life,” is the subject. Compare, in another solar hymn, nam-­til3 niĝ2 du10 ḫa-­la-­zu ḫe2-­am3, “May a life that is pleasant be your (Šulgi’s) share” (Šulgi Q, 43).

NO. 1 0 : A H YMN TO N ANŠE (“N ANŠE A”) 18′–­21′ (traces; rest of obv. lost) rev. 1′ (destroyed) 2′ (traces) 3′ (181) [ . . . ] ┌nir-­ĝal2┐ [ . . . ]┌x┐ [ . . . ] 4′ (182) [ . . . ] dnanše-­ta [. . . ga]ba [ . . . ] 5′ (183) ┌a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2-­bi┐ e2 [ . . . ] 6′ (184) lugal en dḫendur-­saĝ-­ĝa2-­ke4 im-­ma-­da-­r[a-­x] 7′ (185) ┌iibbi2┐ dugud-­gen7 ki um-­m[i-­ . . .] 8′ (186) ┌enim┐-­bi duggu diri-­ga-­gen7 an-­e s[ir2] 9′ (187) ┌bulug┐ nam-­dam-­ma ┌teš2┐-­bi [ . . . ] 10′ (188) lugal en d┌ḫendur┐-­saĝ-­ĝa2-­ke4 ┌ teš2┐-­bi [ . . . ] ┌ ┐ x siki-­ka ┌ki erim2┐ [ . . . ]┌x┐ 11′ 12′ (191) di nu-­siki-­ka [ . . . ]-­┌ku5-­de3┐3 13′ (192) di nu-­mu-­kuš-­ka [ . . . ]-­ab-­us2-­e4 14′ di nu-­mu-­kuš-­ka [ . . . ] 15′ (193) di ama dumu-­ka-­ka [ . . . ] 16′ (194) ┌tukum-­bi┐ ama [ . . . ] 17′ (195) ┌in-­tuku mu-­un┐-­da-­an-­gu7 i[n-­ . . .] 18′ (196) ┌in┐-­[bu5-­b]u5-­a-­ni ka-­n[a . . .] 19′ (197) z[a3-­b]i-­a ┌lu2 sa2┐ du11-­ga-­bi b[a-­x x]-­tuš-­┌x┐ 20′ (198a) u2 il2 e[den]-­na niĝ2 ┌tum2┐-­a-­┌ni┐ 21′ (198b) ┌ama-­a┐-­ni la-­ba-­ni-­in-­dib 22′ (199) ┌ama iri┐ gu-­la mu-­┌un-­du2-­ud-­da┐ [ . . . ] 23′ (200) [ . . . ]-­ra gu7-­bi-­a [gu3] ┌ la-­ba┐-­ni-­┌in-­de2┐ 24′ (201) [tuk]um-­[bi] ama dumu-­ni-­ir 25′ (202) [ . . . ]5 gu3 ba-­an-­da-­┌de2┐ 26′ (203) [ . . . ]6 ┌x┐-­ga šu ┌im┐-­ma-­[x]-­┌si┐

Originally described as a hymn to Hendursaĝa, MS 2294 in fact contains extracts from “Nanše A” (obverse: ll. 154–­6 8, reverse: ll. 181–­205; ETCSL c.4.14.1). It is helpful in restoring the text of this well-­attested but enigmatic poem and presents a few significant variants, which are set out in the notes. The tablet has been reconstructed, and the surface of the obverse in particular is worn and difficult to read. Note that one fragment has been joined to the wrong part of the tablet: it belongs to ll. 12′–­13′ of the reverse but now stands (upside down) at rev. 25′–­26′.1 The sigla and line numbering follow the edition of Heimpel (1981) and the translation of Attinger (2017), where MS 2294 is cited as ms. PP.2

Transliteration obv. (one or two ll. destroyed) 1′ (traces) 2′ (154) [ . . . ] ┌ba┐-­a[n-­ . . .] 3′ (155) ┌igi ib2 giri17 ḫum ĝiri3┐ [ . . . ] 4′ (156) nu-­mu-­e-­si3-­ga nu-­mu-­e-­da-­[x]-­┌x┐ 5′ (157) ┌a2-­ĝal2┐-­la lu2-­ra ĝal2-­┌la┐-­a 6′ (158) a2-­┌tuku┐ e-sir2-­ra gi du3-­┌a┐ 7′ (159) lu2 dam-­tuku nu-­mu-­kuš-­ra ┌ dam┐-­a-­ni mu-­na-­ra-­┌x x┐ ┌ 8′ (160) u4 ib2-­ba┐-­a-­ni zu2 mu-­┌un-­bar7┐-­b[ar7] 9′ (161) [. . . -­g]a-­ni a-tar ┌mu┐-­[x]-­ak 10′ (162) ┌x┐ [ . . . ]-­a-­ni nu-­um-­┌ma-­an-­zi­ga ┐ 11′ (163) ┌x┐ [ . . . ] kur-­[kur]-­┌ra-­ke4┐ 12′ (164) ┌x┐ [ . . . ] š[a3 . . .] 13′ (165a) [ . . . ]┌siki(?)┐ sa[ĝ . . .] 14′ (165b) [ . . . ] g[i16 . . .] 15′ (166) [. . . -­u]r2 ĝa2-­[ . . . ] 16′ (167) ┌a2┐-­[. . . tuk]u-­┌ur2┐ ĝa2-­ĝa2-­de3 17′ (168) a[ma . . .] ┌de2┐-­a

3 The fragment containing the end of this line has been joined to the wrong part of the tablet. It now stands at ll. 25–­26 of the reverse and is upside down. For the correct placement, see the hand-­copy.

1 The hand-­copy reflects the correct placement.

4 See previous note.

2 ms. A1 = SLTNi. 67, ms. A3 = UM 29-­16-­766 (P345198), ms. B1 = 3N-­T 419, ms. B2 = 3N-­T 350, ms. D = Ni 9508 (ISET 1, p. 170), ms. F = Ni 9537 (ISET 1, p. 187), ms. P = TMH NF 3.21, ms. X = 2N-­T 86, ms. MM = N 1698 (P276819).

5 A fragment of text has been erroneously joined to the tablet here: see the footnote to rev. 12′. 6 See previous note.

64



Te x t s : A H y m n t o N a n š e ( “ N a n š e A ” )

27′ (204) [ . . . ] a im-­ta-­┌an-­naĝ┐ 28′ (205) [ . . . ] kiĝ2 enim i3-­┌kiĝ2-­kiĝ2┐-­e 29′ (traces)

Translation 1′ (traces) 2′ (154) [ . . . ] 3′ (155) Angry gaze, . . . (?) nose, [ . . . ] feet, 4′ (156) Do not equal you(?), are not [ . . . ] with you, 5′ (157) The strong one who has imposed (force) on another man(?), 6′ (158) The mighty one who has built a reed fence(?) in the street, 7′ (159) The married man has . . . (?) his wife to a widow, 8′ (160) (On) the day of her anger, he laughed, 9′ (161) He has riled her [ . . . ] 10′ (162) He has not raised his [ . . . ] 11′ (163) [ . . . ] the lands, 12′ (164) [ . . . ] heart [ . . . ] 13′ (165a) [ . . . ] orphan(?), head [ . . . ] 14′ (165b) [ . . . ] 15′ (166) [ . . . ] 16′ (167) To deliver [ . . . ] 17′ (168) Mother [ . . . ] calling 18′–­21′ (traces) rev. 1′ (destroyed) 2′ (traces) 3′ (181) [ . . . ] respected [ . . . ] 4′ (182) [ . . . ] from [ . . . ] Nanše, [ . . . ] rival, 5′ (183) [ . . . ] instructions [ . . . ] temple, 6′ (184) The king, Lord Ḫendursaĝa [ . . . ] 7′ (185) Like heavy smoke [ . . . ] on the ground, 8′ (186) Those words, like drifting clouds massed in the sky, 9′ (187) The pin of marriage [ . . . ] together, 10′ (188) The king, the lord Ḫendursaĝa [ . . . ] together, 11′ . . . (?) a hostile land [ . . . ] 12′ (191) To [ . . . ] decide the case of the orphan,

65

13′ (192) Setting it alongside(?) the case of the widow, 14′ The case of the widow [ . . . ] 15′ (193) The case of the mother who has children [ . . . ] 16′ (194) If the mother [ . . . ] 17′ (195) Eats with the child what she has [ . . . ] 18′ (196) His straw [ . . . ] 19′ (197) At the side of the man responsible for offerings [ . . . ] 20′ (198a) The bringer of plants, in the steppe [ . . . ], 21′ (198b) His mother did not divert for her own benefit. 22′ (199) The mother, in a great city, gave birth [ . . . ] 23′ (200) [ . . . ] . . . (?) did not address her. 24′ (201) If a mother to her son 25′ (202) [ . . . ] addressed her son, 26′ (203) [ . . . ] took away, 27′ (204) [ . . . ] caused to drink from the water, 28′ (205) [ . . . ] investigation [ . . . ], will investigate the affair. 29′ (traces)

Commentary obv. 5′. Compare l. 21: lu2 lu2-­ra a2-­ĝal2-­la. The new reading agrees with the end of the line according to ms. A1 ([ . . . ]-­┌la┐-­a). In ms. D, the copy however suggests [ . . . ]┌x nu┐-­[ . . . ]. obv. 6′. MS 2294 confirms the reading gi du3-­a in ms. A1. obv. 7′. Heimpel (1981, 116) proposed that the verb is mu-­na-­ra-­an-­[ba-­a], but this restoration is not supported by MS 2294, where two signs, possibly ud.du = e3 (as also suggested to me independently by A. R. George), are visible after -­ra-­. obv. 10′. The end of the line in MS 2294 probably agrees with -­z[i]-­ga in ms. A1, as Attinger (2017, 11 n. 171) reads it (Heimpel: -­[zi-­z]i). obv. 16′. // ĝa2-­ĝa2-­da (ms. X); ĝa2-­ĝa2-­ka (ms. A3). rev. 4′. // e2 dnanše-­ka (ms. P). rev. 6′. // nam-­ ma!-­da-­ra-­┌x┐[ . . . ] (ms. B1); nam-­ma-­da-­ra-­{ud}-­e3(?) (ms. P).

66

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

rev. 8′. // enim-­bi dungu sir2-­[si]r2 an-­da im-­da-­[la2] (ms. B1). rev. 11′.This appears to be a conflation of ll. 190–­91, while l. 189 is omitted. At the start of the line, the reading ┌erim2┐(ne.ru) is not excluded, although the horizontal wedge of the second sign would be rather high for ru (I owe this suggestion to A. R. George). rev. 13′–­14′. This could agree with the fragmentary variant in ms. F, which repeats di nu-­mu-­[ . . . ] / di nu-­mu-­[ . . . ].

rev. 23′. // igi ša-­ra gu2 šub-­bi-­a (mss. A1, B1). The verb gu3 de2 at the end of the line agrees with ms. B1 (// enim du11 in ms. A1). rev. 26′. Attinger (2017, 13 n. 211), following Peterson (2010a, 602–­3), reads tu9 in front of the verb, translating “ou si une mère a retiré le vêtement”; as he notes, the sign in the present manuscript is however šu.

NOS. 1 1 – 1­ 3 : A H Y MN TO NI SABA (“I ŠBI - E ­ RRA E”) MS 2715, MS 3297, and MS 3351 contain extracts from the hymn to Nisaba known as “Išbi-­Erra E” or “bur-­šu-­ma-­gal” by its incipit (ETCSL c.2.5.1.5). The poem was edited by Reisman (1970, 103–­46; 1976), but many new manuscripts have been found since, and a new edition has been announced by Michalowski (2005, 201).1 MS 2715 in particular is of some interest for the reconstruction of the text, and I have provisionally indicated in the notes what seem to be the most important variants when compared to the other manuscripts that are currently accessible; a full interpretation can be envisaged only once Michalowski’s new edition is available. The sigla and line numbers follow Reisman.2

11 (75b) zalag mu-­un-­na-­ĝa2-­ĝ[a2] 12 (76a) [si]bir2 nam-­lugal-­la mu-­un-­[x x]-­┌e┐ 13 (76b) [x x x] ┌x┐ gul(?) ┌x┐ [x x] rev. 1′ (89b) ┌še du10┐-­ga ┌gur10-­gur10-­de3┐ 2′ (90a) urudagur10 gal-­gal gur10-­de3 3′ (90b) izim gal na-­nam 4′ (91) ur-­saĝ dnergal a2-­taḫ enim-­ma-­zu 5′ (92a) asaĝ2(?) gal-­gal asaĝ2(?)-­gen7 i3-­dim2-­me-­en 6′ (92b) ki-­gal-­gen7 im-­sukud-­sukud-­de3 7′ dšagan2-­e še mu-­ra-­u4-­zu 8′ ĝiri3 ma-­ra-­gur-­gur-­e 9′ (93) asaĝ2(?) de10-­de10-­la2 še nir na-­na-­am3

No. 11: MS 2715 Transliteration

Translation 1 (64) When you so wish, 2 (66) You broaden the pens, you fill up the pens, 3 (67–­68) Inside, you lend substance to the goods. 4 (69) Prayers, offerings, objects of supplication, 5 (70) And your purification rites(?) you establish, 6 (73) You have made him a garment for the great dais, 7–8 (74) To Išbi-­Erra, king (of) Isin, 9 You say, “Be seated!,” 10 (75a) You look upon him favorably, 11 (75b) You illuminate him, 12 (76a) You [ . . . ] the staff of kingship to him, 13 (76b) [ . . . ] rev. 1′ (89b) To harvest the good grain, 2′ (90a) To harvest (with) great sickles—­ 3′ (90b) It is truly a great feast! 4′ (91) The hero Nergal (is) your helper in affairs, 5′ (92a) You make the great silos(?) like silos(?), 6′ (92b) You raise them up like a foundation, 7′ Šagan treads the grain for you,

obv. 1 (64) u4 ša3-­zu na-­an-­ga-­am3-­tum3-­tum3 -­am3 2 (66) ĝa2 i3-­daĝal-­daĝal-­en ĝa2 i3-­kur4-­kur4-­e 3 (67–­68) ša3-­bi niĝ2-­gur11-­r[a i]m-­ma-­ab-­kur4-­kur4-­e 4 (69) siškur2 a-ra2-­zu niĝ2 ┌šudu3┐-­de3 5 (70) luḫ sa(?)-­gal(?)-­zu za-­e [ši]-­ni-­ib-­ĝa2-­ĝa2 6 (73) para10 maḫ-­a tug2 mu-­┌na┐-­[x]-­dim2 7 (74a) diš-­bi-­er3-­ra 8 (74b) lugal i3-­si-­inki 9 tuš-­a mu-­na-­ab-­be2 10 (75a) igi sa6-­ga-­zu mu-­un-­ši-­bar-­re 1 For the manuscripts, see ELS p. 32, RlA s.v. “Nisaba” A. §7 (P. Michalowski), Peterson 2011, 181–­82.The new edition by Professor Michalowski will incorporate MS 2715 and 3351, as he has informed me per litteras (April 2014). 2 ms. A = OECT 1, pls. 36–­39 (collated, May 2014), ms. B = OECT 5.4 (collated, May 2014), ms. D+E+F = Ni 9632 (ISET 1, p. 70)+Ni 4458 (ISET 1, p. 56! = p. 65)+CBS 13351 (P268430), ms. G = K 4755+ (collated, June 2014), N 3112 (BPOA 9.159 = P269713). I have also collated BM 132249 (adduced by Michalowski, RlA s.v. “Nisaba” A. §7) in June 2014.

67

68

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

8′ He busily moves about(?) for you. 9′ (93) The small silos(?)—­it is surely pure grain!

Commentary obv. 3. // ša3-­bi niĝ2 (Reisman: me) gal-­gal za-­e ši-­ni-­ib-­ĝa2-­ĝa2 / ni ĝ2-­ul niĝ2-­gur 11!(ul)-­ra im-­ma-­ab-­be2-­ e (ms. A col. ii 34–­35); ša3-­ba niĝ2 gal-­gal-­la zi-­me-­en ši-­ni-­ib2-­si-­sa2 / niĝ2-­ gur11 niĝ2-­gur11-­ra im-­ma-­ab-­laḫ4-­e (ms. B col. ii 18′–­19′); [š]a3-­ba niĝ2 gal-­gal za-­e-­┌me-­en┐ ši-­ni-­ib2-­si-­si / [n]iĝ2-­gur11 niĝ2-­gur11-­ra im-­┌x-­ x┐-­taḫ-­e (ms. G rev. 22–­23). obv. 5.The second and third signs in MS 2715, transliterated as sa(?)-­gal(?), could in fact represent a misunderstood luḫ (// luḫ-­luḫ-­bi, ms. B col. ii 21′; luḫ-­luḫ-­ba, ms. G rev. 25). obv. 6. // para10 maḫ-­e tug2 mu-­un-­na-­si-­ge (Reisman: mu-­un-­na-­gi4) (ms. B col. ii 23′), cf. [ . . . ] ┌x x x x┐-­en ši-­ni-­┌ib-­si┐ (ms. A col. iii 3); [ . . . ]-­e tug2 mu-­un-­na-­si-­ga ┌x┐ (TIM 9.7 rev. 5′). obv. 9. // ┌x-­a┐ ┌mu┐-­un-­na-­┌be2┐ (ms. A col. iii 6b); [ . . . ] ┌x mu-­na-­a-­ab-­be2┐-­en(?) (ms. D+E+F col. iii 1′). obv. 12. // [a2-­a]ĝ2-­[ĝa2 nam-­lugal-­l]a [mu]-­ĝa2-­ĝ[a2] (ms.A col. iii 7); a2-­aĝ2-­ĝa2 nam-­lugal mu-­e-­ĝa2-­ĝa2 (ms. D+E+F col. iii 3′); ┌sibir2 nam-­lugal┐-­la mu-­un-­[ . . . ] (BM 132249 col. ii 36). rev. 4′. // ur d┌nergal┐(?) a2-­ta[ḫ . . .] (ms.A col. iii 23); ur-­saĝ dnergal a2-­taḫ-­zu-­um (ms. D+E+F col. iii 18′); [ . . . ] dnergal ┌a2┐-­[ . . . ] (N 3312, rev. 2′); ur-­ saĝ dnergal a2-­taḫ enim-­ma-­zu (BM 132249 col. iii 12). Compare Lipit-­Eštar B, 45: dnuska sugal7 maḫ a2-­taḫ enim-­ma-­zu-­um, “Nuska, the great vizier, is your (Lipit-­Eštar’s) helper in affairs.” rev. 5′–­6′.The first and fourth signs in rev. 5′, repeated at the start of rev. 9′, do not resemble asaĝ2 as shown in aBZL no. 100 (ĝa2/e2xše). Unless this is a variant form of the sign, the reading is perhaps zar, “sheaves,” although the presence of two final vertical wedges would not be consistent with the form given in aBZL no. 413. The sign in question is more clearly asaĝ2 in ms. D+E+F (// asaĝ2 gal-­gal du6-­gen7 im-­du8-­e-­en ki gal-­ gal im-­sukud-­e-­en, col.  iii 19′) and BM 132249 (// asaĝ2 gal-­gal du6(?)-­gen7 im-­du3-­e ki-­gal-­gen7 im-­sukud-­s[ukud-­ . . .], col. iii 13).

The second verb was read im-­ge-­e-­en in ms. D+E+F by Reisman (followed by Sjöberg 1993, 15; Lämmerhirt 2010, 553), but sukud seems clear on the CDLI image of ms. F (P268430). rev. 7′. // dšagan2-­e še ma-­ra-­ab-­us2-­u2 (ms. A col. iii 24); dšagan2 še mu-­e-­ra-­ab-­us2-­┌sa(?)┐ (BM 132249 col. iii 14); [.  .  .  m]u-­na-­ra-­ab-­us2 (TIM 9.7 rev. 23′). rev. 8′: With the verb, compare Šulgi A, 28: ĝiri3 ḫu-­mu-­gur kaskal kalam-­ma-­ke4 si ḫe2-­em-­sa2-­sa2, “I moved my legs, proceeded along the roads of the land” (Klein 1981, 190–­91).

No. 12: MS 3297 Transliteration obv. 1′ ┌x x┐ [ . . . ] 2′ me-­[ . . . ] 3′ (98) engar maḫ-­┌bi┐ [ . . . ] 4′ (99) ar2-­zu an-­za3-­še3 n[a-­ . . .] 5′ ┌nam┐-­maḫ-­zu si l[i-­ . . .-­sa2] 6′ [x] ┌x┐ lu2-­ra im-­m[i-­i]b(?)-­┌diri-­diri┐ ┌ 7′ n[am(?)]-­ lugal┐-­a-­ni [ . . . ] 8′ ba-­ni-­ib-­du7-­d[u7] 9′ (102) uĝ3-­zu ┌gu3┐ teš2 ba-­┌x┐-­[. . . -­s]i3 10′ (103) enim ┌den-­lil2┐-­la2-­[ta . . .] 11′ ┌d┐i[š-­bi-­er3-­ra . . .] rev. 1′ (107a) para10 ┌maḫ-­e an-­na(?) x┐ 2′ (107b) tug2 maḫ mu-­ra-­an-­šum2 3′ (108) den-­lil2-­le an-­┌dil3┐ mu-­ra-­an-­[šum2] 4′ (110a) dḫa-­ia3 ĝešdan! ki-­aĝ2-­z[u] 5′ (110b) me-­ši-­in-­tuš 6′ (112) niĝ2niĝdaba ┌gal-­gal┐ si si {x}-­e-­m[e-­e]n 7′ (113) šu-­luḫ ┌nam-­en-­na šu du7-­du7┐-­de3 8′ (115a) u2 ┌du10┐-­ga ┌gu7┐-­a 9′ (115b) a du10-­ga ┌naĝ┐-­a 10′ (116) diĝir gal-­gal ḫa-­ra-­tug2-­[x-­d]e3-­e[n] 11′ (117) ┌x x x x x-ra┐-­gi4-­g[i4]

Translation obv. 1′ [ . . . ] 2′ [ . . . ] 3′ (98) Their great farmer [ . . . ] 4′ (99) Your great fame [ . . . ] to the horizon [ . . . ],



Te x t s : A H y m n t o N i s a b a ( “ I š b i - ­E r r a E ” )

69

rev. 3′–­5′. On *mu-­e-­> me-­, see ELS §§ 135b, 139b3, and compare obv. 2′. // ┌den-­lil2┐-­le an-­ ┌ dil3┐ mu-­ra-­[ . . . ] / dḫa-­ia3 ĝešdan-­┌zu(?)┐-­a mu-­ra-­an-­[ . . . ] (ms. A col. iv 7, 9); den-­lil2-­le an-­dil3 mu-­ra-­a[n-­ . . .] / dḫa-­ia3 ĝešdan3 ki-­zu mu-­[ . . . ] (ms. B col. iv 1–­2); den-­lil2-­le an-­dil3 mu-­ra-­an-­šum2 / dḫa-­ia3 ĝešdan3 k[i-­aĝ2-­z]u mu-­e-­ši-­tuš (BM 132249 col. iii 30–­31)

5′ Your greatness is not [equaled], 6′ [ . . . ] to the man [ . . . ] made surpassing, 7′ [ . . . ] his kingship(?) [ . . . ], 8′ Has perfected. 9′ (102) Your people, unity [ . . . ], 10′ (103) By the word of Enlil, [ . . . ], 11′ Išbi-­Erra [ . . . ], rev. 1′ (107a) On the great dais [ . . . ], 2′ (107b) He has given you a great garment, 3′ (108) Enlil has given you protection, 4′ (110a) Haia, your beloved spouse, 5′ (110b) Is seated with you. 6′ (112) You are the one to distribute the great offerings [ . . . ], 7′ (113) To accomplish the hand-­washing rites of rulership, 8′ (115a) Having eaten good food, 9′ (115b) Having drunk good water, 10′ (116) The great gods . . . (?) for you, 11′ (117) [ . . . ] restored for you.

obv. 1′ [x x x] ┌x am┐ [x x x x] 2′ (111) ku-­┌a┐ dumu ┌an-­na┐ ┌x┐ [x x] 3′ (113) šu-­luḫ nam-­┌en┐-­na ┌šu┐ d[u7] 4′ (115) u2 du10-­ga ┌gu7┐ a du10-­g[a naĝ] 5′ (116) diĝir gal-­gal ḫa-­ra-­ab-­tug2.[x] 6′ (117) me gal-­gal ki-­bi ḫa-­m[a-­x x] 7′ (118) dnisaba ┌za3-­mi2-­zu du10-­ga mu-­zu┐ [x x] (rev. uninscribed)

Commentary

Translation

obv. 1′–­3′. me-­(obv. 2′) is here presumably the initial element of a verbal prefix chain (*mu-­e-­> me-­); see note on rev. 3′–­5′. // e2 den-­lil2-­la2-­ta dnin-­urta ensi2 gal an [ . . . ] / mu-­un-­┌x x engar┐ maḫ ┌x┐ [ . . . ] (ms. A col. iii 29–­30); [e2 den]-­┌lil2 dnin-­urta ensi2 gal x x┐ mu-­da-­ab-­┌x┐ [ . . . ] (TIM 9.7 rev. 27); e2 den-­lil2-­la2-­ta dnin-­ur[ta-­t]a sipa gal-­gal d en-­lil2-­la2 / mu-­e-­du.du engar maḫ-­bi-­me-­en (BM 132249 col. iii 19–­20). obv. 4′–­5′. // ┌ar2┐-­zu ┌an-­za3-­še3┐ an ┌x┐ [x x] ┌ nam(?) x┐ [ . . . ] (ms. A col. iii 31); [ . . . ] ┌x┐ na-­du3-­du3 nam(?)-­maḫ-­zu si li(?)-­[ . . . ] (TIM 9.7 rev. 28); ar2-­zu an-­za3-­še3 na-­zu(?) nam-­┌maḫ┐-­zu si(-­)il(-­)li-­bi2-­[ . . . ] (BM 132249 col. iii 21). obv. 6′–­8′. // [ . . . ] im-­ma-­ab-­diri / [ . . . ] ba-­ni-­ib-­du7-­du7 (TIM 9.7 rev. 29–­30); lu2-­ lu 2(?)-­b i im-­m a-­d a-­d iri-­d iri / lugal-­a -­n i ba-­ni-­ib-­du7-­du7 (BM 132249 col. iii 22–­23). rev. 1′–­2′. // ┌para10┐ maḫ-­e an-­ne2 mu-­ra-­šum2(?) tuš-­a mu-­na-­ab-­[ . . . ] (ms. A col. iv 6); para10 maḫ an-­na mu-­ra-­┌x┐ ┌tug2 maḫ(?) x x┐-­ga (BM 132249 col. iii 29).

1′ [ . . . ] 2′ (111) . . . (?), son/daughter of An, 3′ (113) Who perfects the hand-­washing rites of rulership, 4′ (115) Eating good food, drinking good water, 5′ (116) The great gods . . . (?) for you, 6′ (117) May the great divine powers [ . . . ] their place! 7′ (118) Nisaba, your praise is sweet, your name [ . . . ].

No. 13: MS 3351 Transliteration

Commentary 5′. // [diĝir ga]l-­gal-­e-­[ne ḫ]a-­ra-­ab-­ku.du-­na (ms. B col. iv 7); diĝir gal-­gal-­e-­ne ┌x┐[ . . . ]-­ne (ms. D+E+F col. iv 3′); diĝir gal-­[ga]l-­e­ne ḫa-­ra-­ab-­ku-­re (BM 132249 col. iii 38); diĝir gal-­gal ha-­ra-­tug2-­[x-­d]e3-­e[n] (MS 3297 rev. 10′). MS 3297 and MS 3351 each have a clear tug2 (distinct from ku in MS 3351, l. 2′), which, if taken seriously, suggests the reading mu4.r, “to dress oneself.”

NO. 1 4 : A HY MN TO N ANAYA This tablet, MS 5107, contains a new hymn to the goddess Nanaya with prayers on behalf of Gungunum of Larsa. Two Sumerian lunar hymns (“Gungunum A,” “Gungunum B”), a Sumerian hymn to Enki and Niraḫ with a prayer for Gungunum (YBC 7806, ed. Cohen 2017, 11–­21), and one obscure Akkadian poem (TIM 9.41) attributable to this ruler were previously known.1 It has been said that Nanaya, in the Larsa period, was considered to be a goddess of love, having derived this function from Inana,2 but the present hymn emphasizes a different aspect: Nanaya here appears as an intelligent adviser and as a goddess of justice. An earlier parallel to this is available in a hymn to Nanaya composed for Išbi-­Erra of Isin, where Nanaya is similarly referred to as a “great judge” (di-­ku5 gal, Išbi-­Erra C, 11) in the circle of Inana.3 According to MS 5107, Nanaya was considered to be Gungunum’s protective deity and was supposed to formulate prayers on his behalf (obv. 11, rev. 5′). The hymn contains “sagida” and “saĝara” rubrics, each being accompanied by “ĝešgiĝal” refrains, but no subscript identifies the genre of the poem. This combination (presence of rubrics but absence of subscript) is found also in some other hymns of the Larsa period, such as

“Sin-­iqišam A” and “Rim-­Sin B” (Brisch 2007, 58–­59).4 MS 5107 is an unusually difficult tablet to read—­ several passages, even if well preserved, have defeated me. The signs seem neat and regular on the densely inscribed obverse, while on the reverse, the script becomes increasingly free-­flowing and cursive.

Transliteration obv. 1

nin nam-­nin-­a ┌gal-­le-­eš sig7┐-­ga ša3-­ta nam [(x)] ┌x x x┐ ┌d 2 na-­na-­a┐ umuš ĝalga ša3 ku3-­ta ┌x a x ka┐ i3-­li2 ┌x x┐ 3 ad-­gi4-­gi4 ša3-­┌kuš2-­u3┐ nin gal ┌x a2(?)-­ aĝ2(?)┐-­ĝa2 nu-­kam3-­me 4 di-­ku5 maḫ ka-­aš bar-­┌re-­de3 tum2┐-­ma niĝ2-­┌ge-­e┐ bar tam-­me 5 dna-­na-­a di-­ku5 maḫ (ka-­aš bar-­re-­de3 tum2-­ma niĝ2-­ge-­e bar tam-­me) 6 saĝ-­bar gunu3 suḫ10 za-­gin3 ┌x-­ra┐ saĝ-ki ┌ḫ i-li┐ guru3ru 7 ulutim2 sa6 ┌ku3-­ku3┐ eš-­bar nu-­ ┌ dib(?)┐-­i-­de3 ša3-­┌ta┐ diri-­diri ┌ 8 ka mu un(?) x x x gim x┐ a ka ka ┌x┐ ul 9 dimma enim si-­┌sa2┐ niĝ2-­ge-­┌e┐ ki-­aĝ2 niĝ2-­erim2-­e ḫulu ge17 10 igi zi bar-­ra-­na nam-­til3 su3-­ud ┌lu2 til3┐-­le u3-­du2 sa-­gid2-­da-­am3 11 dna-­na-­a dlamma ┌nun┐ gu-­un-­gu-­nu-­um-­ ┌ ma┐ ḫe2-­me+en ┌u4 til3-­la┐ su3-­ra2-­še3 ĝeš-­┌gi┐-­ĝal2-­bi-­┌im┐ 12 ┌ša3 x x x nam-­sipa-­da-­še3(?)┐ nam-­lu2-­ni ki-­aĝ2 13 d┌na-­na-­a┐ šudu3(ka) a-ra-­zu-­e ĝeš ┌tuku nin┐ niĝ2-­geg-­a-­ni zu

1 An edition of the Akkadian poem has been announced by Wasserman 2015, 53 n. 11. MS 3075, a new ms. of “Gungunum A” (on which see now Peterson 2016b, 162–­63), is to be published by K.Volk and A. R. George. On the literary texts relating to Gungunum, see in general Brisch 2007, 38–­39. 2 Asher-­Greve and Goodnick Westenholz 2013, 92. 3 See also Streck and Wasserman 2012, 184, ad VS 10.215 obv. 9 and 25, where justice and wisdom are attributes of Nanaya. For further recent studies of Nanaya, see Goodnick Westenholz 1997, Streck and Wasserman 2012, Paoletti 2013, Steinkeller 2013a, 468–­69, and Steinkeller 2013b. On her cult in Larsa, see Richter 2004, 372–­73, Goodnick Westenholz and Westenholz 2006, 14–­15, and Sigrist and Goodnick Westenholz 2008, 670–­71. I have not seen the monograph by O. Drewnowska-­Rymarz mentioned by Steinkeller 2013a, 468 n. 43.

4 This formal structure can further be compared to those Old Babylonian Akkadian hymns that end with a “ĝeš-­g i(4)-­ĝal2” rubric but contain no subscript. See Metcalf 2015, 56.

70



14 15

Te x t s : A H y m n t o N a n a y a

x [x] ┌du x ru x nir-­nir-­ra x x ku3 x a┐ ┌ ┐ x mu-­še3 an ┌ku3-­ku3 x nam tar┐-­ra šu-­du7 16 ┌x┐ ki-­bala-­ka gu2 ĝal2 ┌x tur tur x x x x x me+en┐ ┌ ┐ 17 [x] x ne ┌x x┐ [ . . . ] rev. 1′ [x] ┌x┐ [ . . . ] 2′ [x-­r]a ┌ki(?) x x e maḫ┐ [ . . . ] 3′ u6(?) niĝ2-­ul la-­la ĝal2-­la ┌x x gu-­gu-­um x x┐ 4′ a!-­gen7 sa6 nin gaba-­r i nu-­tuku a-gen7 i3-­┌maḫ┐-­me+en sa-­ ĝar-­ra-­am3 5′ dna-­na-­a nun gu-­un-­gu-­nu-­um-­┌ma┐ lu2 enim sa6-­ga-­ni ḫe2-­me+en ĝeš-­g i-­ĝal2-­bi-­im 6′ nin ┌nam-­tar┐-­ra-­ni enim du11-­ga-­du11-­ga-­ni u18-­ru d 7′ na-­na-­a nin nam-­tar-­ra-­ni (enim du11-­ga-­du11-­ga-­ni u18-­ru) 8′ dna-­na-­a nun gu-­un-­gu-­nu-­um-­ma ka-­ta e3+a(?) / in-­nin9-­ra daĝal-­bi til-­la(?) ┌ ┐

Translation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9

Lady, greatly beautiful in (her) quality as lady, whose fate . . . (?) since the womb, Nanaya, wisdom and understanding since the womb . . . (?), words . . . (?) fine oil . . . (?), Adviser, counselor, great lady, . . . (?) instructions(?) not to be overturned, Great judge, suited for making decisions, who chooses what is true, Nanaya, great judge, (suited for making decisions, who chooses what is true,) Colorful hair, a gleaming crown . . . (?), a charming face, A fine, very pure appearance—­(Nanaya, whose) decision is not to be transgressed(?), who has been superior since the womb, . . . (?), Who cherishes good counsel, just words and truthfulness, who detests wickedness—­

71

10

When she looks on with favor, there is long life, living, and coming to life for man! It is the “sagida.” 11 Nanaya, may you be the protective deity of Lord Gungunum for the long duration of (his) life! It is its “ĝešgiĝal.” 12 . . . (?), to the shepherddom(?) . . . (?), cherishing her people, 13 Nanaya, who listens to prayer and supplication, who knows what has offended her, 14 . . . (?) 15 . . . (?), perfecting the deciding of fate, 16 Submitting the . . . (?) of the rebel land, you are . . . (?), 17 (fragmentary) rev. 1′–­2′ (fragmentary) 3′ Who has created wonders(?), proper customs, and exuberance [ . . . ]—­ 4′ How sweet, the unrivaled lady! How great you are! It is the “saĝara.” 5′ Nanaya, may you be the one who prays for Lord Gungunum! It is its “ĝešgiĝal.” 6′ When the lady has determined fate— ­her utterances are mighty! 7′ When Nanaya has determined fate(—­her utterances are mighty!) 8′ Nanaya, the utterance(?) of Lord Gungunum—­it is widely accomplished for the lady(?).

Commentary obv. 1. It is not clear to me that [tar]-­ra can be restored after nam-­or how the traces of signs on the far right edge are to be read. The expected phrase would resemble en gal ša3 zi-­t[a nam du10-­g]e-­eš tar-­ra, “Great lord (Numušda), for whom fate has been pleasantly decreed since the good womb” (Sin-­iqišam A, 1); see Dupret (1974, 335) ad loc. for further parallels, and compare in the present volume text no. 5, l. 2 with note. obv. 2. At the end of line, a comparison between Nanaya’s intelligent counsel and “fine oil” seems

72

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

likely—­ see, for example, EnlSudr 161, where Enlil’s word is described as a “fine oil” for the heart (i3-­li ša3-­ga-­kam), and in this volume text no. 8, l. 19. obv. 6. See PSD s.v. bar A 4.1.4 on saĝ-­bar, “hair,” with parallels. rev. 3′–­4′. Some minute signs are written in between these lines in the manner of a gloss (gu-­gu-­um), representing perhaps an abbreviated form of Gungunum’s name, noted by the scribe in order to clarify that some epithet in the lost main text refers to the king. rev. 5′. lu2 enim sa6-­ga, literally “the one of the favorable word” and thus “the one who prays” (muštēmiqum, OB Lu A 165 = MSL 12, 162, see also CAD s.v. šutēmuqu bil.), seems here to refer to Nanaya, who prays on behalf of Gungunum in her

capacity as his protective deity (obv. 11). Compare Lipit-­Eštar D, 34–­35, where Ninnibru is asked to offer prayers (enim sa6-­ga) on behalf of Lipit-­Eštar to Ninurta; Šulgi N, 66, where the presence of a protective deity is requested so that she may pray for Šulgi ([enim sa6-­sa6]-­ge dlamma-­zu ḫe2-­a);1 and Išbi-­Erra C, 16 and 27, where Nanaja is described as the “the one who prays on behalf of the land” (lu2 enim sa6-­ge kalam-­ma) and probably also as praying on behalf of the king (diš-­bi-­ir3-­ra ul-­še3 lu2 enim sa6-­ga-­ni).

1 Following N 3489 obv. 2′ (P278519); // enim sa6-­sa6-­ge d lamma tuku ḫe2-­me-­en, “For praying, may you (Šulgi) be one who has a protective deity!” (UM 29-­16-­85 [P256691]).

NO. 1 5 : A PO EM MENTI O N I N G EZI NAM MS 3390 is a tablet in landscape format containing eight lines of an unidentified and only partly comprehensible Sumerian literary text mentioning Enlil and the grain goddess Ezinam. The handwriting is inconsistent, and some syllabic spellings can be noted (such as am-­ma-­instead of am3-­ma-­, ll. 2/4).

3 4 5 6 7

Transliteration obv. 1 u2 te-­en saĝ nam-­[eš-­e i3-­ib-­b]e2 x-na i3-­ib-­be2 d 2 ezinam2-­me-­en ki-­sikil sa6-­g[a]-­gen7en i3-­ib-­be2 am-­ma-­ab-­si-­ig 3 u2-­šem den-­┌lil2┐-­la2 saĝ nam-­eš-­e i3-­ib-­be2 x-na i3-­ib-­be2 ┌d┐ 4 ezinam2-­me-­en ki-­sikil i3-­┌ib┐-­be2 am-­ma-­ab-­si-­ig 5 [x x x m]e ki-­sikil sa6-­ga-­gen7en i3-­ib-­be2 si12-­ga zi 6 [x x x] en ki na lu2 dim3 ne am-­ma-­še-­en ┌ ┐ x [x x-g]e 7 [x x] ba x en daĝal-­la-­na temen ku3 gal-­la ba-­ni-­i[n-­  .  .  .] ĝeš 8 [x x] tukul šub du(?) du(?) ur5(?) d en-­lil2-­la2 ḫul2-­e-­de3 {x} a-ĝe6 du

8

Commentary 1/3. The sign preceding -­na at first sight appears to be pa but has two additional Winkelhaken in l. 3. Read perhaps ga(?)-­na-­ni-­ib-­be2? 2. For this description of Ezinam as a beautiful maiden, compare the “Debate Between Winter and Summer,” 59/292, dezinam2-­e ki-­sikil sa6-­ga-­ gen7 ni2 pa e3 bi2-­in-­ak, and “Enlil and Sud,” 158–­59, dezinam2 dezinam2 mu2 zi ki-­en-­g i-­ra ḫe2-­em / ab-­sin2-­na ki-­sikil sa6-­ga-­gen7 ni2 pa e3 ak-­za. 8. At the end of the line, I have also considered the reading za-­mi du, “sweet praise” (as a syllabic spelling of za3-­mi2 du10), but the first sign is probably a rather than za.

Translation 1 2

“Fragrant herbage of Enlil . . . (?),” he/she said, . . . (?), “I am Ezinam, the maiden,” she said, . . . (?), “[ . . . ], like a beautiful maiden,” she said, . . . (?), . . . (?), . . . (?), in the sacred, great foundation, he/ she [ . . . ], . . . (?), to cheer the mood of Enlil, bringing a great wave(?).

. . . (?), “I am Ezinam, like a beautiful maiden,” she said, . . . (?),

73

NO. 1 6 : TWO HY MN S TO I NAN A MS 3301 belongs to a single-­column tablet of which about two-­thirds are preserved. The text, which is written in large, inelegant signs, begins with a hymnic description of the goddess Inana on the obverse. A double ruling after the first line on the reverse suggests that a new composition begins at this point; the lines that follow likewise revolve around Inana. MS 3301 seems to be a compilation of conventional praises of the goddess: some thematic sections can clearly be discerned (faunal comparisons: obv. 1′–­3′; celestial aspect: obv. 4′–­9′; benefactions to the people: obv. 10′–­16′; life-­giving glance: obv. 18′–­19′; cultic scene: rev. 3–­11), but these elements have not been harmonized to form an intelligible text, and the translation offered below is only tentative. Note the nonstandard spellings iti, “moonlight” (obv. 4′), ĝe6-­u4-­na, “night” (obv. 7′), za-­la-­ag, “bright” (obv. 8′), and saĝ-­in-­tar, “caretaker” (rev. 13).

3 ki-­ ĝar daĝal-­la-­ba nin-­bi 4 saĝ gegge mu-­un-­ši-­ib-­gurum-­me-­en 5 saĝ ┌tu17┐-­a si mu-­un-­na-­ab-­si 6 nu-­ge17 gada-­la2 mu-­un-­na-­su8-­┌ge┐-­eš 7 nin maḫ-­am3 mi-­in-­kal-­kal-­a-­┌a┐ 8 nin-­e nam-­ḫe-­a giri17-­┌zal-­la┐-­am3 9 nu-­ge17-­ge-­e-­┌eš2(?)┐ ki ba-­ni-­in-­ĝal2 10 d┌a-­nun┐-­na mu-­un-­na-­su8-­ge-­eš 11 uĝ3 [x x] ┌x x┐ igi mu-­un-­ĝal2 12 [ni]n-­ ĝu10 ┌x x┐ mu-­r i-­dim2(?) ┌ ┐ nin -­ĝu10 saĝ-­in-­tar kalam-­ma-­ka 13 14 u4 ad ĝal2 me-­a ad gi4-­gi4-­dam 15 enim mi-­ib-­be2-­eš gurum-­e tub2(balaĝ) 16 ┌kalam┐-­ma u4 x bi ĝar-­ra-­am3 17 ┌sa6┐-­ga hul-­ba šu zi in-­tag 18 [x x] ┌x┐-­da-­ga in-­tag 19 ┌x x┐-­ma-­ka 20 [ . . . ]-­ga-­še3 21 [ . . . ] ┌x x┐-­am3 22–­24 (traces)

Transliteration obv. 1′ ┌x x am-­gen7 gu3 di-­dam┐ 2′ gu2 e ku ki uri3 šu ┌mu┐-­us2(?)-­am3 3′ sur2-­du3-­gen7 an-­ta im-­ma-­zal 4′ ┌iti┐ in-­e3 kur-­kur-­e ┌gu2┐ si 5′ sul ĝe6-­a mu-­un-­ši-­ib-­ḫu-­luḫ-­e 6′ ka-­ĝiri3 aš-­ba-­ra-­ni u4 tir-­ra ĝar {x} il2-­la aia ĝe6-­u4-­na 7′ izi-­ 8′ u4 zalag-­gen7 za-­┌la┐-­ag šu mu-­na-­ĝa2-­ĝa2 9′ an-­šar2-­ra u4-­gen7 e3-­ni kalam-­e [x x] mu-­un-­ši-­ib-­┌il2┐ 10′ 11′ egi zi [x x] a2 kur-­kur-­ra-­kam 12′ giri17-­zal [x ḫi]-­li an-­na-­ka 13′ [x x]┌x x x┐ me-­er-­me-­re-­da-­am3 14′ [x x] ┌x sikil┐-­la ┌kalam┐-­ma-­ka 15′ enim dinana-­ka ḫi-­l[i] ša3-­ga-­kam 16′ [š]a3(?) du10-­ge-­dam uĝ3 ┌ḫul2┐-­le-­dam 17′ e2 ki-­tuš me-­ta(?) ki-­nu2 [x] ┌x-­dam┐ 18′ ┌dinana┐-­ka igi zi bar-­ra-­na 19′ [x] ┌x┐ nam-­til3 su3-­ud mu-­un-­da-­ĝal2 rev. 1 dumu i3-­ḫul2-­la dumu mu-­un-­┌da-­x x-en┐ (horizontal ruling) 2 dinana dalla gaba(?)-­ni nir-­ĝal2-­am3

Translation obv. 1′ 2′ 3′ 4′ 5′ 6′ 7′ 8′ 9′ 10′ 11′ 12′ 13′ 14′ 15′

74

[ . . . ] to roar like a bull, Leaning(?) on . . . (?), She passes by in the sky like a falcon, She has made the moonlight emerge, the lands are assembled, She terrifies young men in the night(?), Path . . . (?) Having carried the torch, . . . (?) the night, Brightness like a bright day . . . (?), When she emerges like daylight on the horizon, To the land [ . . . ] it raises, She is the true princess [ . . . ] the strength of the lands, Abundance [ . . . ] she is the beauty of the sky, [ . . . ] to make prosperous, She is the pure [ . . . ] of the land, The word of Inana—­it is the joy of the heart,



16′ 17′ 18′ 19′ rev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Te x t s : Tw o H y m n s t o I n a n a

To make the mood favorable, to make the people rejoice, The temple, the dwelling, . . . (?), to [ . . . ] the bedchamber, Inana, when she has cast her favorable gaze, She has let there be a long life with [ . . . ], . . . (?) Radiant Inana, her chest(?) is proud, The ruler of that wide expanse, You submit the black-­headed people for him, The washed head, . . . (?) The priests are standing by for the “nu-­ge17,” The lady is great, she has made it very precious(?), The lady, in abundance there lies joy, As the “nu-­ge17,” she has founded (her cult-­)place there(?), The Anuna gods are standing by for her, The people [ . . . ] look on, My lady [ . . . ] created for you,

75

13 My lady is the caretaker of the land, 14 . . . (?), to advise, 15 Words . . . (?), 16–­24 (fragmentary)

Commentary obv. 2′. ki šeš/uri3 is unlikely to be an alternative spelling of ki-­uri, “Akkad,” as the variant would be otherwise unattested according to Löhnert (2009, 258 with n. 745).The expected reading ki-­ bala, “rebel land,” does not seem possible (kindly checked by K.Volk). obv. 3′. For the shape of dul3(sur2), see aBZL no. 331 “Sonderform.” obv. 4′. iti e3 here seems to stand for the common phrase iti6 e3—­see, for example, Inana B, 147 (iti6 e3-­a-­gen7). rev. 13. On the alternation between en3-­tar and in-­ tar, see Bauer (2009, 250) ad aBZL 381. Other examples of (saĝ-­)in-­tar in OB Sumerian literary texts include YBC 7072 rev. 18′ (ed. Cohen 2017, 1–­10) and perhaps MDP 27.287 obv. 6: saĝ-­in(?)-­ tar(!) kalam-­ma (= “Utu the hero,” ms. C, l. 5).

N O. 1 7 : A POE M A BOUT ĜEŠTI NAN A (“DUMUZI -­I N ANA J”) MS 3314 is the upper half of a single-­column tablet. The text contained on the obverse (the reverse being uninscribed) is a version of the song known from UET 6.22 (U 16896) = “Dumuzi-­Inana J” (ETCSL c.4.08.10), edited by Alster (1985). MS 3314 is helpful in restoring the opening description of Ĝeštinana but unfortunately preserves only the first twenty lines of the poem, largely in parallel to UET 6.22. I collated UET 6.22 in April 2016. The translation below is of MS 3314 only.

┌ 11 kul-­ aba┐ki um-­me-­da-­bi na-­me-­[en] U 16896 obv. 11: kul-­abaki ┌eme2-­da-­bi┐ na-­nam ┌ 12 mu-­ x-­x┐-­na-­men3 u3-­ru-­ru a-na bi2-­[x] U 16896 obv. 12: mu-­u4-­┌din-­ na┐-­me-­en ru-­ru a-na b[i2-­x] 13 ki-­sikil-­e ses-­ĝu10 a-n[a . . .] U 16896 obv. 13: ki-­sikil-­┌e┐ ses a-na ┌ ┐ x [ . . . ] 14 igi mu-­un-­na-­┌ḫur┐ giri17 mu-­un-­┌na┐-­[ḫur] U 16896 obv. 14: igi ┌mu-­un┐-­na-­ḫur giri17 mu-­un-­na-­[ . . . ] 15 siki-­ni an-­na mu-­un-­na-­┌guru5┐(?)-­g[uru5(?)] U 16896 obv. 15: ki lu2-­da nu-­u6-­di ḫaš-­ gal mu-­u[n-­ . . .] 16 eš2-dam e2-gal-e si sa2 ba-ni-in-[AK(?)] U 16896 obv. 16: e2 eš2-­dam e2-­gal-­la si ba-­ni-­in-­┌sa2┐ 17 sugal7 ┌x┐ e2-­gal-­ta e3-­a U 16896 obv. 17: sugal7 lu2 e2 gal-­la-­ta e3-­a ki-­sikil-­e ┌en3┐en mu-­un-­┌tar┐-­re-­en 18 ki-­sikil [  .  .  .  ] mu-­un-­na-­ni-­ib-­gi4-­┌gi4┐ U 16896 obv. 18: sugal7 lu2 e2-­gal-­┌la-­ta┐ e3-­a ki-­sikil-­┌ra┐ mu-­un-­na-­┌ni-­ib┐-­gi4-­gi4 19 ┌ses x┐ [nam]-­┌en┐-­na šu mu-­un-­ĝa2-­┌ĝa2┐ U 16896 obv. 19: ses-­zu nam-­en-­še3 šu mu-­un-­ĝa2-­ĝa2-­a 20 [. . . g]u-­ul-­la U 16896 obv. 20: nam-­en unuki-­ga niĝ2 gul(?)┌x x┐-­e (reverse uninscribed)

Transliteration obv. 1 [i]n-­nin ki-­aĝ2 d┌dumu-­zi-­da┐ U 16896 obv. 1: [in]-­nin9 ki-­aĝ2 d dumu-­zi-­de3 ┌ 2 x guru3┐ru ki-­aĝ2 d┌tur(?)-­tur-­re┐ U 16896 obv. 2: ┌x┐ guru3ru ki-­aĝ2 d tur8-­tur8-­e 3 [a am] ┌zi┐-­de3 ša3-­ga ┌ri┐-­a U 16896 obv. 3: ┌a┐ am zi-­de3 ša3-­ga ri-­a ┌ 4 nin-­ĝu10 nam┐-­nin-­e du2-­da U 16896 obv. 4: [n]in-­ĝu10 nam-­nin-­e du2-­da 5 ┌e2-­tur3-­ra i3 ga-­ra┐ mu-­un-­da-­ab-­si U 16896 obv. 5: e2-­tur3-­e i3 ┌ga-­ra┐ mu-­un-­da-­ab-­si 6 ┌amaš-­e ga zi┐ mu-­un-­da-­an-­sud-­e U 16896 obv. 6: amaš-­e g[a zi mu]-­un-­da-­an-­sud-­e 7 ┌an-­edin x x x arḫuš┐-­ĝu10 d mu-­tin-­an-­na-­men3 U 16896 obv. 7: an-­edin-­┌x x┐ [. . .  ar]ḫuš-­ĝu10 dĝeštin-­an-­na-­me-­en 8 e-­lu2 ┌ki-­sikil┐ unuki-­ga na-­me-­en U 16896 obv. 8: a ki-­sikil un[u . . . na]-­nam 9 ┌dumu banda3da┐ bad3 tibira-­ka na-­me-­e[n] U 16896 obv. 9: dumu banda3da [ . . . ] ┌x na-­nam┐ 10 unuki-­ga e2-­gi4-­a-­bi na-­m[e-­en] U 16896 obv. 10: unuki-­ga ┌e2┐-­[gi4-­a-­b]i ┌ na-­nam┐

Translation 1 2 3 4 5

76

Lady, beloved of Dumuzi, Bearing [ . . . ], beloved of Turtur, Whose seed was poured into the womb by the true bull, My lady, born to rule, With whom they have made cream abundant in the cattle pen,



6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Te x t s : A P o e m a b o u t Ĝ e š t i n a n a ( “ D u m u z i - ­I n a n a J ” ) 77

With whom they have made the good milk abundant in the sheepfold, [ . . . ] the high steppe, my compassionate [ . . . ], you are Ĝeštinana, Ah, you are the maiden of Uruk, You are the young child of Bad-­Tibira, You are the daughter-­in-­law of Uruk, You are the nurse of Kulaba, You are the spouse—­why did he/she [ . . . ] over it? That maiden—­“What [ . . . ] my brother?” She scratched her eyes for him, she scratched her nose for him, Above, she tore(?) her hair for him, She made her way to the tavern of the palace. The vizier . . . (?) coming out of the palace—­ The man answers the maiden, “[ . . . ] brother has taken charge of lordship, [ . . . ] great(?) [ . . . ].”

Commentary 1. The remaining traces of the first sign of the line in MS 3314 are consistent with [i]n-­, as pointed out to me by M.-­C. Ludwig. There is space only for one missing sign before nin in U 16896, and no restoration other than [in]-­nin(9),“lady,” comes to mind. 2. The beginning of the line was read [x ga]da ×ur2+tag4 by Alster (1985, 222), who offered no translation. The corresponding section of MS 3314 is likewise damaged, but I find the simpler reading guru3ru (instead of ur2+tag4) plausible in both texts. If this is correct, the beginning of the line could in both texts be restored as [me]n (rather than [x ga]da) guru3ru,“Bearing the crown.” 3. In U 16896 (UET 6.22), Gadd copied a vertical wedge after the initial ┌a┐; Alster (1985, 222)

transliterated ┌a┐ (┌x┐). The vertical wedge in question is probably no more than a continuation of the final vertical wedge of the sign preceding guru3 in the line above and can thus be disregarded. 5. Alster (1985, 222) read i3 ┌gara2┐, but the reading i3 ga-­ra is clear in both MS 3314 and U 16896; see the collation of Ludwig (2009, 37). 6. Alster (1985, 222) read ┌ga ┐ [mu]-­, but that would not account for the size of the gap in U 16896. The restoration g[a zi mu]-­, suggested by the damaged text of MS 3314, is more fitting. 7. Alster (1985, 223) read an-­edin-­ne2 in U 16896, but this is not quite certain: as the collation of Ludwig (2009, 37) and MS 3314 suggest, the sign following edin could also be of the e2-­type. I am unable to suggest a plausible restoration. 9. MS 3314 confirms the reading dumu banda3da in U 16896, as opposed to tur-­tur-­zu (Alster 1985, 223); see the remarks of Ludwig (2009, 37). 12. At the end of the line, restore perhaps (u3-­)ru-­ru a-na bi2-­[du11], “why has he/she cried out over it,” u3-­ru-­ru du11 denoting a type of interjection related to i-lu du11 (ELS 5.3.82). 13. U 16896 reads ki-­sikil-­┌e┐; there is not enough space to restore ki-­sikil-­[e bar] ses . . . (Alster 1985, 223). 15. MS 3314, if correctly restored, contains what seems to be a variant expression of grief; compare siki-­ĝu10 mar maru-­gen7 an-­na ma-­ra-­ni10-­ni10-­e, “My hair will whirl about on high for you like a storm” (DuDr 67). 20. MS 3314 suggests that the undeciphered sign following niĝ2 in U 16896 is gul (see copy of Ludwig 2009, 37), perhaps a variant spelling of gu-­ul, “great.” There are one or two more signs, almost completely destroyed, before -­e at the end of the line.

References ———. 2005–­6. Review of Römer (2001). Archiv für Orientforschung 51:254–­57. ———. 2013. “SEpM 7: Lugalšu à un roi.” Online manuscript (accessed March 7, 2016). ———. 2014a. “Iddin-­Dagan A.” Pages 11–­82 in Studies in Sumerian Language and Literature: Festschrift für Joachim Krecher. Babel und Bibel 8. Edited by N. Koslova, E.Vizirova, and G. Zólyomi. Winona Lake. ———. 2014b. “La lamentation sur Ur (2.2.2).” Online manuscript (accessed April 20, 2016). ———. 2015a. “Enlil A (4.5.1).” Online manuscript (accessed January 25, 2016). ———. 2015b. “La variation textuelle dans la littérature sumérienne d’époque paléobabylonienne.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 110:1–­8. ———. 2016. “Innana E.” Online manuscript (accessed February 17, 2016). ———. 2017. “Našše A.” Online manuscript (accessed March 26, 2017). Attinger, P., and M. Krebernik. 2005. “L’Hymne à Ḫendursaĝa (Ḫendursaĝa A).” Pages 21–­104 in Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004. AOAT 325. Edited by R. Rollinger. Münster. Avila, M. A., M. Sigrist, and U. Gabbay. 2017.“Within the Ekur: Sitz im Leben for a Literary Topos Regarding Nintur.” Pages 383–­408 in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East. RAI 60. Edited by O. Drewnowska and M. Sandowicz. Winona Lake. Barberon, L. 2012. Les religieuses et le culte de Marduk dans le royaume de Babylone. Archives Babyloniennes (= Archibab) 1. Paris. Bauer, J. 2009. Review of aBZL. Welt des Orients 39:247–­56. Bergmann, E. 1964. “Untersuchungen zu syllabisch geschriebenen sumerischen Texten.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 56:1–­43.

Abrahami, P. 2008. “A propos d’une perle inédite: Un élément de la parure-­subi de Ninisina?” Revue d’assyriologie 102:39–­48. al-­Rawi, F., and J. Black. 2000. “A balbale of Ninurta, God of Fertility.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 90:31–­39. Alster, B. 1972. Dumuzi’s Dream:Aspects of Oral Poetry in a Sumerian Myth. Copenhagen. ———. 1985.“Geštinanna as Singer and the Chorus of Uruk and Zabalam: UET 6/1 22.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 37:219–­28. ———. 1997. Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda. ———. 2005. Wisdom of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda. Ambos, C. 2004. Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Dresden. ———. 2013. “Rituale beim Abriß und Wiederaufbau eines Tempels.” Pages 19–­31 in Tempel im Alten Orient. CDOG 7. Edited by K. Kaniuth et al. Wiesbaden. Arkhipov, I. 2012. Le vocabulaire de la métallurgie et la nomenclature des objets en métal dans les textes de Mari. ARM 32. Leuven. ———. 2017.“Chroniques bibliographiques 19.The ‘Treasure Archive’ of Puzriš-­Dagan from a Mari Perspective.” Revue d’assyriologie 111:147–­54. Arnaud, D. 2001. “Le panthéon de l’Ebabbar de Larsa à l’époque paléo-­babylonienne.” Pages 21–­32 in Études mésopotamiennes. Recueil de textes offert à Jean-­Louis Huot. Edited by C. Breniquet and C. Kepinski. Paris. Asher-­Greve, J. M., and J. Goodnick Westenholz. 2013. Goddesses in Context: On Divine Power, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources. OBO 259. Fribourg and Göttingen. Attinger, P. 2003. “L’hymne à Nungal.” Pages 15–­34 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. OBC 14. Edited by W. Sallaberger, K.Volk and A. Zgoll.Wiesbaden. ———. 2005.“A propos de AK ‘faire.’” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 95:46–­64, 208–­75.

79

80

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Berlejung, A. 1998. Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik. OBO 162. Freiburg and Göttingen. Bernsdorff, H. 2018. “Von der Altphilologie zur New Philology.” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. May 17, 2018. Biggs, R. D. 1965. “A Letter from Kassite Nippur.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 19:95–­102. ———. 1973. “Pre-­Sargonic Riddles from Lagash.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32:26–­33. ———. 1996. “A Göttertypentext from Nimrud.” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 1996/134:116. Black, J. 1998. Reading Sumerian Poetry. London. Boese, J., and W. Sallaberger. 1996. “Apil-­kīn von Mari und die Könige der III. Dynastie von Ur.” Altorientalische Forschungen 23:24–­39. Bonechi, M. 2016. “The ED List of Trees and Wooden Objects (SF 68; IAS 18+19, 20; MEE 15 70–­74).” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2016/3:5–­8. Braun-­Holzinger, E.  A. 1984. Figürliche Bronzen aus Mesopotamien. Munich. ———. 2013. Frühe Götterdarstellungen in Mesopotamien. OBO 261. Fribourg and Göttingen. Brinkman, J. A. 1976. Materials and Studies for Kassite History:Vol. I. Chicago. Brisch, N. 2007. Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation: Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–­1763 BCE). AOAT 339. Münster. ———. 2010. “A Sumerian Divan: Hymns as a Literary Genre.” Pages 153–­69 in Musiker und Tradierung. Studien zur Rolle von Musikern bei der Verschriftlichung und Tradierung von literarischen Werken. WOO 8. Edited by R. Pruzsinszky and D. Shehata.Vienna. Campbell, D. R. M. 2015. Mood and Modality in Hurrian. Winona Lake. Cavigneaux, A. 1996. “Notes sumérologiques.” Acta Sumerologica 18:31–­46. ———. 2013. “Les fouilles irakiennes de Babylone et le temple de Nabû ša ḫarê.” Pages 65–­76 in La tour de Babylone. Études et recherches sur les monuments de Babylone. Edited by B. André-­Salvini. Rome.

Cavigneaux, A., and F. N. H. al-­Rawi. 1993. “New Sumerian Literary Texts from Tell Haddad.” Iraq 55:91–­105. ———. 1995. “Textes magiques de Tell Haddad (Textes de Tell Haddad II). Troisième Partie.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 85:169–­220. ———. 2002. “Liturgies exorcistiques agraires (Textes de Tell Haddad IX).” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 92:1–­59. Ceccarelli, M. 2012. “Enkis Reise nach Nippur.” Pages 89–­118 in Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger. OBO 256. Edited by C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin. Fribourg and Göttingen. ———. 2016. Enki und Ninmaḫ. ORA 16.Tübingen. Charpin, D. 1986. Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi. Geneva and Paris. ———. 1992. “Les malheurs d’un scribe, ou: De l’inutilité du sumérien loin de Nippur.” Pages 7–­27 in Nippur at the Centennial. RAI 35. Edited by M. de Jong Ellis. Philadelphia. ———. 2008. “Chroniques bibliographiques 11. Se faire un nom: La louange du roi, la divinisation royale et la quête de l’immortalité en Mésopotamie.” Revue d’assyriologie 102:149–­80. ———. 2017. La vie méconnue des temples mésopotamiens. Paris. Çığ, M., H. Kızılyay, and F. R. Kraus. 1952. Eski Babil zamanına ait Nippur hukukî vesikaları. Altbabylonische Rechtsurkunden aus Nippur. Istanbul. Civil, M. 1972. “The Anzu-­Bird and Scribal Whimsies.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 92:271. ———. 1974–­77. “Enlil and Namzitarra.” Archiv für Orientforschung 25:65–­71. ———. 1983. “Enlil and Ninlil: The Marriage of Sud.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103:43–­66. ———. 1994. The Farmer’s Instructions: A Sumerian Agricultural Manual. Barcelona. ———. 2000 (2005). “Modal Prefixes.” Acta Sumerologica 22:29–­42. ———. 2002.“The Forerunners of Marû and Ḫamṭu in Old Babylonian.” Pages 63–­71 in Riches Hidden in Secret Places:Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen. Edited by T. Abusch. Winona Lake.

References

———. 2008. The Early Dynastic Practical Vocabulary A (Archaic Har-­ra A). ARES IV. Rome. Clayden, T., and B. Schneider. 2015. “Assurbanipal and the Ziggurat at Nippur.” Kaskal 12:349–­82. Cohen, M. E. 1975.“The Incantation-­Hymn: Incantation or Hymn?” Journal of the American Oriental Society 95:592–­611. ———. 1975–­76. “ur​.sag​.me​.šár​.ur4. A Širnamšubba of Ninurta.” Welt des Orients 8:22–­36. ———. 2017. New Treasures of Sumerian Literature: “When the Moon Fell from the Sky” and Other Works. Bethesda. Cohen, Y. 2013. Wisdom from the Late Bronze Age. SBL/WAW 29. Atlanta. Cooper, J. S. 1978. The Return of Ninurta to Nippur: an-­gim dím-­ma. AnOr 52. Rome. ———. 2017. “‘Enlil and Namzitara’ Reconsidered.” Pages 37–­53 in The First Ninety Years: A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil. SANER 12. Edited by L. Feliu, F. Karahashi, and G. Rubio. Boston and Berlin. Couto-­Ferreira, M. E. 2017. “‘Let Me Be Your Canal’: Some Thoughts on Agricultural Landscape and Female Bodies in Sumero-­Akkadian Sources.” Pages 54–­69 in The First Ninety Years: A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil. SANER 12. Edited by L. Feliu, F. Karahashi, and G. Rubio. Boston and Berlin. Crisostomo, C. J. 2015.“Writing Sumerian, Creating Texts: Reflections on Text-­Building Practices in Old Babylonian Schools.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 15:121–­42. Cunningham, G. 1997. “Deliver Me from Evil”: Mesopotamian Incantations 2500–­1500 BC. StPohl SM 17. Rome. Delnero, P. 2012. The Textual Criticism of Sumerian Literature. JCS SS 3. Boston. ———. 2015.“The Materiality and Function of the Sumerian Liturgical Corpus.” Pages 87–­118 in Texts and Contexts: The Circulation and Transmission of Cuneiform Texts in Social Space. SANER 9. Edited by P. Delnero and J. Lauinger. Boston. Dupret, M.-­A. 1974. “Hymne au dieu Numušda avec prière en faveur de Sîniqīšam de Larsa.” Orientalia 43:327–­43.

81

Edzard, D. O. 2004. “Altbabylonische Literatur und Religion.” Pages 481–­640 in Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit. OBO 160/4. Edited by D. Charpin, D. O. Edzard, and M. Stol. Freiburg and Göttingen. Evans, J. M. 2012. The Lives of Sumerian Sculpture: An Archaeology of the Early Dynastic Temple. Cambridge. Falkenstein, A. 1952–­53. “Zu einem syllabisch geschriebenen Emesal-­Text.” Archiv für Orientforschung 16:60–­64. ———. 1959. Sumerische Götterlieder: I. Teil. Heidelberg. ———. 1964. “Sumerische religiöse Texte.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 56:44–­129. Falkenstein, A., and W. von Soden. 1953. Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. Zurich. Falkowitz, R. S. 1983–­84. “Round Old Babylonian School Tablets from Nippur.” Archiv für Orientforschung 29–­30:18–­45. Farber, G. 2015. “Das Lied von der Hacke.” Pages 69–­76 in Erzählungen aus dem Land Sumer. Edited by K.Volk. Wiesbaden. Farber, W. 2003. “Singing an eršemma for the Damaged Statue of a God.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 93:208–­13. ———. 2014. Lamaštu: An Edition of the Canonical Series of Lamaštu Incantations and Rituals and Related Texts from the Second and First Millennia B.C. Winona Lake. Ferrara, A. J. 1973. Nanna-­Suen’s Journey to Nippur. StPohl SM 2. Rome. ———. 1995. “Topoi and Stock-­Strophes in Sumerian Literary Tradition.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 54:81–­117. Finkel, I. L. 1980. “The Crescent Fertile.” Archiv für Orientforschung 27:37–­52. Flückiger-­Hawker, E. 1999. Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. OBO 166. Freiburg and Göttingen. Focke, K. 1998. “Die Göttin Nin-­imma.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 88:196–­224. ———. 1999–­2000. “Die Göttin Ninimma.” Archiv für Orientforschung 46/47:92–­110. ———. 2015. Der Garten in neusumerischer Zeit. AOAT 53. Münster.

82

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Frahm, E. 2011. Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. GMTR 5. Münster. Frahm, E., and E. E. Payne. 2003–­4. “Šuruppak Under Rīmuš: A Rediscovered Inscription.” Archiv für Orientforschung 50:50–­55. Gabbay, U. 2014. Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods: Sumerian Emesal Prayers of the First Millennium BC. Heidelberger Emesal-­Studien 1. Wiesbaden. ———. 2015. The Eršema Prayers of the First Millennium BC. Heidelberger Emesal-­Studien 2. Wiesbaden. Gadotti, A. 2010.“A Woman Most Fair: Investigating the Message of Ludingira to His Mother.” Pages 115–­29 in Why Should Someone Who Knows Something Conceal It? Cuneiform Studies in Honor of David I. Owen. Edited by A. Kleinerman and J. M. Sasson. Bethesda. Gadotti, A., and A. Kleinerman. 2015. “A New Text About Nin-­Abul.” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2015/7:7–­11. ———. 2017.“‘The Rules of the School.’” Journal of the American Oriental Society 137:89–­116. Geller, M. J. 1985. Forerunners to Udug-­ḫul. Sumerian Exorcistic Incantations. FAOS 12. Stuttgart. George, A. R. 1992. Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40. Leuven. ———. 1993. House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. MesCiv. 5. Winona Lake. ———. 1999. “E-Sangil and E-Temen-­Anki, the Archetypal Cult-­Centre.” Pages 67–­86 in Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte,Wiege früher Gelehrsamkeit, Mythos in der Moderne. CDOG 2. Edited by J. Renger. Saarbrücken. ———. 2007. “The Civilizing of Ea-­Enkidu: An Unusual Tablet of the Babylonian Gilgameš-­ Epic.” Revue d’assyriologie 101:59–­80. ———. 2009. Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 10. Bethesda. ———. 2013. Babylonian Divinatory Texts Chiefly in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 18. Bethesda. ———. 2016. Mesopotamian Incantations and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 32. Bethesda. Gibson, McG. 1978. “Nippur 1975, A Summary Report.” Sumer 34:114–­21. Goddeeris, A. 2016. The Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts in the Hilprecht Collection Jena. TMH 10. Wiesbaden.

Goodnick Westenholz, J. G. 1997. “Nanaya: Lady of Mystery.” Pages 57–­84 in Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. CM 7. Edited by I. L. Finkel and M. J. Geller. Groningen. Goodnick Westenholz, J. G., and A. Westenholz. 2006. Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collections of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem. CM 33. Leiden. Groneberg, B. 1990. “La culture matérielle à Mari, II: Der nūbalum und seine Objekte.” Mari annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 6:161–­80. Guichard, M. 2017.“Le trône et le ‘char’ processionnel de Dagan: De la philologie à l’histoire de l’art.” Semitica 59:5–­56. Hallo,W.  H. 1956. “Zāriqum.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 15:220–­25. ———. 2010. The World’s Oldest Literature: Studies in Sumerian Belles-­Lettres. CHANE 35. Leiden. Heimpel, W. 1981. “The Nanshe Hymn.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33:65–­139. Heinrich, E. 1982. Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im alten Mesopotamien. Berlin. Herrmann, S. 2010. Vogel und Fisch—­Ein sumerisches Rangstreitgespräch. Hamburg. Horsnell, M. J. A. 1999. The Year-­Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Hamilton. Huber, F. 2001. “La Correspondance Royale d’Ur, un corpus apocryphe.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 91:169–­206. Huber Vulliet, F. 2010. “Un festival Nippurite à l’époque paléobabylonienne.” Pages 125–­50 in Your Praise Is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends. Edited by H. D. Baker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. London. Huh, S. K. 2008. Studien zur Region Lagaš. Von der Ubaid-­bis zur altbabylonischen Zeit. AOAT 345. Münster. Hundley, M. B. 2013. Gods in Dwellings: Temples and Divine Presence in the Ancient Near East. Atlanta. Huot, J. L. 2013. L’E.babbar de Larsa aux IIe et Ier millénaires (Fouilles de 1974 à 1985). BAH 205. Beirut. Jacobsen, T. 1973. “Notes on Nintur.” Orientalia 42:274–­98. ———. 1976. The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven and London.

References

———. 1990. “Notes on Ekur.” Eretz-­Israel 21:40*–­47*. Janda, M. 2014. Purpurnes Meer: Sprache und Kultur der homerischen Welt. IBK NF 7. Innsbruck. Janko, R. 2016. “Going Beyond Multitexts: The Archetype of the Orphic Gold Leaves.” Classical Quarterly 66:100–­127. Jaques, M. 2004. “Inanna et Ebiḫ: Nouveaux textes et remarques sur le vocabulaire du combat et de la victoire.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 94:202–­25. ———. 2006. Le vocabulaire des sentiments dans les textes sumériens. AOAT 332. Münster. ———. 2014. “Two Lullabies.” Pages 61–­72 in He Has Opened Nisaba’s House of Learning. Studies in Honor of Åke Waldemar Sjöberg on the Occasion of His 89th Birthday on August 1st 2013. CM 46. Edited by L. Sassmannshausen. Leiden. Jiménez, E. 2014. “New Fragments of Gilgameš and Other Literary Texts from Kuyunjik.” Iraq 76:99–­121. Johnson, J. C., and M. J. Geller. 2015. The Class Reunion—­an Annotated Translation and Commentary of the Sumerian Dialogue. Two Scribes. CM 47. Leiden. Jursa, M. 2001–­2. “Göttliche Gärtner? Eine bemerkenswerte Liste.” Archiv für Orientforschung 48/49:76–­89. Kämmerer,T.  R. 1998. šimâ milka. Induktion und Reception der mittelbabylonischen Dichtung von Ugarit, Emār und Tell el-­ʽAmārna. AOAT 251. Münster. Klein, J. 1976. “Šulgi and Gilgameš: Two Brother-­ Peers (Šulgi O).” Pages 271–­92 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT 25. Edited by B. L. Eichler. Neukirchen-­Vluyn. ———. 1981. Three Šulgi Hymns: Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King Šulgi of Ur. Ramat-­Gan. ———. 1998. “The Sweet Chant of the Churn: A Revised Edition of Išmedagan J.” Pages 205–­22 in dubsar anta-­men: Studien zur Altorientalistik: Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zur Vollen­dung seines 70. Lebensjahres. AOAT 253. Edited by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. Münster. ———. 2008. “The Brockmon Collection Duplicate of the Sumerian King List.” Pages 76–­91 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Edited by P. Michalowski. Boston.

83

———. 2017. “The Hymn to the Ekur: Its Literary Structure and Cultic Background.” Pages 172–­88 in The First Ninety Years: A Sumerian Celebration in Honor of Miguel Civil. SANER 12. Edited by L. Feliu, F. Karahashi, and G. Rubio. Boston and Berlin. Kleinerman, A. 2011. Education in Early 2nd Millennium BC Babylonia:The Sumerian Epistolary Miscellany. CM 42. Leiden. Köcher, F. 1953. “Der babylonische Göttertypentext.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 1:57–­107. Kramer, S. N. 1940. “Langdon’s Historical and Religious Texts from the Temple Library of Nippur—­Additions and Corrections.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 60:234–­57. ———. 1957. “Hymn to the Ekur.” Pages 95–­102 in Scritti in onore di Giuseppe Furlani. RSO 32. Rome. ———. 1982. “Lisin, the Weeping Mother Goddess: A New Sumerian Lament.” Pages 133–­44 in Zikir Šumim: Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus. Edited by G. van Driel et al. Leiden. ———. 1985. “BM 23631: Bread for Enlil, Sex for Inanna.” Orientalia 54:117–­32. ———. 1988.“The Temple in Sumerian Literature.” Pages 1–­16 in Temple in Society. Edited by M. V. Fox. Winona Lake. Kraus, F. R. 1958. Ein Edikt des Königs Ammi-­Ṣaduqa von Babylon. Leiden. Krebernik, M. 1998. “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ.” Pages 237–­427 in Mesopotamien. Späturuk-­Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Edited by J. Bauer, R. K. Englund, and M. Krebernik. Freiburg and Göttingen. Krecher, J. 1966. Sumerische Kultlyrik. Wiesbaden. ———. 1970. Review of UET VI/2. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 60:199–­205. ———. 1995. “Die marû-­Formen des sumerischen Verbums.” Pages 141–­200 in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament: Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden. AOAT 240. Edited by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. Münster. Labat, R. 1988. Manuel d’épigraphie akkadienne (signes, syllabaire, idéogrammes). Revu et augmenté par Florence Malbran-­Labat. Paris.

84

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Lambert, W.  G. 1998. “Technical Terminology for Creation in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 189–­93 in Intellectual Life of the Ancient Near East. RAI 43. Edited by J. Prosecký. Prague. ———. 2013. Babylonian Creation Myths. MesCiv. 16. Winona Lake. Lämmerhirt, K. 2010. Wahrheit und Trug. Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Begriffsgeschichte. AOAT 348. Münster. ———. 2012. Die sumerische Königshymne Šulgi F. TMH 9. Wiesbaden. Leemans, W.  F. 1952. Ishtar of Lagaba and Her Dress. Leiden. Lisman, J. W. 2013. Cosmogony, Theogony and Anthropogony in Sumerian Texts. AOAT 409. Münster. Löhnert, A. 2009. “Wie die Sonne tritt heraus!” Eine Klage zum Auszug Enlils mit einer Untersuchung zu Komposition und Tradition sumerischer Klagelieder in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 365. Münster. ———. 2013. “Das Bild des Tempels in der sumerischen Literatur.” Pages 263–­82 in Tempel im Alten Orient. CDOG 7. Edited by K. Kaniuth et al. Wiesbaden. Ludwig, M.-­C. 1990. Untersuchungen zu den Hymnen des Išme-­Dagan von Isin. Santag 2. Wiesbaden. ———. 2006. “‘Enki in Nippur’: Ein bislang unidentifiziertes, mythologisches Fragment.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 58:27–­38. ———. 2009. Literarische Texte aus Ur. Kollationen und Kommentare zu UET 6/1–­2. UAVA 9. Berlin and New York. ———. 2012. “BM 96740—­eine altbabylonische Liste von Textanfängen.” Pages 201–­13 in Alt­ orientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger. OBO 256. Edited by C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin. Fribourg and Göttingen. ———. 2015. Review of Lämmerhirt (2012). Archiv für Orientforschung 53:254–­69. Ludwig, M.-­C., and C. Metcalf. 2017. “The Song of Innana and Išme-­Dagan: An Edition of BM 23820+23831.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 117:1–­21. Maggio, M. 2012. L’ornementation des dieux à l’époque paléo-­babylonienne. Étude du matériel ayant appartenu aux dieux d’après des documents de la pratique. AOAT 393. Münster. Marchesi, G. 2000. “ì-a lullumx ù-luḫ-­ḫa su3-­su3. On the Incipit of the Sumerian Poem Gilgameš and

Ḫuwawa B.” Pages 673–­84 in Studi sul vicino oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Edited by S. Graziani. Naples. ———. 2002. “On the Divine Name dBA.Ú.” Orientalia 71:161–­72. ———. 2004. “Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual Data.” Orientalia 73:153–­97. Marchesi, G., and N. Marchetti. 2011. Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia. MesCiv. 14. Winona Lake. Martin, H. P. 1983. “Settlement Patterns at Shuruppak.” Iraq 45:24–­31. ———. 1988. Fara: A Reconstruction of the Ancient Mesopotamian City of Shuruppak. Birmingham. Maul, S. M. 1988. “Herzberuhigungsklagen.” Die sumerisch-­akkadischen Eršaḫunga-­Gebete.Wiesbaden. McCown, D. E., and R. C. Haines. 1967. Nippur I: Temple of Enlil, Scribal Quarter, and Soundings. OIP 78. Chicago. Metcalf, C. 2010. “Six Ur III Tablets from the Hulin Collection in Oxford.” Cuneiform Digital Library Bulletin 2010:1 (online). ———. 2015. The Gods Rich in Praise: Early Greek and Mesopotamian Religious Poetry. Oxford. Meyer-­Laurin,V. 2012. “Zum Alter des sumerischen Adverbiativs.” Pages 215–­41 in Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger. OBO 256. Edited by C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin. Fribourg and Göttingen. Michalowski, P. 1980.“A New Sumerian ‘Catalogue’ from Nippur.” Oriens antiquus 19:265–­68. ———. 2005. “Literary Works from the Court of King Ishbi-­Erra of Isin.” Pages 199–­212 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing”: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Edited by Y. Sefati et al. Bethesda. ———. 2006. “The Strange History of Tumal.” Pages 145–­65 in Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip (H. L. J. Vanstiphout). CM 35. Edited by P. Michalowski and N.Veldhuis. Leiden. ———. 2011. The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur. MesCiv. 15. Winona Lake. ———. 2013. “From the Collections of an Old Babylonian Literary Connoisseur.” Revue d’assyriologie 107:15–­22.

References

Mittermayer, C. 2006. Altbabylonische Zeichenliste der sumerisch-­literarischen Texte. Unter Mitarbeit von Pascal Attinger. OBO Sonderband. Fribourg and Göttingen. ———. 2009. Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata. OBO 239. Freiburg and Göttingen. ———. 2014. “mušen ku6: Viel Vogel und wenig Fisch in MS 2110/1.” Altorientalische Forschungen 41:201–­22. Molina, M. 1989.“Las piedras preciosas en los textos económicos de Ur de la tercera dinastía.” Aula Orientalis 7:81–­93. Oelsner, J. 2003.“Aus den sumerischen literarischen Texten der Hilprecht-­Sammlung Jena: Der Text der Tummal-­Chronik.” Pages 209–­24 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. OBC 14. Edited by W. Sallaberger, K.Volk, and A. Zgoll. Wiesbaden. ———. 2014. “Bemerkungen zum Edubba’a in Uruk.” Pages 423–­36 in Studies in Sumerian Language and Literature: Festschrift für Joachim Krecher. Babel und Bibel 8. Edited by N. Koslova, E.Vizirova, and G. Zólyomi. Winona Lake. Oelsner, J., and P. Stein. 2011. “Der Stadtplan von Nippur (HS 197).” Archiv für Orientforschung 52:104–­16. Paoletti, P. 2012. Der König und sein Kreis. Das staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur. BPOA 10. Madrid. ———. 2013. “The Manufacture of a Statue of Making Nanaja: Mesopotamian Jewellery-­ Techniques at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.” Pages 333–­45 in From the 21st Century B.C. to the 21st Century A.D. Proceedings of the International Conference on Neo-­Sumerian Studies. Edited by S. J. Garfinkle and M. Molina. Winona Lake. Peterson, J. 2009. Godlists from Old Babylonian Nippur in the University Museum, Philadelphia. AOAT 362. Münster. ———. 2010a. “Sumerian Literary Fragments in the University Museum, Philadelphia II/III.” Ugarit-­Forschungen 42:535–­72, 573–­612. ———. 2010b. “The Deified Orchard in the Onomasticon of OB Nippur?” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2010/79:80–­82. ———. 2011. Sumerian Literary Fragments in the University Museum, Philadelphia. BPOA 9. Madrid.

85

———. 2015a. “An Archive of Simple Ledgers Featuring the e2 um-­mi-­a(k), ‘House of the Master,’ at Old Babylonian Nippur: The Daily Rosters of a Scribal School?” Aula Orientalis 33:79–­113. ———. 2015b. “An Adab Composition of Nergal/ Meslamtaea at Lagaš and Ĝirsu for Šulgi.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 67:45–­63. ———. 2016a.“UET 6/1, 74, the Hymnic Introduction of a Sumerian Letter-­Prayer to Ninšubur.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 106:33–­41. ———. 2016b. “The Literary Corpus of the Old Babylonian Larsa Dynasties.” Studia Mesopotamica 3:125–­213. ———. 2017. “A Fragmentary Attestation of the lama of King Ur-­Ninurta of Isin.” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2017/61:115–­16. Peust, C. 2014. “Kollationen zu den Gudea-­ Inschriften.” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2014/62:97–­100. Pfitzner, J. 2017. “Von Bergeseln und GöttersilKomposita und Ähnliches.” Wieber: Diri-­ ner Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 107:261–­76. Polonsky, J. 2006. “The Mesopotamian Conceptualization of Birth and the Determination of Destiny at Sunrise.” Pages 297–­311 in If a Man Builds a Joyful House: Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty. CM 31. Edited by A. K. Guinan et al. Leiden. Pomponio, F. 2001. “Deities in the Fara Administrative Tablets.” Pages 103–­14 in The Fara Tablets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Edited by H. P. Martin et al. Bethesda. Pongratz-­Leisten, B. 2015. “Imperial Allegories: Divine Agency and Monstrous Bodies in Mesopotamia’s Body Description Texts.” Pages 119–­41 in The Materiality of Divine Agency. SANER 8. Edited by B. Pongratz-­Leisten and K. Sonik. Boston and Berlin. Pongratz-­Leisten, B., and K. Sonik. 2015. “Between Cognition and Culture: Theorizing the Materiality of Divine Agency in Cross-­Cultural Perspective.” Pages 3–­69 in The Materiality of Divine Agency. SANER 8. Edited by B. Pongratz-­ Leisten and K. Sonik. Boston and Berlin.

86

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Reisman, D. D. 1970. “Two Neo-­Sumerian Royal Hymns.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. ———. 1976. “A ‘Royal’ Hymn of Išbi-­Erra to the Goddess Nisaba.” Pages 357–­65 in Kramer Anniversary Volume: Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT 25. Edited by B. L. Eichler. Neukirchen-­Vluyn. Renger, J. 1967. “Götternamen in der altbabylonischen Zeit.” Pages 137–­71 in Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient: Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966. Wiesbaden. Richardson, S. 2008. “Ningirsu Returns to His Plow: Lagaš and Girsu Take Leave of Ur.” Pages 153–­57 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Edited by P. Michalowski. Boston. Richter, T. 2004. Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd-­und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit. AOAT 257. Münster. Römer, W. H. Ph. 1965. Sumerische “Königshymnen” der Isin-­Zeit. Leiden. ———. 1992. “Beiträge zum Lexikon des Sumerischen (3).” Bibliotheca Orientalis 49:317–­29. ———. 2001. Hymnen und Klagelieder in sumerischer Sprache. AOAT 276. Münster. ———. 2004. Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur. AOAT 309. Münster. Rubio, G. 2000 (2005). “On the Orthography of the Sumerian Literary Texts from the Ur III Period.” Acta Sumerologica 22:203–­25. ———. 2010.“Reading Sumerian Names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 62:29–­43. ———. 2012. “Reading Sumerian Names, II: Gilgameš.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64:3–­16. Sallaberger,W. 1993. Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-­ Zeit. UAVA 7. Berlin and New York. ———. 1996. “Zu einigen Jahresdaten Enlil-­bānis von Isin.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 86:177–­91. ———. 1997. “Nippur als religiöses Zentrum Mesopotamiens im historischen Wandel.” Pages 147–­68 in Die Orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch. CDOG 1. Edited by G.Wilhelm. Saarbrücken. ———. 1999. “Ur III-­Zeit.” Pages 121–­390 in Mesopotamien: Akkade-­Zeit und Ur III-­Zeit. OBO

160/3. Edited by W. Sallaberger and A. Westenholz. Fribourg and Göttingen. ———. 2008. Das Gilgamesch-­Epos: Mythos, Werk und Tradition. Munich. ———. 2012.“Bierbrauen in Versen: Eine neue Edition und Interpretation der Ninkasi-­Hymne.” Pages 291–­328 in Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger. OBO 256. Edited by C. Mittermayer and S. Ecklin. Fribourg and Göttingen. Samet, N. 2014. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur. MesCiv. 18. Winona Lake. Schneider, B. 2017. “Some Remarks on the Archaeology of the Ekur of Nippur during Post-­Kassite Times.” Pages 409–­20 in Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East. RAI 60. Edited by O. Drewnowska and M. Sandowicz. Winona Lake. Schretter, M. K. 1990. Emesal-­Studien: Sprach-­ und li­teraturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen. Innsbruck. Schuster-­Brandis, A. 2008. Steine als Schutz-­und Heil­mittel. Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr. AOAT 46. Münster. Sefati,Y. 1987.“The Reading of LÚxŠEŠŠIG+GAM in the Dumuzi-­Inana Texts.” Revue d’assyriologie 81:159–­60. Seidl, U. 2013. “Bildschmuck an mesopotamischen Tempeln des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr.” Pages 467–­88 in Tempel im Alten Orient. CDOG 7. Edited by K. Kaniuth et al. Wiesbaden. Selz, G. 1995. Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš. Occ. Publ. S. N. Kramer Fund 13. Philadelphia. ———. 1997. “TÙN = tùn bei Gudea.” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 1997/36:32–­34. ———. 2011. “Zu einer frühdynastischen Bezeichnung von ‘Unfreien.’” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2011/70:83–­85. Shehata, D. 2009. Musiker und ihr vokales Repertoire. Untersuchungen zu Inhalt und Organisation von Musikerberufen und Liedgattungen in altbabylonischer Zeit. GBAO 3. Göttingen. Shibata, D. 2009. “An Old Babylonian Manuscript of the Weidner God-­List from Tell Taban.” Iraq 71:33–­42. Sigrist, M. 1990. Larsa Year Names. Berrien Springs.

References

Sigrist, M., and J. Goodnick Westenholz. 2008.“The Love Poem of Rīm-­Sîn and Nanaya.” Pages 667–­704 in Birkat Shalom: Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and Postbiblical Judaism Presented to Shalom M. Paul. Edited by C. Cohen et al. Winona Lake. Sjöberg, Å. W. 1960. Der Mondgott Nanna-­Suen in der sumerischen Überlieferung. Stockholm. ———. 1961. “Ein Selbstpreis des Königs Hammurabi von Babylon.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 54:51–­70. ———. 1972. “Prayers for King Ḫammurabi of Babylon.” Pages 58–­71 in Ex Orbe Religionum. Studia Geo Widengren: Pars prior. Edited by J. Bergman et al. Leiden. ———. 1973a. “Two Prayers for King Samsuiluna of Babylon.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 93:544–­47. ———. 1973b.“Nungal in the Ekur.” Archiv für Orientforschung 24:19–­46. ———. 1974. “A hymn to dLama-­sa6-­ga.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 26:158–­77. ———. 1974–­75.“Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts I.” Orientalia Suecana 23–­24:159–­81. ———. 1975. “Der Examenstext A.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 64:137–­76. ———. 1993. “CBS 11319+: An Old Babylonian Schooltext from Nippur.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 83:1–­21. ———. 1996.“UET 7 no. 93:A Lexical Text or Commentary?” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 86:220–­37. ———. 1998.“Sumerian Texts and Fragments in the University of Pennsylvania Museum Related to Rulers of Isin.” Pages 344–­78 in dubsar anta-­men: Studien zur Altorientalistik: Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer. AOAT 253. Edited by M. Dietrich and O. Loretz. Münster. Sjöberg, Å. W., and E. Bergmann. 1969. The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns.TCS 3. Locust Valley. Spycket, A. 1960. “La déesse Lama.” Revue d’assyriologie 54:73–­84. ———. 1981. La statuaire du proche-­orient antique. Leiden. Starzmann, M. T. 2007. Archäologie des Raumes: Soziale Praxis und kulturelle Bedeutung am Beispiel der Wohnarchitektur von Fara.Vienna.

87

Steible, H. 1991. Die neusumerischen Bau-­und Weihinschriften. FAOS 9. Stuttgart. Steible, H., and F. Yıldız. 2015. Wirtschaftstexte aus Fara II. WVDOG 132. Wiesbaden. Steinkeller, P. 2003. “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List.” Pages 266–­92 in Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. OBC 14. Edited by W. Sallaberger, K.Volk and A. Zgoll. Wiesbaden. ———. 2005. “The Priestess Égi-­Zi and Related Matters.” Pages 301–­10 in “An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein. Edited by Y. Sefati et al. Bethesda. ———. 2013a. “How Did Šulgi and Išbi-­ Erra Ascend to Heaven?” Pages 459–­78 in Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature: Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist. Edited by D. S. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer. Winona Lake. ———. 2013b. “More on the Nature and History of the Goddess Nanaya.” Nouvelles assyriologiques brèves et utilitaires 2013/65:107–­10. ———. 2017. History, Texts and Art in Early Babylonia:Three Essays. SANER 15. Boston and Berlin. Streck, M. P., and N. Wasserman. 2012. “More Light on Nanāya.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 102:183–­201. Such-­Gutiérrez, M. 2003. Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend. Rome. Suter, C. 1997. “Gudeas vermeintliche Segnungen des Eninnu.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 87:1–­10. Tanret, M. 2002. Per aspera ad astra: L’apprentissage du cunéiforme à Sippar-­Amnānum pendant la période paléobabylonienne tardive. MHET I/2. Ghent. ———. 2011. “Learned, Rich, Famous, and Unhappy: Ur-­Utu of Sippar.” Pages 270–­87 in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Edited by K. Radner and E. Robson. Oxford. Taylor, J. 2011. “Tablets as Artefacts, Scribes as Artisans.” Pages 5–­31 in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Edited by K. Radner and E. Robson. Oxford. Tinney, S. 1995. “On the Poetry for King Išme-­ Dagan.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 90:5–­26. ———. 1996. The Nippur Lament. Philadelphia.

88

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

———. 1999. “Ur-­Namma the Canal-­Digger: Context, Continuity and Change in Sumerian Literature.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51:31–­54. ———. 2011. “Tablets of Schools and Scholars: A Portrait of the Old Babylonian Corpus.” Pages 577–­96 in The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture. Edited by K. Radner and E. Robson, Oxford. ———. 2018.“‘Dumuzi’s Dream’ Revisited.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 77:85–­89. Tohru, O. 2008. “Divine Statues in the Ur III Kingdom and Their ‘ka du8-­ha’ Ceremony.” Pages 217–­22 in On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Edited by P. Michalowski. Boston. van der Toorn, K. 1996. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Leiden. van Dijk, J. J. A. 1960. Sumerische Götterlieder: II. Teil. Heidelberg. ———. 1975. “Incantations accompagnant la naissance de l’homme.” Orientalia 44:52–­79. van Ess, M. 2013. “Babylonische Tempel zwischen Ur III-­und neubabylonischer Zeit.” Pages 59–­84 in Tempel im Alten Orient. CDOG 7. Edited by K. Kaniuth et al. Wiesbaden. Veldhuis, N. 1997. Elementary Education at Nippur: The Lists of Trees and Wooden Objects. Groningen. ———. 1998. Review of Cunningham (1997). Bibliotheca Orientalis 55:850–­52. ———. 2004. Religion, Literature, and Scholarship:The Sumerian Composition “Nanše and the Birds.” CM 22. Leiden and Boston. ———. 2014. History of the Cuneiform Lexical Tradition. GMTR 6. Münster. Volk, K. 1995. Inanna und Šukaletuda. Zur historisch-­ politischen Deutung eines sumerischen Literatur­ werkes. Santag 3. Wiesbaden. Waetzoldt, H. 2001. Wirtschafts-­ und Verwaltungstexte aus Ebla. Archiv L. 2769. MVSum. 7. Rome. Wagensonner, K. 2009. “What Is the Matter with the numun-­Plant? BM 120011 Reconsidered.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 99:355–­76. Walker, C., and M. Dick. 2001. The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia.The Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual. SAALT 1. Helsinki.

Wasserman, N. 2015. “On the Author of the Epic of Zimrī-­Līm and Its Literary Context.” Archiv für Orientforschung 53:52–­56. †West, M. L. 2017. “Editing the Odyssey.” Pages 13–­28 in The Winnowing Oar—­New Perspectives in Homeric Studies. Edited by C. Tsagalis and A. Markantonatos. Berlin and Boston. Wilcke, C. 1969. Das Lugalbandaepos. Wiesbaden. ———. 1975.“Formale Gesichtspunkte in der sumerischen Literatur.” Pages 205–­316 in Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday. AS 20. Edited by S. J. Lieberman. Chicago and London. ———. 1976. Kollationen zu den sumerischen literarischen Texten aus Nippur in der Hilprecht-­ Sammlung Jena. Berlin. ———. 2006. “Die Hymne auf das Heiligtum Keš. Zu Struktur und ‘Gattung’ einer altsumerischen Dichtung und zu ihrer Literaturtheorie.” Pages 201–­37 in Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip (H. L. J. Vanstiphout). CM 35. Edited by P. Michalowski and N.Veldhuis. Leiden. ———. 2012. The Sumerian Poem Enmerkar and En-­suḫkeš-­ana: Epic, Play, Or? Stage Craft at the Turn from the Third to the Second Millennium B.C. New Haven. Wilson, K. L. 2012. Bismaya: Recovering the Lost City of Adab. OIP 138. Chicago. Winter, I. J. 2000.“The Eyes Have It:Votive Statuary, Gilgamesh’s Axe, and Cathected Viewing in the Ancient Near East.” Pages 22–­44 in Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance. Edited by R. S. Nelson. Cambridge. Wiseman, D. J. 1960. “The Goddess Lama at Ur.” Iraq 22:166–­71. Witzel, M. 1935. “Zwei Texte aus dem Gebiete der ‘Tammuz’-­Literatur.” Pages 339–­49 in Miscellanea orientalia dedicata Antonio Deimel. AnOr 12. Rome. Woolley, L., and M. Mallowan. 1976. Ur Excavations: Volume VII. The Old Babylonian Period. London. Worthington, M. 2012. Principles of Akkadian Textual Criticism. SANER 1. Boston and Berlin. Zawadzki, S. 2006–­13. Garments of the Gods: Studies on the Textile Industry and the Pantheon of Sippar

References

According to the Texts from the Ebabbar Archive. OBO 218, 260. Fribourg and Göttingen. Zettler, R. L. 1990. “Metalworkers in the Economy of Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium B.C.” Pages 85–­88 in Economy and Settlement in the Near East: Analyses of Ancient Sites and Materials. Edited by N. F. Miller. Philadelphia. Zettler, R. L., and W. Sallaberger. 2011. “Inana’s Festival at Nippur Under the Third Dynasty of Ur.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 101:1–­71.

89

Zgoll, A. 2006. Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien. Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3.–­1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. als Horizont einer Kulturge­ schichte des Träumens. AOAT 333. Münster. Zólyomi, G. 2010. “Hymns to Ninisina and Nergal on the Tablets Ash 1911.235 and Ni 9672.” Pages 413–­28 in Your Praise Is Sweet: A Memorial Volume for Jeremy Black from Students, Colleagues and Friends. Edited by H. D. Baker, E. Robson, and G. Zólyomi. London.

Index DIVINE NAMES

Lamma(-­saga)  1.38, 2.1, 2.6, 2.8, 2.13, 2.18, 2.29, 2.36, 14.11 Lisin  6.4, 6.18, 7.1, 7.6, 7.29–­30 Mutinana  17.7 Nanaya  14.2, 14.5, 14.11, 14.13, 14.r5′, 14.r7′–­8′ Nanna (see also Dilimbabbar, Suen)  4.51 Nanše  10.r4′ Nergal  11.r4′ Ningal  4.90 Ninḫursaĝa. See Gašanḫursaĝa Ninki  4.72 Ninimma  5.2, 5.12, 5.16, 5.21, 5.43, 5.45, 5.47, 5.49 Ninlil  1.35, 4.4, 4.38, 4.44, 8.14, 8.16, 8.24, 8.28, 9.3 Nin-­pa  1.17 Ninurta (see also Uta-­ulu)  4.48, 8.18, 8.22, 8.30 Nisaba  13.7′ Nudimmud (see also Enki)  4.77 Nunamnir (see also Enlil, Kurgal)  1.5, 1.34, 8.1 Sud  1.3, 1.10, 1.13, 1.31, 1.41 Suen (see also Dilimbabbar, Nanna)  4.26, 4.51, 8.2 Šagan  11.r7′ Turtur  17.2 Uta-­ulu (see also Ninurta)  5.38 Utu  2.1, 7.24, 9.2, 9.31

Ababa  5.49 An  1.28, 4.60/62, 13.2′ Anuna  1.7, 1.13, 4.56/58, 5.11, 5.17, 8.13, 9.16, 16.10 (rev.) Ara  4.94–­96 Aruru  5.5 Asalluḫi  1.15 Bau  2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.16 Dilimbabbar (see also Nanna, Suen)  4.52 Dumuzi  17.1 Enki (see also Nudimmud)  4.58, 4.62, 4.72, 4.75, 4.79 Enlil (see also Kurgal, Nunamnir)  1.2, 1.29, 1.32, 3.12, 4.3, 4.12, 4.37, 4.43, 4.46–­47, 4.50, 4.53–­55, 5.45, 8.14, 8.16, 8.24, 8.28, 12.o10′, 12.r3′, 15.3, 15.8 Ezinam  15.2/4 Gašanḫursaĝa  7.5, 7.23 Ĝeštinana. See Mutinana Ḫaia  12.r4′ Ḫendursaĝa  10.r10′ Inana (see also Innin)  16.o15′, 16.o18′, 16.r2 Innin  5.22, 14.r8′ Kurgal (see also Enlil, Nunamnir)  1.32, 1.41, 5.18, 5.34, 9.3

ROYAL NAMES

Bur-­Suen  1.18, 1.21 Gungunum  14.11, 14.r5′, 14.r8′ Išbi-­Erra  11.7, 12.o11′

Išme-­Dagan  8.32 Nanni  5.42, 5.43, 5.46, 5.48 Sin-­iddinam  9.21, 9.28, 9.31

91

92

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

CITIES AND TEMPLES

Abzu  4.66, 4.81–­82, 4.84, 4.87, 4.100 Adab  7.7 Bad-­Tibira  17.9 Ebabbar  9.23, 9.28 Edimgalana  1.49 Ekisiga  1.48 Ekur  1.6, 1.33, 3.16, 4.49, 5.15, 5.20, 5.35, 5.49, 8.15, 8.25 Eridu  4.57/59, 4.68–­71, 4.82, 5.8 Ešamaḫ  5.39 Ešumeša  5.38

Irikug  2.5 Isin  11.8 Keš  5.12 Ki-­ur  1.6, 5.13, 5.44 Kulaba  17.11 Larsa  9.22 Nippur  1.32, 5.18, 8.26, 8.31 Šuruppak  1.28, 1.30, 1.38, 1.43 Tummal  1.34 Uruk  17.8, 17.10

SELECTED WORDS DISCUSSED IN THE COMMENTARY

A. Sumerian Words a-­ar, “praise”  4.34/39 ad, “necklace”  2.21 araḫ4, “storehouse”  2.13 asaĝ2, “silo”  11.r5′–­6′ banda3, “intelligence”  5.47 bil2/3, “offspring”  3.5 dili, “together”  3.2 dilmun, “heavy”  3.10 dim3, “pillar”  2.31 dimma, “counsel”  2.15 du6.l, “to gather”  8.20 dub nam-­til3-­la, “tablet of life” (see also im nam-­til3-­la)  2.3–­4 gi dur ku5, “to cut the umbilical cord”  5.6 en-­du gal, “canal”  4.24 en3-­dur, “navel”  2.31 gu2-­bar, “headdress”  2.10 gu2 guru3ru, “to raise up the neck(?)”  9.4 gunu3, “to have many colors”  2.10 gurum, “pudenda”  2.34 ĝeš(3) du11, “to make love”  3.2 ĝiri3-­a ĝen, “to walk in the footsteps”  2.3–­4 ĝurgu1/2, “spine”  2.32 ḫenbur, “offspring”  3.5 ḫenzer, “little one”  7.3 ḫi-­li, “wig”  2.9

ḫur (+ neg.), “never”  1.26

im nam-­til3-­la, “tablet of life” (see also dub nam-­til3-­la)  2.3–­4 isimu2sar, “offspring”  3.5, 3.9 ka-­aš du11, “to decide”  3.11 ka šu du3/11, “to inform”  4.56/58 kinda2, “chief of assembly”  4.94/96 kissaa, “temple wall”  3.5 kiše4-­kiše4, “headband”  2.9 kišeb, “hand”  3.13 ku(-­)šal-­la, (meaning unknown)  2.36 kuš, “skin”  2.20 ĝeš lam, “almond”  6.3 ma-­sila3, “shoulder, embrace”  2.28 me-­ze2, “jaw”  2.17 nam(-­ĝeš)-­šub, “fateful utterance”  4.68–­71 na4 nir7, a stone  2.27 nu-­tar, “(the model text) is not divided (by a rubric)”  1.23–­24, 2.35 sa2, “to arrive(?)”  7.13–­16 sa2 si, “to design(?)”  2.35 saĝ-­e-­eš rig7/8, “to bestow”  1.20 saĝ šum2, “to hasten”  2.5 ser3-­gid2-­da, “extended song”  1.3 ser3 i-i, “to make the song emerge”  1.3 si3/12.g, “to be beautiful, to beautify”  2.9 su2-­un-­su2-­un-­ne, “radiant(?)”  2.21

Index

su3, “to fill”  1.43 suḫ10, “diadem”  2.9 ša-­ka-­ĝal2, “counselor”  1.41 ša3-­su3, “bare stomach, bareness”  2.31 na4 šal-­la, a stone  2.25 šu-­a gi4, “to deliver”  2.37 šu daĝal, “to increase”  2.12, 8.14 šu-­ur2 ge4-­na/gen7-­na  “tied(?)”  2.34 ti, “rib”  2.32 tu9/11.b, “to strike”  6.1–­2 tun3, “upper lip”  2.17 u2-­šal, “herbage”  2.33 ĝešu3-­suḫ5, “fir”  6.3

u6 du11, “to admire”  2.11 ul si12.g, “to flourish”  5.1 ušur, “neighbor”  6.7 za3-­gu-­la2, “shrine”  1.39 za(3)-­la2, an ornament  2.21 za3-­si/še, “side”  2.23 B. Akkadian Words kamkammatum, “ring”  2.25 muttatum, “headband”  2.9 nāmarum, a garment  2.11 pursāsum, “headdress”  2.10 ṣiprum, “decoration”  2.31

93

Cuneiform Texts / Plates I–­LIV

PLATE I

PLATE II

PLATE III

PLATE IV

PLATE V

PLATE VI

PLATE VII

PLATE VIII

PLATE IX

PLATE X

PLATE XI

PLATE XII

PLATE XIII

PLATE XIV

PLATE XV

PLATE XVI

PLATE XVII

PLATE XVIII

PLATE XIX

PLATE XX

PLATE XXI

PLATE XXII

PLATE XXIII

PLATE XXIV

PLATE XXV

PLATE XXVI

PLATE XXVII

PLATE XXVIII

PLATE XXIX

PLATE XXX

PLATE XXXI

PLATE XXXII

PLATE XXXIII

PLATE XXXIV

PLATE XXXV

PLATE XXXVI

PLATE XXXVII

PLATE XXXVIII

PLATE XXXIX

PLATE XL

PLATE XLI

PLATE XLII

PLATE XLIII

PLATE XLIV

PLATE XLV

PLATE XLVI

PLATE XLVII

PLATE XLVIII

PLATE XLIX

PLATE L

PLATE LI

PLATE LII

PLATE LIII

PLATE LIV

Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology (CUSAS) David I. Owen, Editor-­in-­Chief CUSAS 1 CUSAS 2 CUSAS 3

CUSAS 4 CUSAS 5 CUSAS 6 CUSAS 8 CUSAS 9 CUSAS 10 CUSAS 11 CUSAS 12 CUSAS 13 CUSAS 14 CUSAS 15

CUSAS 16 CUSAS 17 CUSAS 18 CUSAS 19

The Cornell University Archaic Tablets Salvatore Monaco. 2007. Pp. xiv + 370. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­0 0-­1 Sumerian Proverbs in the Schøyen Collection Bendt Alster. 2007. Pp. xvi + 156. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­01-­8 The Garšana Archives David I. Owen and Rudolf H. Mayr with the assistance of Alex Kleinerman. 2007. Pp. xii + 528. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­02-­5 Analytical Concordance to the Garšana Archives Alexandra Kleinerman and David I. Owen. 2009. Pp. x + 795. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­03-­2 Workers and Construction Work at Garšana Wolfgang Heimpel. 2009. Pp. xx + 394. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­04-­9 Garšana Studies David I. Owen, ed. 2011. Pp. xii + 457. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­05-­6 A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-­Abiešuḫ Karel van Lerberghe and Gabriella Voet. 2009. Pp. xviii + 276. Pl. 22. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­07-­9 Babylonian Tablets from the First Sealand Dynasty in the Schøyen Collection Stephanie Dalley. 2009. Pp. xviii + 320. Pl. 182. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­08-­7 Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection A. R. George. 2009. Pp. xx + 160. Pl. 62. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­09-­4 Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Tablets from Adab in the Cornell University Collections Giuseppe Visicato and Aage Westenholz. 2010. Pp. xxvi + 124. Pl. 94. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­10-­0 The Lexical Texts in the Schøyen Collection Miguel Civil. 2010. Pp. xxii + 308. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­11-­7 Classical Sargonic Tablets Chiefly from Adab in the Cornell University Collections Massimo Maiocchi. 2009. Pp. xxii + 334. Pl. 38. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­12-­4 Early Dynastic Cereal Texts in the Cornell University Collections Salvatore Monaco. 2011. Pp. xii + 289. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­39-­1 Cuneiform Texts in the Carl A. Kroch Library, Cornell University Alhena Gadotti and Marcel Sigrist with the assistance of Nicole M. Brisch and David I. Owen. 2011. Pp. xx + 214. Pl. 29. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­25-­4 Ur III Tablets from the Columbia University Libraries S. Garfinkle, H. Sauren, and M.Van De Mieroop. 2010. Pp. xxviii + 341. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­28-­5 Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection A. R. George, ed. 2011. Pp. xxxii + 312. Pl. 101. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­33-­9 Babylonian Divinatory Texts Chiefly in the Schøyen Collection A. R. George, 2013. Pp. xxviii + 441. Pl. 100. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­47-­6 Classical Sargonic Tablets Chiefly from Adab in the Cornell University Collections, II Massimo Maiocchi and Giuseppe Visicato. 2012. Pp. xx + 208. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­40-­7

152

CUSAS 20 CUSAS 21 CUSAS 22 CUSAS 23 CUSAS 24 CUSAS 25 CUSAS 26 CUSAS 27 CUSAS 28 CUSAS 29 CUSAS 30 CUSAS 31 CUSAS 32 CUSAS 33

CUSAS 34

CUSAS 35 CUSAS 36 CUSAS 38

S u m e r i a n L i t e r a r y Te x t s

Middle Sargonic Tablets Chiefly from Adab in the Cornell University Collections Francesco Pomponio and Giuseppe Visicato. 2015. Pp. xxxii + 250. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­60-­5 Archaic Bullae and Tablets in the Cornell University Collections Salvatore Monaco. 2014. Pp. xii + 228. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­55-­1 Entrepreneurs and Enterprise in Early Mesopotamia: A Study of Three Archives from the Third Dynasty of Ur Steven J. Garfinkle. 2012. Pp. xii + 282. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­41-­4 Miscellaneous Early Dynastic and Sargonic Texts in the Cornell University Collections Vitali Bartash. 2013. Pp. xiv + 242. Pl. 23. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­49-­0 The Domestication of Equidae in Third-­Millennium BCE Mesopotamia Juris Zarins. 2014. Pp. xi + 432. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­51-­3 Hemerologies of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars Alasdair Livingstone. 2013. Pp. viii + 278. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­52-­0 A Third-­Millennium Miscellany of Cuneiform Texts Aage Westenholz. 2014. Pp. xviii + 238. Pl. 6. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­56-­8 The “Šu-­ilisu Archive” and Other Sargonic Texts in Akkadian Lucio Milano and Aage Westenholz. 2015. Pp. xii + 322. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­61-­2 Documents of Judean Exiles and West Semites in Babylonia in the Collection of David Sofer Laurie Pearce and Cornelia Wunsch. 2014. Pp. xlii + 334. Pl. 105. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­57-­5 A Late Old Babylonian Temple Archive from Dūr-­Abiešuh:The Sequel Kathleen Abraham and Karel van Lerberghe. 2017. Pp. xviii + 189. Pl. 218. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­74-­2 Middle Babylonian Texts in the Cornell University Collections I The Later Kings. Wilfred van Soldt. 2015. Pp. xii + 585. Pl. 21. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­62-­9 Archaic Cuneiform Tablets from Private Collections Salvatore F. Monaco. 2016. Pp. x + 310. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­65-­0 Mesopotamian Incantations and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection A. R. George. 2016. Pp. xiv + 196. Pl. 151. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­66-­7 Early Dynastic and Early Sargonic Administrative Texts Mainly from the Umma Region in the Cornell Cuneiform Collections Palmiro Notizia and Giuseppe Visicato. 2016. Pp. xii + 312. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­70-­4 Assyrian Archival Texts in the Schøyen Collection and Other Documents from North Mesopotamia and Syria A. R. George, Thomas Hertel, Jaume Llop-­Raduà, Karen Radner, and Wilfred H. van Soldt. 2017. Pp. xxii + 136. Pl. 92. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­71-­1 Sumerian Administrative and Legal Documents ca. 2900–­2200 BC in the Schøyen Collection Vitali Bartash. 2017. Pp. xviii + 536. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­73-­5 Old Babylonian Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Part I: Selected Letters A. R. George. 2018. Pp. xiv + 192. Pl. 263. ISBN 978-­1-­934309-­75-­9 Sumerian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Part I: Literary Sources on Old Babylonian Religion Christopher Metcalf. 2019. Pp. xii + 152. Pl. 54. ISBN 978-1-57506-730-8.