The Akītu Festival: Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia 9781463236007

Citation preview

The Akītu Festival

Gorgias Near Eastern Studies

2

In this series Gorgias publishes monographs on the history and archaeology of the Near East. Gorgias particularly welcomes proposals from younger scholars whose dissertations have made an important contribution to the study of the Near East.

The Akītu Festival

Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia

Julye Bidmead

9

34 2014

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2014 by Gorgias Press LLC

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2014

‫ܓ‬

9

ISBN 978-1-4632-0265-1

ISSN 1935-6870

Reprinted from the 2002 edition by Gorgias Press.

Printed in the United States of America

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..........................................................vii Acknowledgements ........................................................xi List of Abbreviations ....................................................xiii Introduction and Historical Background ....................... 1 The akītu in Religion and Politics ..................................................... 1 Method and Procedure....................................................................... 3 Political Ideology and Ritualization.................................................. 8 Festival and Ritual Behavior ............................................................ 12

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on the akītu .............. 17 Early Akītu Studies............................................................................ 17 Political and Sociological Interpretations ...................................... 24 The akītu, the Bible, and Ancient Festivals ................................... 29 Akītu Celebrations in Later Periods ............................................... 32

Phenomonology of the akītu Festival............................ 39 New Year Festivals............................................................................ 39 Akītu and zagmukku .......................................................................... 41 Calendars in Mesopotamia............................................................... 43 Reconstruction of the Days ............................................................. 45 Day 1 (Nisannu 1) ............................................................................ 46 Day 2 (Nisannu 2) ............................................................................ 47 The kidinnu.......................................................................................... 50 vii

viii

The Akītu Festival

Day 3 (Nisannu 3) ............................................................................ 54 Day 4 (Nisannu 4) ............................................................................ 59 Enūma eliš ............................................................................................ 63 Relationship between the Enūma eliš and the akītu.................... 66

Day 5 (Nisannu 5) ............................................................................. 70 Exorcism ..................................................................................... 72 The King’s “Humiliation”........................................................... 77

Day 6 (Nisannu 6) ............................................................................ 86 Day 7 (Nisannu 7) ............................................................................. 87 Day 8 (Nisannu 8) ............................................................................. 88 Decreeing of the Destinies .......................................................... 89

Days 9 through 12............................................................................. 93 The Royal Procession ................................................................. 94 Hieros gamos ............................................................................ 102

Ritualistic Elements of the akītu ..................................107 General Observations.....................................................................107 When: the Timing of the akītu ......................................................107 Rising Times ............................................................................. 110

Where: Temples, Shrines, and the bīt akīti .................................111 bīt akīti ...............................................................................................115 Who: The Cultic Personnel ..........................................................119 Who: The Gods and Goddesses..................................................122 Symbolism of Water........................................................................126

Political, Historical, and Ideological Analysis .............129 Historical Overview ........................................................................129 Nabonidus and the Neo-Babylonian Period...............................130 The Seleucid Kings..........................................................................143 The Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles....................................145 qātē DN ṣabātum ...............................................................................154 Symbolism of Hands................................................................. 158 qātum with verbs....................................................................... 160

Table of Contents

ix

Role of the King ..............................................................................163 Economic Situation in First-millennium Babylon .....................164 Power and Authority.......................................................................167

Conclusion ....................................................................169 Bibliography .................................................................175 Index .............................................................................213

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are several people who helped make this study possible. First I would like to acknowledge various members of the faculty of the Graduate Department of Religion at Vanderbilt University including Douglas A. Knight, Jack M. Sasson, Peter Haas, A-J. Levine, Robert Drews, and James Barr for all of their help and support with this endeavor. Also I express a special thank you to Karel van der Toorn of the University of Amsterdam for his valuable input and guidance at the beginning stages of this study and to Jack M. Sasson who provided similar assistance in the final stages. My advisor, Doug Knight deserves more thanks than I could convey in a simple paragraph. His assistance, counsel, and perseverance throughout my graduate training at Vanderbilt University as well as his unwavering support on this project were invaluable to me, both personally and professionally. This project could never have been accomplished without him. My “Bible” colleague at California State University, Fresno, Robert Maldonado also deserves a warm thanks for his friendship and humor. Most especially, this project would have never come to life if it were not for the friendship and love of two very dear people in my life, Deborah Appler and Meredith Barton. Not only did Deborah and Meredith open up their home to me during the writing of this book but they opened up their hearts as well. Both provided a constant source of inspiration and together we survived the trials and the tears and managed to find the laughter somewhere in between. I greatly appreciate all their encouragement and love. Meredith, this book is dedicated to you as you begin your adventure into adulthood and college… anything is possible if you desire it enough!

xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ABL AO BIN BM BRM CAD CT DT K KAR MNB VAB VAT YBC YOS

Harper, Robert F. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. Antiquites Orientales, Tablets in Louvre Museum Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of J. B. Nies Tablets in the British Museum, London Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan, New Haven Chicago Assyrian Dictionary Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Tablets in the Daily Telegraph Collection of the British Museum Tablets in the Kouyunjik collection of the British Museum Ebeling, Erich. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. Monuments de Nineveh et Babylone, Louvre Museum Vorderasiatische Bibliothek Tablets in the Vorderasiatische Collection of the Staatliche Museen, Berlin Yale Babylonian Collection Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts

xiii

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The akītu in Religion and Politics

The akītu festival is one of the oldest recorded festivals in the ancient Near East, celebrated in one form or the other almost continuously from pre-Sargonic times until perhaps the early third century C.E. The festal origins may lie in the early Sumerian times, but the rites continued to be observed for several thousand years. Textual evidence reveals that the early akītu began as an agricultural harvest festival, taking place twice a year, once in the month of Nisannu for the grain harvest and again in Tašrītu for the wheat harvest. As the festival developed from a semiannual agricultural celebration to an annual Nisannu (Spring) New Year’s national festival, celebrated in the capital city with the participation of the king and royal priesthood, the akītu gained political prominence, especially in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, and became a propagandistic tool wielded to promote state ideology. In first millennium B.C.E. Babylonia, when the festival was at its most developed stage, the celebration may have lasted up to twelve days, involving elaborate rituals, prayers, sacrifices, royal processions of the king and of the deities, recitation of the Enūma eliš, the Babylonian creation epic and the issuance of prophecies and oracles for the upcoming year. Scholars have also speculated a re-enactment of the primordial cultic battle and a sacred marriage. Because of its long duration and variety of elements the festival has been referred to as “the most complete expression of Mesopotamian religiosity.”1 The akītu, however, was more than just a religious ceremony—it also held significant political import in 1 Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), 313.

1

2

The Akītu Festival

Babylonian society. The rituals involving the renewal of the king, the crucial role of the high priest in the ceremonies, and the two days of “determining of the destinies” functioned more to reinforce the ideology and agenda of the monarchy and the priesthood than to instill religious sentiment. Ostensibly dealing with the renewal of charter for kings, the akītu also involves aspects of legitimization of the Mesopotamian kings. The celebration of the akītu was an integral component in royal politics, both domestic and foreign. The continuity and the widespread dissemination of the festival throughout Mesopotamian history attest to its religious, political, and sociological import. This study demonstrates how the celebration of the Babylonian akītu festival was a political device employed by the monarchy and/or the central priesthood to ensure the supremacy of the king, the national god, and his capital city. The priesthood of Marduk and the monarchy employed a long-standing festival in ideological support of their authority. The rituals of the Babylon New Year Festival contain a number of attendant rites that illustrate its political ideology; the most indicative is the use of the traditional formula “qātē Bēl ṣabātum “(the grasping of Bēl’s hand), and the overall importance of “hand-grasping” throughout the akītu. In the king’s negative confession he pledges his fidelity to the people of Babylon, but it is the actual “taking the hand” of the god that formalizes the oath. Hand-holding was not simply leading the statute of the god in a procession as suggested by most scholars, but also acted as a legal and binding contractual agreement between the king, as representative of the people, and the patron deity. While scholars agree that without the king’s attendance and active participation, the festival could not be celebrated, I will argue that there were two critical elements in observing the akītu—both the king and the statue of Marduk must partake jointly in the hand-holding ritual. Two parties must enter into this legal contract. Marduk, as well as the king, was vital to the actual fulfillment of a legitimate New Year’s festival. The nonattendance of the god, just as the absence of the king, suspended and disrupted the cultic practices. This is evident in the Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles—whenever the akītu could not occur, whether for military or political reason, the chronicles make

Introduction And Historical Background

3

a note of it. Either the absence of the king2 or the absence of the deity demanded a lapse in the festival. For instance, when the divine statue of Marduk was removed from Babylon and carried off as war booty to Assyria in 689, there was no New Year festival. For [eight] years during (the reign of) Se[nnacherib]for twelve years (during the reign of) Esar[haddon] twenty

years (altogether) - Bēl s[tayed] in (Ashur) and the akītu festival did not take place.3 The fact that the suspension of the akītu was serious enough to warrant a notation in the royal inscriptions alone is an obvious signifier of the festival’s authority and its association with state ideology. The political significance of the akītu, as it was manifested in the first millennium B.C.E., overshadowed the earlier religious aspects and function of the festival. The monarchy and priesthood may have used the annual akītu celebration to justify a number of political and fiscal causes. By employing the akītu to reinforce the solidarity of the citizens, they were also able to collect additional revenue and sacrifices, repair, and refurbish the temples, all in the name of the supremacy of Marduk and his personally selected earthly officer, the current king of Babylon. Most importantly, the celebration of the akītu festival in first-millennium Babylon acted to guarantee the special rights of Babylon’s most privileged and elite citizens, the kidinnu. These actions by the king, with the backing of the national priesthood, strengthened their seat of power and guaranteed continued support of the populace of Babylon.

Method and Procedure The knowledge we possess about the akītu celebration is fragmentary and obscure. From various Sumerian and Akkadian ritual texts, royal inscriptions, mythological texts, palace 2 As witnessed by Nabonidus. See Nabonidus Chron. 7 col ii 5-7. Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5 (Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975). Some sort of ceremony could take place, but it was not a legitimate akītu. In Harran, the king sent his garment as a substitute. See Simo Parpola. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, State Archives of Assyria 10 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki, 1993) ABL no. 667. 3 The Akitu Chronicle (BM 86379) 1-4. For parallel passages, see also the Esarhaddon Chronicle, 31-34, and the Babylonian Chronicle, 34-36.

4

The Akītu Festival

administrative documents, cultic commentary texts, and comparative materials from other ancient Near Eastern celebrations, scholars have reconstructed the probable events of the festival. Surviving Akkadian texts copied in the Seleucid period, but referring to a much earlier festival, provide the basic reconstruction for the Nisannu Babylonian akītu. Due to the extensive geography and chronology of the observance of the festival, an accurate reconstruction of the events is somewhat problematic. The liturgy, as well as the ideology of the festival, varied from city to city, from period to period, from ruling monarch to monarch. The reconstruction outlined in this study will concentrate on the understanding of the akītu during the NeoBabylonian period (625-539 B.C.E.), particularly during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562), when the glory of Babylon was at its apex, and Nabonidus (555-539), when the festival was said to be nonexistent for ten years. A brief glance at the celebration of the akītu during other significant periods in Mesopotamian history must also be taken to complete this picture. The changes in the akītu during the latter part of the Neo-Assyrian period (750-625) give the first impression of the cultic and ideological variations in response to a foreign celebration of the festival, while a look at the Achaemenid (550-330) and Seleucid (311-141) eras illustrates the same foreign response in later periods. The later kings, following the example of the Assyrians, exploited the popular Babylonian festival to enforce their dominance and gain popular support. The religious and symbolic aspects of the festival will be examined through theories of ritual analysis and through an investigation of the socio-economic role of the king, the cultic personnel, and elite citizens. Various ritual aspects of the festival such as the recitation of the Enūma eliš, the ritual humiliation and subsequent re-enthronement of the king, the administrative and political transactions of the king, and “the determining of the destinies” as well as the emphasis on the hand-holding ceremony will be discussed. The rituals of the akītu were performed on behalf of the state to maintain the relationship between the gods and society. In addition to the ritual and cultic commentary texts, a look at the historical chronicles detailing the celebrations and absences of the akītu festival and other royal inscriptions will also be crucial in understanding the political import.

Introduction And Historical Background

5

The akītu served to maintain class distinction and promote political ideology. The emphasis on the kidinnu (the privileged group who, under divine protection, were exempt from royal taxation, corvée, and military duty) in the prayers and the king’s proclamation is but one example of this ideology. Though explicit reference to the participation of the people is absent, the events of this festival, including a magnificent parade of the king and deities through the city, complete with public holidays and continuous worship and sacrifice, surely had a tremendous sociological impact on the citizens of Babylon. The akītu provided the perfect opportunity for the king to boast of his wealth and achievements in war—military troops, prisoners of war, tributes, and booty from vassal nations all participated in this parade.4 During the NeoBabylonian period the annual military campaign and announcement of war proclamations occurred in the spring, often coinciding with the beginning of the akītu. Holding popular appeal, the akītu was the festival par excellence in Mesopotamian culture. From indirect references, we know that akītu celebrations were joyous and merry.5 Food and drink were in abundant supply.6 People came from far and wide, lining the streets to catch a glimpse of the glorious statues of Marduk and the other gods as they paraded the streets of Babylon. The akītu was also a time of political alliances and treaties. Neighboring deities accompanied by the highest government officials would visit Babylon to pay homage to Marduk and renew their allegiance to the king. Once a year their gods would convene, under the direction of the priesthood and the reigning monarchies, 4 Amelie Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial: from Babylon to Persia,” in Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, eds. David Cannadine and Simon Price (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 35. 5 The PN Akītumrešat (the akītu festival is merry) is attested in Middle Babylonian Texts. See CAD A/271. 6 The Neo-Assyrian version of the Gilgamesh epic, tablet xl, 70-74, reads: “at the [ . . .] I slaughtered oxen, I sacrificed sheep everyday, I gave the workmen ale and beer to drink. They made a feast like the New Year’s Day festival.” Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 111. Also note tablet ii, where Gilgamesh exclaims, “Let the New Year Festival be performed, let joy resound!”

6

The Akītu Festival

and the future of the forthcoming year would be decided. After determining the fate of the land, the festival would conclude with another elaborate procession of the gods returning to their temples. The importance of the temple institution and the role of the priesthood in ancient Mesopotamia were also significant. The temples, controlling extensive estates, were responsible for the legal, social, economic, and religious welfare of the city. The Babylonian temples functioned not only to accommodate and house the god, but as a central administrative authority vital for the economic stability of the city. The majority of the akītu was conducted in the Esagila, Babylon’s foremost temple operated under the control of the priesthood of Marduk. This massive and elegant temple contained several shrines and cellas to the various deities in the pantheon. Another temple, the bīt akīti, a structure located outside the city gates and known to occur in several Mesopotamian cities, also played a prominent role in the festival celebrations. Little is known about the bīt akīti other than in reference to the festival. Would this temple have only been used once a year during Nisannu 1-12? What was its purpose during the remainder of the year? Why were the akītu temples always outside the city walls? We know that yearly renovations of the temples of Babylon took place during or immediately before the akītu celebrations. Were these repairs and restorations funded by additional tithes collected during the akītu? Questions such as these may help to disclose the social and political significance of the festival. As with any major temple event, we possess administrative documents that record offerings, lists of chariots, temple personnel, and dignitaries associated with the New Year Festival.7 An analysis of these records of temple inventories along with comparative archaeological evidence of other temples in Mesopotamia may help reveal the function and importance of the bīt akīti. Though the importance of the rest of the ancient Near East should not be ignored, it is beyond the scope of this study to

7 See Raija Mattila, “Balancing the Accounts of the Royal New Year’s Reception,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin IV (1990), 7-22, for composite text of seven Neo-Assyrian documents detailing offerings and gifts at the New Year’s reception in Nineveh.

Introduction And Historical Background

7

examine the Israelite,8 Canaanite,9 Hittite,10or Egyptian11 New Year festivities, other than a cursory mention when applicable to the 8 In ancient Israel, there were agricultural festivals that also acted as New Year celebrations-- the spring event commemorating the cultic New Year, and the fall festival celebrating the civic New Year. The autumnal festival ‫( גח‬1 Kings 8:2, 65) and the festival ‫הוהי‬-‫( גח‬Judges 21:19) celebrated in the seventh month of Tishri marked the turn of the New Year. Jeroboam (1 Kings 9:32) celebrated this same festival in the eighth month. Ezekiel 40:1 reports the head of the year as 10 Tishri. These autumnal celebrations reflect the influence of the solar calendar. After the exile, when the adjusted lunar calendar was adopted, the New Year was celebrated in the first day of the new moon in the month of Nisannu. In Lev 25:9 the blowing of the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month may designate the beginning of the New Year, as it does in later Jewish Rosh Hashannah celebrations. Among the many studies on the Israelite New Year, see Norman Snaith, The Jewish New Year Festival: Its Origins and Development (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1947); L. I. Pap, Das israelitsche Neujahrfest (Kampen: Kok, 1933); David J.A. Clines, “The Evidence for an Autumnal New Year in Pre-exilic Israel Reconsidered,” Journal of Biblical Literature 93 (1974), 22-40; Karel van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Studies,” in Congress Volume Leuven 1989, Vetus Testamentum Supplement 43, ed. J. A. Emerton (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 339-343. 9 In the Ugaritic literature, the myth of the death and resurrection of Baal, as a fertility god, celebrating his triumph over Mot and the building of his palace, has been connected to the autumn New Year festivities in Canaan. See Johannes C. de Moor, New Year with Canaanites and Israelites, 2 vols. (Kampen Cahiers, 21 & 22. Kampen: Kok, 1972). 10 For a summary of the Hittite New Year, see Volkert Haas, “Neujahr(sfest) C.” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie IX/3-4, ed. D.O. Edzard (W. de Gruyter & Co: Berlin and New York, 1999), 298; Volkert Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 696-747. 11 There are similarities to the Babylonian New Year. In ancient Egypt, either the heliacal rising of Sirius, which occurred in July, or the flooding of the Nile in September marked the start of the New Year. The New Year rituals at the temple of Edfu reveal that the statue of the god Horus was removed from his temple and exposed to the rays of the sun to reunite his body with his soul. At New Year, statues of the deity, his spouse and child were taken up the Nile by boat. Singing, dancing, and feasting lasted for a month until the statues returned to the temple. We also know that the renewal of kingship took place annually at a special festival, though it was probably not related to the New Year Festival. For

8

The Akītu Festival

Babylonian festival. Even the Sumerian12 and Assyrian13 akītu celebrations, precursors to the Neo-Babylonian akītu, or the celebration of an akītu in several other Mesopotamian cities cannot be treated in any detail. This study will concentrate primarily on the Nisannu akītu and the New Year Festival as it was observed in late first millennium Babylon.

Political Ideology and Ritualization Ideology is a problematical term to define. Several different definitions and connotations exist, and many are contradictory. For the purpose of this study, an ideology is defined as an idea or a set of ideas, at times even a world view, held by a group of people. These groups of people often are the dominant social class and are in the position to inflict their beliefs upon others. Though ideology need not always be coercive, many of the definitions also include some conception of power and control. The dominant social group utilizes various means to assert its power, namely by cultivating shared beliefs, and promoting and universalizing these beliefs to legitimate itself. Ideology works best when it persuades people that the ideas presented are valid and meaningful, not by means of coercion but by making the arguments so convincing and pertinent to their lives that they invalidate any rival forms of thought. Ideologies are assumed shared beliefs, which are readily apparent to the group involved. “Ideology is best understood as a a complete study of the Egyptian New Year, see J. F. Borghouts, Nieuwjaar in het oude Egypte (Leiden, 1986); Leo Depuydt, Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 77 (Leuven: Peeters, 1997); Claas J. Bleeker, Egyptian Festivals: Enactments of Religious Renewal (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967). 12 Most akītu studies also discuss the Sumerian festival. For an updated summary on the Sumerian material, see W. Sallaberger, “Neujahr(sfest) A.” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie IX/3-4. ed. D.O. Edzard (Berlin and New York 1999), 291-294. Also see Adam Falkenstein, “Akiti-Fest und akiti-Festhaus,” in Johannes Friedrich Festschrift zum 65. Geburstag, ed. Richard von Kienle, et al. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959), 147-182; Mark E. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East (Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1993). 13 Treated extensively by G. von Driel, The Cult of Assur (Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum & Company, 1969) esp. 162-167; Mark Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 417-427.

Introduction And Historical Background

9

strategy of power, a process whereby certain social practices or institutions are depicted to be ‘natural’ and ‘right.’”14 The study of religious behavior as demonstrated in ritual is of essential interest for analysis and understanding of any religious system. Ideology is implicit in every part of human life, but it becomes especially apparent when examining forms of social and religious ritual. Politics and ideology are expressed through the symbolism contained in rituals, as rituals exhibit hierarchies, dominance of power, and propaganda—all tools employed in the production of ideologies. “Political figures use rites to create political reality for the people around them. Through participation in these rites people identify with the larger political forces that can be seen symbolically.”15 Before attempting any critical analysis of ritual, one must first ask: what is ritual and what does it do? First, a definition of the terms employed is needed. As with ideology, numerous definitions of “ritual” exist among anthropologists, sociologists, theologians, and historians of religion and emphasize such aspects as rules of conduct which dictate behavior in the presence of the sacred,16 symbolic behavior that is socially standardized and repetitive,17 the cultural system,18 social drama or cultural performance,19 conscious, voluntary, repetitious, and stylized symbolical actions centered in the cosmic or sacred.20 Rituals, as characterized in this study, refer to a standardized set of cultic practices and actions. Embedded in the performance of and adherence to these rituals are symbolical and ideological positions. Ritual systems must also be

14 Catherine Bell, Ritual Theory and Ritual Practice (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 192. 15 David I. Kertzer, Rituals, Politics and Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988), 1-2. 16 Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964). 17 Kertzer, Rituals, 9. 18 Clifford Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture (New York: Harper Collins, 1973). 19 Victor W. Turner, The Ritual Process (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969). 20 Evan M. Zuesse, “Ritual,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade, et al. (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 12: 405.

10

The Akītu Festival

seen as historical phenomena,21 and as historical phenomena they are subject to alteration and adaptation as they progress through time. The New Year celebrations in Mesopotamia were not stagnant—changes in the akītu festival reflect the shifting values in society. Nor were the akītu festivals celebrated in the same fashion in each city. Current political, social, and economic milieu affected the nature of the celebrations. Closely connected with the ideology of ritual are the concepts of ritualization and legitimation, both crucial to this analysis of the akītu. C. Bell defines ritualization as a “culturally strategic way of acting to several classic issues with the traditional study of ritual, namely, belief, ideology, legitimation, and power . . . ritualization is a strategy for the construction of a limited and limiting power relationship.”22 Ritualization sets up opposites and hierarchical situations through rituals—it is a set of actions that instills a dominant ideology or acts as a factor to legitimatize an idea. Legitimation, therefore, is one of the things that ritual does. As outlined by Bell, effective political rituals of legitimation work mainly by employing three principles: 1) They are built out of accepted tradition 2) They construct an argument rather than simply affirm dogmatic beliefs 3) They do not simply refer to politics but they are politics, i.e., the ritual itself is the power23

Though there is no universal definition of ritual, most scholars would agree that the study of ritual and ritual analysis provides valuable insight into the cultural dynamics of a society. The social function and symbolic meaning of ritual is related to the ideology, ideas, and identity of the community. Ritual acts as social empowerment. E. Durkheim in his classic sociological work, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, first pointed out the connection between ritual and social empowerment when he claimed that rituals are means of social solidarity.24 Society finds its solidarity in the shared actions of the ritual in what Durkheim deems a “collective effervescence.” This collective effervescence is an 21 John D. Kelly and Maureen Kaplan, “History, Structure, and Ritual,” Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1990), 139. 22 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 8. Also see 88-90, 197ff. 23 Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 193-195. 24 Durkheim, Elementary Forms, 52.

Introduction And Historical Background

11

emotional response in which people experience something larger than themselves. Ritual and its ensuing symbolism are necessary for the identification, maintenance, and reaffirmation of community, acting as a mechanism for establishing and reestablishing the confidence of the people. Ritual functions in the creation and re-creation of society, as a means by which collective ideas are generated, experienced, and affirmed as real by the community. Rituals articulate social norms. Durkheim’s theory of rituals, as well as his entire understanding of the religion, relies strongly on the dichotomy of the sacred and profane. Through ritual, the profane can be transformed into the sacred. The sacred can also be society itself represented through the symbolism in rituals. Ritualization, then, appreciates how sacred and profane activities are differentiated through performance.25 In addition to Durkheim’s idea that ritual creates community, there also must be some common interest or factor among the group to create this cohesion. Without some shared belief, purpose, or goal, a diverse group cannot achieve this solidarity. Once this commonality is established, ritualization can then become collective experience, and through community participation it can create society. In Mesopotamian society, as in any society, this commonality is seen temporally and spatially. What were the current needs and concerns of that particular city at that time in history? Cult and political ideology are closely interconnected in ancient Mesopotamia, as there are records of almost every king partaking in the some form of the akītu from the third millennium until at least 224 B.C.E., though as stated earlier other elements of the festival may have survived as late as the third century C.E. Though there were global concerns of prosperity, security, and stability throughout the generations that the akītu addressed, there were also local concerns. The citizens of NaramSîn’s Agade, for example, may have had very different concerns than the Babylonians who celebrated the akītu with Cyrus some 1700 years later. It is with this phenomenological and sociological lens that the analysis of the akītu must be viewed. For the Babylonians, “the celebration of the akītu helped reaffirm the corporate identity, the social fabric and the prosperity

25

Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 91.

The Akītu Festival

12

of the country.”26 Ideology is especially evident in the discourse, the language, and the processes of the akītu rituals where the interests of the monarchy and priesthood are legitimated in the name of religious principles. The priesthood, in control of the temple rituals, used the celebration of the akītu to impress upon the citizens of Babylon their legitimation of the king. The king, in taking the hand of Marduk, entered into a legal obligation not only to the priesthood of Marduk but to the people of Babylon. The ideological message in this action was clear—the rite of “taking the hand of Marduk” guaranteed the king’s fidelity to his people. He was pledging to protect them and uphold the duties of kingship. This ritual was demonstrated publicly before the gathering of the masses and through the streets of Babylon. This is what the people wanted and needed—to believe that their king (and therefore, their god) would protect and care for them. The rites of the festival functioned as “public confirmation of the social and ideological values of the participants.”27

Festival and Ritual Behavior The akītu has been referred to as a festival, a ceremony, and a ritual. While in ritual studies these terms mean different things,28 one must determine if there was any clear distinction in ancient Mesopotamia. The Akkadian word isinnu is used to designate festivals and ceremonies, both religious and secular. The nominal form parṣu (Sum. GAR.ZA), from the verb parāṣum, is often translated as a rite, function, or ordnance. The references to the akītu festival are isinni akīti, ūm akīti (day of the akītu), or simply akītu (the festival is implied within the name), but never as paraṣ akīti. This implies that the term akītu was not a singular rite or ritual. Ceremonies can be considered a subset of rituals, while festivals contain a series of rituals and ceremonies acting as building blocks toward the realization of the festival’s intent. According to Alessandro Falassi, the standard definition of a festival is “a periodically recurrent, social occasion in which, through a multiplicity of forms and a series of coordinated events, participate directly or indirectly and to various degrees; all members Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial,” 40. Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year,” 233. 28 See Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 69-72, for extensive discussion. 26 27

Introduction And Historical Background

13

of a whole community, united by ethnic, linguistic, religious, historical bonds, and sharing a worldview.”29 Festivals are social phenomena, encountered in virtually all human cultures. Festivals are more than celebratory or commemorative events: as with rituals, they also function to celebrate community, maintain order, sanction institutions, and create and reestablish community identity. By the definitions employed in ritual studies and the usage of the terms in the Mesopotamian texts, we can establish that the akītu is rightfully regarded as a festival and not a singular act. Contained within that festival is a series of rites, ceremonies, and rituals. Rituals allow a method of confronting the unknown in a symbolic way, to give coherence and stability to an ever-changing, and often chaotic environment. As the ancient Near Eastern civilizations were usually under the constant threat of war, famine, flooding, and other natural disasters, having the means to face the unknown was essential. But how do rituals accomplish this task? Ritualists have identified several categories of ritual actions and festival behavior.30 A brief mention of these classifications and their relationship to the akītu will be made here and discussed in further detail in later chapters. Rites of purification, rites of reversal, rites of conspicuous display and consumption, rites of exchange, and rites of abstinence are all evident in the akītu. The stripping of the king’s royal insignia and his negative confession are examples of a rite of reversal, when “normal” situations are inverted. The king, usually invested with divinely sanctioned authority, is now subject to the mercy of the priest and the god. A liminal period exists during this rite of reversal. Orderly and normal patterns disappear, resulting in a chaotic state. These patterns must be restored by a ritual action (hence, reversed again) before order can be re-established. “The exaggerated reversal of roles and behaviors serves to emphasize the goodness of social structures which is returned to with a sense of refreshment after the liminal period.”31 Rites of conspicuous display and consumption are also ingredients of the akītu. By displaying and 29 Alessandro Falassi, Time out of Time: Essays on the Festival (Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press, 1967), 2. 30 Cf. Catherine Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 94. 31 Zuesse, “Ritual,” 417.

The Akītu Festival

14

parading the statue of the gods the community has the opportunity to view, touch, and adore their gods. The procession of deities to and from the bīt akīti may be the only time during the year when ordinary citizens can pay homage to the gods. The elaborate decorations in the Esagila and “golden heaven” canopy of the Ezida also represent this conspicuous display. One can envision wreaths, flowers, and palm branches enveloping the city during the festival. The sacred meals and banquets, integral to any ancient Near Eastern festival celebration, illustrate rites of consumption. Another ritual category is a rite of exchange, often evidenced by gift-giving. Though most frequently the rite of exchange refers to sacrifices and physical gifts to the temple, the visit of a neighboring deity or official can function as a component in the gift-giving ritual. All of these are present in the akītu. In exchange for the promise of a lucrative New Year, the people give sacrifices and gifts to the temple. Rites of competition and the hierarchical ranking of the contestants are also frequent in rituals. We see this in the akītu by the symbolic battle recounted in the Enūma eliš as well as in the ranking of the gods in the order of procession and in the parak šīmāte (dais of destinies). In a symbolic sense, the “winning” in the rite of competition acts as a metaphor for the emergence of power and hierarchy. Rites of abstinence usually involve fasting; but frequently abstinence from regular work is integral to festival behavior. During the akītu, the citizens of Babylon had a “day off” from normal work on Nisannu 4, 8, and 11.32 No litigation could be conducted nor could physicians practice during the festival.33 Normally the opening and closing rites of a festival consist of some type of purification, or sacralization, framing the ritual in a sacred boundary–a transcendence of time and space. A festival takes place in its own temporal dimension, measured by the involved events and not by normal temporal reckoning of days or hours.34 In the akītu celebrations, rites of purification and sacralization are numerous: the šešgallu bathing in river water at the opening of Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 334. Stephen Langdon, Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendar, Schweich Lectures 1933 (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1935). 34 See Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion (London: Steed and Ward, 1958), 367-87; and Mircea Eliade, The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1959), 20-65. 32 33

Introduction And Historical Background

15

each day of the festival, the cleansing of the temple by the exorcists, the expulsion of slaughterer and the exorcist during the festival are just a few examples. Because of the ambiguity of ritual symbols and meanings, ritualization as a form of social control can only be effective when control is loose and flexible.35 Ritual, therefore, works most effectively when it is changeable. Though traditional in format, the cultic and ritual practices of the akītu, as well as its ideology, adjust themselves to reflect changing socio-political factors. It is this very notion that makes commemoration of the akītu throughout the millennia so powerful and effective.

35

Bell, Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice, 221-222.

ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP ON THE AKĪTU

Early Akītu Studies The earliest descriptions of the akītu appear in Heinrich Zimmern’s two publications and commentaries of the various ritual texts in Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest I and II.1 In these initial studies Zimmern focused on the cultic significance of the rituals, drawing tentative parallels between the Babylonian New Year Festival and religious festivals of other cultures, including the Jewish holy days of Rosh Hashannah, Purim, and Yom Kippur, the Christian Easter, the Roman Saturnalia, the Persian Sacaea as well as the Arabic New Year Festival.2 With his translations and interpretations of K. 3476 and K. 9876 from the library of Assurbanipal, K. 1356 (Sennacherib’s account of his restoration of bīt akīti), the Seleucid liturgical text DT 109, and several hymns of Marduk, he 1 Heinrich Zimmern, Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Phil.hist Klasse 53/3. Leipzig, 1906); Heinrich Zimmern, Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest, zweiter Beitrag (Berichte über die Verhandlungen der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 70/5. Leipzig, 1918) Also, see Heinrich Zimmern, “Das babylonische Neujahrsfest,” Der alte Orient, 25 (1926), 2-22. 2 Zimmern, Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest I, 126-127. For the Arabic New Year, see Arent J. Wensinck, Arabic New-Year and the Feast of Tabernacles (Amsterdam: Uitgave van de koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, 1925). For similarities to an Iranian New Year festival, see C. Brockelman, “Das Neujahrsfest der Jezîdîs,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 55 (1901), 388-390. For comparison between the akītu and the Persian Sacaea, see below p. 34 and Stephen Langdon, “The Babylonian and Persian Sacaea,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1924), 65-72.

17

The Akītu Festival

18

reconstructs the basic structure and the hemerology of the festival. In an exegesis of VAT 9555 (KAR 143)3 and texts dealing with the so-called “imprisonment” and “death and resurrection” of Marduk, Zimmern cites many speculative comparisons of the “suffering and triumph” of Marduk to the Passion events found in the New Testament.4 Some similar elements as outlined by Zimmern are Marduk’s arrest and captivity in the hòursān5 (translated by Zimmern as Weltberge) to Jesus’ arrest and subsequent crucifixion at Golgotha,6 and the mention of Marduk’s wife at his death7 and his

Duplicate: VAT 9538 (KAR 219). See Zimmern, Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest II, 12-13, for a table of comparisons. For similar arguments, based on Zimmern’s translation, see Hugo Radau, Bel, the Christ of Ancient Times (Chicago: Open Court Pub. Co., 1908); and Peter C. Jensen, “Bel im Kerker und Jesus im Grabe,” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 27 (1924), 573-80. Jensen, however, argues that the death of Bēl was never actually mentioned and he was eventually released from his captivity. Jensen further proposed that an earlier New Testament story existed where Jesus was imprisoned and released, hence the similarity to the Babylonian myth. For issues regarding Tammuz, see the brief article of Bendt Alster in Karel van der Toorn, ed. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed. (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 828-834. 5 W. von Soden translated hòursān as “Ordalstätte” and argued that there was no death or resurrection in the text. See Tikva Frymer-Kensky, “The Tribulations of Marduk. The So-Called ‘Marduk Ordeal Text’,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983), 131 for other restoration and translations. Also W. von Soden, “Gibt es ein Zeugnis dafür, daß die Babylonier an die Wiederauferstehung Marduks geglaubt haben?” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 51 (1955), 130-166; W. von Soden, “Ein neues Bruchstück des assyrischen Kommentar zum Marduk-Ordeal,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 52 (1957), 224-34; Alasdair Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, State Archives of Assyria 3) Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1989), 82-91. The translation of the word is still problematic. CAD translates hòuršānu/ hòursānu as a mountain or a place of the “hòursānu ordeal” though it is still unknown what the hòuršānu ordeal is. 6 Matthew 27:33; Mark 15:22. 7 However, note that in lines 39-42 Bēl 's wife does not go to the House of Sacrifice with him but stays behind to guard the temple during his imprisonment. Instead, she puts on black and red wool, garments of mourning. See Stephen Langdon, The Epic of Creation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), 50ff.; Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, 84. 3 4

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

19

grave with the women present at Jesus’ death.8 Based on his notion of the hòursān as some sort of cosmic mountain, or land of the dead, and his erroneous restoration of ihòteliq ina libbi na[pšate]9 (he disappeared from life!), Zimmern proposed the death of the god. Zimmern’s dubious account of the death of Marduk was taken as proven by the Myth-and-Ritualists who later asserted that Marduk, especially in his role as protagonist at the New Year Festival, corresponded with the attributes of the dying-rising god pattern among the religions of the ancient Near East. In 1921, the French scholar F. Thureau-Dangin published additional texts, including “Le rituel des fêtes du nouvel an à Babylone,” early New Year’s and liturgical texts from Uruk, drawing the first comparisons between the early akītu celebrated at Tašrītu and the Nisannu Babylonian New Year festival. 10 The mention of Assurbanipal’s celebration of an akītu to Ishtar of Milkia11 first suggested that the festival was customary in other cities.12 Shortly after Thureau-Dangin’s publication, S. Langdon published texts of the Enūma eliš, the creation epic of death and resurrection into direct relation with the New Year Festival and with the Enūma eliš. In the so-called Suffering and Passion of Marduk text, the Enūma eliš is recited during Nisannu to the captive Marduk.13 Here Langdon also connected the reading of the Enūma eliš at the akītu with the Tammuz cult, the Sumero/Akkadian myth, The Descent of Inanna, in which the god Dumuzi/Tammuz is portrayed Matthew 27:56; Mark 15:40. VAT 9555 (KAR 143) Line 13. The restoration of napšate is unreliable. Most read as ihòteliq ina libbi [. . .]. (he disappeared or fled, from the midst of. . .). 10 François Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1921); François Thureau-Dangin, “La procession du nouvel an à Uruk,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 20 (1923), 107-112. 11 K. 2674, K. 1286. 12 In addition to Babylon and Uruk, we now know of akītu celebrations (or of akītu temples) in many Mesopotamian cities, including Adab, Akkad, Arbela, Assur, Badtibira, Borisippa, Dilbat, Dēr, DurSharruken, Eridu, Hanat, Harran, Gaeš, Girsu, Kalhu, Kilizi, Kish, Khorsabad, Kurba’il, Isana, Lagash, Mari, Nippur, Nineveh, Sippar, Terqa, Umma, Ur. 13 Langdon, The Epic of Creation, 50. For texts see VAT 9538 line 34, Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea,” 84. 8 9

The Akītu Festival

20

as periodically dying and rising to ensure fertility. In the myth, Dumuzi, in exchange for Inanna, must reside in the Netherworld for half a year. His death is celebrated in July, when the decline in vegetation from the oppressive heat of the Mesopotamian summer is at its peak. Weeping and lamentation accompanied the festive rites.14 Langdon proposed the Sumerian myth as an underlying text commentary on the akītu. A reference to the preparation of a nuptial bed for Inanna set up at the New Year, led Langdon to hypothesize the hieros gamos in the akītu. The god Marduk renders his role both as heroic savior in the Enūma eliš and as a representation of Dumuzi. The resurrection of Marduk personifying the dying and reviving forces of nature celebrated a guarantee for fertility of the land. Langdon also recognized the Enūma eliš as primarily a solar myth and connected it with the spring sun, whose return from darkness was celebrated at the vernal equinox by the New Year festival.15 Based entirely on its connection with the Enūma eliš he reconstructed the events of the New Year festival, asserting that there was a “secret meaning in each act of the festival.” Thus from Langdon and Zimmern’s initial analyses early scholarship regarded the akītu as primarily a theological festival, celebrating the death and resurrection of the god and the sacred marriage, to ensure fecundity of the land in the upcoming year. These early interpretations of the akītu were based on much circular reasoning and laden with esoteric and magical concepts revolving around the connections of the Enūma eliš, the cult of Tammuz, and haphazard biblical references. A few years later, Svend Pallis made the first attempt to synthesize prior information and extract rituals and rites to understand the akītu’s meaning in society.16 He analyzed the In the Akkadian version of this myth, the Descent of Ishtar to the Underworld, there is no indication of the resurrection of Dumuzi. However, this version does end with ritual instructions for the taklimtu, the ritual bathing, anointing, and lying in state for the statue of Dumuzi. See Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 154-162; Benjamin J. Foster, Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1996), 402-409; Stephen Langdon, Tammuz and Ishtar (Oxford: Claredon, Press, 1914). 15 Langdon, The Epic of Creation, 20. 16 Svend Aage Pallis, The Babylonian Akîtu Festival (Copenhagen: Andr. Fred. Host & Son, 1926). 14

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

21

topography of Babylon, including the Esagila, the parak šīmāte, and the bīt akīti, as well as various cult elements of the festival, namely the sacrifices, determining of the destinies, the “hand ceremony,” and the Enūma eliš. His thesis recognized the akītu primarily as a cultic drama that had its roots in “primitive society,” ascribing a sympathetic magic connotation to the cultic battle between Marduk and Tiamat, the rivaling gods of the Enūma eliš. Pallis accepted Zimmern and Langdon’s interpretation that the death and resurrection of Marduk were contained in the liturgy of the akītu, but he rejected any Christological associations. Classical scholars also began to show interest in the themes of the akītu festival. F.M. Cornford, in From Philosophy to Religion, suggested that Hesiod’s Theogony had a very old pattern of creation and stemmed from the Babylonian New Year’s.17Myth-and-Ritual School The speculative approach in the interpretation of the akītu rampant during the early twentieth century gave rise to a “myth and ritual”18 understanding of the festival. Inspired by the work of J. G. Frazer19 the study of ritual patterns became popular among ancient Near Eastern and biblical scholars.20 Using comparative See Geoffrey S. Kirk, Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 13-14 for discussion. 18 Doty uses a more relevant name for this tradition, terming it the “ritual-dominant” school. See William G. Doty, Mythography: The Study of Myths and Ritual, 2nd ed. (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 2000), 336-339. 19 James G. Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 3rd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1911). 20 For some of the foremost Myth-and-Ritual discussions of the New Year Festival, see Samuel H. Hooke, Myth and Ritual: Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in relation to the Cultural Pattern of the Ancient East (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933); Samuel H. Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual (London: Oxford University Press, 1938), 10-22; Ivan Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East (Oxford: Alden Press, 1943), 16-31; Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as Integration of Society and Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948), 313-333; Edwin O. James, Myth and Ritual in the Ancient Near East (New York: Frederick Praeger, 1958); Theodore Herzl Gaster, New Year: Its History, Customs, and Superstitions (New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955); Theodore Herzl Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East (New York: Harper and Row, 1966). Also 17

22

The Akītu Festival

studies of religion, folklore, and anthropology, these scholars attempted to find similarities in the cultural patterns of the ancient Near East. The Myth-and-Ritualists contend that a homogenous myth-ritual pattern was originally developed in Mesopotamia and spread through the rest of the ancient Near East. They argued that myth and ritual were inseparable in early civilizations and the ritual represented the dramatization or symbolic enactment of the myth. Myths are recited at festivals to explain and validate an accompanying ritual; i.e., ritual is the action and myths are the spoken part of the ritual. Myth and ritual stood in dynamic relationship to each other. Believing the New Year ritual in Babylon was mostly a dramatic re-enactment of the Enūma eliš, Hooke built his entire myth-and-ritual pattern for the ancient Near East on the events of the Babylonian New Year Festival.21 His exaggerated claims regarding the festival led him to assert, “the central importance of the great complex of rituals consisting of the New Year Festival suggests that here we may hope to find the underlying principles of the whole system of Babylonian ritual.”22 These elements include a) dramatic representation of death and resurrection of the god; b) recitation of the creation myth; c) ritual combat (triumph of a god over enemies); d) hieros gamos (sacred marriage); e) triumphal procession in which the king is the leader; and f) notions of sacral kingship. These elements formed the rudimentary outline for many years of akītu scholarship. For instance, the ritual combat became consistent with the ascendancy of order over chaos, with the king performing a key role as the embodiment of the chief fertility god and maintainer of the divine ideology.23 In Kingship and the Gods, H. Frankfort suggested that the akītu, with its dying and resurrecting god, mirrored the celebration of the annual miracle of renewal in nature and society. For Frankfort, the Edwin O. James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962), 70-91. 21 Hooke, Myth and Ritual, 8. 22 Hooke, Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, 10. 23 Engnell, Studies in Divine Kingship, 24; 35; 37. Though Engnell remarks that the king was “identical” with the high god, he notes that he does not believe the king was ever actually slain, but that the sacrifice of the white bull on day of the king’s re-investiture, may have functioned as a type of šar pūhhi.

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

23

akītu was an interplay of nature and community, and the festival was commemorated to establish harmony with nature. Each element of the festival uniquely expressed this sentiment; therefore, the festival could compromise any of its elements without any loss of meaning. He also followed Hooke’s position that “the New Year’s Festival appears as the confluence of every current religious thought, as the expression of every shade of religious feeling.”24 The topic of the sacred marriage, discussed in more detail below, was a prominent characteristic in the speculative and the myth and ritual interpretations of the akītu. The hieros gamos was considered so pivotal to the New Year celebration that the prevailing argument among these scholars was not if the marriage was enacted but when and where. Some claimed that it happened in the Esagila,25 the Etemenanki,26 or in the bīt akīti.27 Both Frankfort and Hooke used evidence from Early Dynastic cylinder seals and comparisons to the Sumerian seasonal ritual of Tammuz to assert that an actual sacred marriage occurred. As to the Babylonian New Year Festival, there is a considerable number of seals figuring events which we know as part of the ritual . . . the fact that some of its ceremonies, or rather, the myths which underlie them, should be figured as designs of good omen on the cylinder seals is hardly astonishing if we remember the fundamental importance of the festival for the wellbeing of the whole community and its predominant position in the life of the Babylonians.28

T. Gaster, another myth-and-ritualist, proposes that myth corresponds to ritual but is not simply born out of ritual, being rather a parallel aspect. Gaster studied Near Eastern and Classical myth and rituals to develop a seasonal pattern for all rituals. Gaster’s typical pattern consisted of four elements, the “emptying” rites of mortification (fasting and abstinence) and purgation Frankfort, Kingship, 313. Frankfort, Kingship, 330; James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals, 87. 26 Pallis, Akîtu, 197; James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals, 87. This interpretation was originally suggested by Herodotus’ account of a great shrine on the top of the ziggurat where the god and a chosen woman may visit. See Herodotus, Histories, i, 181-182. 27 Pallis, Akîtu, 198. 28 Henri Frankfort, “Gods and Myths on Sargonid Cylinder Seals,” Iraq 1 (1934), 4. 24 25

24

The Akītu Festival

(cleansing), corresponding to death, and the “filling” rites of invigoration and jubilation, representing a type of rebirth. Remnants of Gaster’s four elements survive today in many aspects of ritual analysis. For Gaster, the akītu was the culmination of the complete seasonal pattern.29 This amalgamation of myth and ritual results in cultic drama. According to him the akītu was a sacred pantomime with a mimetic combat, taken mostly from a few lines in the problematical VAT 9555 text, which state that when Bēl was captive in the hòursān the city rebelled and fought30 and that they made holes in the door (of the temple?) and did battle through them.31 From this he built upon earlier proposals of a sacred battle to reinforce that this battle symbolized the death and rebirth of society through the seasons of nature.

Political and Sociological Interpretations The Sumerologist T. Jacobsen associated the akītu with a sacred marriage drama but asserted that there was no clear evidence of a cultic battle ritual.32 He argued that the akītu as an agricultural festival was much older than the battle theme and that the political agenda (i.e., the supposed cultic battle) was superimposed on the agrarian nature of the akītu festival. Reference to a cultic drama was later added to the descriptions of the akītu, most likely by the priesthood of Marduk, as the battle drama became the new vehicle for political ideology and a means to reaffirm the birth of a nation. Following von Soden, who argued that VAT 9555 was a propagandistic text to justify Sennacherib’s conquest of Babylon and destruction of the temple of Marduk, Jacobsen also disputed the supposed death and resurrection of Marduk. He suggested that the text represents an Assyrian anti-Babylonian propaganda, reinterpreting the akītu as a trial of Marduk for rebelling against Ashur, with Marduk defending himself by claiming everything he 29 Gaster, Thespis, 62-64. Though his argument depended more upon the Ugaritic myths of Baal and Anat. 30 VAT 9555 Line 23. 31 VAT 9555 Line 69. 32 Thorkild Jacobsen, “Religious Drama in Mesopotamia,” in Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East, eds., Hans Goedicke and J. J. M. Roberts (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975), 65-97.

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

25

did was for the glory of Ashur.33 A study of Assyrian akītu and other rituals are found in G. von Driel’s classic study, The Cult of Assur.34 The next significant interpretation of the akītu was from the History of Religions school championed by M. Eliade35 and J. Z. Smith36 Eliade focused on the phenomenology of the akītu. With his cyclic notions of time, death and rebirth, and focus on the cosmogonic myth, Eliade proposed that ritual re-creates creation, or what he refers to as “periodic regeneration of time.” In contrast to the myth and ritual school, who saw the ritual as relatively stable and the myth as the changeable element, Eliade ascribed far more stability to the structures in the underlying myth.37 Proposing that myths are sacred, and instead of leading away from reality, he asserted that they provide a direct passage into reality. The recitations of the Enūma eliš during the festival regenerated time, restoring the world from primordial chaos to a new, regenerative creation. “Religious festivals or any liturgical time represents the reactualization of a sacred myth.”38 Eliade interpreted the “humiliation” of the king and the loss of his royal investiture as symbolic of death, and as a return to primordial chaos. The sacred marriage, for Eliade, symbolized the rebirth and the new order of creation. Alleging that rituals guarantee the continuity of the life of the community in its entirety, he stressed that the akītu was crucial to the well-being of Mesopotamian society.39 Contemporary scholarship has examined the akītu for its political and sociological significance, doing away with the concepts of hieros gamos, cultic battle, and the motif of the dying-rising god. Jacobsen, “Religious Drama in Mesopotamia.” 73. G. von Driel, The Cult of Assur (Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum & Company, 1969). 35 Mircea Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return (New York: Harper and Row, 1959). See also Raffaele Pettazoni, “Der babylonische Ritus des Akitu und das Gedicht der Weltschöpfung,” Eranos-Jahrbuch 14 (1950), 403-30. 36 Jonathan Z. Smith, “A Pearl of Great Price and a Cargo of Yams: A Study in Situational Incongruity,” in Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982), 90-101. 37 Bell, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions, 10. 38 Eliade, Sacred and the Profane, 68-69. 39 Eliade, Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return, 51. 33 34

The Akītu Festival

26

C. Çagirgan’s 1976 dissertation offers new information about the previously unknown first day of the Babylonian festival, as well as a transliteration and translation of the Babylonian liturgical texts.40 J. Z. Smith took a comparative religions approach, contrasting the akītu with a West Ceramese myth and examining the incongruities of the two. He suggested that the akītu was not related to reestablishing cosmic order, but that it reflects a response and a strategy for dealing with an incongruous situation, i.e., foreign domination. Smith rightfully recommends that the liturgical texts must be read in the context of the Seleucid period. The “canonical” reconstruction of the akītu is a mishmash of texts of varying chronology and geography. The akītu described in the Seleucid texts is certainly not the same akītu celebrated millennia earlier in pre-Sargonic Ur. This was Smith’s first incongruity in the akītu; the second he finds in the negative confession of the king on the fifth day of the festival. Smith speculates: What native king of Babylonia contemplated or was guilty of destroying or overthrowing his capital city, Babylon, smashing its walls, or neglecting or destroying its major temple, the Esagila? These would be inconceivable actions for a native king. But these were the actions of foreign kings (Assyrian, Persian, Seleucid) who gained the throne of Babylon through conquest…read in this light, the ritual of the Akitu becomes, in part, a piece of nationalistic religious propaganda.41

For Smith, contra Eliade, the Enūma eliš recited at the akītu did not act in the manner of a cosmogonic myth, nor may it have been the same Enūma eliš known from other texts. Smith proposed that this Enūma eliš was a myth of the establishment of Marduk’s kingship and the celebration of the creation of his temple in Babylon. The order that was being restored was not “cosmic” order but political order. During the Seleucid period, Babylon was “out of order” because a foreign king sat upon the throne. The negative Galip Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals (Ph.D. diss., University of Birmingham, 1976). 41 Smith, “Pearl of Great Price,” 91-92. On mythologizing the destruction of Babylon see Michael A. Astour, “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and Its Babylonian Sources,” in Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations, ed. Alexander Altmann (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966), 65-112. 40

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

27

confession and the recitation of the Enūma eliš were mandatory to assert the legitimacy of the Seleucid king. However, other scholars have recently proposed that the Babylonian akītu does in fact exemplify some of Eliade’s cosmogonic thinking and that the Enūma eliš referred to in the ritual is the standard creation myth by that name.42 Most scholars agree that participation of the king was mandatory and the ceremony affirmed his supremacy as king of the land. A. K. Grayson analyzes the references to the akītu in the historical chronicles of the kings of Assyria and Babylon and asserts that, though the chroniclers had some interest in the festival, the recognition of the king as the supreme ruler did not depend upon his participation in the akītu.43 J. Black, in arguing that the festival is a symbolic representation of the creation epic, also claimed that the ritual of the king illustrates the affirmation of the king as a high priest of Marduk, not as the political leader of Babylonia but rather the religious one.44 In Black’s analysis, the akītu represented the celebration of the spring barley harvest (e.g., the cultic picnic), the marking of the calendrical aspect of the New Year, and most importantly the affirmation and enthronement of Nabû who was becoming increasingly more important than his father, Marduk. K. van der Toorn’s studies dismiss the idea of a cultic battle or of the ritual as a revival of nature and focus on the sociological

42 Benjamin D. Sommer, “The Akitu Festival: Its Purpose and Meaning in Light of a Recent Comparative Approach,” Unpublished draft of a paper presented at the 207th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Miami, FL., March 1997. Stating that Smith’s interpretation of the akītu is “off the mark,” Sommer finds symbolic representation of the re-enactment of creation in the cleansing of the temple and in the king’s re-enthronement. 43 Albert Kirk Grayson, “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival,” in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assryriologique Internationale, ed. André Finet (Hamsur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970), 160-170; Albert Kirk Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Texts from Cuneiform Sources (Locust Valley, NY: J. J. Augustin, 1975). 44 Jeremy A. Black, “The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: 'Taking Bēl by the Hand' and a Cultic Picnic,” Religion 11 (January 1981), 39-59.

28

The Akītu Festival

factors of akītu.45 Drawing on the work of van Gennep,46 van der Toorn suggests that the festival represents a series of “rites of passages” that are variants on the theme of renewal, not in the cosmic sense but as a celebration of the validity of the political, social, and religious order of the central values of Babylonian civilization. The old order is “momentarily jeopardized, emerges intact, and is reaffirmed.”47 Van der Toorn agrees with Black about the importance of Nabû in the Late Babylonian akītu. In a rite of confirmation, Nabû in his role as tutelary deity of the king grants the Babylonian kings their royal mandate. Inherent in akītu festivities are challenges to Nabû and the king. Both must prove themselves worthy of their official position—Nabû by symbolically slaying two rival deities represented by the small statues, and the king by passing his test of ritual humiliation.48 M. Cohen’s extensive work, The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East, offers an entire section on the celebrations of the akītu throughout the millennia, including a translation of most of the liturgical texts and a reconstruction of the events of the festival.49 Cohen maintains that due to the ever-increasing importance to the cult of Nabû in the late first millennium the celebration of the Babylonian akītu may have merged two akītu festivals, one for Marduk and one for Nabû.50 While I agree with Black, van der Toorn, and Cohen on the importance of Nabû in the festival, I find no evidence of there ever being a separate akītu for Nabû.

45 Karel van der Toorn, “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest,” Phoenix 36 (1990), 10-29; Karel van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study,” in Congress Volume Leuven 1989, Vetus Testamentum. Supplement 43, ed. J. A. Emerton (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991), 331-344; Karel van der Toorn “Seleucid Royal Ideology, the Babylonian Akitu Festival, and the Interpretatio Graeca of Some Mesopotamian Deities,” unpublished paper. 46 Arnold van Gennep, Rites of Passage (London: Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1965). 47 Van der Toorn, “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest,” 339. 48 Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 16. 49 Cohen, Cultic Calendars, esp. 400-453. 50 Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 441. See also Fran Reynolds, “Review of Cultic Calendars,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 53 1/2 (1996), 94.

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

29

B. Pongratz-Leisten’s recent work investigates the akītu procession and its cultic topography, demonstrating how ritual procedures illustrate ideological intentions.51 She proposes that one must abandon the concept of a standardized canonical form of the Mesopotamian akītu, arguing rather that local political and cultic ideology leads to very different celebrations.52 Several scholars including L. Dirven,53 S. Dalley,54 and J. Tubach55 have presented evidence that an “akītu” type festival may have been celebrated at Palmyra, Dura-Europos, Assur, and even Babylon, hundreds of years after the collapse of the Babylonian Empire.

The akītu, the Bible, and Ancient Festivals Before turning to an analysis of the akītu, other tangents of akītu scholarship must be mentioned—the comparisons with Sacaea (and Saturnalia56) and the biblical connections with the akītu festival. Frazer’s idea of a scapegoat and the connection with the “king of misrule.”57 led Langdon to further this notion by drawing Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi īrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr., Baghdader Forschungen 16 (Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1994). Reviewed by Andrew R. George, “Studies in Cultic Topography and Ideology,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 53 I 3/4 (1996), 364-395; W.G. Lambert, “Processions to the Akītu House,” Revue d’Assyriologie 91 (1997) 49-80. 52 Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in Assyrian Politics,” in Assyria 95: Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. eds., Simo Parpola and Robert Whiting (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997), 245. 53 Lucinda Dirven, “The exaltation of Nabû: A revision of the relief depicting the battle against Tiamat from the temple of Bēl in Palmyra,” Die Welt des Orients 28 (1997), 96-116. 54 Stephanie Dalley, “Bel at Palmyra and Elsewhere in the Parthian Period,” Palmyra and The Arameans. Aram 7 (1995), 137-151. 55 Jürgen Tubach, “Das akītu-fest in Palmyra,” Palmyra and The Arameans. Aram 7 (1995), 121-135. 56 For a detailed study of Saturnalia, see H. S. Versnel, Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual, Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 6 (Leiden: E. J. Brill 1993), esp. 136-228. 57 Frazer, Golden Bough, 113-117; 306ff. 51

The Akītu Festival

30

several parallels between the Babylonian New Year Festival and the Persian celebration, Sacaea.58 According to Langdon’s interpretation of the writings of Strabo, 59 Cyrus instituted a festival to commemorate his defeat of the Scythians. As the myth goes, Cyrus left wine and food for his enemies, and when they were inebriated he killed them all. Cyrus attributed this victory to his national goddess, Anaitis, a river goddess who, with her epithet Queen of Heaven, eventually became identified with Ishtar. Claiming that the New Year festival, especially the akītu of Ishtar, is reminiscent of the Persian festival of Sacaea, he situated Sacaea at the vernal equinox. The Sacaea is also compared to the Roman festival of Saturnalia with its carnivalesque qualities of reversed order and license.60 Frazer and Langdon alleged Sacaea contained the execution of a bogus king, who was actually a condemned malefactor, as a scapegoat for the sins of the people. The name Sacaea derives from the word sakku, meaning simpleton, or halfwit. Langdon erroneously tried to connect sakku with Akk. šaknu (governor) to further his argument—the šaknu becomes the sakku. In wild revelry and sexual promiscuity, masters and servants switched places, while a condemned criminal was dressed up in a king’s adornments. The mock king, called Zogannes, sits on the throne, eats, drinks, and fornicates with the king’s wives and concubines. He rules the city for five days, after which he is stripped, scourged, and eventually hanged.61 Langdon thought that the fifth day of the akītu, with the king’s “reversal” and the disappearance of Marduk, was identical to the Sacaea festival. Until the king was restored to his proper place and Marduk had risen from the depths of the Netherworld, disorder prevailed. This interpretation is as bogus as the imposter king—there is no Stephen Langdon, “The Babylonian and Persian Sacaea,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland (1924), 65-72. 59For ancient sources see Strabo 11.8., 4-5; Berossus 15; Dion Chrysostum 4.66-67. Note, however, that Berossus placed this festival at 16 Loos (July or September?). 60 Many have suggested that the remnants of this festival survive today as our “April Fool’s Day” celebration. 61 Langdon, “Babylonian and Persian Sacaea,” 66. Also see Zimmern, Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest II, 10; For translation of the letters see Erle Leichty, “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 954. 58

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

31

evidence of a substitute king ruling during the Babylonian New Year Festival, nor of any public execution of a criminal. An equally unfounded parallel has been drawn between the akītu and the Bible. A few words on this enormous and speculative topic should suffice. As with most ancient Near Eastern material, when the elaborate liturgies and rites of akītu festivals first came to light, early biblical scholars were quick to offer several questionable connections to the Scriptures. In those days of “parallelism” when localized cultic practices were interpreted as uniform throughout the entire ancient Near East, biblical scholars proposed that the Babylonian myths, rituals, and culture were responsible for many of the biblical traditions. The comparisons to the New Testament have already been noted. In reference to the text of Hebrew Bible, scholars have noted the correspondences between the Genesis creation stories and the Enūma eliš.62 The Psalms, interpreted as royal hymns and enthronement festivals of Yahweh, have been compared to the prayers and enthronement of Marduk in the akītu.63 Mowinckel claimed Psalm 24 was recited as a liturgy for the return of the ark to the sanctuary and compared it to the šuilla sung to Marduk when he reached the gate of the Esagila.just as the myth of creation, the Enūma eliš was recited at Babylon in honour of Marduk who re-created the world at the feast, it seems natural to suppose that the Israelites, when celebrating Yahweh’s assumption of power as the creator of the world recited a myth of creation.64 Early scholars also proposed a correlation with the book of Esther and the Jewish holiday of Purim. The Persian background of the story and the probable identification of Ahasuerus with Alexander Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951); For a more recent analysis see Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible, CBQ Monograph Series 26 (Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of American, 1994). 63 Especially Psalms 47, 93, 96-100. See S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien (Amsterdam: Verlag P. Schippers, 1961); S. Mowinckel, Psalms in Israel’s Worship. Eng. trans. (New York: Abingdon Press, 1962); John H. Eaton, Kingship and the Psalms. 2nd ed. (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986), 129-130; Emil Kraeling, “The Real Religion of Ancient Israel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 47 (1928), 133-159. 64 Johannes Pederson, Israel: Its Life and Culture, I-II (London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1926), 749. 62

The Akītu Festival

32

Xerxes laid the initial framework for this theory. The similarities between the name of Mordecai and Marduk and Esther with the goddess Ishtar were noted. The holiday and the timing of Purim in the month of Nisan, with the issuances of lots (destinies) for the upcoming year, are additional elements that further fueled this discussion. E. Kraeling proposed that the Book of Daniel was not native to the Israelites but was based on the Babylonian New Year festival, especially in the actions of the gods as sitting down, feasting, and then fixing the fates. 65 David’s procession with the Ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:12-19) and Solomon’s procession in 1 Kings 8:19 were compared to the Babylonian procession of the deities. The Song of Songs has been referred to as a cultic drama and a Sacred Marriage text, often compared to the love story between Inanna and Dumuzi.66 These are just a few of the dubious connections to the akītu that have been proposed by biblical scholars and ancient historians. However initially appealing these parallels may have been when first proposed, they were shown to be highly speculative and doubtful. There is little evidence to support any celebration of the akītu festival in ancient Israel, nor of an Israelite religious festival modeled upon the Babylonian akītu. The closest parallel that one could claim would be the agrarian background of cultic and religious festivals in Israel and Mesopotamia with similar motifs and themes.

Akītu Celebrations in Later Periods The celebration of some aspect of the akītu may well have continued into the Common Era. There are several clues, especially from the cities of Dura-Europos, Edessa, and Palmyra, leading scholars to posit the continuity of Babylonian religious practices. Cults of Bēl and Nabû were very strong in Palmyra well into the first century C.E. At Edessa as well as Harran, Asshur, Hara, Dura Europos, and Palmyra, traditional Mesopotamian Emil G. Kraeling, “Some Babylonian and Iranian Mythology in the Seventh Chapter of Daniel,” in Oriental Studies in Honour of Cursetij Erachji Pavry, ed. Jal Dastur Cursetji Pavry (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 229. 66 For discussion, see Marvin Pope, Song of Songs, Anchor Bible 7C (New York: Doubleday, 1977), 145-153. 65

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

33

religion existed well into Christian times.67 Because the akītu contained so many variant elements almost any cult festival in the ancient Mediterranean, if closely scrutinized, can resemble portions of the akītu festival. However, some residual themes and motifs certainly continued. These arguments are based mainly on two factors—an iconographic representation of Bēl68 in a battle scene on the temple walls at Palmyra and an inscription recounting a festival celebration of Bēl and the dedication of his temple on the sixth day of Nisan in 32 C.E. The argument here will not be that these festivals were identical to the Babylonian Nisannu festival, but that comparable elements of the festival were employed at a much later period to enforce similar political ideology. The celebration of the festival in later periods acted as a return to traditional Babylonian themes and ideology, perhaps to revive a “collective memory” of a glorious New Year’s festival from years gone by. Certainly, the majestic akītu festival of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon was remembered with reverence and nostalgia, and perhaps emulated in later periods. The discussion of the akītu found in later periods should meet some specific criteria: 1) the festival must be called akītu, 2) it must include the mention of cultic activity in the bīt akīti, 3) it must involve analogous rituals of the Babylonian gods Bēl and/or Nabû as the chief gods, or 4) it must be celebrated during the traditional akītu period (1-12 Nisannu). If the inclusion of any one of these factors has been identified, scholars have proposed late akītu celebrations. The question to be asked is not merely if these festivals are akītu festivals but rather what function or purpose the commemoration of them served in these periods. Local akītu festivals were celebrated throughout most of the Mesopotamian cities as far back as the third millennium B.C.E. Though not exactly the same festival as the Babylonian Nisannu akītu, these local festivals could be celebrated at various times of the year and in honor of any chosen deity.69 The similarities of 67 Hans J. W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980), 56. 68 Or Nabû, as Dirven claims, Dirven, 115. 69 One letter from Šamši-Adad to Yasmahò-Adad found in Mari indicates that the celebration of the akītu took place on Ayaru 16. Horses, mules, and new chariots and harnesses were needed for the akītu. See

34

The Akītu Festival

these festivals to the Babylonian akītu vary from festival to festival according to time, place, and celebrated deity. One late first-millennium source is the Papyrus Amherst 63, an Aramaic document written by exiles from Raš. The texts describe a Tašrītu akītu liturgy connected with the West Semitic moon god Sachar.70 In this ritual the king stops at the gate of an akītu chapel, recites a prayer, and enters into the courtyard. Similar to the Uruk akītu he washes his hands and proceeds to the assembly of the gods. The gods bless the king. Incense is burned, sheep are sacrificed, and hymns are sung. The New Year Text from Raš concludes with a sacred marriage ceremony. The example from Raš shows adaptation of the Babylonian New Year rituals into a West Semitic culture. A festival list (ca. 363 B.C.E.) from Harran in Northern Mesopotamia includes a celebration for the moon god and Venus (a local version of Ishtar).71 This festival bears a strong resemblance to the akītu of Sîn that was celebrated during Nabonidus’ reign. Some have claimed an akītu at Dura-Europos, proposing that the Necropolis temple reflects the architecture of a bīt akīti as it is ARM 1 50, lines 5-7; 11-15. Another example of the variety of the celebrations is found in the Nippur Compendium: In the month of Nisan festivals are celebrated the akītu of Marduk for his supreme destiny the akītu of Ninurta for his father Enlil the akītu of Ishtar, Queen of Nippur the akītu of Sîn for Ninurta, the net of the gods there are as many akītu as there are. . . Text published by Andrew R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40 (Leuven: Peeters, 1992), 155. 70 Al Wolter, “Belshazzar’s Feast and the Cult of the Moon,” Bulletin of Biblical Research 5 (1995), 204. See also R. C. Steiner, “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year’s Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 11 (1991), 363-363; R. C. Steiner, “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the Language, Literature, Religion, and History of the Arameans,” Studia Aramaica (1995), 199-207; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 452. 71 Mark J. Geller, “The Last Wedge.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 87 (1997), 55; Tamara Green, The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992) esp. 145-157.

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

35

found outside the city walls.72 However, this city of dead could have been placed outside the walls for that very reason. There were also local cults of Nebo and Bēl at Edessa throughout the late first millennium B.C.E. and into the first centuries C.E. The gods at Edessa held some of the same characteristics of their Babylonian predecessors. Later, Bēl became identified with Jupiter and Nabû with Mercury, as the god of the scribes. In addition, there was a festival commemorating the moon god, Sîn and his consort, a local version of Ishtar. Nebu (Nabû) was considered the chief deity of the city. The Acts of Sharbel mention a great festival on Nisannu 8 during which all the gods convene on a large altar in the center of the city. This is reminiscent of the procession of gods and the determining of the destinies in the Babylonian akītu.73 Lastly, The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite mentions a “pagan” spring festival in 498 C.E for seven days.74 Myths were recited, celebrants dressed in special linen garments while they danced and sung.75 Though it was celebrated during the akītu period, it may simply have been a celebration for the coming of spring. Perhaps the motif of a joyful spring festival was based on the Babylonian akītu. However, other than the fact that it was celebrated in the spring, there is not enough proof to claim this was an akītu. There is more evidence for a late Palmyrene akītu festival. The influence of Babylonian religion was strong in Palmyra, and many recent studies reflect this.76 Palmyra worshiped a multitude of gods, many from Babylonia: Bēl, Nabû, Nergal, Nanai, Bēltiya as well as indigenous gods, Yarhibol and Agibol. Bēl and Nebo

Geller, “Last Wedge,” 54 note 44. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa, 43. 74 Ibid. 75 Geller, “Last Wedge,” 54. 76 For information on the akītu at Palmyra, see Stephanie Dalley, “Bel at Palmyra and Elsewhere in the Parthian Period,” Palmyra and The Arameans. Aram 7 (1995), 137-151; Lucinda Dirven, “The exaltation of Nabû: A revision of the relief depicting the battle against Tiamat from the temple of Bel in Palmyra,” Die Welt des Orients 28 (1997), 96-116; Jürgen Tubach, “Das akītu-fest in Palmyra,” Palmyra and The Arameans, Aram 7 (1995), 121-135. 72 73

The Akītu Festival

36

were the traditional gods of Palmyra.77 They each had temples in the eastern quarter of the city. Nabû enjoyed great popularity at Palmyra. At Dura-Europos, he is represented by a statue with a Palmyrene inscription. At Palmyra, a well-known bas-relief depicts a scene between an ophidian monster battling with a deity clad in military costume, carrying a bow, and riding a chariot. The deity is shown ready to shoot the arrow at the monster, which has a woman’s body and legs consisting of snakes.78 This relief has often been compared to the battle scene between Bēl and Tiamat in the Enūma eliš. The inscription on the pedestal dates the dedication of the temple to Nisannu 6, 32 C.E. The dedicatory inscription found on the pedestal of a statue at the temple of Bēl states that it was erected in the temple on the day of their feast, implying that there was at least some type of festival during the first days of Nisannu. The text adds that it was a “holy” day for Bēl and his companions, Yarhibol and Agibol.79 It was not at all unusual for temples to be dedicated during the akītu festival.80 The great epic battle scene depicted on the temple of Bēl was funded by Babylonian money, another reason to suggest that an akītu was celebrated there. The thalamus of Bēl’s temple in Palmyra also depicts a zodiac motif with four corners symbolizing the four winds in the Enūma eliš. Drijvers claims the whole scene is reminiscent of the cosmic battle with Tiamat. Bēl’s temple dedication during Nisannu, in combination with the Babylonian-themed battle scene on the temple walls, has led many scholars to conclude that at the beginning of the Common Era the akītu was still being celebrated, For the roles of Bēl and Nabû in the Palmyrene pantheon, see Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa. In addition also see Henri Seyrig, “Antiquités Bêl de Palmyre,” Syria 48 (1971), 85-114; A. Bounni, “Nabû Palmyrénien, Orientala 45 (1976), 46-52. 78 Dirven, “Exaltation of Nabû,” 96-97; Henri Seyrig, “Antiquités syriennes, 17: Bas-reliefs du temple de Bêl à Palmyre,” Syria 15 (1934), 155-186. See also Malcom Colledge, The Art of Palmyra (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1976), 35, and plate 20. 79 Jean Cantineau, “Tadmorea,” Syria 14 (1933), 169-202. 80 For instance, see Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C., Yale Near Eastern Researches 10 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), 9-10. 77

Analysis of Previous Scholarship on The akītu

37

especially at Palmyra.81 Dalley suggests that at Palmyra the Enūma eliš was recited in Aramaic.82 Perhaps this recitation was in conjunction with a local akītu festival. Another indication that Nisannu was a festival month is revealed in a tessera reading “Bēl, (month of) Nisan.” Scholars have claimed that this tessera allowed a person access to a sacred meal celebrated on the occasion of the New Year.83 The continuity of the akītu in late Assyria is demonstrated by fourteen Aramaic votive inscriptions from the 3rd century C.E., written between 8 and 11 Nisan, that were found in the temple at Assur.84 These texts refer to the god Assur and his consort, Sherua, a substitute for the Babylonian Marduk and Zarpanitu. These Aramaic votive inscriptions offered at the beginning of Nisannu reflect the continuation of the akītu. Dalley also explores the Mesopotamian influence on Greek temples at Athens, Delphi, Rhodes, and Samos. At Samos, she finds a corroded bronze figure of the mušhuššu dragon, traditionally associated with Marduk and Ishtar, as well as an annual cult procession in which the image of Hera was bathed and clothed, leading her to propose the recollection of the Babylonian akītu festival.85 We possess accounts of cult festivals celebrated by the Roman Emperor Elagabalus Varius Avitus Bassianus, known as a priest of the sun god. He is said to have celebrated a rite with the god Bol, which has been interpreted to be a form of the akītu.86

Dirven, “Exaltation of Nabû,” 100. Stephanie Dalley, The Legacy of Mesopotamia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 119. 83 Dirven, “Exaltation of Nabû,” 100 and note 12. 84 Texts nos. 17a and 29k are dated 8 Nisan; nos. 25b and 29i are on 9 Nisan; nos. 27b, 29b, and 29h on 10 Nisan; nos. 17b, 20, 23c, 25e, and 28h are dated 11 Nisan; no. 29a is dated either 7, 8, or 9 Nisan. No. 27j is only dated “on the day of Nisan”. (Information courtesy of Karel van der Toorn.) For texts, see B. Aggoula, Inscriptions et graffites araméens d’Assur, Annali Suppl. 43 (Napoli: Instituto orientale, 1985). 85 Dalley, Legacy of Mesopotamia, 98-119. Also see J. Curtis “Mesopotamian Bronzes from Greek Sites: The Workshops of Origins,” Iraq 56 (1994), 1-25. 86 Geller, “The Last Wedge,” 53. 81 82

38

The Akītu Festival

As a final consideration, the akītu celebration has witnessed a renaissance with modern-day Assyrians.87 The actual date for the discontinuation of the akītu cannot be established with any certainty. Though the ritual and liturgies were not uniform, the above instances show how some elements of the festival continued to be celebrated throughout the history of ancient Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean world.

87 Illustrated in the Kha-B'Nissan festival, a New Year festival celebrated by modern-day Assyrians on the first day of Nisan. In this festival they renew their pledge to a national identity and they play a game of luck (fortune-telling) with the hope of discerning their fortune for the coming year. Their festival is a celebration of revival and renewal of nature and one of the most important religious and national celebrations held in Bet-Nahrain. See website http://www.aina.org/aol/nissan.txt and http://www.mohawkc.on.ca/clubs/assyrian/newyear.html.

PHENOMONOLOGY OF THE AKĪTU FESTIVAL

New Year Festivals Celebrating the New Year is one of the most ancient and universal institutions, cutting across many cultures and time. Festivities and ritual observances, marking the passage of the seasons, or the solar return, are frequent throughout most cultures and times, both ancient and modern. Observations and customs vary widely, but the recognition of the turning of the year as a phenomenon of transition is a common fact.1 All New Year celebrations have the same underlying theme—“what is old, exhausted, weakened, inferior, and harmful is to be eliminated, and what is new, fresh, powerful, good and healthy is to be introduced and ensured.”2 In present-day celebrations, the New Year represents the beginning of new life, the beginnings of creation, and a renewal of The New Year has been celebrated at various times throughout the year, depending upon culture and/or religion. January 1st is the common New Year’s Day for most contemporary secular societies, however it is only within the last 400 years that the Western nations moved from the Babylonian idea of the vernal equinox as New Year’s Day to the January observance. In many of the ancient Mediterranean cultures the beginning of the year occurred during both the spring and fall. Though New Year celebrations were frequent with the general populace, the early Church was opposed to its celebration, mainly due to the “pagan” elements involved. Eventually January 1 became the New Year, with the Church setting the date of the Annunciation to March 25 to correspond with the Spring equinox. See Theodore Herzl Gaster, New Year: Its History, Customs, and Superstitions (New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955), 4-5. 2 Joseph Henninger, “New Year Festivals,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion. ed. Mircea Eliade, et al. (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 416. 1

39

40

The Akītu Festival

power; it looks both backward with a reflection on the past and forward with a hope toward the future.3 The New Year in the ancient world may have reflected similar sentiments. Some comparable qualities in New Year Festivals include the elimination of the old through fasting, purification, expulsion of sickness and evil powers, or the dispatch of an animal as a scapegoat to atone for the transgressions committed during the year. In many cultures, noisemaking is thought to ward off demons for the upcoming year. In modern New Year celebrations, the stroke of midnight is accompanied by clapping, cheering, and paper noise-makers.4 The use of sound to dispel demons is also noted in the akītu rituals. During the cleansing of the temple the exorcist beats a sacred drum. Fasting, followed by the consumption of special foods, is also an ingredient of celebrations to ring in the New Year.5 Most New Year’s festivals in the ancient Near East included comparable elements—processions of the king and the deities, intricate sacrifices, prayers, rites of purification and cleansing of the temple, and celebrations to commemorate the upcoming year. Traditionally a time of celebration and renewal in the agrarian societies of the ancient Near East, the New Year festivities corresponded to the cyclical agricultural season; detailed ceremonies marked the phenomenon of transition from one passage into the next. The beginning of the year was not always a precise or fixed date that was astronomically determined but was also established 3 Recall the Roman god Janus with one face looking back to the past and one towards the future. In other celebrations the symbolism of the Old Man and the New Baby echoes this sentiment. The tradition of using a baby to signify the New Year began in Greece around 600 B.C.E. During the feast of Dionysus parading a baby around in a basket represented the annual rebirth of the god as fertility. The early Church denounced the practice as pagan, but the popularity of the baby as a symbol of rebirth forced the Church to reevaluate its position, finally allowing the celebration of the New Year with a baby, which was to symbolize the birth of the baby Jesus. Also compare the reflection on the past with the custom today of New Year resolutions. One could argue that such custom could be traced to the “determining of the destinies” in the akītu, but such a suggestion should be resisted. 4 Cf. the practice of blowing the shofar at Rosh Hashannah. 5 Compare to fasting on Yom Kippur.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

41

by annual vegetation cycle or climatic occurrences.6 In the ancient world, time reckoning was based on natural occurrences—the passage of day into night, season to season, harvest to sowing. Observations of celestial phenomena served as timekeepers in the world of the past. The early Sumerian akītu was celebrated according to the vegetation cycle at harvest and sowing seasons, both marking the start of the year. In Ur during the Ur III and the Isin-Larsa periods, an akītu festival took place twice a year: in the seventh month, and in the first month. Eventually there was a change in the beginning of the calendar year from autumn to the spring, resulting in two akītu festivals: the “akītu of the sowing (season)” and the “akītu of the harvest (season).” Since both were celebrated at equinoctial times, when the days and nights were in perfect balance, they were also probably symbolically important to the “perfect balance” of the sowing or harvest of the crop. It was always crucial to perform some sort of ritual as a request to the gods to ensure a healthy crop, or to thank the gods and celebrate the reaping of another successful harvest. An agricultural festival at harvest and sowing was necessary to invoke the blessing of the gods for fertility and abundance. According to the analysis of the Myth-and-Ritualists, the agrarian societies of the ancient Near East viewed the demarcation of their year following a seasonal pattern. The earth had been dead, the trees barren, and vegetation absent. The deity had abandoned his city, or “disappeared”. When nature appears lifeless, some explanation must be made and some action taken to rectify the situation. This interpretation of the climatic conditions of the ancient Near East has often been cited to reflect the agricultural background of the early akītu festivals.

Akītu and zagmukku As the peoples of the ancient Near East celebrated New Year’s festivals both during the spring and the fall, one must raise a question about the actual beginning of the year. The answer is especially relevant for our analysis of the Neo-Babylonian New Year Festival. Was there a separate cultic and a civic New Year as

6

Such as the flooding of the Nile in ancient Egypt.

The Akītu Festival

42

suggested by some scholars?7 To address these questions, we should examine the terms used to designate the New Year. The most common word used for New Year is the Sumerian word ZAG.MU, which eventually became Akkadian zagmukku or zammukku. The term zamukku literally means “the threshold, or the beginning of the year.”8 rēš šatti is also used to mark the beginning of the year, though it is often used in conjunction with zammukku, issini akīti, or simply akītu.9 Though akītu refers to the New Year, one cannot say that akītu came unequivocally to mean “New Year Festival” throughout all of Mesopotamia in all historical periods. The celebration of the akītu festival as the New Year Festival may have been a very late development in Babylonian history. In Sumerian times, the akītu and the zammukku seem to have been two separate festivals.10 Both may refer to the actual Van der Toorn, “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest,” 10-11. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 204. ZAG.MU = re-eš šat-ti. Also see CAD Z/12, zagmukku. 9 The origin of the word akītu is somewhat of an enigma. It is a feminine word, originally thought to be a Sumerian loan word, but that theory is now rejected. There was a Sumerian month itiakītu and an early Sumerian Festival called the Á.KI.TI. The month was probably named after the festival. For more on the etymology see Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 225. Also see Adam Falkenstein, “Akiti-Fest und akiti-Festhaus,” in Johannes Friedrich Festschrift zum 6. Geburtstag, eds. Richard von Kienle, et al. (Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1959), 147; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 201. 10 We have many references to early Sumerian akītu festivals. The earliest reference is in third-millennium sources (the Fara period) referring to an akītu building in Nippur. In a list of barley rations from Šuruppak the mention of Ekur with the akītu might signify this connection. See R. Jestin, Tablettes sumériennes de Šuruppak, 881 obv, ii 1’-3’: Á.KI.TI É.KUR É.ZI. In pre-Sargonic economic texts from Ur and Adab, there is reference to the “Month of Á.KI.TI,” i.e., the sixth month and first month of the local calendars. At Ur, during the Ur III period, there was a festival called Á.KI.TI ŠU.NUMUN (the akītu-festival of the seeding season) celebrated in the seventh month. During Sargonic and Ur III akītu festivals are attested at Ur, Nippur, Adab, Uruk. These were semiannual celebrations, and timings varied from city to city. In Ur it was celebrated in the first and seventh month. In Nippur and Adab it was celebrated at the full moon on the fourth and twelfth month and in Uruk during the eighth month. Though reference to an akītu occurs in earlier sources, Cohen believes that pre-Sargonic Ur was probably the original 7 8

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

43

New Year’s Day or to the New Year festival. In first-millennium Babylon, the Nisannu akītu became the New Year’s festival. The possibility of a cultic New Year in Tašrītu as represented by akītu rituals at Uruk and Babylon11 has been suggested, but akītu celebrations are not always equivalent to New Year’s celebrations. The Tašrītu and the Nisannu rituals differ in proceedings.12

Calendars in Mesopotamia A look at the Mesopotamian calendar systems is beneficial to this discussion. “Most events, including religious festivals, agricultural, fiscal, and legal activities were determined with reference to the natural intervals produced by the motion of the sun and the moon.”13 Several time-reckoning methods were in practice throughout Mesopotamian history, but in Babylon during the first millennium one calendar came to be standard. Beginning with Nisannu, at the vernal equinox (normally late March/early April),14 the Mesopotamian calendar consisted of twelve lunar months and in some years an intercalary month. The Babylonian months are as follows:

site of the festival. For further discussion on the early akītu, see Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 95-97; 401-404. 11 See Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 431-434; Thureau-Dangin, Rituals Accadiens, 87-89ff; (AO 6459 and 6465). Also see Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars, no 190 r.2–10; 287 r.2–6. 12 On the Tašrītu rituals see Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 431-434; 451. 13 F. Rochberg Halton, “Calendars, Ancient Near East,” Anchor Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 810-814. Also F. Rochberg Halton, “Astronomy and Calendars in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 4 vols., ed. Jack M. Sasson (New York: Schribner, 1995), 1925-1940. For further discussion of calendarical systems in Mesopotamia, see Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 3-13; Wayne Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998), 163164; A. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. – A.D. 75 (Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956); Martin P. Nilsson, Primitive Time Reckoning: A Study of the Origins and First Development of the Art of Counting among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples (Lund: C. W .K. Gleerup, 1920). 14 According to some tables, during the Neo-Babylonian period the first of Nisannu could fall between the 11th of March and 26th of April. Rochberg Halton, “Astronomy and Calendars,” 1931.

The Akītu Festival

44 Nisannu Ayaru Simānu Tamūzu Abu Elūlu/Ulūlu Tašrītu Arahòsamnu Kislīmu Ṭebētu Šabāṭu Addaru

Initially, the Mesopotamian calendar was based on a lunar cycle— the occurrence of the rising new moon after sunset indicated the beginning of the new month. The full moon marked the middle of the month, and the ūm bubbulim (the day of disappearance) indicated the end of the month. Twelve lunar cycles, consisting of approximately 30 days, do not correspond with a solar year. After several years of these lunar months, an intercalary month was added. Intercalations are attested from the Old Babylonian Empire until Persian times: “Intercalations were effected by royal degree. Documents from Hammarabi, Nabonidus, Cyrus, and Cambyses among others attest to the procedure.”15 Eventually, the calendar was adjusted to correspond to the solar year. The year was divided into two six-month periods, determined by the equinoxes.16 Because of this division the celebration of a New Year could occur both at Nisannu and at Tašrītu. However, in lexical lists, economic documents, and other official inscriptions, Nisannu is always the first month of the Standard Mesopotamian calendar. Though there were other dates in which the New Year may have been celebrated throughout the millennia, the “evidence overwhelmingly indicates a ‘universal’ spring New Year.”17 The beginning of the year in Mesopotamian society is manifested in three ways: 1) as a starting point for counting years; 2) as the start of the fiscal year; and 3) as a start of the Rochberg Halton, “Astronomy and Calendars,” 1932. The solstices were also recognized but did not determine the year. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 7. 17 Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 14. 15 16

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

45

religious/agricultural year.18 All of these factors were important in the ideology of the celebration of the akītu. The akītu at Nisannu is the one that is of particular political and sociological significance for this study. This is the akītu that represents both the turning of the New Year and the remnants of the earlier agricultural akītu festivals. The akītu and the New Year’s festival may have begun as separate events, but by the late first millennium the Babylonians celebrated one akītu—the one at the beginning of Nisannu. It would appear, then, that the akītu and the Babylonian New Year’s festival are one and same, and we can now move to a reconstruction and interpretation of the festival events.

Reconstruction of the Days Interpretation of cuneiform ritual and cultic texts is always problematic. The technical language employed allows us to assume that the akītu ritual texts were most likely composed by the priests who performed them, primarily for their own usage. Often, though instructions are detailed and precise, there is the assumption that the reader is familiar with the procedures and cultic terminology. One unknown or misunderstood word can often distort the entire understanding of the ritual. Any analysis is, at best, speculative and circumspect. With that disclaimer, I attempt the ritual analysis of the akītu festival, followed by a reconstruction and analysis of the events of the Babylonian akītu and a translation of all relevant prayers. The rituals for days two through five of the Babylonian New Year festival are primarily gathered from the Seleucid texts.19 The remaining days are reconstructed from various sources, including cultic commentaries, royal inscriptions, economic texts, mythological texts, and letters. The Seleucid liturgical texts are instructions to the šešgallu (high Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 14. DT 15, DT 114, DT 109, MNB 1848. See Thureau-Dangin, Ritual Accadiens, 127-154 for copies, transliteration, and translation; Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 2-49 transliteration and translation only; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 437-450 translation only; Abraham J. Sachs, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 331-334, translation only; Walter Farber, “Kultische Rituale,” in Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments: Orakel, Rituale, Bau- und Votivinschriften, Lieder und Gebete, ed. O. Kaiser, et al. (Gütersloh : G. Mohn, 1986-1991), 212-222, translation only. 18 19

The Akītu Festival

46

priest) regarding cultic activities, prayers, and preparations in the temple.

Day 1 (Nisannu 1) The events of the first day of the akītu festival are not generally known. From a private collection, recently published by Çagirgan,20 we have recovered a small interval in the ritual for the first day. On the first day of Nisannu the priest would rise at dawn, enter Marduk’s courtyard and proceed to the Lofty Gate with a wooden key (gišnamzaqu)21 to perform some sort of rite concerning water. The ritual for the first day follows: 1. DIŠ ina itinisanni(bára) ud.1.kám ina [š]e-rim lúmu-ba[n-nu-ú] 2. it-ti giš nam-za-qu a-na kisalli(kisal) šá d Bēl (en)urrad(e )[-ma] 11 3. GIŠ-GÍN-u ša hòa-ari ša ina bīt d [.(.)] 4. [.]x-tu4 mêmeš ina lib-bi ana muhòhòi(ugu) x [.(.)] 5. [itti] g[i]šn[a]m-za-qu a-na KÁ.MAHò illak(gin) [.(.)] 6. [. . . ] ana muhòhòi(ugu) burti(pú) illak(gin)-ma bāb(ká)burti(pú) [ipette(bad)] 7. i-n]a-as-suk mêmeš x [. .] On the first day of Nisannu at dawn the mubannu (priest?) will go down to the courtyard of Bēl with a key (and) . . . of . . . of the house which is the house of [. .] . . . the water from inside to the presence .[.(.)] [with] the key [.(.)]he will go to the Exalted Gate. [. . . ] he will go before the cistern and open the door of the cistern [. . . he] will throw (into?) the water .[. .].22

Not much can be said about day one because of the brevity of our textual sources. A mubannu wakes at dawn and using a key opens up the KÁ.MAH gate of the Esagila. The KÁ.MAH gate, or the Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 1. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 205. See CAD N/257. namzaqu seems to be an instrument that opens the door by lifting (šūlû) a peg (sikkatu) that prevents a bar from moving. 22 The translation follows closely that of Çagirgan’s. 20 21

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

47

Exalted Gate, located on the east side of the Esagila past the Courtyard of Bēl, is thought to be the largest and the principal entrance to the whole sanctuary.23 The reference to the mubannu is confusing. The main priest in most of the other days is the šešgallu, yet he is not mentioned in this text. This is also the only day that the mubannu takes part in the rituals. Though Çagirgan proposes that he is some type of priest, this cannot be ascertained, as the only other text which refers to mubannu lists his profession as the temple cook.24 Perhaps because of the grand banquets and massive amounts of meals prepared at this festival, the mubannu as a temple cook might have some role in opening the ceremonies, perhaps even for the very practical reasons of letting in the other cooks, butchers, and bakers to the Esagila for meal preparation. The text is too short to make any solid conclusions. Since the other days do not refer to the opening of the gate with a key, it seems logical that this ritual happened only on the first day of the festival. A similar assumption could be proposed indicating a ritual for locking the gate at the conclusion of the akītu celebration.

Day 2 (Nisannu 2) On the second day, the šešgallu rises about 4 a.m. (two hours before sunrise). After bathing in river water, he pulls back a linen curtain and recites a prayer to Marduk. This prayer, a bilingual Sumerian and Akkadian hymn, is referred to in its colophon as “the secret of the E-sagila:” 25 6. Bēl, who in his anger has no rival 8. Bēl, the excellent king, lord of the lands 10. Who returns the favor of the great gods 12. Bēl who felled the mighty with his glance 14. Lord of the kings, the light of the people, who determines the destinies 16. Bēl, Babylon is your dwelling, Borsippa is your crown 18. The wide heavens are the whole of your liver 19. Bēl, with your eyes you see everything George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 87. Gilbert J. P. McEwan, Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon, Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 4 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981), 47. 25 DT 15. The numbering skips in places because the text is bilingual. 23 24

The Akītu Festival

48

20. With your omens, you verify your omens 21. With your glance, you give the decrees 22. You burn the mighty with your . . . 23. You bind in your hands with . . . 24. With your hands you grant mercy! 25. You show them the light; they speak of your heroism. 26. Lord of the lands, light of the Igigi, who speaks good things 27. Who is there who does not speak of your heroism? 28. Does not speak of your glory, does not exalt your lordship? 29. Lord of the lands, who dwells in the Eudul, who “grasps the hands” (ṣabit qātē) of the fallen. 30. To the city of Babylon, grant mercy! 31. To the Esagila, your temple, turn your face. 32. For the people of Babylon, your subjects, establish the “protected citizens” (lúṣāb kidinni) Colophon: Twenty-two lines, the secret of the Esagila. Whoever reveres Bēl will not show it to (anyone) except the šešgallu.

After his private prayer, the šešgallu opens up the gates of temple. The erīb bītī priests will arise and perform their usual rites before Bēl and his consort. Then the nārum and the kalū (lamentation priests and the cultic musicians) perform their rites. After the cultic officials have fulfilled their duties, the text has about eight broken lines. Someone is mentioned as placing the seal and the tiara of Anu on something. The text resumes with a mention of a namburbî26 and a reference to an unalterable curse that Marduk has A namburbî is an apotropaic ritual text which counters or undoes the evil portents. The texts are known mostly from the 8th-6th century B.C.E. from Nineveh and Assur. They usually include offerings, purification rites and prescriptions to be followed for some time after the supposed evil is to have occurred. Namburbi rituals were symbolic actions to restore normal life. There are several studies on this topic. See Richard Caplice’s classic study, The Akkadian Namburbu Texts: An Introduction (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1974). Additionally see Stefan M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung: Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi), Baghdader Forschungen, Band 18, Mainz 1994; N. Veldhuis, “On Interpreting Mesopotamian Namburbi 26

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

49

uttered. Broken lines 69-80 refer to the destruction of Uruk and Nippur. At this point, there are approximately two columns missing and the text continues with line 157 and the instructions for the third day of Nisannu. Already on the second day, in the first known prayer of the akītu, we can discern the beginnings of the major ideological themes of the entire festival: a) The supremacy of Marduk, the Esagila, and Babylon b) The preeminence of the kidinnu as a protected group c) The magnitude of the determining of the destinies d) The usage of qāte Bēl iṣbat or ṣabit qāte as a promise or oath

After performing his water purifications, the šešgallu recites a bilingual prayer to Bēl. He addresses the deity in the holy (Sumerian) language and the secular language (Akkadian).27 This bilingualism illustrates a long-standing reverence to Marduk both as a god from distant days as well as a god for the contemporary Babylonian world. The repetition of the same sentence in two languages, especially the liturgical sacred Sumerian language, expresses the intensity of the emotion behind the prayer. Based on the colophon, the poetic wording, and bilingual nature, this prayer could perhaps be a hymn sung to Marduk. It begins by praising Marduk as a mighty hero, reflecting upon his heroic role in the Enūma eliš. He is revered as the lord of the kings and the light of the people, the one who decrees the destinies (line 14). Marduk is praised as the omniscient and omnipotent deity. He is called the light of the Igigi.28 Line 29 of the prayer calls upon Marduk to Rituals,“ Archiv für Orientforschung 42, 145-154. The mention of a namburbî is important here in its ritual connection to the exorcism of the temple on day five. 27 Sumerian was long dead as a spoken language in first-millennium Babylon, but its usage was retained in liturgical circles for prayer and hymns, much the way Latin remained the language of the Roman Catholic Church liturgy for hundreds of years. Sumerian was only known by the priests and scribes and was probably used on very solemn occasions. 28 The Igigi are a council of gods. The term is of unknown origin. Sometimes a difference is made between the Igigi and the Anunnaki. In the Atrahòasis Epic the Igigi are given the task of digging riverbeds by the Anunnaki. The Igigi in that case are the gods of heaven, while the Anunnaki refer to the gods of the earth and Netherworld. However the

50

The Akītu Festival

“grasp the hands” of the people. Just as the king will take the hand of the god, Marduk is being asked to enter into the same contractual agreement with the people of Babylon, particularly the ṣāb kidinni, Babylon’s privileged citizens (Line 32). Who were these privileged citizens, and why was it important for them to be singled out in the akītu? To address these questions, the role of the kidinnu must be analyzed. The kidinnu As the territory ruled by the monarchy became larger and population grew more diverse, the urban residents of the first millennium gained power.29 Among these groups in power was a circle of “privileged citizens” known as the ṣābē kidinni or simply kidinnu. The CAD defines kidinnu as “divine protection (mainly for the citizens of a city), divinely enforced security (symbolized by a sacred insignia), or a person(s) under such protection.30 Kidinnūtu refers to the status of being under the kidinnu. This privileged group was exempt from royal taxation, corvée, imprisonment and military draft or duty. Owning a right of personal appeal to the king in judicial matters, they seem to have had a different legal status than other cities. They also had some autonomy in civic affairs. Oppenheim states, “The citizens of Babylon and other Mesopotamian cities appear to have become a class set apart form and above the rest of the population, not for ethnical or economic word is often interchanged with Anunnaki with literary freedom. Here the word must mean the totality of the pantheon. 29 Van de Mieroop, The Ancient Mesopotamian City, 135. 30 CAD/K 342-344. For more about kidinnu see Wilhelmus Leemans, “Kidinnu, un symbole de droit divine Babylonien,” in Symbolae ad Ius et Historiam Antiquitatis Pertinentes Julio Christiano van Oven dedicata, ed. M. David, B. A. van Groningen, and E. M. Meyers, (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1946), 36-61; A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 122-124; John A. Brinkman, “Babylonia under the Assyrian Empire,” in Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. ed. Mogens Trolle Larsen, Mesopotamia 7 (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979), 223-250; Hanoch Reviv, “Kiddinu: Observations on Privileges of Mesopotamian Cities,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 31 (1988), 286298; Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East (London: Routledge, 1995), 614-617.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

51

reasons but solely because they were natives of certain cities.”31 Nevertheless, not all native born citizens of the city belong to the status of the kidinnu. In fact, the kidinnu was exclusive and gaining membership was not easy.32 Preferential treatment was given to certain landowners. Slaves, domestic, royal or temple, were not included in the kidinnu status, nor were any serfs or dependents. As the kidinnu privileges were not permanently granted but conferred anew by each king, presumably one could lose this privileged status. We find kidinnu in the major religious centers and older cities such as Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, and Uruk. Recently an inscription of Assurbanipal has been found that refers to Sippar as āl kidinni.33 In the north, Assur and Harran are also listed as kidinnu cities. The earliest evidence for kidinnu is from an Old Babylonian text from Susa. During the Kassite period, the term referred to general protection for the individual. After that, it became synonymous with preferential status and privileges to urbanites. The kidinnu was widespread during the Neo-Assyrian period. This makes sense as most of the kidinnu privileges granted to a city stem from periods of internal political strife and struggle. In a political attempt to gain support of the wealthiest and most influential citizens, the Neo-Assyrian kings granted kidinnu rights to the elite of these old and revered cities. To counteract the loss of revenue from the kidinnu these kings built new cities and capitals.34 Shalmaneser III gave food, drink, and “fine garments” to the privileged citizens.35 Tiglath-Pilesar II reaffirmed the Babylonian kidinnu while Sargon II and Assurbanipal also established Assur as a kidinnu city. Esarhaddon followed suit and reaffirmed the kidinnūtu in Babylon, giving tax exemptions (zakûtu) and debt remission (andurāru) and resuming regular offerings in the Esagila. Some of the exemptions found in Esarhaddon’s inscription include Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 122. Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 617. 33 Grant Frame and A. Kirk Grayson, “An Inscription of Assurbanipal mentioning the Kidinnu of Sippar,” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 8/1 (1994), 5. 34 Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 125 35 Grant Frame, Babylonia 689-627 B.C.: A Political History (Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor Nabije Oosten, 1992), 35. 31 32

The Akītu Festival

52

freedom from corn taxes, straw taxes, quay tolls, and crossing dues.36 This privileged status indicates the power of the urban citizens and the diminishing of the king’s authority and his right to absolute sovereignty. With the end of the Assyrian empire the kidinnu disappeared except for a period during Nabonidus’ rule. During the Neo-Babylonian period the temple administration and the privileged citizenship were closely aligned. Nabonidus established the kiddinūtu for the priesthood, marking the first time a professional group was granted this status. Also during Nabonidus’ reign the ancient city of Ur fell under kidinnu protection.37 There may have been some continuity with this tradition during the Persian period as two letters requesting kidinē payments have been identified.38 The cities of the kidinnu may have symbolized their status by erecting an emblem or standard displayed outside the city gates, perhaps inscribed on a kudurru (boundary stones).39 Several kudurru listing similar privileges granted by the king to faithful servants have been found throughout Mesopotamia, but a connection between the kudurru inscriptions and the kidinnu is still uncertain.40 The kidinnu played an important role in the akītu. Exactly what that role entailed is hardly certain. In the king’s confession on the fifth day of the akītu, he claims that he has not struck the face of the ṣābē kidinni. This statement cannot be taken literally—rather it means that the king did not disrespect the political and economic privileges of the protected citizens. Disrespecting people who were under divine protection would have been an offense to the gods.41 Though the king granted the kidinnu privileges, he was acting as an agent of Marduk. A small composition from Neo-Babylonian times discusses the people of Babylon as “the ones whom Marduk has freed of obligations.”42 For the kings of Babylon, the kidinnu Reviv, “Kiddinu,” 290. This status was most likely granted because Ur was the city of the god Sîn. 38 Reviv, “Kiddinu,” 294. 39 Van de Mieroop, The Ancient Mesopotamian City, 135. 40 Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 123. 41 Reviv, “Kiddinu,” 292. 42 KAR 321 line 10. For translation of text see Foster, Before the Muses, 756. 36 37

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

53

was a basic fixed principle and could not be discontinued. The power of the monarch’s authority was limited by the authority of the ṣābē kidinni. The concept of these divine rights is noted in the Babylonian Fürstenspiegel.43 This propagandistic work known from seventh-century Nineveh and Nippur was written in classic omen style. An unnamed king must respect the privileges and rights of the “sons” of Nippur, Sippar, and Babylon or disaster will follow him. For example, the first line reads, “If a king does not heed justice, his people will be thrown into chaos and his land will be devastated.”44 Though the word kidinnu is not used directly, the privileges mentioned in the Fürstenspiegel resemble the kidinnu rights —exemption from fines, imprisonment, and conscription—and illustrate that the concept of civil rights for a selected few was well known.45 In summary, the kidinnu appears to represent an entire set of city rights granted to the influential and elite inhabitants of the major religious and political cities of first millennium Babylonia, which the king in his role as champion of the people and the gods must vow to honor annually. This notion of protecting the privileged few contradicts the royal ideology of the king as the champion of the oppressed.46 As part of the social welfare program, the king had to guarantee legal protection to the underprivileged. The oaths made during the akītu ceremonies to the privileged are curious. The significance of the kidinnu will be noted throughout the prayers of the akītu. The first prayer of the day ends with a colophon prohibiting the priest from showing this prayer to anyone else. It is the secret of the temple. Only the highest priest is privy to this hidden and occult knowledge. Since the secret cannot be known by anyone other than the šešgallu, the status of the priest has been elevated to as close to the deity as humanly possible. 43 See Wilfred G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford: Claredon, 1960), 110-115. 44 Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 110. 45 Cf. also the comic folktale, “The Poor Man of Nippur” which says, “do not stain your hands with the blood of a kidinnu person (it is) an abomination to Enlil.” Line 105-106. For text see Foster, Before the Muses, 813-818. Also see Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 615. 46 Compare for example, the Prologue and Epilogue of the Laws of Hammurapi.

54

The Akītu Festival

After this secret prayer, the šešgallu allows the ērīb bītī, nāru, and kalū to enter the cella. Another prayer is spoken but the text is very damaged. The prayer discusses the destruction of Uruk and Nippur, recalling particularly the destruction of the temples and the forgetting of the rites (lines 69-76). The mention of these cities is not random. In the Enūma eliš, Marduk’s rivals are Anu and Enlil—the patron gods of Uruk and Nippur.

Day 3 (Nisannu 3) This day commences similarly to the previous day. The priest rises about twenty minutes earlier on the third day than the previous day. At the last 1 1/3 double-hour47 of the night (around 4:20 am), the šešgallu rises and attends to his ritual bath in river water. He will recite a prayer to Marduk. Only a fragment of the text is recoverable, but there is mention of Babylon and Esagila as Marduk’s city and temple. After the prayer, the priest opens the gates to allow someone to enter. Based on the text of the second day and the following days, we can safely assume that on this morning the same cultic functionaries entered the temple. When it is about one and a half double-hours after sunrise (approximately 9:00 am) the šešgallu sends for a metal worker, a carpenter, and a goldsmith who will fashion two small wooden images. To the metalworker, the priest gives precious (dušu) stones and gold from the treasury of Marduk. The carpenter receives tamarisk and cedar, and the goldsmith receives gold. All of these items are to be utilized in the construction of the images. The images measure about seven fingers high; one is made of cedar and the other of tamarisk. Each statue will be adorned with gold and precious stones. By the references to their body parts (hands, groins) we can assume these figures were anthropomorphic. Clothed in red-brown garments, with date palm fronds wrapped 47 The Mesopotamian day was divided into twelve double hours, each double hour consisting of 120 minutes. Days were measured from sunset to sunset. The latitude for Babylon was approximately 32’ 14 North. Sunrise time for this latitude in 1000 B.C.E. at the time of the vernal equinox would be approximately 6:00am with sunset at 6:00pm. See calculations at http://www.isleofavalon.co.uk/edu/archive/ephem/ et-aa.html. The times specified for the akītu are measured by how many hours of night remained until sunrise, or how many hours remained before sunrise.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

55

around their loins, they will be placed in the temple of Madānu, the patron god of judges, until the sixth day when Nabû enters Babylon. One statue will carry a snake in the left hand, while raising the right hand in supplication to Nabû. The second statue carries a scorpion in the left hand and raises the other in prayer. After constructing the images, the artisans receive parts of the sacrificial animal—the tail for the metal worker, the thigh for the woodworker, and the ribs for weaver.48 The two constructed small images have generated much scholarly speculation Explicit directions are given for the construction of these figurines. They are made of cedar and tamarisk wood and decorated in gold and precious stones. The figures were carefully made of costly materials. The use of valuable metals emphasizes the sacredness of the object. On the sixth day, these images are burned. Cedar, when burned, produces a sweet fragrance and is often used in purification and magic ceremonies throughout the ancient Near East. Cedar and tamarisk are frequently employed in making figurines as suggested in a NeoAssyrian ritual, “You make 2 figurines of cedar, 2 figures of tamarisk.”49 The costliness of the material, the pleasant odor when burned, and the frequency of its usage in rituals are the primary reasons why the akītu texts specify tamarisk and cedar. These figurines were most likely human effigies.50 Several reasons suggest that the figurines may represent humankind. Clothed in red-brown garments, the figurines could represent blood and life force. In the “Marduk Ordeal,” line 15 reads, “the red wool with which he is clothed are the blows he was struck. They are red with his blood!”51 Red could also have a healing quality. In an exorcism text, a red cloth is spread against the sufferer’s feet.52 The color also suggests the ruddy earth or clay. 48 The mention of any part of the sacrifice given to the goldsmith is curiously missing from the text. 49 KAR 80 line 10; For other rituals with tamarisk, see Franz A.M. Wiggermann, Babylonian Prophylactic Figures: The Ritual Texts (Amsterdam: The Free University Press, 1986), 5-23. 50 This idea is reflected in most interpretations; see Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 45. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 208. 51 Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, 82; also K. 6333, the Nineveh version, 82 line 23. 52 Foster, Before the Muses, 595.

The Akītu Festival

56

Blood, clay, and earth were all ingredients drawn upon in the creation of people in the Mesopotamian cosmologies.53 If these figures were human representations, they could act as scapegoats to symbolize atonement of the people as whole. Another curious fact is that they are conveyed to the temple of Madānu, the patron god of judges, to wait for Nabû. What do they do while they are in the temple? Since Madānu is the patron god of judges, a natural assumption would be that they are there for some type of trial or judgment. Though Madānu is not a well-known deity in the Akkadian myths, his value in the Neo-Babylonian pantheon must have been high. The TIN.TIR texts list the Erabriri, “the house of the shackle which holds in check,” as Madānu’s temple in the Esagila complex; his gate is called the “gate of praise.”54 He also holds a seat, the Epirig, “the house of the lion” which faces Anu in the ubšukkinna. The name of his shrine in the grand court of the Esagila reveals other aspects of his character. The Enigerimnudib means “the house which does not let evil pass,” and as his name indicates, he is also a divine judge. He is therefore responsible for the correction of the evil elements in humankind.55 Do the figurines, perhaps bound together with the palm branch around their loins, stand jointly as one in judgment and atone for their transgressions before the god? If so, then the verdict must always be guilty as they are ritually burned and, hence, purified on the sixth day. Alternatively, the figurines may well represent some aspect of the netherworld, perhaps as demonic beings. In “An Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince,” one depiction of a man with the face

In the Enūma eliš humans are created from the blood of the rebel god Kingu. The goddess Mami fashions humans out a mixture of blood and clay in the Creation of Man. In another creation myth, the Annunnaki slay two gods and use their blood to create humans. In When Anu created the Heavens Ea pinches off clay to create deities who will become patron gods of the craftspeople. See Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East, 1-98. 54 BM 35046 17; George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 93. 55 George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 413 22’-31’. Madānu could also hold some healing qualities. George pairs him with Gula and suggests that he is her husband in Babylon. ibid, 304-305. 53

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

57

of Anzu is clad in red armor. He holds a bow and a dagger while standing upon a snake.56 Another clue to the significance of these figurines is revealed by examining what the figures hold in their hands. Both statutes have their right hand lifted in supplication. In their left hands, one statue carries a snake and the other carries a scorpion. Before discussing the symbolism of the snake and scorpion, a look at the terminology employed is helpful in realizing that qātē Bēl iṣbat does not simply refer to the king holding the hand of the god; rather it reflects a legalistic oath. The texts state clearly that the statues will carry (našûm), not hold or grasp (ṣabātum), the scorpion and the snake. The emphasis here is literally the direct physical contact between the object held and the statue’s hand. The author wishes to stress the fact that the figurine will hold the said object in his or her hand. If the text had used the standard iṣbāt qātē formula, it would have meant something altogether different from “to hold an item in one’s hand.” The use of našûm makes it obvious that the statues will hold an item in their hands. There is no distinction of gender in the description of the statues, but the use of the masculine possessive suffix šu on qātēšu indicates that both figurines were male. Yet, they could epitomize one male and one female figure, which taken collectively embody the whole of humankind. The scorpion is a traditional male figure in Mesopotamian demonology, whereas the snake with its reptilian qualities is often deemed feminine. Serpent imagery is rampant in the ancient Near East and can symbolize anything from the most negative aspects of deceit and evil to the more positive notions of regeneration and immortality.57 In the earliest iconographic representations of the goddess, Išhòara, for example, she was seen with a snake. By the Kassite period the snake had been replaced by a scorpion.58 Išhòara is the mother goddess and the “lady of love.” She is known from administrative texts and from the Atrahòasis, where she is an aspect of Ishtar VAT 10057. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, 68-76. See line r. 10. 57 In Egypt it was a sign of protection and of fertility. Cf. the Uraeus worn on the double crown of Egyptian kings and various myths. 58 See E. Douglas van Buren, “The Scorpion in Mesopotamian Art and Religion,” Archiv für Orientforschung 12 (1937), 1-28. 56

The Akītu Festival

58

invoked during the nine days of her wedding ceremony.59 Some have proposed this connection suggests that the figurines participated in a sacred marriage,60 but as we are not even certain that the figures are gendered, the hieros gamos is highly speculative. Mesopotamian religious texts often associate the scorpion with the snake.61 In apotropaic rituals, both the snake and scorpion are considered monsters.62 Çagirgan believes the images represent evil because both the scorpion and the snake possess poison and are usually considered dangerous creatures.63 A wound from either creature would normally result in a painful death. For this reason, throughout the ancient Mediterranean we find inscriptions to counteract the effects of the bite of a snake or scorpion. Some scholars have also proposed that they are not human but are representative of deities, specifically the gods slain by Marduk in the Enūma eliš. The slaying of the deities on the sixth day symbolizes Marduk’s victory over rival deities.64 The argument that the figurines could be deities is viable, as Syro-Palestinian seals have been found depicting deities holding scorpions in one of their hands.65 However, the most likely interpretation is that the figurines, whether gendered or not, represent the evil and the threats to humankind. The color of their clothing calls to mind images of the creation of humans. The symbolism of the snake and the scorpion represent negativity, evil, and fear. The statues are effigies of the threats to humankind. On day six, after having been judged guilty of the transgressions of the year, they are struck (mahòāṣum), not beheaded, in imitation of the king’s ordeal on the fifth day. Then they are ritually purified by the use of fire. Fire acts as a cleansing agent in the exorcism of the temple, and it serves

George, Babylonian Topographic Texts, 315. Van Buren, “Scorpion in Mesopotamian Art,” 28. 61 See CAD Z/164 a. 62 Anthony Green, “Neo-Assyrian Apotropaic Figurines,” Iraq 43 (1983), 87-96. 63 Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 209. 64 Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 335. 65 Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 116. 59 60

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

59

the same function here.66 The images are burned, the aroma is sweet smelling incense, and the sacrifice to Nabû pays tribute to his arrival and participation in the festival. The figures are purified on the sixth day, after the king’s humiliation and prior to the gods’ determination of the destinies. The king must confess and give his word for the atonement of the people. Marduk must approve this request before the images representative of the people of Babylonia can be sanctified. All of the purification ceremonies and actions lead up to the determining of the destinies for the upcoming year. In other words, the year must begin with a clean slate—the king, the temple, and the people are in a state of purification and blameless before their destinies can be granted.

Day 4 (Nisannu 4) Relying on the heliacal rising of the Iku-star, many scholars believe that the fourth day is when the akītu festival began.67 The start of the New Year actually began on Nisannu 4. Van der Toorn argues that the heliacal rising and official citing of the Iku-star, (Pegasus) along with the threefold blessing of the Esagila, mark the actual beginnings of the festival. The Iku-star, also called the Field star, was connected to the Esagila because the temple was regarded as the terrestrial replica of the constellation.68 “The Field” which stands in the east and lies across the south; this is the star of the new year, the leader of the stars is Ea.”69 The New Year’s (MUL.SAG.MU) star held special significance in the heremological

66 Compare to the Maqlû, an anti-witchcraft series found on nine tablets that contain rituals for the burning of an effigy of the witch or enemy of the sufferer, and to the Šurpu rituals, a burning series for types of misbehavior, cultic negligence, domestic trouble, and contact with unclean. The objects of the contagion are burned to ensure purification of the victim. See Walter Farber, “Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 1895-1909. 67 See van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 332; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 111. 68 Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 43. 69 KAV 218 B i 1-4; Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography, 160. The Menology KAV 218 A and Astrolabe KAV 218C also list the Iku-Star of Nisannu as the new year’s star.

60

The Akītu Festival

texts and is mentioned as an auspicious day.70 The heliacal rising of the Iku-star would have occurred on the eastern horizon just before dawn on Nisannu 4. It cannot be argued, according to the astrolabes, that officially New Year’s Day was any other day than Nisannu 4. Nevertheless, as discussed earlier the akītu festival, which includes a celebration of turning of the New Year, actually begins on Nisannu 1. The fourth day of the festival is noteworthy not only because it is New Year’s day, but also as the day the šešgallu recites the Enūma eliš directly to the statue of Marduk. Other factors also indicate the importance of day four. For instance, the šešgallu delivers a powerful šuilla prayer to Marduk and to Zarpānitu. In both prayers, he entreats them to ṣabit qātē the people of Babylon, especially the kidinnu. The ideological notion of a dutiful contract with the people of Babylon, especially the privileged citizens, is again noted on this day. On this day the šešgallu rises at about 4 am. After his ritual bathing in river water, he draws back the linen curtain from the statues of Marduk and Zarpānitu. First he addresses a bilingual šuilla prayer to Bēl, each line recited twice:71 223. Powerful lord of the Igigi, exalted among the great gods 225. Lord of the world, king of the gods, Marduk who establishes the decrees 227. Honorable, exalted, lofty, superior 229. Who holds kingship, who grasps lordship 231. Bright light, Marduk, who dwells in the Eudul 233. [. . .] who sweeps the enemies lands

Several lines missing or damaged, resuming with. . . 240. Who crosses the heavens, who heaps up the earth 241. Who measures the waters of the sea, who cultivates the fields 242. Who dwells in the Eudul, lord of Babylon 243. Who determines the destinies of all the gods

70 K4753 + K5711+81-2-4 268 7’ Frederich Mario Fales and J. N. Postgate, Imperial Administrative Records, part 1: Palace and Temple Administration, State Archives of Assyria 7 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1992), 64-65. 71 DT 15.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival 244. Who gives the pure scepter to the king who reveres him 245. I am the šešgallu of Eumuša who speaks good things to you. 246. To your city, Babylon, forgive! 247. To your temple, Esagila, grant mercy! 248. With your exalted command, lord of the great gods 249. Before the people of Babylon, let there be placed light!

61

After speaking this prayer he turns to the image of Marduk's consort, Zarpānitu, addressing her as Bēltīya: 251. Powerful goddess, most exalted of the goddesses 252. Zarpānitu, brightest of (all) the stars; who dwells in the Eudul. 253. [. . . ] of the goddesses, whose garment is light 254. who crosses the heavens, heaps up the earth 255. Zarpānitu, whose station is high 256. Bright is Bēltīya, high and lofty 257. Among the goddesses, no one exists like her 258. Who denounces, who defends 259. (the one) who impoverishes the rich; who causes the poor to become wealthy. 260. (the one) who fells the enemy who do not respect her divinity 261. Who saves the captives (and) “grasps the hands” of the fallen. 262. Speak good things about the slave who speaks well of your name. 263. For the king who respects your name, decrees the destines 264. Grant life to the people of Babylon, the “protected citizens” (lú ṣāb kidinnū) 265. In the presence of the king of the gods, Marduk, defend them! 266. May they speak of your praise, magnify your ladyship. 267. May they utter your heroism, may they extol your name 268. Grant mercy to the slave who speaks good things of you. 269. In difficulty and trouble, grasp his hand. 270. Grant him life (when he is) in sickness and pain.

The Akītu Festival

62

271 Let him walk constantly in happiness and joy 272. Let him talk of your heroism to all the people.

After the prayers, the šešgallu goes into the Exalted Courtyard, turns his face toward the north, and addresses the rising of the Iku-star. He blesses the Esagila three times and opens the gates for the rest of the cultic officials, who perform their functions as usual. When this is complete and after the second meal of the late afternoon, the šešgallu of Eumuša will recite the Enūma eliš from its beginning to end before the statue of Marduk. The tiara of Anu and the dais (lit., the “resting place”) of Enlil must remain veiled throughout his recital of the creation epic. Meanwhile, the king will go into the Babylonian temple of Nabû where he will be given the scepter of kingship, before he begins his ten-mile procession to Borsippa to retrieve the statue of Nabû from his home temple, the Ezida.72 The first prayer of the day is a šuilla prayer. A šuilla prayer is a hand-raising prayer that follows a standard formula and is utilized in ritual contexts.73 It begins with lavish praise of the nobility and splendor of the deity, followed by a middle section reflecting the distresses or complaints that currently afflict the supplicant. The šuilla closes with renewed praise and words of thanksgiving. After the prayer, the šešgallu proceeds to the KÁ.MAHò courtyard where he issues a threefold blessing of the Esagila. He must face north. North, a primal direction, was considered the upper, the above, the highest realm of the universe, and presumably the closest to the heavenly domain of the deities. Geographically, north from the Esagila also faced the direction of the bīt akīti. Perhaps the šešgallu’s blessing extended beyond Marduk’s temple into the upcoming activities to be held at the akītu house. Once the priest’s prayer and blessing concluded, the temple was opened and the other cultic functionaries arrived. Meals were served to the gods, and after the second meal of the afternoon the

Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 332. See also Antoine Cavigneaux, “Le temple de Nabû ša harê” Sumer 37 (1981), 121. 73 šuilla prayers were usually Sumerian or bilingual. Jerrold S. Cooper, “A Sumerian šu-íl-la from Nimrod with a prayer for sin-šar-iškun,” Iraq 32 (1970), 51-67. A recent dissertation examines šuilla prayers to Marduk. See Joel Hunt, The Hymnic Introduction of Selected Šuilla Prayers Directed to Ea, Marduk, and Nabu, Ph.D. diss. (Brandeis University: UMI, 1995). 72

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

63

šešgallu returned to the cella of Marduk where he narrated the entire text of the Enūma eliš.

Enūma eliš Recitation of the Enūma eliš is necessary to the celebration of the akītu. This poetic document, often simply entitled the “Babylonian Creation Epic,” 74 is composed of seven tablets that contain some 1100 lines detailing the Babylonian cosmogonic myth. Many pieces and copies of the epic, dating from 900 B.C.E. to 300 B.C.E., have been unearthed throughout Babylonia and Assyria. The date of the original composition of Enūma eliš is uncertain and debated. Most likely, it was composed at Babylon in the Kassite period but may have reflected an earlier tradition.75 The influence of this muchcopied sacred text extended to Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Bēl, who reshaped the story in his Greek Babyloniaka during the 3rd century B.C.E.76 Because the text discusses the escalation of Marduk to the head of the council of gods, a historical look at Marduk’s entry into the pantheon may be useful. Marduk was first introduced very likely via the Amorite kings (1936-1901 B.C.E.). Babylon was a city of modest achievements 74 This is a misnomer as there are several accounts of creation in Mesopotamian religious tradition. Some specifically deal with the creation and roles of humankind, such as in Hymn of the Pickax , The Creation of Mankind by the Mother Goddess, Enki and Ninmah, and Enki and the World Order. Others contain theogonies, such as the Enūma eliš and in The Cosmic Marriage. A late Seleucid text, which was recited during the Uruk akītu celebration, known as the Chaldean Cosmogony and the Foundation of Eridu, depicts the creation of Babylon and its temples. Epics such as Atrahasis and Gilgamesh contain some creation material. In addition, there are several myths, or minor cosmogonies, which contain etiologies with creation material, such as The Worm and the Toothache and Palm and Tamarisk. For extensive discussion and translation of some of these myths, see Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 61-81; and Clifford, Creation Accounts, 11-98. 75 The Kassite date is argued by Somerfield and Dalley. See Walter Sommerfeld, “Marduk,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5/6 (1989), 360-370; idem, Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonische Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr., Alter Orient und Altes Testament 213 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982), 174; Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 230. 76 Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978).

The Akītu Festival

64

until Hammurapi crowned it as the nation’s capital, gradually rose to prominence.77 Marduk, as the patron god of Babylon, was then promoted to “great god” among the other gods. Later, during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 B.C.E.) when the cult statue of Marduk was returned from captivity he was officially exalted as “šār ilānī,” replacing the lofty triad of Anu, Enlil, and Ea. Scholars including Lambert who argue for a later date of composition propose that the Enūma eliš was composed at that time to support and justify Marduk’s promotion.78 The Enūma eliš is a theogony, a cosmogony, and a cosmology, illustrating the birth of the gods, the heavens and the earth, the seasons, the constellations and all human life. The Enūma eliš also celebrates the first day of the world, the first day when the cycles of nature were established. Creation progresses in various stages, resulting in a hierarchical ranking of the gods. In the myth, through his courageous deeds Marduk is elevated to the top of the Babylonian pantheon. The epic begins with mother Tiamat, the salt water, and father, Apsû, the sweet water. The younger gods, children of Tiamat and Apsû, play together in Tiamat's belly. They were boisterous children and Apsû could not quell their noise. He approached Tiamat, requesting she kill them so that the other gods might live in quiet and rest. Tiamat becomes enraged, asking how he can possibly expect her to destroy her children, the product of their creations. Unsatisfied with Tiamat’s response, Apsû appeals to the counsel of gods, who second his murderous request. The younger gods learn of Apsû’s plan to annihilate them. Ea, the god of fresh water, magic, and incantations, generates a spell that lulls Apsû to sleep. While Apsû sleeps, Ea strips Apsû of all his power. He ritually removes Apsû's belt, crown, and his outer garments. Without the outward symbols of his authority, Apsû is reduced to a powerless state. Ea then kills Apsû and creates his own residence. Described as having exceptional power and splendid stature, Marduk the cleverest and strongest of the gods is begotten inside Jack M. Sasson, “King Hammurabi of Babylon,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 901-915. 78 Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek, ed. W.S. McCullough (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1964), 3-13. 77

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

65

the “chamber of destinies.” Anu creates the four winds and gives them to Marduk as playthings. Marduk, in playing with the four winds, disturbs Tiamat. Tiamat’s anger is roused, and seeking to avenge the death of her husband she plans to destroy everything. To serve her purpose, she fashions eleven demonic monsters. One of these demons, Kingû, is appointed chief of her rebel army. Tiamat entrusts Kingû with the “Tablet of Destinies,” thus granting him dominion and magical power over the rest of the pantheon. The Anunnaki, the pantheon of the gods, at a loss on how to deal with Tiamat's destructive anger, suddenly remember the stalwart Marduk. They ask him to fight Tiamat. For this task, however, Marduk demands supreme and undisputed authority among the gods. The Anunnaki test Marduk to verify his divinity. While he passes this test, the council of gods proclaims his glory by awarding him royal insignia, crown, and a weapon. Marduk, now supreme and fully armed for the battle, advances on Tiamat. He constructs a bow and a net. Aided by the four winds, he fills his body with fire. Tiamat’s demons cower at Marduk's melammu. Marduk challenges Tiamat to battle. Initially, Tiamat and Marduk taunt each other with words, but physical combat soon develops. Tiamat opens her mouth to devour Marduk, who calls upon an evil wind to hold it open. Marduk shoots an arrow through her mouth, which reaches her heart and kills her. Tiamat’s army of gods tries to escape, but Marduk traps the demons in his net. He snatches the tablet of destinies from Kingû, seals it with a seal, and affixes it to his chest. Marduk splits Tiamat’s corpse in half. One half becomes the heavens, and he appoints the heavenly bodies to oversee the cultic calendar. He assigns thirty-six stars to regulate the year, creates the moon to establish the month, and makes the sun to govern the day. He forms the earth from Tiamat’s other half. Marduk then presents the “Tablet of Destinies” to Anu. He smashes the weapons of Tiamat's now defunct army and sets up images of them. When the other gods see this they rejoice and proclaim Marduk king. Marduk establishes Babylon, where the gods can hold their festivals. The gods deem Kingû guilty in starting the war with Tiamat, and they slay him. From Kingû’s blood, Ea creates humankind, who will relieve the gods of their burden. Marduk’s temple, the Esagila, is built on the earth to serve as Marduk’s home. Here the seven gods of the destinies will meet

The Akītu Festival

66

in divine assembly annually to determine the fates. Lastly, Marduk is rightfully awarded the “Tablet of Destinies” and proclaimed the king of the gods, elevating him to the highest deity in the Babylonian pantheon. The text ends with the gods praising Marduk by reciting his fifty names, all attributes glorifying his existence and divinity. In the Enūma eliš the fact that the world is orderly is attributed to Marduk. In the creation myth Marduk has brought order and good to what was previously chaotic and corrupt. He created the world and the seasons. The human race is created to care for his creations. Mythical recollection, like the annual recitation of the Enūma eliš, is one of the ways humans seek to apprehend reality. As Eliade has argued, the rituals and mythical events occurred “in illo tempore,” a “sacred” dimension outside time and space. That they are framed within their own time also makes them “primordial.” Hence, as primordial myths they serve as exemplary models for events in the profane world, and retell the story not only of the mythic origins but of the restoration of order. In the Enūma eliš, the nature of an orderly world is stressed. This mythic theme is evident in Babylonian society. The people of Babylon witness the orderly nature of the world. The sun rose and set on a regular basis; the stars were in the heavens at their appropriate stations. Therefore, the cosmic order functioned properly as a result of Marduk’s deeds in the Enūma eliš. Naturally this ordering should be commemorated annually. The recitation of the creation epic on the fourth day of Nisannu reflects this remembrance. Relationship between the Enūma eliš and the akītu Myth is a significant form of religious expression. It recounts beginnings and explains present and future phenomena. Applications of mythic materials are not, then, necessarily authentic, guaranteed expositions of what the stories meant back then, in some mythical past. Rituals, symbolic images, and myths anticipate forms of the future as they determine and shape ideals and goals for the individual and society.79

For instance, in the akītu, the recitation of the Enūma eliš occurs annually, recounting not only the mythic beginnings of the world,

79

Doty, Mythography, 26.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

67

but mirroring future societal goals and ideals. The orderly nature of the world will once again be restored at the New Year festival. The creation myth may reflect a fundamental motif in the festival; however it only comprises a small part of the entire twelveday festival. The Enūma eliš functions on at least two levels during the akītu festival—the theological and the political. On a theological level, the Enūma eliš acts as a “sacred book,” insomuch as it is recited during the New Year festival.80 The recounting of the creation epic functions within the rituals of the akītu to reconnect the worshiper with primordial power while offering a religious interpretation for the creation and cosmic order of the world, the hierarchy of the deities, and the supremacy of Marduk and his chosen earthly representative. In earlier akītu festivals when the theme of fertility and agricultural renewal was foremost, this theological sentiment may have formed an undercurrent throughout the festival. Some form of the creation epic may have been recited; however, as the Enūma eliš was composed late, we have no evidence to propose what role the myth held in early celebrations. We can only examine the recitation of the Enūma eliš during the akītu festival in the Neo-Babylonian period. Though it has traditionally been thought that the akītu festival was the only venue for the recitation of the Enūma eliš, recently scholars have suggested that the Enūma eliš was chanted by the nāru on the fourth day of Kislīmu before the statue of Bēl in the Esagila. 81 This might imply that the Enūma eliš was recited on the fourth day of every month in celebration of the creation of the world, though it would not have held the same significance as the recitation during the Nisannu festival. First, in the Nisannu ritual, the šešgallu, as the highest priest, performs this essential function, exalting his recital beyond any monthly occurrences by a lower rank cultic official. Second, the festival was celebrated and the myth recited at the New Year, the time of cosmic rebirth. This verbal performance of the creation epic in the middle of the grand festival would have held greater ideological and sociological impact. Taking a modern-day Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 264. For text and translations of the Kislīmu rituals, see Galip Çagirgan and W. G. Lambert, “The Late Babylonian Kislimu Ritual for Esagil,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 43-45 (1991-93), 89-106, esp. 91. Also see W. G. Lambert, “Myth and Ritual as conceived by the Babylonians,” Journal of Semitic Studies 13 (1968), 107. 80 81

The Akītu Festival

68

example, Christian church services weekly, or even daily, recite similar prayers and scripture readings. However, when these same prayers are spoken on a holy day such as Easter or Christmas, their impact on the penitent is often more potent. First, they reach a larger number of people as the crowds are more populous during these holy days. Second, the symbolism of reciting a sacred text on the day when it supposedly occurred in mythological time is more powerful than at any other time. Since the Enūma eliš celebrates the formations of creation, why was it not recited at the very beginning of the festival, on Nisannu one? As a sacred text, it held the most power when recited at numinous times. Nisannu four was New Year’s Day proper, not Nisannu one. This day with its mystical notion of transition between the old year and the New Year was most revered, as it was a propitious day and a public holiday in Babylon.82 The myth acted on a political level as yet another means of strengthening the social order—the supremacy of Babylon was affirmed and the monarchical and priestly order maintained for another year. As a text of political propaganda, the creation epic also reveals the elevation of Marduk to the top of the Babylonian pantheon and establishes Babylon as the city par excellence of ancient Mesopotamia. The gods have transferred supreme power, via the “Tablets of Destiny,” to Marduk. The entire pantheon has deemed Marduk king. “His word is firm and his command unalterable; no god can change his utterance.”83 In the hemerology of the akītu, on the next day Marduk will then proclaim the reigning king of Babylon his representative on earth. After the king is proclaimed, Marduk, in consultation with the other deities, determines the future for the upcoming year on the eighth and eleventh days of the akītu. As discussed previously, many early scholars proposed that the Enūma eliš was the “scripture” for the annual cultic reenactment at the akītu festival. Though many of the themes in the Enūma eliš reflect ritual actions in the akītu, there is no evidence that the

82 83

Van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 334. Enūma eliš Tablet 7 151-152.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

69

Enūma eliš was composed solely with cultic reenactment of the festival in mind.84 Additionally rituals for the restoration of the temple also served reconnect the worshiper with primordial power.85 The temple, the sacred abode of the deity, was a sanctified space. Rituals for the restoration of the temple, therefore, are heeded very carefully. Each ritual act must be precisely performed, each measurement accurately taken, each sacrifice completed at the appropriate time. Specific instructions are given in the ritual texts that during the šešgallu’s recitation, the crown of Anu and the seat of Enlil, two cultic objects, must remain veiled. Several theories exist regarding this veiling. Some have suggested that the covering of the statues illustrates how the glory of victory over Tiamat is limited solely to Marduk. The veiling of the objects demonstrates how the roles of Anu and Enlil are ignored in the epic. The covering of Anu and Enlil signify their confusion86 or perhaps their reluctance to fight Tiamat, the monster of chaos. To support his Myth-and-Ritual version of the dying-rising god motif, James argued that the statues were veiled much in the same manner that the statues and cultic objects in modern Catholic and Anglican churches are covered on Good Friday in anticipation of the miracle of resurrection. The statues were unveiled after Marduk was resurrected from the hòuršānu.87 In addition, the covering of the statues can also be seen as rites of reversal for Anu and Enlil. The natural order of the 84 However frequent oral recitations of the text might have been intended by the author. The epilogue states that the fifty names of Marduk should be learned and repeated from father to son, and “set down for future men to read (aloud?) . . . weave the [tale?]and call upon his name in remembrance of the song of Marduk.” See Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 273-274. 85 Though not directly related to the Babylonian akītu many have suggested that temple repairs occurred at the New Year. It is probable that the temple repairs actually occurred prior to the New Year Festival in preparation for celebration. Seleucid texts from Babylon and Uruk detail the temple repairs. See AO 6472 in Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 3459; Sachs, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 339-342. 86 Langdon, Creation Epic, 23. 87 James, Seasonal Feasts, 83.

The Akītu Festival

70

universe and the elements of nature are subordinate to the authority of Marduk. Presumably, when the statues are unveiled for the procession, Anu and Enlil symbolically are returned to proper dominion. Jacobsen proposed, without any additional evidence, that the faces of the statues of the deities, not only the cultic objects, were kept covered during the reading of the Enūma eliš.88 None of these arguments takes into account the symbolic function of the deity’s cultic objects. In addition, the texts do not say the statues of the deities are veiled—only the tiara and the seat. The cultic symbols represent the deities’ powers and epitomize heaven and earth. Anu was the sky god, the god of the heavens, creation, and kingship. His tiara, the “crown” of Anu, embodies the heavens. Because a tiara is worn on the head, it represents the above, the heavens, whereas Enlil’s resting place represents the terrestrial realm below the heavens. Enlil was the “earthly” god whose dominion lies over all governing powers and forces of nature. By concealing the objects it becomes clearly visible that Marduk now has dominion over heaven and earth and all the functions previously attributed to these gods. In his preeminence, he has replaced Anu and Enlil. The myth and the ritual action illustrate the same point—the words of the creation epic proclaim Marduk as supreme, and the veiling of the cultic objects physically demonstrates his dominance. In summary, the Enūma eliš which was recited aloud, not reenacted, by šešgallu on the evening of the fourth day of the akītu functioned as a myth to reaffirm the ascendancy of Marduk, Babylon, and his personally selected people. The recitation of the myth also cultically prepared for the climatic events of the fifth day involving the king of Babylon, Marduk’s chosen earthly representative. The glory of creation and the exaltation of Marduk as praised in the Enūma eliš would be ritually exemplified in the following days.

Day 5 (Nisannu 5) The fifth day denotes the central and climatic zenith of the festival. This most analyzed day of the festival contains several distinctive events, including prayers of intercession, an exorcism in the temple, the construction of Nabû’s shrine, and the ritual humiliation of the king. The four hours of darkness still remaining before dawn 88

Jacobsen, Treasures of Darkness, 232.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

71

herald the significance of this day. The other four days have led up to this day with the šešgallu’s awakening times each day becoming earlier and earlier. Six ceremonies including numerous purifications, sacrifices, and prayers fill this day. At approximately 2 a.m. the šešgallu rises and performs his usual water ablutions. The šešgallu prays in Akkadian and Sumerian to Bēl and Bēltīya, addressing the deities as a series of constellations and planets. First, he addresses Marduk with a prayer that praises him in his incarnation of fifteen astral deities, each attributed with marvelous qualities. This is a prayer of intercession, as every line of the prayer ends with UMUN. MU UMUN.MU.HUN (“my lord, my lord, be calm”). Then he turns to Bēltīya and prays to her, addressing her as ten different deities. After these morning prayers, he opens the gates to the other priests in the same manner as on the previous days. At approximately 8 a.m. (two hours after sunrise), the morning meal tray of Marduk and Zarpānitu is finished, and the second ceremony begins. The šešgallu calls for a mašmaššu (exorcist) to purify Marduk's cella. The šešgallu priest cannot view any of this purification ritual; if he does he risks the potential transference of contamination and becomes unclean, resulting in the discontinuation of festival. Therefore, the šešgallu must quit the sanctuary for the duration of the exorcism. He exits and goes to pray in the Exalted Courtyard while the mašmaššu enacts the temple purification. The exorcist cleans the temple by sprinkling all the walls with water from the Tigris and the Euphrates. The sorcerer then hits a sacred kettle-drum, and as the sound resonates throughout the temple it “scares” and expels the evil spirits. Fire is used next, as he moves a censer and a torch inside the temple. He repeats his prior actions with censers and torches rather than holy water. The text explicitly states that now he cannot enter the cella of Marduk again. The Ezida, the Babylon shrine of Nabû also located in the Esagila,89 is cleansed in a similar manner. The mašmaššu smears all the gates (i.e., the entrance to the cella) with cedar resin. In the middle of the courtyard, he puts the silver censer which he fills with aromatics and juniper. When the temples have been purified, the mašmaššu requests a slaughterer who will decapitate a flawless, 89

Nabû’s home temple in Borsippa bears the same name.

The Akītu Festival

72

pure sheep. The exorcist “cleans” the temple by walking around with the dead body of the sheep while reciting an exorcism. The mašmaššu takes the body of the sheep, while the slaughterer takes the head. Together they throw the corpse and the head of the sheep into the Euphrates. The sorcerer and the slaughterer are now unclean and cannot remain in the city for the remainder of the akītu. They must go out into the open country, unable to return until the 12th day of Nisannu when Nabû has left Babylon. During this entire time, the šešgallu priest has probably been praying in the garden or courtyard. He cannot view any of these purification rituals as it would result in his pollution and subject him to the same banishment of the slaughterer and the sorcerer. A word regarding the exorcisms and temple purifications in the Mesopotamian texts is in order here. Exorcism Temple purifications are frequent in the cultic settings of the ancient Near East. Impurity threatened the gods and their temples, thus threatening the entire population. Elaborate rituals were employed to rid the temple of demons and to prevent their contamination. Purification is closely related to exorcism. A purification ceremony is an exorcism that exhibits transformative powers to rid impurities. Evil or impurity could be remitted in a number of ways. Normally a penitential prayer or lament, combined with the rituals employing elements of fire, water, incense, or noise and offering a sacrifice, comprised the tools of the exorcist. It is not surprising, therefore, to find a detailed description of an exorcism in the akītu rituals that combines all of these elements. Every ritual action taken at the akītu was complete and precise. The beginning of the year was a proper time for exorcising the transgressions of the past in hopes of a lucrative future. “Almost everywhere the expulsion of demons, diseases and sins coincide—or at one time coincided—with the festival of the New Year.”90 The exorcism in the Eumuša follows a specific pattern loosely corresponding to the daily temple routines performed during the akītu festival. Water is used first, followed by noise and then fire. A sacrifice acts as the final ingredient. Therefore, the šešgallu’s daily 90

Eliade, Cosmos and History, 54.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

73

routines can be interpreted as a daily exorcism or purification formula. Element used šešgallu mašmaššu River water bathes sprinkles temple Noise recites prayers hits kettle-drum Fire burnt offerings torches Sacrifice meals to the gods sacrifice of sheep The mašmaššu first cleanses the temple by sprinkling water from the Tigris and Euphrates on its walls, i.e., its four corners. The four corners symbolize the four primary directions and the four winds that are the weapons of Marduk. In addition, touching every corner of the temple frames a sacred square and emphasizes the absolute completeness of this purification. Next, the mašmaššu hits a sacred kettle-drum. The noise resonates and expels the evil. Fire is also employed as an agent of purification. The mašmaššu lights a torch and goes around the cella. Fire is two-fold; like water, it is both destructive and creative simultaneously. In its creative facets, fire symbolizes energy and regenerative powers. In its destructive nature it burns away everything including evil. Fire may not be perceived only as a tool in the exorcism of evil, but as a primal element in preparation for the new creation. After the exorcism of Marduk’s shrine, the mašmaššu enters the Ezida, the shrine of Nabû, and sterilizes it in the same manner. The finishing touch in the exorcism requires a slaughterer who will decapitate a sacrificial animal. The head of the sheep is removed from the temple, while the body acts as a scapegoat. The mašmaššu either magically purifies or daubs (ukappar) the temple with the carcass of the sheep. The use of the verbal D stem of kapārum clearly indicates that the intent is a process to clean cultically by wiping something with an eliminatory purpose, or to purify the temple from sin with a magical intent.91 This final action absolves any residual evil and contamination. The exorcist recites an incantation to purify the “entire cella to its fullest extent.”92 Together the mašmaššu and the slaughterer leave the Esagila and proceed to the Euphrates River. Facing west (towards the river) the slaughterer throws the head into the river. The mašmaššu does 91 For a detailed discussion of kuppuru see David P. Wright, The Disposal of Impurity, (Scholars Press, Atlanta, 1987), Appendix 2, 291-299. 92 Line 356.

74

The Akītu Festival

the same with the corpse of the sheep. The impurities have been transferred from the temple to the sheep and the action of disposing the carcass in the river both removes the evils from the temple and magically purifies the dead sheep. Similar rituals are found throughout the Mesopotamian texts.93 In the mīs pî ritual (the mouth-washing ritual) the tools of the artisans who fashioned the statues are wrapped in the body of a sacrificed sheep and thrown into the river.94 The purification rites in the akītu render the sorcerer and the slaughter contaminated. With the power of contagious magic, the contamination from the exorcism has now been projected onto these two cultic functionaries. The body of the sheep has become saturated with so much impurity during this process that it contaminates anyone who comes in contact with it.95 The mašmaššu and the slaughterer must now be “banished” into the ṣēri (the open country), unable to return until the akītu festival is concluded. Now that the transgressions have been transferred out of temple, the sacred space must be reborn. Nabû’s shrine is now prepared. The šešgallu oversees the preparation of Nabû's shrine. Elaborate particulars spell out its details. It is now mid-morning (1 1/3 double-hours after sunrise). He calls in all the artisans. A workman must fetch the “Golden Heaven” and cover the Ezida from its tallu to the foundation. No description of the “Golden Heaven” is known, but it could contain a pictorial representation of the planets and constellations.96 The canopy is erected, and now that the impurities have been transferred out of the temple the priests and artisans recite an incantation to Bēl asking him to cast out all the evil:

93 In the Namburbi texts, clay models of tongues, dogs, and other figures representing evil are also thrown into the river. 94 Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth, 114. 95 Beatrice Goff, “The Role of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institutes 19 (1956) 1-39. As Wright points out, this motif of transfer and disposal is found in other Mesopotamian ritual texts. He compares the utukkī lemnūti series, a text detailing the exorcism of demons from a patient’s body, with the akītu purification rite. Wright, Disposal of Impurity, 65-67. 96 Çagirgan interprets the šamê hòurāṣi as blue material embroidered with gold. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 211.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival 375. 376. 377. 378. 379. 380. 381. 382. 383.

75

Asalluhòi,97 son of Eridu, who dwells in Eudul (God) Kusu . . . Kusu Ningirim, who hears the prayers Marduk, who purifies the temple Kusu lays down the decrees Ningirim cast the spell Whatever evil, which is in the temple, get out! Great demon, may Bēl kill you! May he expel you!

Some puzzling terms appear in the description of the shrine. A craftsperson brings the šamê hòurāṣi (golden heaven) and covers the Ezida from its tallu to its foundation. The mechanics of this action have troubled scholars. What is the “golden heaven,” and what part of the shrine does it cover? First, the word tallu is problematic, translated as a drapery, a crossbar, a doorpost, a sedan chair, or even as a midriff. In VAT 9555, a text that is often cited in connection with the akītu, the head of a criminal hangs from the tallu of the Lady of Babylon.98 In the Uruk rituals, the tallu is carried by the brewers, indicating that it might be some type of standard or sedan chair. The reference to a tallu in BM 78905, a descriptive text concerned with measurements of various gates and cellas of Shamash’s temple, the Ebabbarra, implies a lintel or some sort of a crosspiece above a doorway.99 Other sources claim the tallu was made of cedar and fir beams and acted as a wooden frame on which a canopy was hung.100 Due to its size and dimensions, Çagirgan offers that tallu should be considered in the sense of a “beam” and the šamê hòurāṣi understood as a cloth of blue material 97 One of the many names of Marduk, especially in his role as a god of exorcism. Anshar bestows this name on him in Tablet VI of the Enūma eliš. For text, see Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 264. For textual analysis and commentary with extensive references on several of these names, see Foster, Before the Muses, 391-402. Also a tablet from Assur (KAR 142) gives seven different names by which Marduk is known on his journey to the bīt akīti. One of them is Asalluhòi. The explanation given by Lambert posits that since the open countryside is full of demons, this name could have been used for his self-protection. See Wilfred G. Lambert, “An Address of Marduk to the Demons,” Archiv für Orientforschung 17 (1954-6), 310-321. 98 VAT 9555 20 // K 6333 36. 99 George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 218. 100 Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 44.

The Akītu Festival

76

embroidered with gold representing the heavens. 101 This cloth would be hung on a wall behind the dais of Nabû from a beam (tallu) to the floor of the Ezida. After the Golden Heaven is erected, another exorcism ritual follows. The šešgallu, having returned to the Ezida, together with the artisans utters a lamentation, praising Marduk in his role as the god of exorcism and invoking the assistance of two other exorcism deities, Kusu and Ningirim. Addressing the nameless demon directly, they cry aloud, “Whatever evil in the temple, get out! Great demon, may Bēl kill you! May he expel you!” With this final command, the shrines have been wholly purified. The artisans depart the temple, and the šešgallu goes before the statue of Marduk. A sacrifice and meal to Bēl follows. Served on a golden tray a meal of roasted meat, twelve loaves of bread, salt, and honey is placed before a statue of Marduk. The šešgallu makes a libation of wine and offers a prayer of intercession, requesting the god to take the hands of some group of persons. The text is severely damaged, but a portion is discernable: 398. [. . . ] to the great gods 399. [. . . ] who sit in the quay 400. [. . . ] your heart, ṣabat qātēšunu

The broken text resumes with instructions to clear the tray of leftover food and hold the food for Nabû, who is due to arrive shortly by canal on a ship called Iddahòedu. Nabû’s arrival is also known from an inscription of Neriglissar. The text states that on the akītu at the zagmukku, Nabû goes in procession to Babylon, going and returning on the fifth and eleventh day.102 We can assume that the king was with him, having recently returned from Borsippa with Nabû. Though it is not mentioned in the texts, Nabû’s entrance into the capital city must have required a grand parade. Surely, the crowds must have surged along the river banks to watch the arrival of the king and such an important visiting god. With Nabû’s cella appropriately ornamented for his visit and Marduk ceremonially nourished, the festival moves to the most discussed ritual of the akītu — the so-called “humiliation of the king.” This rite yields some curious elements, including the ritual Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 211. VAB 4, 152 47-52. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 212; Cohen, Cultic Calendars 438. 101 102

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

77

stripping of the king’s symbols of authority, the striking of the king’s face, and the cultic weeping of the king. The King’s “Humiliation” The next major ritual involves the king. The hand-washing ceremony is performed first. After the king washes his hands, presumably in some outer courtyard, the šešgallu leaves the cella of Marduk where he has been praying and escorts the king into Nabû's shrine. It is noted that the king cannot yet enter the cella of Bēl. The so-called humiliation ritual is the next cultic happening. The šešgallu strips the king of the symbols of his office by removing his scepter, his circlet, and his mace. He goes back into the cella of Bēl and places them on a seat before the statue. Then he returns to the king and strikes (imahòhòaṣ) him across the cheek, yanks him by his ears, and leads him into Bēl ’s sanctuary. He forces the king to kneel in supplication before the statue of Marduk. The king recites the following prayer only once: 423. [I did not] sin, lord of the lands; I did not neglect your divinity 424. [I did not] destroy Babylon, I did not order its downfall 425. . . . Esagila, I did not forget its rituals 426. [I did not] strike (amhòaṣ) the cheek of the “protected citizens” (lú ṣāb kidinnī) 427. I [did not] humiliate them 428. I honored Babylon and I did not smash its walls.

After the confession, some lines of the text are missing but it resumes with the šešgallu speaking to the king: 434. Do not fear 435. Bēl has spoken 436. Bēl [hears] your prayer 437. He caused your lordship to become great 438. He exalted your kingship 439. On the day of the eššešu[festival] do…. 440. At the opening of the gate, wash your hands 441. Day and night 442. . . .of Babylon, his city . . . 443. . . .of Esagila, his temple . . . 444. of the sons of Babylon, his “protected citizens” (lúṣāb kidinnū) 445. Bēl will bless you . . . forever

78

The Akītu Festival 446. He will destroy your enemy, and cause your adversaries to fall!

After the high priest assures him of the mercy of the god and victory over the enemies, his insignia are returned to him. Kingship is invested in him for another year's term. Once again the šešgallu strikes the cheek of the king. An unusual omen is predicted by this action. If tears flow from the king, then Bēl is favorably disposed; if not, then Bēl is angry and the king’s enemy will arise and bring about his downfall. The šešgallu escorts the king, who has previously purified himself in a hand-washing ceremony,103 into the Ezida. In Nabû’s cella, the šešgallu removes the king’s scepter, circlet, and his mace.104 As these items were loans symbolizing Marduk’s gift of kingship, the šešgallu returns them to Marduk. The priest then strikes the king on his cheek, grabs him by the ears, leads him out of the Ezida into Eumuša, and forces him to kneel before the statue of Marduk. The king, ritually deposed and deprived of the symbols of his office, is compelled to make a negative confession before Marduk. After his declaration of innocence, the šešgallu speaks on behalf of Marduk, assuring the king of the god’s mercy, support, and unlimited blessings. “Do not fear, Marduk has spoken and heard your prayer.” He assures the king that Marduk will protect him and destroy his enemies. His insignia are returned, and as a concluding act the priest slaps the king's face once again. The second slap is viewed as an omen to determine Marduk’s disposition toward the king. To be sure, tears would certainly always appear in his eyes, 103 Hand-washing rites (šuluhhu) and hand water had special significance in these rituals, probably as a form of purification. The Nisannu texts specify hand-washing for the king before his visit to the cellas. Clean hands were required before most sacrifices could be made. The Uruk akītu texts mention hand-washing several times. In AO 6465 obv. line 3, hand water is specified for the chief lamentation priest, who arranges his hand and recites a šuilla prayer. In AO 6459 Line 29 hand water for Anu and Antu is mentioned. In VAT 13717 the šangû gives hand water to the king, and in another rite the šangǔ of Ashur places a bowl on the mouth of the king and sprinkles hand water on him. Handwashing in the Bible was a way of declaring innocence, especially from blood-guilt. See Deut 21:6-8 and Matt 27:24. In the case of the akītu, the king’s hand washing may relate to his later declaration of innocence. 104 Compare to the symbols of power Marduk is presented in the Enūma eliš before he battles Tiamat.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

79

and the festival would continue with the next event. As his insignia are returned he is symbolically restored or reinvested to royal office.105 Scholars have proposed any number of theories to explain this unusual ritual. The “ritual humiliation” and the negative confession of the king have been interpreted as an act of atonement for the people, a symbolic death/resurrection of the king, an enthronement ritual, a rite of passage, and a rite of reversal. A review of the primary arguments is in order. The speculative approach of the early twentieth century and the Mythand-Ritual school interpreted the rite as symbolic of the death and resurrection of the king. Frazer thought the humiliation of the king was a historical survival of vital evidence that the king had actually been killed and a successor installed.106 Gaster proposed the atonement theory.107 The king atones for his people whose sin and transgressions he carries and for which he is personally responsible. He is the scapegoat, humiliated and forced to confess annually to atone for his subjects. The fifth day therefore constitutes a “Day of Atonement,” and the people of Babylon are forgiven for their sins.108 Many scholars, including Eliade, have suggested the ritual humiliation is a reversion to chaos followed by a renewal of order. The king is reduced to a minimum of power, to the lowest descent of nature, to the chaos before creation; ritually he is restored and creation is symbolically re-enacted. A related argument advises that this is a rite of passage. “Separated from his office the king passed through a moment of marginality and was 105 This displacement of the king may be more frequent than realized. Astrolabe B reads šarru innašši šarru iššakkan, “the king is removed, the king is established.” See Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 136. 106 Frazier, The Golden Bough. See discussion in Fontenrose, The Ritual Theory of Myth, 6-7. 107 Gaster, Thespis, 34-37, passim. 108 Recently Gane has demonstrated the “macrostructual” parallels between the fifth day of the Babylonian New Year, the Nanshe Hymn, and the Israelite Day of Atonement in Lev 16 and 23:26-32 to posit the early origin of the Israelite Day of Atonement based on Mesopotamian sources. Roy E. Gane, “The Nanshe New Year and the Day of Atonement,” Paper presented at the SBL, San Francisco, CA 1998; For texts of the Nanshe hymn and its connection with the early New Year Festivals, see Wolfgang Heimpel, “The Nanshe Hymn,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33 (1981), 65-139.

The Akītu Festival

80

subsequently restored is his social position” in a rite of confirmation.109 Others view the restoration of the king’s insignia as a coronation ceremony—if not the initial enthronement of the king, then some type of cyclical renewal of his coronation.110 As we have seen earlier, Smith argues that the negative confession would only apply to foreign kings. No native king of Babylon would dare neglect the Esagila or smash the city walls. For Smith the humiliation takes on a very political intent and acts as a “ritual for the rectification of a foreign king.”111 As attractive as Smith’s argument may be, it is flawed. All kings, not only foreign kings, must issue equal confessions. No change in the festival proceedings is noted based on the nationality of the reigning monarch. The humiliation ritual of the king is most likely a personal rite. The ritual takes place in the hidden cellas of Nabû and Marduk with only the šešgallu, the king, and of course the gods present. This annual event was the only time the king was allowed access to the cella indicating that this was a private action between the king and the god, in which the king claims he has faithfully fulfilled the sacred duties of kingship.112 The king was struck (imahòhòaṣ) twice on the cheek (lētum) by the šešgallu. His first strike occurs before the king is led into the shrine, and the second occurs after his prayer. To what does the striking and mistreating of the lúṣāb kidinni refer? The act of striking has special significance and intimately relates to king’s oath regarding the people of Babylon.113 One must examine the references to Van der Toorn, “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest,” 18; van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 333. 110 This argument is erroneous. Coronation and enthronement ceremonies did not include physically harming the king, or any rite that diminished his status. See Zafrira Ben-Barak, “The Coronation Ceremony in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 11 (1980), 55-67. 111 Smith, “Pearl of Great Price,” 91-92. 112 Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 54. 113 The connection between slapping and oaths can also be supported by comparative evidence. In the Nuzi documents and in several Middle Babylonian documents, the phrase pūta mahòāsu “ to strike the forehead” is a symbolic act of slapping the debtor’s forehead to reinforce the oath. qaqqadum mahòaṣum is a symbolic act where the striker imposes his authority upon an object, thereby appropriating it or it can act as a formal 109

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

81

mahòāṣum in this ritual and proclamation. During the king’s prayer after asserting that he has not sinned, harmed the city, neglected Marduk, the Esagila or its rituals, he states, “I did not strike the cheek of the privileged citizens, (ul amhòaṣ lēt lúṣāb kidinni); I did not humiliate them (set them to be small) ([ul] aškan qallalšunu). The king himself had just been struck in the face and humiliated. Now he promises not to do the same to Babylon’s elite citizens. Most certainly, this cannot refer to the king’s physically harming any of his subjects, especially not the kidinni. Rather, ul amhòaṣ lúlēt ṣab kidinni must be an idiomatic phrase. By humiliating them it means imposing on them tasks violating their special and privileged status or doing anything to decrease their assets. Imposing taxes, dues, or compulsory labor on the ṣab kidinni is strictly forbidden. The standard translation of lētam mahòāṣum as “striking the cheek” may be somewhat misleading. An alternate reading is advised. lētum can also be understood as “persons and assets for which one is responsible.”114 The verb mahòāṣum holds several meanings mainly referring to actions of striking, hitting, wounding, or smashing, as well as ruining in a general sense.115 The king’s confession therefore may be translated as: “I have not ruined the assets of the privileged citizens; I have not set them to be small” (i.e., diminished their privileged status). This rendering of the confession makes sense in the context of the ritual. The king is symbolically struck on the cheek and stripped of his assets, temporarily diminishing his status, as a warning to him not to ruin the assets and diminish the status of the kidinnu. The main objective of the king’s confession is to pledge to fulfill his duties as accusation. See Meir Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 221 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 252ff, 276-285, 432-439. In Neo-Assyrian texts we also find evidence that the guarantor was slapped: PN[ša] [x x] x PN2 EN ŠU ša PN3 i-hòa-ṣu-u-ni. PN, whom PN2 the guarantor of PN3 (the creditor) slapped. Donald J. Wiseman, “The Nimrud Tablets, 1953” Iraq 15 (1953), 143; 151. For the striking of a debtor’s hand, see John Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal documents (Aris and Phillips, Warminster England, 1976), No. 49. Postgate states that it “undoubtedly refers to a symbolic act, probably the hitting of the debtor’s hand,” 169 note 4. 114 CAD L/151 2c. 115 CAD M/84 11c.

The Akītu Festival

82

a proper king, especially to the kidinnu, the people under divine protection. His “humiliation” is in fact a promise to maintain the social order and economic structure of Babylonian society. The king, through the ideology of a religious ceremony, vows to uphold his loyalty to the elite Babylonian urbanites and reinforce the existing social stratification. The king’s promise serves to defend the privileges of the kidinnu of exemption from taxes, forced labor, military conscription, and other special liberties. In return for his pledge to the kidinnu, Marduk will bless the reign with success and prosperity. If the slapping was a method of confirming the oath, symbolizing the king’s promise to the kidinnu, what was the significance of his tears? Connections with the weeping and wailing at the Tammuz festivals were initially proposed by some scholars.116 In the Canaanite myth, Anat weeps after Baal’s death. Weeping and many sacrifices are needed for his resurrection. 117 The Canaanite autumn New Year’s festival includes violent mourning for Baal, leading Hvidberg to claim that tears accompanied all ancient Near Eastern New Year festivals.118 Others have associated the king’s tears with the weeping goddesses and his prayer with eršemma compositions; however, the confession lacks any structural similarity to an eršemma.119 The significance of the king’s tears in the Babylonian festival, and in Babylonian religion in general, is relatively unknown. Ordinarily, tears can indicate grief, lamentation, or great happiness as “a symbol of our humanity at its deepest, most common level.”120 In the Middle Ages, the inability to produce tears was interpreted as demonic possession of a person.121 The people of the ancient Near East Flemming Friis Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament. A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion, trans. Niels Haislund (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), 56. 117 KTU 1.6 9-10; 18-30. Simon B. Parker, Ugaritic Narrative Poetry, SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), 151-152. 118 Hvidberg, Weeping and Laughter, 56. 119 eršemma were hymns, written in the emesal dialect of Sumerian. Usually they were laments concerned with the destruction of a city or temple or hymns of praise. 120 Beverly Moon, “Tears,” Encyclopedia of Religion, 360. 121 Ibid. 116

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

83

may have held comparable beliefs. The emphasis on the purifications of the temple and exorcisms certainly attest to their concern for the eradication of evil and demonic forces. The texts inform us that, if the king does not cry, Marduk will be displeased. Marduk’s displeasure could result in any number of catastrophes for the king and the people of Babylon. Perhaps if tears were not shed by the king, it implied that the purification rituals had failed and demons still remained within the temple. Comparative anthropological studies could shed some light on the custom,122 but the occurrence of tears in Mesopotamian festivals is scarce and any interpretation of its symbolism remains vague. The symbolism contained in the last ritual of day five offers greater ease in interpretation. This event takes place when it is 1/3 double-hours before sunset. About forty minutes before sunset, the transition period between dark and light, the priest and the king participate jointly in this sacrifice. As this is the first (and only) time in the festival where the king and the šešgallu are seen praying together, it suggests that within the sacred temporal framework the perfect balance between the secular and the sacred has been achieved. This perfect balance is mirrored in the cosmos, “on the 6th of Nisan, the day and the night were in balance. Six doublehours of daylight; six double-hours of night.”123 The king, the most highly regarded of humankind, has been renewed by Marduk, the most highly regarded of the deities. The ritual act of the joint prayer between the sacred and the secular celebrates the unification of the two. 454. the high priest ties together forty uncut reeds of three cubits The Makahiki “New Year Festival” of the ancient Hawaiians shows thematic likenesses to the Babylonian celebration. The festival, called the Ikuwā and celebrated in the early 18th century C.E., lasts 23 days and commences with the rising of Pleiades. It includes a hand-washing ceremony, procession of the Makahiki gods, seclusion of the high priest during exorcism, and a symbolic execution of the king. When the gods are presented to the king he must greet them with ritual tears to display his love and loyalty. See Valerio Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), 200-227. 123 Hermann Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings, State Archives of Assyria 8 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992), 140. 122

The Akītu Festival

84

455. unbroken, straight, in a bundle (tied) with date palm 456. they open a pit in the Exalted Courtyard 457. he puts it in the pit. Honey, ghee, fine oil 458. . . . he places. A white bull. . . 459. the king places fire on a reed in its center 460. the king and the šešgallu recite the following utterance: 461. O (Divine) Bull, brilliant light which burns the darkness 462. O burning of Anu.

The reeds must be in perfect condition—unbroken and straight. They are tied with a palm branch around them as a band124 and placed into the pit. Honey, ghee, and fine oil, the most expensive of the sacrificial offerings, are poured over them. A white bull is slaughtered and may be placed in the pit, though this is not clear from the text. Next the king places a lighted fire on a reed. This reed acts as torch, and the king sets fire to the pit. The šešgallu and the king in unison recite a prayer which begins “O Bull, who burns the heavens. . .” Unfortunately, the text is broken at this point, and this ends what we know of the liturgy of the Babylon akītu from the Seleucid texts. In the ancient Near East bulls represent power and fertility and are often symbols of the gods. The white bull represents the planet Mercury, which is sometimes called the “star of Marduk.” Others have suggested that the sacrifice of the white bull represents constellation Taurus or the “bull of heaven,”125 rising heliacally at the spring equinox. All sacrificial animals must be free from blemish or deformity in order to appease the gods. Unblemished white bulls were an extremely rare and expensive commodity.126 The prescription for a white bull most likely symbolizes some glorification of Marduk. The significance of the forty reeds127 in the ritual is another enigma. Reeds grew near the rivers and were easily available; they Recall the palm branch around the small wood statues. Langdon, Epic of Creation, 119. 126 The white bull here probably refers to a Brahma bull which would have been imported from India. Suggestion courtesy of Oded Borowski. 127 The number forty is not frequent in the Babylonian sacred numbers. Forty was the number of the god Ea. However, forty appears as a significant number throughout the Bible. It symbolically represents a 124 125

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

85

were often tied together and used in the construction of mats, walls, and other household items. In a Seleucid ritual for the covering of the temple kettle drum both the sacrificial bull and the kalū must lay down on a reed mat.128 The joint reeds in the akītu ritual probably acted as a mat upon which the bull rested. The prerequisite that the reeds must be straight and unbroken again exemplifies the perfection of the sacrificial materials. The pit in which reeds are placed reminds one of the Netherworld. Most of the text of the prayer is broken, but the resemblance between the praise of a god “who burns up the skies” and the fire of the sacrifice is noteworthy. A connection between this closing prayer and the early morning prayers that laud Bēl and Bēltīya in their astral significance is also noted. The sacredness of day five of the festival is framed with an opening and closing prayer reflecting the glory of the luminaries. The Seleucid texts recounting days two through five of Nisannu end with this broken prayer. As festivals were an occasion of magnificent sacrifices, surely there were other such ceremonies in the course of the akītu festival.129 The Weidner Chronicle, a Neo-Babylonian text concerned with the Esagila, the city of Babylon and its patron god, and primarily the proper fish offerings in the temple, assists in comprehending other akītu sacrifices. Though this chronicle may not be historically reliable in other ways, it gives some clue on the types of sacrifice required during the New Year: “. . . his son exchanged the large oxen and the (sheep) sacrifices for the New Year Festival of Esagila.” 130

generation of people, or is used as a literary device when the completeness of seven was not enough. 128 Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 10; Sachs, Ancient Near East Texts, 335. 129 For a list of offerings for a festival in the month of Tašrītu, see Laura Kataja and Robert Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the NeoAssyrian Period, State Archives of Assyria 12 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1995), 49. 130 Line 29. For discussion of the historicity and problems of this text, see Bill T. Arnold, “The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia,” in Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context, ed. Alan R. Millard, et al. (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 129-148.

The Akītu Festival

86

Offerings of oxen, sheep, wine, beer, and grain were not at all uncommon.

Day 6 (Nisannu 6) The sixth day is reconstructed from several sources.131 On the sixth day, the other gods from the surrounding cities arrive in Babylon by boat to join in the festivities. Most likely they were accompanied by high officials, priests, and dignitaries. Nabû, as the favored son of the highest god, receives special treatment and is brought into the temple Ehòursagtilla. When he arrives, the small statues that were constructed on the third day are brought in from Madānu's temple. Most akītu studies assume that the statutes were then beheaded. However, this is not clear in the text, which simply says that the slaughterer132 will “strike” their heads: Line 214 lú tābihò kāri qaqqassūnu imahòhòaṣ Çagirgan also translates, “the quay slaughterer will strike their heads,”133 but his commentary refers to the beheading of the statues.134 The verb used is mahòāṣum, the same verb used both times when the šešgallu strikes the cheek of the king (lines 414 and 449). It is also used in the king’s confession (line 426) when he states that he did not strike the faces of the people of Babylon. The striking in these three incidents within the same text refers to hitting or beating. As they do not refer to beheading in these instances, it is possible that it refers to the striking of the figurines, not the beheading. Perhaps the figurines were struck in imitation of the manner in which king was struck. If the ritual specifically called for the statues to be beheaded, it is curious that an alternate verb like nakāsum or batāqum was not used, as it was in the exorcism of the temple when the sheep is decapitated.135 There are several instances, especially in ritual texts where the verb nakāsum is used in connect with qaqqadum referring to the cutting off of someone’s head. In rites of the Egašankalamma, a ritual text referring to Mainly the New Year’s Commentary CT 13 pl. 32. See Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 439. 132 This is a different slaughterer than the one who decapitate the sheep, as he is not allowed to return to Babylon until Nabû’s departure. 133 Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 12. 134 Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 209. 135 Line 353 reads lú tābihò išassi qaqqad immeri ibattaq. 131

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

87

Ishtar’s lamentation of her brother, the reference to the “cut-off head” of Anu uses a form of nakāsum.136 Similarly, a commentary on an Assyrian cultic calendar employs the same vocabulary. Referring to Marduk’s defeat of Anu, the verb used in conjunction with qaqqadum is nakāsum.137 Because mahòāṣum does not necessarily imply beheading the verb may simply refer to striking the head rather than beheading. Therefore, we can propose that the slaughterer, acting in the name of Nabû strikes the heads of the two little images, in an act of defiance or dominance, but does not “kill” them. After he strikes them, they are then thrown into the fire and burned before Nabû. In this sense, they have been ritually purified rather than killed. Another indication of the possible events of the sixth day is found in a Neo-Assyrian commentary text mentioning gifts that have been given in the month of Nisannu from the sixth to twelfth day.138 Çagirgan reconstructs: “presents they bring in the month of Nisannu from the sixth day to the twelfth day. With reference to Zababa as is said [. . . ] . Bēl, who sits in the akītu house on the eight day.”139 We can assume that during these six days, the public would bring their offerings (i.e., their “new year gifts” for Marduk) to the Esagila temple.

Day 7 (Nisannu 7) It is unknown what transpired on the seventh day of Nisannu, as there are no cultic texts detailing this day. The only text we have referring to day seven is the problematic cultic commentary, the Marduk ordeal. It discusses a man who is the messenger of Shamash and Adad going to the hòuršanu on the seventh day of Nisannu, presumably to rescue the captive (or dead!) Marduk.140 However, we have already established that this commentary does 136 Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, 95-98. Line 22A. In this text, the same verb is used to refer to the cutting off of other body parts. See line 46. 137 ibid, 105. Line r 17. 138 CT 13 32 r.6; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 424. 139 Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 217. 140 KAR 143 line 2. In their promotion of the dying/rising god motif, the “Myth and Ritual” scholars used this evidence to pinpoint day seven as the day when Nabû liberated Marduk by force from his mountain of the Netherworld. See Frankfort, Kingship, 318; 321-325.

The Akītu Festival

88

not in fact refer to the actual Babylonian akītu, and therefore any reconstruction based on the commentary is highly speculative. Another suggestion for day seven has been proposed by van der Toorn. Based on the texts from a festival on the seventh day of Tašrītu, he states that the statues were bathed and dressed in new garments in preparation for the popular gathering on the next day.141 It is a plausible suggestion, but rather than reconstruct the festival without sufficient material it is preferable to discuss the events that are more certain.

Day 8 (Nisannu 8) In day eight of the akītu the first determination of the destinies occurs. The above-mentioned cultic commentary states that on the eighth day of the New Year’s festival a pig is slaughtered.142 Sacrifices were probably common on all days of the festival. Babylonian Chronicle 13b discussing the eighty-eighth year of the Seleucid Era (224/223 B.C.E.) outlines a detailed description of offerings for the Esagila on this day: shekels of silver from the house of the king, from his own house, eleven fat oxen, one hundred fat ewes, eleven fat ducks to Bēl and Bēltīya and the great gods for the ritual of the Seleucus, the king.143

The usual reconstruction for day eight is taken from the Tašrītu akītu celebration of Anu and Ishtar at Uruk.144 Though this is a completely separate and different festival, some of its events may be helpful in grasping the full character of the Babylonian akītu. In the Uruk texts, the king and the šešgallu participate in an elaborate hand-washing ceremony where the gods are lined up according to rank. In this ceremony, the king “takes Bēl by the hand” and brings him into an outer courtyard. 141

Van der Toorn, “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest,” 13 and note

142

KAR 143 line 44. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea,

26. 85.

BM 35421. Chronicle 13b line 5-7, Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 283. 144 AO 6459 and AO 6455. For texts and translation see ThureauDangin, Rituel Accadiens, 86-89; Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 72-85; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 431-433 (translation only); Pontgratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi īrub, 42-47. 143

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

89

Decreeing of the Destinies A text from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II discusses the meetings of the gods in the ubšukkinna (the Dais of Destinies) and the procession to the bīt akīti.145 In the ubšukkinna the gods decided the destiny of the country for the upcoming year: Holy Mound, place of destinies which is ubšukkinna, the parak šīmāte, at the zagmukku, the head of the year on the eighth146 and the eleventh days Lugaldimmerankia147 the lord of gods sits. The gods of Heaven and the Netherworld heed him in reverence, bowing down as they stand before him fate of the days forever the fate of my life.

This first decreeing of destinies takes place in the Ezida, the shrine of Nabû in the Esagila, which had been previously ritually purified.148 Marduk is led into this shrine of destiny where all the other gods have gathered. Here he is proclaimed all powerful and invested with supreme authority. This first decreeing of the destinies is focused on Marduk, and presumably the king. The decreeing of the destinies was a significant event in the New Year Festival. At the first decreeing of destinies held in Nabû’s ubšukkinna, Marduk gathers with the other gods where he is

VAB 4 126 54-65. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 215-216. Çagirgan reads the day as the ninth and notes that Pallis who originally reads it as eight misread the text. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 215 note 4. I have not seen the cuneiform text, therefore I am following standard convention and reading it as eight. See Pallis, Akitu 124; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 439; Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 45-46; van der Toorn, Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest, 13 for this interpretation. However, as Çagirgan points out, the commentary to the Enūma eliš (VII 1.92) states that the two decreeing of destinies happened in the parak šīmāte on the sixth and eleventh day. To debate whether the first decreeing occurred on sixth, eight, or ninth day is irrelevant—what is important is that it happened and the significance of the event! 147 “Divine King of Heaven and Earth,” One of Marduk’s fifty names in the Enūma eliš referring to him in the parak šīmāte. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 265. 148 Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 46. 145 146

The Akītu Festival

90

proclaimed almighty and invested with supreme authority.149 The second determining occurs following the return from the bīt akīti in the ubšukkinna of the Eumuša, the cella of Marduk on day eleven. The first decreeing focused on Marduk; the second revealed the fate of the land and the citizens. In the second decreeing, the symbolic tablet of destinies is now given to the king, from Marduk, who establishes him as supreme authority throughout the land of Babylon. Fate or destiny was at the heart of the theological views of the ancient Mesopotamians.150 The gods determined and decided the destiny of the entire world. Almost all myths, hymns, omen, astrological, and ritual texts refer to the Babylonian concept of šimtu, fate or destiny.151 šimtu “denotes a disposition originating from an agency endowed with power to act and to dispose, such as the deity, the king or any individual may do, acting under specific conditions and specific purposes. Such a disposition confers in a mysterious way privileges, executive power, rights. . .”152 Human destiny was controlled by the gods, though it was as a mechanism created by the gods to insure their well being. Bottéro states that destiny is a “perfect adaptation to a role in this balanced system.”153 The throne of the parak šīmāte was named the ubšukkinna; its function as the dais of destinies is well documented in TIN.TIR and other topographical and ritual texts.154 The ubšukkinna court had seven seats for the seven destiny decreeing gods, the name of each seat reflecting the god’s attributes: Seat of Anu Seat of Enlil Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 46. For a study of šimtu see Jack Lawson, The Concept of Fate in Ancient Mesopotamia: Toward an Understanding of šimtu, Orientalia Biblica et Christiana (Wiesbaden: O. Harassowitz Verlag, 1994) esp. 116-121. 151 The term šimtu was also used as a metaphor for death, as in the standard phrase ana arki šimti alāku. 152 Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 202. 153 Bottéro, Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods, 198. 154 The ubšukkinna is also known in the Enūma eliš when Marduk states: “Seat the Assembly, proclaim supreme my šīmtu! When in ubšikkimmaku you are seated, let my word instead of you, determine šīmtu.” Enūma eliš Tablet II 125-127. 149 150

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

91

Seat of Ea Seat of Shamash Seat of Ninurta Seat of Nabû Seat of Marduk155

Parpola suggests that all the assembly of all magnates156 of the empire (referred to as “the assembly of all the lands”) was a “public event serving as a visual demonstration of royal power and unity of the empire. Ideologically, it corresponded to the ‘assembly of the gods’ of the religious texts.” 157 They convened at least once a year for the New Year’s reception.158 This assembly of the gods is mentioned in the Enūma eliš “The magnates and vassals reenacted the scene of the Enūma eliš; they praise the king, kiss his feet, roll in dust before him, and having presented gifts to him, abdicate their offices, after which the king, seated on his throne, reappoints them to their offices.”159 George, too, posits that the assembly in the Enūma eliš is an early prototype to the one in the ubšukkinna.160 This idea is plausible because while Marduk is in the ubšukkinna he sits upon a structure called Tiamat. Tiamat šubat dBēl šá dBēl ina muhòhòi ášbu Tiamat, the seat of Bēl, on which Bēl sits.161

155 George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 52-53 (texts); 286 (commentary). 156 Literally LÚ.GAL.MEŠ, the great men. 157 Simo Parpola, “The Assyrian Cabinet,” in Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburststag, ed. Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz (Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 393. 158 See John N. Postgate, Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire (Rome, 1974), 121-125; Simo Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Pt. II: Commentary and Appendice,. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2. (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983), 265 n. 471. 159 Parpola, “The Assyrian Cabinet,” 393. n. 45. See KAR 135+ r. iii 12 ff, edited by K. F. Müller, Das assyrische Ritual. Teil 1: Texte zum assyrischen Königsritual, (Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatische aegyptischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1937), 4. 160 Enūma eliš tablets 6 70-7 144; 7 162-165. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 288. 161 Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 231.

92

The Akītu Festival

Lambert explains, “it was no doubt a small cultic structure (probably a dais) and when the statue of Marduk was taken there, it was set on the dais to symbolize victory over Tiamat.”162 What the determining of the destinies during the akītu actually entailed is unknown. Pallis states, “to determine destiny originally always meant something positive . . . a creation of fruitfulness, and plenty, peace and happiness for the coming year.”163 Though Pallis’ arguments are often flawed his suggestion here makes sense. One would expect to hear of optimistic destinies. Presumably the destinies were similar each year—a prosperous reign for the king, successful military campaigns, and fertile harvests. The destinies may have been recorded and proclaimed as oracles at the festival.164 Nabû, as the royal scribe, would have been responsible for writing down the destinies. Though proclaimed annually by the gods at the New Year, these destinies could be also revealed through divinatory methods such as extispicy, oneiromancy, astrology, or other mantic devices throughout the year. 162Wilfred G. Lambert, “The Great Battle of The Mesopotamian Religious Year. The Conflict in the Akītu House,” Iraq 25 (1963), 190. 163 Pallis, Akitu, 196. 164 In a private conversation Karel van der Toorn recommended that the Sitz im Leben of the Neo-Assyrian prophecies may well have been the decreeing of the destinies in the akītu ceremony. For example, in K2401 Bēl is speaking to the people of Assur gathered at the temple during a festival on the day off. Van der Toorn suggests this oracle was taken at the akītu festival. For text see Simo Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, State Archives of Assyria 9 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1997), 22-27. Parpola, too, suggests that since the date of Esharhaddon’s accession was 28 Adar, only a few days prior to the New Year celebration, perhaps this oracle was delivered at the festival to “impress upon the audience the divine support for Esharhaddon’s kingship” (p. lxiv). He also cites K 1292 + DT 130, “Words of Encouragement to Assurbanipal,” dated Nisannu 18 as perhaps being delivered on or near after the New Year Festival. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies, lxxi; 40-41. These proposals warrant further study. A festival would have been a suitable occasion for the proclamation of oracles. That the Neo-Assyrian prophecies were intended as propaganda is well established. The same can be said regarding the decreeing of the destinies in the akītu festival. Though the event occurred twice annually, we have no written record of what the decrees actually were. Therefore, any analysis regarding their content is purely speculative at this point.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

93

The assembly of the gods displayed political power. The visits from the neighboring deities annually reinforced the supremacy of Babylon, with each god paying divine tribute to Marduk, his king, and his capital city. In addition, excavations at the Nabû ša hòare temple in Babylon have recovered a small tablet which, although broken, contains additional information for days 8-11 of the New Year Festival.165 The text, now published by Cavigneaux, describes places and chapels Marduk visits, and it explains his divine names as associated with these shrines: On the 8th and 11th day of Nisannu when [Marduk?] dwells in the courtyard, on a seat (šubati) not decorated with gold, sitting in the seat of Mes, Marduk’s name is Mes. Second, when he sits opposite the sacred mound, his name is Enbilulu; when he sits on the throne of destinies his name is Lugaldimmerankia; when he sits in […] his names is Sirsir. Tiamat…Tiamat which he steps on….[…]. When […] upon the dais of the gate….his name is “God of the temple of Esiskur”. on the 10th of the month of Nisannu….night[…] mother Damkina…166

Because the next action takes place with all the gods assembled in the bīt akīti, we can propose that the parade from the Esagila to the bīt akīti must have taken place late on day eight after this decreeing of fate, or perhaps, more likely early on day nine.

Days 9 through 12 The information for the remaining days of the festival is sketchy at best. According to a fragment of a ritual text,167 on the ninth day of Nisannu the doors of the shrine are opened and the priests cried out: Go forth, Bēl! O, king, go forth! Go forth, Bēltīya, the king awaits you! 165 See Danial Ishaq, “The Excavations at the Southern Part of Procession Street and Nabû ša hòare temple,” Sumer 41 (1981), 33. 166 Antoine Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša ‹are (Vol.1. Texts from Babylon. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture, 1981), 141. 167 K 9876. For text, translation, and commentary see PongratzLeisten, Ina šulmi īrub, 228-232.

The Akītu Festival

94

The text details the procession leaving the parak šīmāte en route to the bīt akīti. The king is in the lead, followed closely behind by Bēl and Bēltīya. Next comes Ishtar of Babylon with Zarpānitu and Tašmētu. All the goddesses are accompanied by incense with the odor of juniper and other enticing aromatics. This grand pageant weaves its way down Procession Street and through the magnificent and resplendent Ishtar Gate. Priests, cultic musicians, dancers, and singers chanting a song praising Babylon as the “joy (or friend) of Nell in accordance with all its rites,”168 follow behind their gods and goddesses. Local officials and neighboring dignitaries surely participated in this magnificent procession, displaying their gifts and offerings for the temple. It is natural to imagine the glory of this parade for the general populace of Babylon. Picture the gods and the royalty, dressed in their most splendid attire, proudly marching through the city while the crowds cheered and knelt to the gods. When the procession reached the bank of the Euphrates, they continued by boat and sailed along the river, embarking on a landing stage on the cedar-lined avenue that led to the bīt akīti.169 The Uruk texts, as well as a number of chronicles, state that the king qātê Bēl iṣbat and leads him in the parade. However, as will be seen later this phrase refers to more than the king leading a triumphal procession of the god through the city and up from the river. The Royal Procession Sometime after meeting in the parak šīmāte for the first determining of the destinies the gods and the king processed to the bīt akīti. Whether this procession occurred on the eighth or the ninth of Nisannu is debated among scholars. Though most scholars assert the grand procession occurred on the eighth of Nisannu,170 I agree with Berger and Kuhrt who propose it happened on the following

K 9876 line 13. Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 46. 170 Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 217; Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 147; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 439; Pontgratz-Leisten,” Neujahr(fest),” 295; Pongratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi īrub, passim.; Lambert, “Processions to the Akītu House,” 49-80. Lambert’s newly published text notes that the return parade occurred on Nisannu 11. 168 169

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

95

day.171 Nisannu 9 is more likely to be accurate based on the ritual text K 9876 which describes the opening of the doors of the shrine accompanied by the cry of the priest for Marduk and Zarpānitu to go forth and meet the king. If the entourage had processed to the bīt akīti on day eight, why were they back at the Esagila the next day? The dazzling procession of the gods and goddesses, dressed in their finest seasonal attire,172 atop their bejeweled chariots began at the Kasikilla, the main gate of the Esagila, and proceeded north along Marduk’s processional street through the Ishtar Gate.173 Transferring to boats, the parade continued on water to the bīt akīti. Marduk and the king were in the lead with the king acting as master of ceremonies. Many have explained the expression qātē Bēl iṣbat to mean that the king held the hand of the god and led him in the pageant. Undoubtedly this is true, although as will be discussed later, this phrase also acts as a formulaic legal oath, binding the king and god to each other. Following the king and the gods, the

See van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 336, note 28; P.-R. Berger, “Das Neujahrsfest nach Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches,” in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assryriologique Internationale, André Finet, ed. (Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970), 156. Kuhrt also suggests the ninth as the day of the parade. Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial,” 35. 172 Nisannu 7 was one of the regular days fixed for clothing (lubuštu) offerings made by the king. As this day falls within the celebration of the akītu festival and before the parade, it is possible it had something to do with the festival. See Eiko Matsushima, “Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: their Fashioning and Clothing and their Interaction with the Society,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East, The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Heidelberg: Universitätsrverlag C. Winter, 1993), 212-213. For an inventory of the lubuštu ceremonies and relevant texts in the first millennium see Eiko Matsushima, “On the Material Related to the Clothing Ceremony,” Acta Sumerologica 16 (1994), 177-200. 173 Based on a collation of several texts Pongratz-Leisten identifies eleven (two are unknown) stations Marduk and the procession passed on their journey from the bīt papāhòi to the bīt akīti. See Ina šulmi īrub, 41. cf. with Çagirgan’s reconstruction, Babylonian Festivals, 220. 171

The Akītu Festival

96

priests march in this order: šešgallu, mašmaššu,174 ērib-bītī, and the other cultic functionaries.175 The procession was the most popular and public phase of the festival.176 Singers, musicians, and dancers accompanied the gods, priests, royalty, and the visiting dignitaries. Tribute and war spoil were displayed prominently, as the armed forces paraded the captured prisoners of war throughout the city. Many of the tributary goods and booty were later presented as offerings to the temple treasury.177 A unique component of the parade involved the marching of the people of the kidinnu.178 Proudly walking through the crowd holding some type of emblem or standard signifying their divine status, the king and the gods visibly paid homage to the ṣāb kidinnū by allowing them a special place in the parade. Their honored status was flaunted before all the citizens of Babylon. The participation of this group in parade reinforced the ideology that the kidinnū were special citizens, under the protection of the king and of Marduk. The procession did more than just identify the primary participants in the ritual— rather it acted to reinforce social stratification. The king, temple staff, and privileged citizens (i.e., the elite) marched side by side with the chief god, Marduk. This visible and conspicuous representation of the social structure was emphasized annually as the procession marched through Babylon. A careful and joyful procession was so vital to the prosperity of the New Year that every detail, from its start to its completion, was watched carefully. Unusual occurrences were taken as disastrous omens for the upcoming year. Some of the lines in the omen compendium šumma alu refer specifically to the appearance of Bēl’s statue in his procession exiting the Esagila. Curious observations regarding the movement of Marduk’s facial expressions warranted notation. One may wonder how a golden statue could open its eyes or mouth. However in Babylonian theology this was not at all unusual. The cultic images of the gods represented living, breathing deities, who could enact all human This is a different mašmaššu than the one who purified the Ezida, as the latter has been banished. 175 McEwan, Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon, 7. 176 Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 46. 177 Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial,” 35. 178 Leemans, 56 note 22. 174

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

97

gestures and emotions.179 Stories of sacred statues moving or crying are not unique to Mesopotamia religion. This sacred quality of the divine image is found throughout history. Many religious cultures reflect the belief that their sacred statue can come to life. The most common modern example of this is found among statues of the Virgin Mary. From all parts of the world, stories of statues and paintings that cry, bleed, or move have been reported. Stigmata wounds have appeared on depictions of the crucified Christ. In the last few years, an icon of Jesus hanging in the Church of the Nativity at Bethlehem was observed to weep blood tears. This phenomenon is not limited to the Christian religious traditions. In 1995, many people claimed to have witnessed the Hindu Milk Miracle. In Hindu temples and homes all over the world, statues of the gods Ganesh and Shiva “accepted” the ritual milk offering. These small statues “drank” literally buckets of milk within minutes. In the context of the akītu, it is obvious that, if the previous events at the temple did not please Marduk, then the ensuing year would not be successful: If Marduk leaves the Esagila temple at the beginning of the year with an open mouth, then Enlil will raise his voice in anger against the land. If Marduk has his eyes closed, then the people of the land will be unhappy. If Marduk has a serious expression, then the country will experience famine. If Marduk’s face is shining, Enlil will cause the land to shine forever.180

This procession of Marduk in the New Year’s festival captures the imagination of the general public even to this day. Popular novelist Anne Rice’s book, Servant of the Bones, fictionalizes the Babylonian procession. In her whimsical interpretation the statue of Marduk, who “grasps the hand” of the king in procession is actually a sacrificial human, coated in gold covering. The “statue” walks, smiles, and waves to the people. Perhaps in the minds of the Babylonians this idea was not so far-fetched. See Anne Rice, Servant of the Bones (New York: Doubleday, 1997). 180 See Appendix 18 “Prozessionsomina,” Akkadian texts transliterated, collated, with a German translation in Pongratz-Leisten, īna šulmi īrub, 257-265. 179

98

The Akītu Festival

Presumably the gold statue of Marduk would be polished for the occasion, as it was on the day of its installation. On the day when the god was created and the pure statue was completed, the god was visible in all the lands. He is clothed in splendor, suited to lordliness, lordly, he is full of pride. He is surrounded with radiance, he is endowed with an awesome radiance, he shines out splendidly, the statue appears brilliantly.181

During the akītu procession, as the sun reflected the statue of the god, it would naturally “shine,” thus ensuring Marduk’s happiness. The participation of the general public in the akītu was mostly limited to the role of spectator. On an everyday basis, common people of ancient Mesopotamia were not normally admitted to the temple. The parade was a momentous religious and political experience, and the public would be present for the elaborate procession. Seeing the gods in splendid attire was awe-inspiring. Only on holidays like the akītu festival was personal contact with the god permitted. “The city god left his temple . . . on such days people thronged around the temple area and at the sides of the procession road there were musicians, acrobats and wrestling contests; the inhabitants of the city and the surrounding courtyards had a few days off; they met and had acquaintances.”182 People dressed in their finest attire and often borrowed jewels and other adornment from friends.183 The populace celebrated merrily; food and drink were in abundant supply. This idea is also found in the Gilgamesh Epic. After the completion of the ark, Utnapishtim slaughters oxen and sheep and holds a banquet complete with beer and ale to “make a festival as on the day(s) of the akītu.”184 The grandeur of the parading deities and royalty made a lasting impression on the Babylonians. In addition to the 181 Michael Brennan Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999), 98. 182 Karel van der Toorn, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996), 21. 183 In the Instructions of Shuruppak, he warns his son not to choose a wife at a festival because she may be wearing borrowed jewels or other apparel. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature, 46-47:213-216. 184 Gilgamesh Epic 11:71-74. Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 111.

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

99

procession, that some of the rituals were outdoors perhaps suggests a larger audience than the immediate priesthood .At the akītu parade the citizens of Babylon would experience the glory and power of Marduk and all the visiting deities. The processions through the main streets of the city would have generated much “awe,” and thus the power of the king, Marduk, the priesthood, and the people of the kidinnu would be reinforced. This ideological manipulation would be done in the name of a great religious holiday and joyful celebrations. Everyone would have been caught up in the spirit of the akītu. During the performance of the akītu procession the people came into direct contact with the sacred. The parade was a visible manifestation of the deities, as well as an outward sign of their continued blessing and protection. The relationship between the god and the city was formalized at religious festivals. During religious festivals, namely the New Year celebration, allowed the normal citizens of Babylonia the only contact and direct communication with the deity. To the Babylonian mind, it was not just the statue of Nabû who came to visit, but the god himself.185 The magnificent architecture and the setting of the parade on the finely paved Processional Way winding through the Ishtar gate also figure prominently in the ideology of the festival procession. Certainly, the streets and the walls were cleaned for the festival. The gods and the king and their attendants could not possibly march on an ordinary street or through any gate. Only the celebrated Processional Way and Ishtar Gate were worthy of such a grand procession. Though this street and gate were used daily by the Babylonians, on New Year’s, with its lavish decorations, it was transformed into an enchanted location. An inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II, excavated by Koldewey, describes its glory and its importance to Marduk: I, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon….son of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, skillfully rebuilt the Ishtar Gate with pure lapis-glazed bricks for my lord, Marduk. I stationed at its sides fierce bulls of copper and frenzied mušhòušši dragons.186 185 Helga Trankwalder-Piesl, “The Procession Street of Marduk in Babylon: Some Remarks on its Terminology and Function,” Sumer 41 (1981), 37. 186 George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 339.

100

The Akītu Festival

A mention of the mušhòuššu dragons encountered on Marduk’s journey to the bīt akīti is depicted in a late first- millennium composition published by Lambert.187 The texts start with the description, location, and name of seven statues of Marduk, followed by seven seats of Marduk and their cultic locations. Lambert interprets them as “stations” of Marduk encountered along his journey to the bīt akīti. Marduk is known by a different name on each step of his journey to the bīt akīti. When he is out in the street, and susceptible to demons, he is called Asalluhòi, as he was addressed in an earlier prayer. The significance of this text not only confirms the route of the procession but reveals the numerous attributes of Marduk exhibited during the parade. Once they reach the bīt akīti, the statues of the gods are ceremoniously installed here. The celebration of a great banquet with the gods and goddesses is not at all unlikely. Most Mesopotamian festivals were accompanied by bountiful feasts. Many economic texts include a listing of akītu offerings, indicating there was a huge reception with food and drink to feed many people.188 Considering the statues of the gods could not really consume the food, we can assume the king, royalty, and priests partook in this meal.189 This banquet may have been held to celebrate the kingship of Marduk and of the king. From an inscription of Nabonidus, we know that they were still there on the tenth day. “In the month of Nisannu, on the tenth day, when the king of the gods, Marduk, and the gods of the Heaven and

BM 119282; Lambert, “Procession to the akītu house,” 74-78. Cf. KAR 142 // CT 46 53. See also George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 287-288. 188 A sampling from one text lists, “601 cuts of meat . . . oxen,. . .26 sheep, 17 sheep, 10 spring lambs, 200 fish. . .in all 160 tables of consumption.” See Mattila, “Balancing the Accounts of the Royal New Year Festival,” 7-22 for complete list. 189 One of the royal prerogatives of the king was the privilege of receiving the remainders of the meals presented to the cultic statutes. See ABL 889 r. 3. Cole and Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, State Archives of Assyria 13 (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998), 127. 187

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

101

Netherworld in the Esiskur, the house of prayer (bīt ikribi), bīt akīti of his Enlilship.”190 After reaching the bīt akīti the gods assembled inside the temple. Speculation about the ritual actions transpiring in the Babylonian akītu house has ranged from the probable (a splendid banquet) to improbable (hieros gamos and a re-enactment of the cultic battle). A Neo-Assyrian tablet found at the Nergal Gate in Nineveh, concerning repairs to the bīt akīti, offers our first tangible clue regarding its events: I built the Eshahullezenzagmukan, “The house of Joy and Gladness for the festival of the beginning of the year!” At the time of the festival of the New Year’s house, I celebrate annually inside it with a prayer and reverence before the god and goddesses and . . .191

The above text informs us little more than that prayers and celebrations ensued within the temple complex. Scholars have suggested these celebrations and prayer include a hieros gamos with bīt akīti acting as the cultic setting of this sacred marriage. On the eleventh day we can assume there was a procession back to the Esagila for the second decreeing of the destinies, but what happened in the bīt akīti for the few days while the gods remained there is still a mystery. Many scholars, especially in the early speculative and Myth-and-Ritual school, asserted that the hieros gamos was celebrated here.192 However, from the texts examined there is no direct evidence of a sacred marriage occurring at the Nisannu Babylonian akītu festival. The topic of hierogamy, though not an event in the NeoBabylonian New Year Festivals, warrants some discussion here as several scholars still claim its inclusion in the festival.193 Nabonidus Stela II col. ix. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 217; Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 439. 191 Lines 4’-12’. Ali Yaseen Ahmad and A. Kirk Grayson, “Sennacherib in the Akitu House,” Iraq 61 (1999), 187-191. 192 For example, Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 319; Langdon, Tammuz and Ishtar; also see James M. Fennelly, “The Persepolis Ritual,” Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980), 135-162, who proposes a sacred marriage on the tenth day of the Babylonian festival as well as a similar hieros gamos at Persepolis. 193 Ichiro Nakata, “Problems of the Babylonian Akitu Festival,” Journal of the American Near East Society 1 (1968), 46; Cohen, Cultic Calenders, 449; Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 47. 190

102

The Akītu Festival

Hieros gamos In ancient Mesopotamia, the sacred marriage was a holy drama celebrated to ensure renewal through the act of uniting the male and female forces. The hieros gamos194 was originally practiced in Sumerian rituals195 with a high priestess representing the goddess Inanna, and the EN (high priest) or the LU.GAL (king) representing Dumuzi. The rite involved sexual copulation on a specially prepared ceremonial bed, recitation of the Dumuzi-Inanna love songs, and the consumption of sacred meals. Early interpretation stressed the sacred marriage as a fertility rite for There are several studies on the sacred marriage. Early studies include E. D. van Buren, “The Sacred Marriage in Early Times in Mesopotamia,” Orientalia 13 (1944), 1–72. Kramer published the DumuziInanna texts and authored many articles and books on the subject. Samuel N. Kramer, Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Text, Proceeding of the American Philosophical Society 107/6 (Philadelphia: APS, 1963); Kramer, “The Dumuzi-Inanna Sacred Marriage Rite: Origin, Development, Character,” in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. André Finet (Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970), 136-141; Kramer, Le Mariage Sacré à Sumer et à Babylone, J. Bottéro, trans. (Paris: Berg International, 1983). For a review of Kramer’s book see Douglas R. Frayne, “Notes on the Sacred Marriage,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 (1985), 522. Recently Eiko Matsushima has published several articles on the sacred marriage in the first-millennium Akkadian sources. See Eiko Matsushima, “Le lit de Šamaš et le rituel du mariage à l’Ebabbar,” Acta Sumerologia 7 (1985), 129-137;”Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû,” Acta Sumerologia 9 (1987), 131-175; “Les rituels du mariage divin dans les documents accadiens,” Acta Sumerologia 10 (1988), 95-128. Cooper’s article offers a summary of most studies, Jerrold S. Cooper, “Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia,” in Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East, ed. Eiko Matsushima (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993), 89-96. The most recent translation of the texts and critical analysis is found in Yitschak Sefati, Love Songs in the Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the Dumuzi Inanna Songs (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 1998) esp. 30-49. 195 Some scholars have suggested evidence also of the hieros gamo in the Canaanite New Year Festival. According to de Moor, the king of Ugarit and his queen, both representing deities, participated in the ceremony. A limited number of “initiated” were allowed to witness the ceremony. See de Moor, New Year with the Canaanites and the Israelites, Pt. 1, 6. There is no textual evidence however to support his argument. 194

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

103

prosperity of the community, but the rite may have also served to legitimate the ruler by ritually strengthening his relationship with the powers of fertility, or to ensure the blessing of Inanna.196 The texts usually use the phrase “setting up the bed” to refer to the sacred marriage. The question pertinent to this discussion is whether the hieros gamos played a role in the Neo-Babylonian akītu celebration. Scholars are once again divided on this topic. Kramer claims it was celebrated joyously and rapturously all over the ancient Near East during the New Year for over two thousand years.197 There is no doubt that in the early Sumerian New Year Festival the sacred marriage was ritually enacted. Textual evidence and graphic representations on cylinder seals confirm this.198 One of the most important responsibilities of the NeoSumerian kings and rulers, according to the royal hymns, was to secure fertility and abundance for their land, by annually participating in the Sacred Marriage ceremony. In this ritual the king representing Dumuzi unites with a priestess, representing the mother and the fertility goddess during the New Year festival. This union was believed to revive and strengthen the forces of life and fertility in nature as well as society.199

In an Iddin-Dagan (ca. 1974-1954 B.C.E.) text, the king, representing the god, approaches the lap of Inanna proudly on the New Year’s day, where they have set up a bed for the goddess:200 “The king goes with a lifted head to the holy loins of Inanna. Amaushumgalanna201 lies down beside her, she makes love with him on her bed.” Hymns of King Shulgi (2050 B.C.E.) also discuss the king’s participation in the rite.202 Cooper, “Sacred Marriage,” 89. Kramer, Sacred Marriage, 49. 198 For texts see, Jacob Klein, Three Šulgi Hymns (Ramat-Gan, Israel: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1981). For seals see Henri Frankfort, Cylinder Seals. A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East (London: MacMillan and Company, 1939). 199 Klein, Three Šulgi Hymns, 32. 200 BIN 9:435, Line 170-191. Kramer, Sacred Marriage, 62-66; Also See Daniel Riesman, “Iddin Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hymn,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25 (1973),159-160. 201 Another name for Dumuzi. Here it refers to the king. 202 Klein, ibid. 196 197

104

The Akītu Festival

By the Neo-Assyrian period, the human participants were replaced by cultic statues of the deities who symbolically enacted the nuptials. Despite the claims of Zimmern, Pallis, Langdon, Hooke, or James, the sacred marriage celebrated between humans was anachronistic in late first-millennium Babylon. “Nowhere in the Mesopotamian literature of the first millennium is there a hint of the king-priestess marriage in the New Year ritual.”203 As the cultic statues of the deities were believed to mimic human behavior in all other ways, such as eating, drinking, and sleeping, it is not inconceivable that they would also marry. Letters from the NeoAssyrian period discuss a sacred marriage between Nabû and Tašmētu on the fourth day of Ayaru in Borsippa.204 On the fourth day in the evening Nabû and his consort enter a bedchamber. On the fifth day they are served a royal banquet. Days five through ten find them in the bedroom accompanied by some sort of “inspector.” On the eleventh day Nabû leaves the temple to “stretch his legs” and goes to kill a bull. After that he returns to his residence. There is no textual evidence that this ritual took place at the akītu festival, though ABL 856 mentions a festival of Tašmētu where she takes up residence in a bīt akīti.205 Another letter details the preparations for Nabû’s bed chamber.206 One text from Uruk, which informs us of the gift-giving ceremony during the akītu, also contains an indistinct reference to a sacred marriage between Nabû and a minor goddess, Nunbaršegunnu: 1. His name is called: [ King of the gods of-] heaven and Underworld. 2. [. . . ] . . purification he marches to the lord of the lords 3. [. . . ] . .he is clothed in his lordly garment, carrying the melammum-splendor 4. [. . . ].he marches on to E-siskur 5. [. . . ] dweller of the Underworld and Heaven 6. [.] they bring gifts and presents (to) their presence. 7. [.] on the 11th day they celebrate a festival in E-siskur Sefati, Love Songs in the Sumerian Literature, 47. ABL 366; Recently published now by Steven W. Cole and Peter Machinist, Letters from Priests, 64. 205 ABL 858 line 11; Cole and Machinist, Letters from Priests, 100. Cf. ABL 113, 11-13. 206 ABL 65, Cole and Machinist, Letters from Priests, 70. 203 204

Phenomonology of the akītu festival

105

8. [.] because of Nabû, Nunbaršegunnu rushed to the wedding ceremony. 9. . . . . in . . Anu sat for kingship. 10. . [.] . of the gods, all of them, have sent from his presence (to) the presence of all the gods. 207

The combination of these texts presumes a sacred marriage between Nabû and his consort in the bīt akīti. In an analysis of materials from the Nabû temples, Postgate affirms that the Nabû temples included bīt akīti rooms which were perhaps used for the sacred nuptials. He claims, however, that they are not associated with the New Year’s festival.208 Some have alleged that within the Esagila, a special room called the bīt erši was used to celebrate the sacred marriage.209 Postgate agrees that the late New Year’s celebrations did not involve sacred marriage rites and suggests an alternative interpretation: Since we consider that the akitu was not one specific ritual but only a type of ceremony, there seems to be no reason why it should not have been associated with different rituals for different deities, just as it was held in different months at different cities.210

Whether Nabû and Tašmētu celebrated the sacred marriage at the Babylon akītu festival remains uncertain. Even more vagueness surrounds the question whether Marduk celebrated the hieros gamos. The only hint, albeit a small one, is found in the statement that Marduk rushed to the wedding ceremony (or betrothal), ihòiš ana hòadaššūti.211 Pallis believed that the closing ceremony of the akītu was the hieros gamos which took place after the second determining of the destinies between Marduk and Zarpānitu in the Esagila complex. For Pallis, the sacred marriage was the pinnacle of the New Year’s festival, acting as a third and “primitive” form of the determining of the destinies. The union of the two deities is an archetypical act which has a direct effect on the fertility of meadow and field, on childbirth in the cottage of the peasant and the VAT 662+663, 11. 6-7. Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 171-172. Postgate, “The bit akiti in Assyrian Nabû Temples,” 63. 209 Pallis, Akitu Festival, 104; Matsushima, “Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû,” 131-175. 210 Postgate, “The bit akiti in Assyrian Nabû Temples,” 62. 211 Falkenstein, Akiti Fest, 163. 207 208

106

The Akītu Festival palace of the prince, on the calving of cows, on the multiplication of all living things. It is the great holy act, the chief sacrament of the agriculturist, the third stratum of religion which we have traced to the akitu festival.212

Without any solid evidence, it is fruitless to posit a sacred marriage at any time during the Babylonian New Year’s festival. The sexual activity of the royal couples, Marduk and Zarpānitu, and Nabû and Tašmētu, must be left to scholarly imagination. Prior to the determining of the destinies on day eleven a šuilla prayer was recited: “in the month of Nisannu, on the 11th day Bēl enters from the akītu house to Esagila and the kalamahòhòu-priest with . . .” 213 After the second decreeing of the fates, a lavish banquet ensued. Gifts and tribute were brought to the temple and festivities concluded. The twelfth day of Nisannu was the day of departures. On the last day, Nabû and Tašmētu returns to Borsippa, his home city, as do the other gods to their respective cities. Each of the city gods have been renewed and reinstated for another year. The waterways must have been crowded as all the visiting gods and the royalty left the city. The mašmaššu and the slaughterer are free to return to the city, and the festivities are concluded for another year. With the departure of the neighboring deities and the return of the banished sorcerer and slaughterer to Babylon, these final events of the festival acted to reestablish the normal political and social order.

Pallis, Akitu Festival, 247-248. Jerrold S. Cooper, “A Sumerian šu-íl-la from Nimrod with a prayer for sin-šar-iškun, “ Iraq 32 (1970), 54. 212 213

RITUALISTIC ELEMENTS OF THE AKĪTU

General Observations Though the akītu captivated the religious imagination of the people of Mesopotamia for over 2,500 years, the majority of our knowledge of the festival comes from a very late period in Babylonian history. It is highly improbable that the celebration of the New Year festival during the Seleucid period followed the instructions recorded in the texts. The Seleucid akītu texts revolve around the Babylonian king, but no Babylonian king sat on the throne at that time. The liturgical texts must refer to the events of a much earlier celebration, probably during the Neo-Babylonian Empire when the akītu observance was at its zenith. Under Seleucid domination, the priests of Marduk and the Esagila recorded the texts to preserve the last vestige of Babylonian culture. The New Year festival is extraordinarily rich in ritualistic and mythological symbolism. The power of any ritual is contained in the potency of its symbols, its social context, and its ability to change. The akītu festival and its attendant rites exhibit all these qualities. Some general observations on the entire festival are necessary. For an understanding of the akītu, as with all sacred rituals, it is important to analyze the timing of events during the festival, establish the location of the Babylonian temples, shrines, and bīt akīti, and survey the actors involved including the cultic personnel and the various gods of the Babylonian pantheon. The king, who is a key participant in these events, will be investigated separately.

When: the Timing of the akītu Two facets of the timing in the akītu should be mentioned: first, the timing of the festival in general, i.e., the significance of the 107

108

The Akītu Festival

length of the festival; and second, the timing of the rituals within each day of the festival. Many theories exist regarding the length and the celebration dates of the akītu, most studies proposing twelve days of the akītu. However, the early Sumerian celebrations of the akītu did not always last twelve days; some developed over a five to seven day period.1 The Uruk Nisannu and Tašrītu akītu festival lasted for eleven days. In first-millennium Babylon the textual evidence clearly demonstrates an akītu celebration spanning from the first day of Nisannu until the twelfth. The traditional analysis is still valid—the Babylonian version of the festival lasted at least eleven and perhaps twelve days. Though evidence of the specific events of particular days are lacking, we can reconstruct a general day-to-day outline for the entire cycle. The reference to Nisannu 1 is now certain, based on the ritual text published by Çagirgan. Rituals for days two, three, four, and five are accounted in the Seleucid ritual texts. Day six is referred to both in these texts and from references to the gift-giving ceremony. Though day seven is missing, we know that the festival continued on day eight with Marduk visiting the shrines and the gods determining the destinies in the ubšukkinna. In a syllabary of cultic and secular names for the days of the month, Nisannu 10 is called the ûm akītim.2 That the festival lasted until at least the eleventh (and perhaps the twelfth) day of Nisannu can be ascertained by the banishment of the sorcerer and the slaughter until Nabû has left the city. Many have now claimed that the festival does not actually start until the fourth day, therefore reducing the akītu to a seven(or eight-) day celebration.3 This reduction to a seven-day festival is not illogical, considering the importance of a seven-day period/pattern in ancient Israel and Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, the prayers and rituals of the first few days are too essential to the rest of the festival to be ignored. To discount the first few days as preparatory rites that are performed before any major festival diminishes the significance of the whole akītu celebration. Applying this argument to a modern day liturgical analogy, one See Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 408-409. K 6012. See Stephen Langdon, Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendar (Schweich Lectures 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1935), 151. 3 See van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival,” 332; Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 111: 24-28. 1 2

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

109

could claim that the Roman Catholic Mass does not actually begin until communion is served—that all the prayers, liturgy, and purifications leading up to it are just peripheral. Alternatively, in a more secular example, our modern New Year does not actually occur until the stroke of midnight on December 31, even though a proper New Year’s celebration commences hours before. Similarly, the akītu actions, whether preliminary private rituals or public rituals, encompassed the first eleven days of Nisannu and can rightfully be included when discussing the celebration of the akītu festival. Considering that the akītu did last for 11-12 days, a logical question follows—why such a lengthy festival? There are a number of answers proposed for this question. Many suggest that the number twelve simply is an important symbolic number in the sexagesimal system of Babylonian mathematics; others propose more symbolic explanations. Langdon thought that the New Year Festival in Nisannu ran through the first sixteen days in the old Babylonian year; in the time of Nebuchadnezzar II it was reduced to the first eleven days, owing to the discovery of the epact, or eleven days difference between the lunar and solar year.4 Cohen has suggested that the twelve (or eleven) days of the akītu relates in some way to its origins as a lunar festival. This length of time allowed the moon to complete its cycle from waxing to waning. The early Ur akītu was celebrated at the new moon for Nanna (Sîn). As the moon grows larger and larger, it symbolized the arrival of god as he draws nearer to his city.5 To further his argument Cohen also suggests that the symbolic shape of the moon resembles a “boat” of light (symbol of Sîn) and that the festival was celebrated as long as the moon retained its barge shape. He points out that later first-millennium Babylonian texts and prayers connect rituals with elip nūri (boat of light).6 This explanation of this symbolism has some merit, but a complete moon phase from waning to waxing and vice versa would take a full fourteen days, not eleven. Cohen’s interpretation can only inform us that the early akītu was intricately related to the lunar calendar and the moon god. Another symbolic explanation could be that the twelve Langdon, Babylonian Menologies, 51. Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 402. 6 Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 402. 4 5

110

The Akītu Festival

days each emulate the twelve months of the year, hence the “New Year’s” connection. Each day would stand for one month, the whole symbolizing the mythic notion of twelve months of fertility and prosperity. A similar notion associates the monthly festivals with the myths of the constellations and the zodiac. One zodiacal interpretation proposed that the New Year festival in Tašrītu was based upon the judging of the souls in the Netherworld, connecting it to the zodiacal symbol of that month, the scales of Libra.7 When the priest must rise and when the various rituals begin are informative to our understanding of the akītu. On each day of the festival the priest must awake while darkness still engulfs the land, earlier and earlier until the climatic day five when he must begin his rituals at 2:00 am. Each day the šešgallu must greet the rising sun at dawn. Though a daily event, the appearance of the sun and other stars on the horizon was a momentous event and was recorded in the astronomical and omen treatises.8 The murky period between midnight and early dawn has always been considered a liminal period. By rising when it is still dark, the šešgallu can gain command of the rising sun and will have better control on the events of the day. The Seleucid Tašrītu texts speak of a dīk bīti or an “awakening of the temple” ceremony which took place at dawn and before the gates are opened. “On the seventh day, dīk bīti (performed) by the kalû and the nārû.”9 Later the gates would be opened to the rest of the cultic personnel. The rationale behind the šešgallu waking progressively earlier is unclear. Perhaps it is symbolic of the importance of each individual day. Rising Times Day One 6:00 am—dawn10 Day Two 4:00 am—1 double hour before dawn Day Three 3:20 am—1 1/3 double hour before dawn Day Four 2:40 am—1 2/3 double hour before dawn Langdon, Babylonian Menologies, 7. See Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 307-309. 9 AO 6459 obv. 7. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 89-96; Çagirgan, Babylonian Festivals, 72. 10 These times are somewhat approximate and based upon modern time reckoning. Double-hours varied in actual lengths. 7 8

Ritualistic elements of the akītu Day Five

111

2:00 am—2 double hours before dawn

On Nisannu three, the second ceremony begins at 9:00 am, when the sun is halfway to its zenith point. On day five, the exorcism begins at 8:00 am, and twenty minutes later the craftsmen are requested to prepare Nabû’s shrine. The last ritual of the day begins at forty minutes before sunset. We can assume that the entire final ritual took about forty minutes and ended as the setting sun crossed the horizon. After this ritual as the darkness descends on the land, the gate to the temple would be locked. McEwan lays out a course of daily cultic activities for the Esagila for which the activities of the akītu can be compared:11 1. Pre-dawn awakening of the temple ceremony 2. Gate is opened at dawn and the night vigils are ended. 3. Hand-washing rituals 4. Morning meal is served to the gods; singers enter as the meal is removed. 5. Second meal served and removed. 6. Main afternoon meal served and removed; singers enter as the meal is removed. 7. Second afternoon (late afternoon) meal is served and removed. 8. Gate is locked. Night vigils begin.

Where: Temples, Shrines, and the bīt akīti In every major urban center, there was a main temple where the city god dwelt. Along with the city god’s temple, the other prominent deities also maintained temples and/or shrines in the city. The majority of the ritual actions during the akītu occur in the Esagila, the temple of Marduk, which consisted of numerous cellas and courtyards, or in the smaller bīt akīti. We possess some knowledge regarding the cultic events in the Esagila and its cellas. The activities in the bīt akīti and its function are much more tenuous to grasp. The Temple of Marduk at Babylon was named the Esagila, meaning “House of the Uplifted (or Lofty) Head.” The Esagila, which dates back at least to the First Dynasty of Babylon, is the most noteworthy of all the Babylonian temples, standing at the east Based upon rituals for the tenth day of Tašrītu. McEwan, Priest and Temple, 170. 11

112

The Akītu Festival

bank of the Euphrates, just north of the famous ziggurat Etemenanki. The Esagila was first excavated in 1811, but the principal investigations were conducted by German archeologist Robert Koldewey from 1899 to 1917. The topography of Babylon and its temple is best known from the occupation levels of the Neo-Babylonian period unearthed during Koldewey’s excavation and from the cuneiform text series TIN.TIR, edited by A. R. George.12 The sacred temple of Marduk was located in the heart of the city. By its very location, it represents the heart of Babylon. From an Eliadean perspective the temple is the sacred space, the center, or the “navel” of the world and the intersection of heaven and earth.13 The temple is sanctified, the closest place to the divine realm. The temple is the imago mundi because the world, as the creation of the gods, is in itself sacred. The temple was not only the cornerstone of the cult but also the residence of the god. Therefore, each temple was equipped like the household of a ruler, with its temple personnel, like palace administration organized hierarchically. Temple staff included cooks, butchers, attendants, and other domestic servants who served the god in the temples as they served the king in his palace. In addition to the institutionalized clergy and cultic functionaries, the temples also employed artisans and slaves. As it housed the national god Marduk, the Esagila was a massive and elegant structure with three vast courtyards surrounded by several chambers. Only about two thirds of the temple complex has been excavated.14 The whole complex of 12 The TIN.TIR.KI = ba-bi-lu is a series of tablets and texts detailing the topography of Babylon. This much-copied text may have been composed as early as Nebuchadnezzar I. It contains lengthy lists and scholarly texts which explain sacred names and epithets of the temples, shrines, gates, and its other religious buildings. As George claims, the primary purpose of the text was not topographical but theological and cosmological. See George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 53. 13 This idea is illustrated in the Babylonian topographical texts. Duranki (the bond between heaven and earth) is the name of the seat of Ea in the ubšukkinna. See George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 53, 20’. 14 For descriptions of the Esagila and Babylon, see Robert Koldewey, Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa (Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs,1911); P. Scheil, Esagil ou le temple de Bêl-Marduk à Babylone (Paris: Klinskseck, 1913); for

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

113

buildings covers a rectangular area of over sixty acres. The city of Babylon had several fortified gates,15 twenty-four streets (eight of which are related to the gates), and two main intersecting streets dividing the city into various quarters. The streets were laid out on a grid, with the main axis parallel to the river. Inside the city was a network of canals and quays used for transportation of goods and people. Northward from the Esagila leading to the Ishtar gate was the Processional Way of Marduk, the main route of the akītu parade. The Processional Way led from the Esagila to the bīt akīti and was about a kilometer long. It was named “may the arrogant not flourish.”16 The street, about six meters wide, was reinforced and elevated several times.17 Three cylinder seals belonging to Nebuchadnezzar II were discovered inside the boxes of bricks found on the second elevation of the street. They describe the king’s restoration of Processional Way, at that time the broad streets of Babylon had become too low at the middle. Nabû– dayyan-nišešu, the street of the Uraš gate, (and) Ishtar-lamassiUmmansiš, the street of the Ishtar Gate, I made into a processional way for Marduk and Nabû, the powerful heir, his beloved son.18 The texts further recount how Nebuchadnezzar raised up the street six cubits deep, filling it with burnt brick laid in bitumen, and widening the road for the glory of Marduk, his exalted master. Nebuchadnezzar’s statement, combined with the information that when Nabû entered Babylon from Borsippa for the akītu he would have entered from the south through the Uraš gate, suggests that results of the newer excavations at Babylon see Giovanni Bergamini, “Excavations in Shu-anna, Babylon 1987,” Mesopotamia 23 (1988), 5-17; D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 51-73. 15 For the Neo-Babylonian period, four of the eight gates listed in tablet 5 of TIN.TIR have been excavated. See George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 24, fig. 4. 16 Marc van de Mieroop, The Ancient Mesopotamian City (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 78. 17 Danial Ishaq, “The Excavations at the Southern Part of Procession Street and Nabû ša hòare temple,” Sumer 41 (1981), 30. 18 For complete text see Bahija Khalil Ismail, “New Texts from the Procession Street,” Sumer 41 (1981), 34-35. Also see Helga TrankwalderPiesl, “The Procession Street of Marduk in Babylon: Some Remarks on its Terminology and Function,” Sumer 41 (1981), 36-40.

114

The Akītu Festival

there are actually two main Processional Streets, the one just described for Marduk and one for Nabû.19 The walls lining Marduk’s processional way and the Ishtar Gate were splendidly decorated, adorned with panels of friezes depicting trees with volute capitals, palmettos, lions, sacred bulls, and muš‹uššu dragons in brightly colored deep-blue glazed and enamel brick. The temple in Babylon was vital to the community. With a combination of wealthy landowners, temple and palace administrators, the temple controlled the economy and means of productions and distribution. The temple was crucial for the economic stability of the cities. It was not only the religious center but the nucleus of the state. The upkeep of the major Babylonian temples required a considerable amount of revenue, and the temples accumulated immense wealth through a variety of means. One of these means was in the temple’s role as a central administration where they were active in trade and money lending. Interest on loans was often high. Taxes of approximately onetenth of a citizen’s income were common in the Neo-Babylonian period.20 The temples also derived income from agricultural holdings, owning large estates with arable land where they harvested barley, grain, and date palms. They also possessed massive amounts of livestock and fowl. All these products were intended to feed the deities. Offerings and gifts from the community were frequent, and these offerings went directly to the temple funds. In Babylon, donations could be offered to the deity of one’s choosing, even the god of a neighboring city. Most temple services were held outside in open courts that contained fountains for ablution and altars for sacrifices, allowing the community to perhaps witness some of these offerings. These sacrifices, which were offered daily, consisted of animals, grains, vegetable foods, libations of water, wine, and beer, and the burning of incense. Furthermore, in the Neo-Babylonian period we have evidence that in addition to animal and grain offerings worshipers also presented

Bergamini, “Excavations in Shu-anna,”16. Muhammed A. Dandamayev, “State Gods and Private Religion in the Near East in the First Millennium B.C.E,” in Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East, ed. Adele Berlin (Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1996), 35. 19 20

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

115

contributions of silver, leaving them in boxes set up at the entrance of the temples.21 While the extent of the palace and temple holdings varied throughout Babylonian history, in the early periods the temple was the central institution. In the late OB period the palace eventually gained more control in the economic structure of the society. Though this may have diminished the role of the temple slightly, the temple administration still remained the major landowners, with the palace closely supervising the temple administrations.22 To gain the support of the gods and of the priesthood, the monarchy granted the temples enormous privileges. A successful monarch depended upon the acceptance and support of the priesthood. Along with the responsibility of ensuring prosperity of the land, keeping the temples in good repair and rendering regular donations to the gods were inherent in his royal duties. the very size and location of temples, the number of religious rituals the king had to perform, the royal emphasis on piety, often expressed concretely through gifts to and embellishments of temples, has meant that the notion of priests able to wield effective power and to form a political counterpart to the king is inherent in the analysis of a number of Mesopotamian historical events.23

The social and economical role of the temple, especially the priesthood of Esagila as it related to the akītu in late firstmillennium Babylon will be discussed later.

bīt akīti Another temple vital to the celebration of the akītu was the bīt akīti. The bīt akīti was a smaller, but no less significant temple located just outside the city walls.24 In the city, the bīt akīti was judged to Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 106. Van de Mieroop, The Ancient Mesopotamian City, 147-148. 23 Amelie Kuhrt, “Nabonidus and the Pagan Priesthood,” in Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World, eds., Mary Beard and John North (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), 126. 24 Postage claims that three temples of Nabû at Assur, Nimrud, and Khorsbad have bīt akīti complexes within the main temple grounds. From an administrative tablet (Nimrud IM 67543) which reveals several names of rooms and courts at the Nabû temple, including a bīt akīti, he proposes similarities to temples at Assur and Khorsabad. These akītu rooms are 21 22

116

The Akītu Festival

be located about two hundred meters outside the city walls, slightly north of the Ishtar Gate. No bīt akīti has actually been found in the excavations of Babylon, so our descriptions regarding its actual size and structure remain conjecture. A well-known late Assyrian source is Sennacherib’s dedicatory inscription of the akītu house of Assur.25 The gate on this temple depicts Aššur battling with Tiamat as told in the Assyrian version of the Enūma eliš.26 Our knowledge of the akītu temple in Babylon, however, is gleaned solely from textual evidence. Marduk’s bīt akīti, rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar II, is called the Esiskur, the house of sacrifice.27 Elegant descriptions depict a courtyard filled with shady trees, meticulous shrubs, and the gardens that were rich and luxurious. On both sides of the temple there were porticoes, an unusual feature in Mesopotamian temples. The enormous cella extended over the whole width at the back, suggesting that it may have served as a banqueting hall. In the royal inscriptions, several NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings claimed to have refurbished or rebuilt the bīt akīti. There are texts which recount several firstmillennium bīt akīti.28 In the Neo-Babylonian period, akītu twin shrines facing the courtyard from which the entrance of the bīt akīti gives access. He then defines akītu rooms with the following elements: 1) an entrance chamber from a courtyard, 2) all rooms leading off to a courtyard, 3) a throne-room, 4) shrines of Nabû and Tashmetum, 5) another room. According to this definition, all three temples contain “akītu” rooms. See Postgate, “The bit akīti in Assyrian Nabû Temples,” Sumer 30 (1974), 51-74. 25 VAT 9656. Laura Kataja and Robert Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period, State Archives of Assyria 12 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1995), 104-108. 26 Von Driel, Cult of Assur, 86. 27 Listed on the Khorsabad temple list, line 47’. This temple is also called the bīt ikribī. bīt ikribī is an epithet of the akītu temple of Anu at Uruk. See Andrew R. George, The Temple Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia, Mesopotamian Civilizations 5 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 40-45. 28 For a listing see Beate Pongratz-Leisten, “Territorialer Führungsanspruch und religiöse Praxis im Assyrien: Zur StadtgottTheologie in assyrischen Residenz- und Provinzstädten,” in Stätten und Formen der Kommunikation im Altertum 6, ed. Gerhard Binder and Konrad Ehlich (Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 1997), 19-20. Also see CAD/A, 270.

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

117

buildings were located in Babylon, Borsippa, Dēr, and Uruk; however only the Babylonian temple served the New Year Festival. Two new akītu buildings were dedicated to Anu and Ishtar during the Seleucid period. The existence of multiple akītu houses has puzzled scholars. The most common argument suggests that the akītu temples functioned in non-festival times for sheep-shearing events. Sheepshearing was indispensable in the ancient Near East. In Israel, the festival of sheep-shearing was a typical breeder’s feast—the equivalent of an agricultural reaping of the harvest.29 Like the harvest festival, shepherds and others involved with the production of wool would gather and celebration with food and drink. . . .[a]s is almost universal in a rural economy sheepshearing was de rigueur the occasion for a good time, it was the Yom Tob of feasting and hilarity. Furthermore, it took place in those parts somewhere about March/April and thus more or less at the time of the Spring Equinox, generally the juncture for reckoning the New Year.30

For several practical reasons, including the mechanics of the shearing process, the sheep-shearing probably did coincide with the akītu festival. The use of the akītu house for sheep-shearing does not contradict the use of the temple for celebratory or sacral practices. Several brief references connect the akītu temple with royal or sacred sheep-shearing.31 A tablet from Lagash of Lugalanna (ca. 2300 B.C.E.) mentions a “sacred” sheep-shearing shed. From the time of Hammurapi, we find a letter that discusses sheep shearing in the bīt akīti in Sippar. Three Old Babylonian royal letters of Ammiṣaduqa give orders for the king’s sheep and goats to be shared in the New Year’s house.32 Perhaps the bīt akīti See Pederson, Ancient Israel, 377-416, for discussion of the sheep shearing festival. There are several biblical examples connecting sheepshearing with celebrations. For example, see Gen 30:36, 3:19;Gen 38:12; 2 Sam 13:23-28. Additionally Deut 18:41 lists the sanctification of offerings–the first of the sheared wool is given to the sanctuary. 30 G. R. H Wright, “Dumuzi at the Court of David,” in As On The First Day: Essays in Religious Constants (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987), 53. 31 See CAD A/270. 32 LIH 50-54. Rintje Frankena, Briefe aus dem British Museum, Altbabylonische Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung,2 (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 39ff, Nos. 48-52. 48, 11. 5-7 cf. 49-52. 29

118

The Akītu Festival

served as the setting of the palace and temple sheep-shearing, followed by religious celebrations and festivals. In other words, the royal sheep were sheared in the bīt akīti whereas private citizens and shepherds used other, more secular, locales. The location of the bīt akīti outside of the city has also been problematic for scholars. Two of the many scholarly opinions are presented here. Cohen reasons that the bīt akīti was located outside the city so the gods had to march back into the city.33 Its main function was to house the deity until his glorious re-entry into the city. For Cohen, this act is the essential element of the akītu ceremony. The idea of the god and the king entering their city had universal meaning and appeal as the reenactment of the mythological and original entry of the chief god into its city. The akītu is laden with themes of reenactments of mythological origins, so Cohen’s suggestion is credible. The recitation of the Enūma eliš, the “humiliation” of the king, and the determining of the destinies imitate a return to mythic origins and ends. The problem with Cohen’s interpretation, however, is his belief that the phrase qātē Bēl iṣbat solely refers to the king’s leading the deity in the procession (and back into the city). The reentry of Marduk into Babylon surely was a magnificent event, but the texts show no indication that the king led the god back into the city. Another suggestion for the location of the akītu house outside the city walls was that it symbolized “the anti-order and the paradigmatic situation of chaos, that is the ṣēru. Speaking in terms of religious geography, the chaos is placed directly outside the city, which represents order and actual power.”34 Within the city there was order and structure, but outside it was disarray and confusion. Again, this proposal ties in well with other elements in the mythology of the akītu. The dichotomy between chaos and order is visible in the narrative of the Enūma eliš, the cleansing of the temple on the fifth day, and the banishing of the slaughter and exorcist to the ṣēru. A combination of these two interpretations is more likely. The gods take the disorder and “evil” outside of the city with them when they go to the bīt akīti. There some process occurs whereby they are “cleansed” and order is restored. The

33 34

Cohen, Cultic Calendars, 404. Pongratz-Leisten, “Military Strategy and Cultic Practice,” 251.

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

119

reentry into the city from the bīt akīti symbolizes the triumphant original entrance of the gods into a purified and orderly society. As we have no archaeological remains of an akītu house in Babylon the suggestion of the temple as a temporary structure built for the duration of the festival35 could be possible. Yet, if Sennacherib’s account of the Assyrian akītu chapel is at all similar to the Babylonian bīt akīti, it argues for a more permanent structure, as he claims to have taken the foundation deep enough to reach underground waters, and raised it with limestone as high as a mountain. He opened a canal and encircled the temple with all types of plants and fruits.36 This elaborate building project and dedicatory inscription convey a sense of grandeur and permanence to the structure, as would be fitting the great divinity of the Assyrian national god. However, until future texts or structures are unearthed, the placement and the purpose of the bīt akīti remain somewhat speculative.

Who: The Cultic Personnel There are several cultic personnel involved in the akītu rituals. The šešgallu, a specific type of high priest and one with the closest affinity to the deity, performs the majority of the ceremonies. The word šešgallu is a Sumerian loan word, literally meaning “older brother.” The cultic duties of this priest are known mainly from the Seleucid akītu texts.37 Specifically it is the šešgallu of the Eumuša38 who performs the ceremony. The Eumuša (house of command) is the name of Marduk’s cella in the Esagila, and the šešgallu of the Eumuša is his personal priest and attendant. Acting as a mediator, the šešgallu is a bridge between the divine and the mortal. Another type of priest mentioned is the ērib-bītī, meaning “temple enterer.” In the Seleucid ritual texts, ērib-bītī was the general word used for ordinary priests who had access to the sacred

Cf. the Sukkoth festival. VAT 9656 lines 16-20. 37 Some older translations read šešgallu as urigallu. 38 Also written Etuša. This cella of Marduk was restored by Assurbanipal and refurbished by Nebuchadnezzar II. 35 36

120

The Akītu Festival

precincts of the temple.39 The nāru and the kalû often appear together in the texts. Their functions are complementary to each other. The kalû is a singer/priest who sang or chanted the songs of lament. The nāru are also a type of singer, presumably of songs other than laments. They are actually cultic performers, not priests in the spiritual, or our modern sense of the word. As there is no native word in the Akkadian language for “priest”40 perhaps a better terminology would be cultic functionary. The personnel who worked in the temple, not only the ones who performed the ceremonial acts but also butchers, bakers, and other functionaries, played important roles in the cult. Many of the commentary texts on the akītu refer to the šangû, who is described as “temple administrator.” The office of the šangû is known from earlier periods of Mesopotamian history where he is rendered as high priest. In the later ritual texts, especially in the Esagila, the šešgallu outranks the šangû. The šangû’s tasks, in the cultic commentary texts, seem to be similar to the king’s, but there is no indication of the šangû having any special significance. In one text, the king and the šangû imitate Marduk (and Nabû) by tossing a “sweet cake”.41 In the Middle Assyrian/Middle Babylonian period during an akītu festival for Ishtar, the king and the šangû alternate between ritual acts.42 The šangû and the king stand before the gods to install Marduk on the parak šīmāte. A lamb is placed on a sacrificial fire, and the king scatters flour over the lamb “instead of the šangû.” He also pours wine and beer on the ground. In the Uruk texts, the šangû offers “hand water” to Marduk and the king. His role is not fully understood in these texts; however, in the liturgical Babylonian akītu texts the šangû has no active responsibility. His mention is secondary—perhaps he acts as an assistant to the king. Another group of cultic performers and musicians, the assinnu and the kurgarrû, also appear in Seleucid akītu texts. Their role in 39 Gilbert J.P. McEwan, Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon, Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 4 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981), 7. 40 Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 618. 41 CT 15, Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea, 37 19’; Zimmern, Neujahrsfest I, 130. 42 F. Köcher, “Ein mittelassyrisches Ritualfragment zum Neujahrfest,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 50 (1952), 192-202.

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

121

the Babylonian akītu is very limited, as they appear in conjunctions with the other priests and cultic functionaries. The assinnu formed a special class of male cultic performers. Some believe that they were either eunuchs or male prostitutes.43 The assinnu and the kurgarrû are traditionally associated with the cult of Ishtar.44 They play flutes, dance, and sing songs of praise. During the akītu of Ishtar, where their roles are substantially more important, the assinnu and the kurgarrû dancers circle counterclockwise around her and the other cult statues as she is seated in her court.45 The assinu and the kurgarrû are also mentioned in several mythological texts, such as the Descent of Ishtar and in the Erra epic.46 The mašmaššu is the temple exorcist.47 The cultic office of the exorcist is well attested in Mesopotamian religious practices. In the Babylonian akītu, the mašmaššu plays a key role in the cleansing of the Esagila and then is banished to the countryside after his

43 Pallis claims they were eunuchs; Pallis, Babylonian Akitu Festival, 145. Dalley states they were effeminate; Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 324. Lambert discusses both options; see Wilfred G Lambert, “Prostitution,” Xenia 32 (1992), 147-148. Sasson has suggested that for Old Babylonian texts from Mari, the assinnū were more like the native American “berdache,” men with female sensibility; see Jack M. Sasson, “The Posting of Letters with Divine Messages,” in Florilegium marianum, 2. Recueil d'études à la mémoire de Maurice Birot, Mémoires de Nouvelles Assyriologique Brèves et Utilitaires 3, eds., D. Charpin and J.-M. Durand, (Paris: SEPOA, 1994.), 299-316. 44 For assinnu and the kurgarrû see Stefan M. Maul, “kurgarrû and assinnu und ihr Stand in der babylonischen Gesellschaft,” Xenia 32 (1992), 159-171. 45 AO 7439. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens,115 r.7. For a complete study on the cultic personnel of Ishtar see Brigitte Groneberg, “Der Istar und ihm Ritual im Hymnus 'Istar-Louvre',” 123-154 in Lob der Istar: Gebet und Ritual an die altababylonische Venusgöttin (Groningen, Styx Publications, 1997). 46 Erra and Ishum, Tablet IV 55-58. See Foster, Before the Muses, 797; Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 305. In the Erra texts the assinnu are identified as men who changed into women by Ishtar to strike awe in the people. 47 For the Seleucid texts McEwan reads the ideogram MAŠ.MAŠ as āšipu. McEwan, Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon, 73.

122

The Akītu Festival

exorcism is complete.48 There is no mention of any female cultic personnel in these texts, nor is there any indication that women played any role in the akītu festival, other than the prayers to Zarpānitu and the participation of the goddesses. Only one text, an Assyrian offering ceremony performed in the bīt akīti, lists a small part for the queen who carries the “weapons.”49 This text shows no similarities with the Babylonian festival other than the location in the akītu house.

Who: The Gods and Goddesses The Mesopotamian myths contain much information regarding the personality of the deities. Some have very vivid and striking personalities, each deity in control of a specific domain. Though they all had distinct characteristics, they had one thing in common. The Mesopotamian deities are typically described as possessing melammu, a word that is usually translated as great splendor, terrifying brightness, and awesomeness. Among these gods, in first-millennium Babylon Marduk was the preeminent figure.50 Marduk’s symbols were the bull and the mace. Marduk is a relatively late addition to the original Sumerian pantheon, but of paramount distinction as the national deity of Babylon. It is difficult however to determine how early he was worshiped among the Semites. Originally he was the god of scribes but later became powerful as the state god of Babylon. The epithets in the Enūma eliš and in other myths confirm Marduk’s association with many of the astral deities. Illustrations on cylinder seals and temple carvings depict Marduk as clutching lightening bolts in his hand, as a force in controlling nature. This depiction mirrors the Creation Epic when Ea has given Marduk the four winds as playthings. In the However, in the Uruk rituals he is allowed to remain for the duration of the festival, and recites several incantations. See BRM 4, 7. 49 KAR 215 (VAT 8882) Erich Ebeling, “Kultische Texte aus Assur,” Orientalia 20 (1951), 401-5; Also see Richard A. Henshaw, Female and Male: The Cultic Personnel The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East (Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1994), 20-24. 50 For a summary of Marduk’s history and role in Babylonian religion, see Tzvi Abusch, “Marduk” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter van der Horst. 2nd ed. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000), 1013-1026; Walter Sommerfield, “Marduk,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5/6 (1989), 360-370. 48

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

123

Enūma eliš, Marduk is also responsible for establishing the functions of the earth, the sea, and the heavens from the slain body of his rival, Tiamat. He divides the heavens into the constellations and stations various gods in their appropriate spheres. Marduk establishes the calendar, regulates the months, and causes the luminaries to shine. The other deities then bestow the kingship of the gods upon Marduk. He is awarded the Tablet of Destiny and reckoned the highest deity in the Babylonian pantheon. Marduk’s actions earn him the title of the ruler of universe and all that is orderly within it. In essence, Marduk is responsible for the world and in the center of this orderly universe Marduk establishes Babylon as his capital city. Babylon, therefore, becomes the foremost city in Mesopotamia, not only as the home of the chief deity but also as the center of entire cosmos. Without Marduk, the akītu festival cannot be celebrated. In a prayer to Marduk, the text claims that without Marduk the wise gods can hold no festivals at all.51 Iconographic symbols of Marduk include the spade and the mušhuššu serpent-dragon. Marduk’s consort is Zarpānitu, the goddess of pregnancy. In the akītu texts, she is often referred to only by her title, Bēltī, my lady.52 Nabû is another essential deity in the festivities of the Babylonian akītu. Traditionally Nabû is the city god of Borsippa. Originally the god of wisdom and protective patron of scribes, he was “adopted” by Marduk and became his son. His cult was especially popular during the late Neo-Babylonian period.53 Nabû’s consort is the goddess, Tashmētu. As a royal family, Marduk, Zarpānitu, Nabû, and Tashmētu were held in high esteem in the late first- millennium.54 The cult of Nabû and Marduk, known then only in his epithet as Bēl, outlasted the Babylonian “Foremost of the Gods,” Foster, Before the Muses, 607. Van der Toorn identifies Bēltu with both Zarpanitu and Ishtar. “Since Bēl came to be a second name of Marduk, it could be argued that the absolute use of Bēltu should be taken to refer to Marduk’s consort, Zarpanitu. . . in some of the New Year rituals, Zarpanitu is referred to simply as Bēlti, my lady.” Karel van der Toorn, Dictionary of Deities and Demons, 171-172. 53 Note the theophoric element in the names of the Neo-Babylonian Nabopolassar, Nebuchadrezzar, and Nabonidus. 54 Note the disdain in Isa 46:1-4 as the statues of Bēl and Nebo (Nabû) are fleeing the city on pack animals. 51 52

124

The Akītu Festival

empire, surviving into the first century C.E at Palmyra, Edessa, and Dura-Europos. In all temples each of the deities had an inner sanctuary, a cella, where his or her statue stood on a pedestal. The cella was the holy of holies, and only the high priest and other privileged members of the clergy were permitted to enter. On the fifth day of the New Year festival, the king of Babylon was permitted to enter the cella of the Esagila. To maintain their privacy and to shield themselves from the outside world, the gods lived behind linen curtains when they were in their cellas. The Babylonian cult was centered on the images of their deities. The cult image was one of the most important symbols in the community. These images were anthropomorphic and life sized (if not larger). Images held in the temple were constructed of wood and covered with gold and precious stones, while the much smaller images used in private household devotion may have been more crudely constructed.55 The figurines were treated as if they were royalty. They were bathed, perfumed, groomed, and fed lavish meals. Each deity had its own entourage of domestic servants, priests, and personal attendants. Cult statues in ancient Mesopotamian were more than just simple representations of deities. They were fashioned and repaired in the temple workshop according to elaborate prescriptions that transformed their lifeless matter into the living incarnation of the deity. The divine presence was thereafter maintained in the statue through the daily performance of complex rituals and ceremonies.56

Careful attention went into the production of these cultic images. Through special rituals and incantations the statues were endowed with life; their lifeless mouths and eyes opened so they could eat, drink, and see. These rituals prepared the statues not only for functional use, but transformed them into divine beings. In

Clay figurines and models of sacred architecture are frequently found in domestic contexts in Mesopotamia. See Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses and Images of God in Ancient Israel, trans. Thomas H. Trapp (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998). 56 Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52 (1993), 241. 55

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

125

Mesopotamian ritual the cult image was born of the gods and was not a product of human creation.57 Two ceremonies, which prepared the statue of the deity for future use, were of particular importance — the mouth- washing (Sum. KA.LUHò.ÙD.A Akk. mīs pî) and the mouth- opening (Sum. KA.DUHò.ÙD.A Akk. pit pî) ceremonies. A statue that has not had its ritual performed cannot eat, drink or smell the incense of its offerings.58 Because the gods lived hidden away in their cellas and common worshipers were not admitted into this holy sanctuary, the everyday citizens had rare opportunities to see the god. As the gods were paraded through the city during the akītu processions, the people were allowed a yearly opportunity to view the splendor of their gods. The cultic relationship between the city and its god was formalized in these processions. This was one of the highlights of the akītu festival; the people could revere their gods. To be in the presence of the deity meant that miracles were possible. In demonstration of their adoration, they would try to touch the statue in the hopes that physical contact would heal them, expel demons, and ensure a prosperous new year.59 In the akītu, the deities truly became part of the city as they moved

Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth, 16. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia, 186. Several recent studies have focused on these rituals, including Christopher Walker and Michael B. Dick, “The Inductions of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: the mīs pî Ritual,” in Dick, Born in Heaven, Made on Earth, 55-122; Angelika Berlejung, Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die altestamentliche Bilderpolemik, Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 162 (Frieburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998). Berlejung reconstructs the theology of first millennium Babylonian cultic images using textual and archaeological evidence and compares them with the biblical polemic against icons. For mouth-washing and -opening rituals see esp. 178-283. 59 Suggested in a private conversation with Karel van der Toorn. This idea is found throughout religious culture and is evident even today. Each year thousands of people, of whom a great number are sick or handicapped, travel to the Grotto of Massabielle in Lourdes, in hopes for a cure from a physical ailment or suffering. The idea in antiquity is wellknown also in Egypt. See Serge Sauneron, The Priests of Ancient Egypt (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000). 57 58

126

The Akītu Festival

through the crowd of worshipers. The use of this ritual action and drama reinforces stronger emotions than verbal statements.

Symbolism of Water Every morning at various specified hours, the šešgallu arises and cleanses himself in river water from the Euphrates in a ritual purification to absolve any impurities before facing the god. Water is important in many religious rituals including the rituals of ancient Near East. There are numerous examples of the use of water as purification found in modern religious traditions. For example, Orthodox Jews visit a mikveh in accordance with religious purity laws whereas Roman Catholics sign themselves with holy water before entering a church and Muslims wash before prayer. Hindus perform ritual ablutions in the river Ganges. For Christians one of their most significant initiation rite is baptism . “Any use of water with a religious intention brings together the two basic points in the rhythm of the universe: reintegration in water— and creation.”60 The akītu rituals required river water. A prescription necessitating the use of water from the Tigris and Euphrates is also found in rituals from the time of Gudea.61 In Babylon, river water was held in reserve in a special well-house in the Esagila complex. This well-house measured 6 1/3 by 5 2/3 cubits with two gates of 2 cubits wide. One gate led to the courtyard, the other to the Kahegal, the west main gate behind Marduk’s cella.62 The rationale for the importance of river water is obvious when one looks at the law codes. In Mesopotamian religious thought the river represented divine justice and functioned as both a purifier and an arbitrator. Many law codes speak of the river ordeal—the accused criminal is immersed in the divine river. The divine river would then decide the verdict of innocence or guilt and ultimately, of life or death.63 The river was thought to have flowed Mircea Eliade, Patterns in Comparative Religion (London: Steed and Ward, 1958), 212. 61 Gudea Cyl B xvii 7-11; YOS XI 22, 19. 62 George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 279. 63 For example, the Laws of Hammurapi 129, 132, 155 and the Middle Assyrian Law 17 require the river ordeal. See Martha T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995). 60

Ritualistic elements of the akītu

127

from the sacred font of the Apsû, the fresh body of sweet water underneath the earth and the begetter of all life.64 In the rituals of the akītu water is used mainly as a cleansing and purifying element. Daily the priest washes himself in water, the temple is sprinkled with water during its exorcism, the carcass of the decapitated sheep is thrown in the river for purification, and the king and priests are involved in a hand-washing ceremony during most of the rituals. Having reviewed and analyzed the ritualistic and symbolical aspects of the festival, we turn in the next chapter to an examination of some of the political and ideological elements contained within the rituals of the akītu. An investigation of the historical observances or absences of the akītu as detailed in the Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles and in the Achaemenid and Seleucid periods will reveal its political importance. The late NeoBabylonian reign of King Nabonidus will be especially informative in understanding the political propaganda surrounding the akītu festival. The various notations employed in the chronicles or historical texts for suspended or absent akītu celebration will be reviewed, with special attention given to the phrase qātē Bēl iṣbat as a form of legal oath and the role of the king in first-millennium Babylon.

For Neo-Assyrian ordeal see A. R. George, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 85/86 (1999), 664-665. For Neo-Babylonian ordeal see Beaulieu, Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires (1992/77). Also see now Bertrand Lafont “The Ordeal,” in Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, ed., Jean Bottéro (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001), 199-209. 64 See Enūma eliš Tablet 1 line 3; Also within the Apsû, Marduk was born. Tablet 1 line 81-82.

POLITICAL, HISTORICAL, AND IDEOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

Historical Overview While liturgical texts inform us about the structural framework of the festival and the individual daily rituals, other texts such as the Babylonian and Assyrian Chronicles, dedicatory inscriptions, historical annals, and royal correspondence assist in the decipherment of the historical occurrences of the festival. For a full understanding of the social dynamics surrounding the New Year festival, an analysis of the circumstances under which the akītu was (and was not) celebrated is equally as important as is attention to the manner in which it was celebrated. From textual evidence we know that some aspects of the akītu were celebrated continually in Babylon until at least Seleucid times, and perhaps well beyond. During the second half of the first millennium detailed records regarding the occurrences of the festive exist. During the first millennium B.C.E., the city of Babylon witnessed much political turmoil. The rulers of Babylon changed frequently with each conquering empire. The Assyrians, followed by the Neo-Babylonians (625-539 B.C.E.), the Achaemenids (550330), and the Seleucids (311-141), each built new empires with administrative changes in domestic and foreign policies. During the Achaemenid rule especially, the population became mixed and multilingual, as the city was comprised not only of Babylonians, but also Arameans, Persians, Jews, and Egyptians. Changes in languages and religious practices paralleled monarchic changes. Aramaic was becoming the lingua franca of the empire. Variant religious cults were practiced alongside the time- honored Babylonian traditions. Taxation became especially high during Achaemenid domination, resulting in several internal revolts. Yet, in spite of all these upheavals, or perhaps in reaction to them, the 129

130

The Akītu Festival

basic structure of the Babylonian city remained constant. The integral relationships among the monarchy, the temple, and the elite continued as in previous periods, but adopting religious doctrine to suit political motives remained constant. A telling illustration of this condition was the continuity of the celebration of the annual New Year’s festival in the Esagila. The NeoAssyrian, Achaemenid, and Seleucid rulers cast themselves as traditional Babylonian rulers appropriating long-established Babylonian traditions to win popular support for their rule.

Nabonidus and the Neo-Babylonian Period The Neo-Assyrian empire dominated the region from 934 B.C.E. until Nabopolassar (626-605) achieved Babylonian independence by allying with the Medes. Founding the Neo-Babylonian Empire, he ushered in the downfall of the Assyrians when he sacked several Assyrian cities, beginning with Nineveh 612 B.C.E., followed by Harran in 610, and Carchemish in 605. Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562) ascended to the throne of an Assyrian free Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar’s accomplishments both in international and domestic affairs were daunting. Embarking on military campaigns to the west, he invaded Egypt and Palestine, destroying the Jerusalem temple in 586 B.C.E.. He greatly expanded the size of the Babylonian kingdom as well as the city of Babylon itself. During his reign, Babylon was at its largest, covering over 2,500 acres. He refurbished the Esagila and the Etemenanki, built new temple and palace buildings, fortified the city walls and gates, and paved the Processional Way. Nebuchadnezzar also rebuilt all of the ancient sacred cities, including constructing a temple for Nabû at Borsippa, refurbishing the Ebabbar at Sippar and erecting a new temple for Shamash at Larsa.1 Considering the many royal inscriptions and inscribed bricks dating from the period of his 43-year reign and the surviving archaeological remains from his royal city, many scholars consider him the most successful of the Neo-Babylonian kings. Nebuchadnezzar, like most Mesopotamian kings, claimed to be divinely selected for rule by Marduk. The celebration of the akītu festival during his reign was probably at its most splendid. For a detailed study of Nebuchadnezzar and his building accomplishments, see Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, esp. 42-80. 1

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

131

When Nebuchadnezzar died in 562, his rule was followed by an interval of social upheaval and political instability. His son Amel-Marduk ruled for less than two years (562-560), until he was executed by his brother-in-law, Neriglissar, who then ruled four years from 560-556. Neriglissar’s infant son Labashi-Marduk was on the throne for a very short time when Babylonian nobles executed him and handed the throne to an outsider, Nabonidus.2 Nabonidus (556-539 B.C.E.) had no family connections with the Babylonian royalty; his placement on the throne of Babylon may well have been due to his military experience.3 In analyzing the enormous magnitude and significance of political ideology surrounding the akītu festival, the reign of Nabonidus is the most revealing. Several texts exist in which Nabonidus’ negligence of, or abhorrence toward, the akītu festival is detailed, including the Nabonidus Chronicle,4 the Verse Account,5 the Cyrus Cylinder,6 and a few lines in the Dynastic Prophecy.7 One of these texts is the Verse Account, a biased account of Nabonidus’ failures composed to justify the end of the Babylonian empire and the rise of Persian monarchy. The text accuses Nabonidus of worshiping an unknown deity. Although Nanna was known in southern Mesopotamia from at least the Ur III period, his cult and worship were not identical to that of Sîn in Harran, thus explaining why he was an unknown deity. He had made the image of a deity which nobody had ever seen in this country, he introduced it into the temple, he placed it on a pedestal; he called it by the 2 For a complete and updated study on Nabonidus, see Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556-539 B.C., Yale Near Eastern Researchs 10 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989). See also Ronald H. Sack, “Nabonidus of Babylon,” in Crossing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on his 80th Birthday, ed., Gordon Young, Mark Chavalas and Richard Avebeck (Bethesda: CDL Press, 1998), 455-473 3 Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East, 597. Additionally, Beaulieu believes Nabonidus may have been a well-educated court official prior to his rule. 4 Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Chronicle 7, 106-107. 5 Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 312-315. 6 Mordechai Coogan, Context of Scripture II, 314-316; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 315-316. 7 Albert Kirk Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975), 24-37.

132

The Akītu Festival name of Nanna. It is adorned with a necklace of lapis lazuli, crowned with a tiara.8

In addition, the Verse Account attributes the cancellation of the New Year’s festival to Nabonidus’ command: “I shall omit all festivals, I shall order even the New Year's festival to cease!” The Nabonidus Chronicle confirms that for ten years while Nabonidus was in Teima, Arabia, there was no akītu celebration: “Nabû did not come to Babylon and Bēl did not come out.” 9 Despite these notations, there must have been some celebration of the New Year’s festival during Nabonidus’ long absence. Like the Verse Account, the Nabonidus Chronicle may have been the result of the propaganda of the priesthood of Marduk to vilify Nabonidus, similar to the cases of the Assyrian kings.10 The chronicle informs that, though there was no “official” akītu, yet offerings were still presented to the gods of Babylon and Borsippa in Esagila and Ezida as in normal times, and the šešgallu performed his libation rituals,11 indicating that some ritual celebration and royal offering during the allotted period of the New Year festival was held. Nabonidus, whose name ironically praises Nabû,12 one of the gods he is said to have ignored, was the last king of the NeoBabylonian empire. That he was not a well-loved king among the national priesthood of Marduk and the elite citizens of Babylon is obvious from the propaganda issued against him. His futile attempts to promote Sîn to the exalted position of chief god, usurping the traditional roles held by Marduk and his son Nabû, present an understandable rationale for his unpopularity with the priesthood. He tried, unsuccessfully, to convert the Esagila to the worship of Sîn.13 If Nabonidus had been successful in this endeavor, it would have greatly diminished the authority of the Marduk priesthood and perhaps may even have cost them their professions as they would have been replaced by priests of the moon god. During his third year on the throne, perhaps due to political pressure, Nabonidus relocated to the desert oasis of Teima in Verse Account. Chronicle 7. 10 See the Akitu Chronicle, below p. 148. 11 Chronicle 7 Line ii 5-8. 12 Nabû is exalted, or awe-inspiring. 13 Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 61-62. 8 9

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

133

Northwest Arabia, making it his principal residence. Beaulieu suggests that political divergences between Nabonidus and his son Belshazzar may have resulted in Belshazzar’s convincing his father to move to Teima and leave the kingdom under his control. Nabonidus’ move, perhaps imposed by the group who placed him upon the throne, suggests that Belshazzar and his political party were the real drivers behind the usurpation of the throne.14 Court documents show that Belshazzar was the head of a wealthy household, a prominent business person, and therefore a member of the elite.15 By placing Nabonidus on the throne, with the almost assured support of the Marduk priesthood, this group may have thought that Nabonidus would be a malleable figure, a sort of puppet king. However, when Nabonidus’s unorthodox religious practices conflicted with the ideological tenets of the priesthood of Marduk and the elite citizens, he may have been asked to leave. If this were the case, would not this political party, which certainly would have included members of Marduk’s priesthood, have realized that without a king there could be no celebration of the beloved New Year festival? This fact was most certainly realized, and must not have posed a great concern, or Nabonidus would never have been allowed to leave the city for such an extended period of time. In all likelihood the crown prince celebrated the festival in Nabonidus’ absence, despite the notations to the contrary. The propaganda against Nabonidus attributes his lengthy sojourn in Arabia to his own decision. The texts tell us that the cities of Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, Ur, Uruk, and Larsa acted evilly, carelessly, and even sinned against Sîn, causing Nabonidus to leave the city for ten years.16 Whatever the reason for Nabonidus’s sojourn, the records indicate that he was absent for ten years while his son Belshazzar ruled Babylon in the capacity of a royal administrator and commander of the army. Though Belshazzar was entrusted with “kingship” (šarrūtu) in Nabonidus’ absence, he was not entitled to several royal prerogatives.

14 Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 184. Contrary to this argument another inscription explains the king’s exile as self-motivated due to the impiety of the Babylonian citizens towards Sîn. Beaulieu, 63, 151. 15 Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 91. 16 Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 562.

134

The Akītu Festival

Even during Nabonidus’ long absence from the capital city, his kingship had some positive effects, especially in building and fortifying the cities. Vast building projects characterized the entire Neo-Babylonian period as the Neo-Babylonian kings sought to glorify themselves by restoring and rebuilding temples to the gods. That Nebuchadnezzar II rebuilt Babylon is a known fact, but Nabonidus was also a master builder, completing commemorative restorations of shrines and temples in several cities. Nabonidus also fulfilled several projects and policies begun by earlier kings. He conducted some building projects before he left for Teima, but the majority of them were undertaken or at least completed upon his return, including his restoration of the Ehòulhòul, Sîn’s temple at Harran.17 According to the Sippar Cylinder, Nabonidus also rebuilt the Ebabbar temple for Shamash at Sippar.18 He rebuilt the ziggurat complex of the moon god in Ur.19 Even while he was in Teima there are references to his building works. From his fifth year we have a contract for bricks, which contains explicit references to building works on the akītu temple at Uruk.20 These numerous building inscriptions and projects reveal his concern for the care of the old sacred cities as well as the temples of the gods. His actions follow that of the traditional Babylonian king. Nabonidus’s attention to the worship of the moon god, Sîn, was the major source of friction with the priesthood of Marduk. What Nabonidus is most criticized for is his exaltation of Sîn. He gives him the epithet god of the gods, and lord of the gods of heaven and the netherworld, titles usually reserved for Marduk. In his prayers, Nabonidus attributes the Ezida and Esagila to Sîn, a statement that Beaulieu interprets as “an outright usurpation of Marduk’s prerogatives by the moon god.”21 The intensity of Sin’s

17 See Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 42, for listing of the dates of Nabonidus’s building projects. 18 For text, see Context of Scripture II, 310-313. Foster, Before the Muses, 755. 19 Context of Scripture II, 313-14; Foster, Before the Muses, 756. 20 Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 14-17, referring to YOS 5:34 and GCCI 1:393. 21 Context of Scripture II, 314 note 3. Also see Beaulieu, Reign of Nabonidus, 61.

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

135

exaltation in the Ehòulhòul inscription was unacceptable for the Babylonian orthodoxy. Though the Neo-Babylonian inscriptions probably contain few historical truths and are mainly royal propaganda, they are useful in understanding the political and religious sentiment of the times. From royal inscriptions we learn that important qualities for a Babylonian king were military strength, faithfulness to the gods by caring for their temples, and justice for the people.22 By these standards, Nabonidus should be considered a successful king — building projects were completed, military campaigns successful, and the sociopolitical situation in Babylon was peaceful and prosperous. His major political fault, according to his opponents, was not his ten-year sojourn in Teima, as the kingdom was well run and enjoyed a peaceful reign and a stable economy during his absence, but his clear devotion to Sîn. As a successful and legitimate Babylonian king, Nabonidus would have certainly partaken in the royal rituals, including the celebration of the akītu. Nabonidus’ devotion to Sîn is significant to this study because of its connection with the akītu festival of Marduk. The question at hand is whether the akītu festival suffered under the reign of Nabonidus. As Nabonidus did celebrate the Marduk festival whenever he was in the city, we propose celebrations during the first three years of his reign and during the years after his return. On the tenth day of the New Year festival in his first year, King Nabonidus presented silver and gold to Marduk, Nabû, and Nergal. He dedicated 2850 prisoners of war from his military campaigns to Nabû and Nergal as temple slaves.23 Nabonidus Istanbul Stela states that gifts were heaped upon Marduk and Zarpānitu in the bīt akīti on the 10th of Nisannu.24 As the tenth day was a traditional day for gift-giving, we can assume that the festival proceeded normally. Despite notations to the contrary in the chronicles there must have been some celebration of the akītu in Babylon during Nabonidus’s Teima sojourn. An examination of the role of the crown prince Belshazzar might be beneficial in determining this factor. Two 22 See “The King of Justice,” in Foster, Before the Muses, 763-766, a late Babylonian text glorifying the reign of a Neo-Babylonian king who has been identified with either Nebuchadnezzar II or Nabonidus. 23 Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 117. 24 George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 390.

136

The Akītu Festival

questions should be posed. 1) What were Belshazzar’s administrative responsibilities and privileges during his reign, and 2) would the Marduk priesthood, as well as the people of Babylon, have tolerated the absence of the celebration of the akītu? It cannot be proven definitively but a reasonable thesis suggests that there was an akītu festival, albeit a diminished one, which occurred on an annual basis during Nabonidus’ absence. Later, the propaganda to vilify Nabonidus’ reign in favor of Cyrus insisted that there was no akītu festival. Several reasons for claiming a celebration of the festival can be supported. Though Belshazzar never obtained the title king, he acted in many other capacities of the king, including participation in the sacrificial meals, royal offerings, royal oaths, and control of a division of the armed forces.25 It would not have been unreasonable to assume a festival with Belshazzar acting the part of his father, Nabonidus. In Cyrus’ first year, his son Cambyses may have participated in the akītu celebration.26 If Cambyses, the son of a foreign ruler, was allowed to take the role of the king, another foreign ruler, certainly Belshazzar, a native Babylonian and the son of a legitimate Babylonian king, could have participated in the festival. In addition, there is a reference to a Neo-Assyrian text in which the king, unable to attend an akītu celebration of Sîn in Harran, sent his garments instead.27 Something similar could have been requested by the Marduk priesthood during Nabonidus’ absence. Belshazzar could have certainly assumed the role, as he was a supporter of Marduk and probably did not share his father’s reverence of Sîn and would have not propagated exclusive worship of Sîn.28 His 25 There were other limitations to Nabonidus’ kingship. In addition to not being called šarru, he also claimed no building inscriptions nor regnal years. See Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 186-191. 26 Chronicle 7 lines iii 24-28. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 111. 27 ABL 667, Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, 274. 28 Wolter argues that Belshazzar was a supporter of Sîn, claiming that the “great festival” mentioned in Daniel 5 was actually Belshazzar holding a nocturnal akītu celebration of Sîn. This festival would have been held at 17 Tašrītu, “a day when Sîn is gracious.” It is well known that Nabonidus celebrated an akītu for Sîn at Harran for the civil New Year in Tašrītu. Babylon fell to the Persians on the 16th of Tašrītu. Both Herodotus and Xenophon mention a feast, and it is conceivable that a festival linked to

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

137

support was most likely from the elite, whose religious views were in line with the Marduk priesthood. In times of peace, whenever a “legitimate” Babylonian king sat on the throne, an akītu celebration was held. Nabonidus was certainly recognized as a legitimate king, his legitimacy was never in question, and his reign was peaceful. According to his royal inscriptions, Nabonidus clearly viewed himself as the king of Babylon, the universe, and the four corners. His building projects and military campaigns also reflect this. Second, while the city was under legitimate Babylonian rule, the statute of Marduk stood in the Esagila, and there was peace in land, would the citizens of Babylon have tolerated the absence of an akītu celebration? Most likely not. In addition, the propaganda regarding Nabonidus’ rule is extensive. Other claims, such as Cyrus’ entering Babylon peacefully have been shown to be false. The notation regarding the cessation of the festival for ten years could be equally as false. During Nabonidus’ reign the akītu, festival of Marduk, though probably less splendid than in earlier times, was celebrated. That he celebrated a festival every year he was in Babylon, both before and after his Teima excursion, illustrates that he had no aversion to the festival of Marduk or to the worship of Marduk. Nabonidus did not decree an interruption or boycott of the Marduk akītu festival in favor of an akītu for Sîn, as has been proposed. If there was any lapse in the festivities, it was simply due to the fact that he was not in the city for ten years to partake in its celebration. The Nabonidus Chronicle, the Cyrus Cylinder, and the Verse account are all documents that contain pro-Persian propaganda. Though most of the popular opposition to Nabonidus is found in Sîn may have been transplanted to Babylon and that the city fell during an akītu celebration to the moon god. Citing astronomical facts of the moon’s movement, such as the occurrence of the Harvest or Hunter’s moon, the first full moon after the Fall Equinox, Wolter claims that this would be the probable time for a festival of the moon god. The moon shines right after sunset and throughout the night, resulting in a larger and more luminous orb. The argument regarding the astronomical facts for the timing of an akītu for Sîn is convincing; but there is no evidence at all to support Belshazzar’s worship of Sîn or the existence of an akītu for the moon god celebrated in the capital city. See Wolter, “Belshazzar’s Feast and the Cult of the Moon,” 199-206.

138

The Akītu Festival

these texts, when assessing the reign of Nabonidus they should be read with these biases in mind. The excessive complaints in these texts hint that Nabonidus may have had many supporters and that the general population was not yet ready or receptive to foreign rule.29 The propaganda would not have needed to be so strong if there was no one whom they needed to convince. During the Neo-Babylonian period, the priests held considerable political influence, and they would have been the group most offended by Nabonidus’ actions, not necessarily the citizens of Babylon.30 Because ritualization can be a very commanding tool in promoting ideology, the idea of ritual neglect, as in the case against Nabonidus, can lead to a loss of power. The propaganda against Nabonidus claims this ritual neglect, although until the rise of Cyrus we see no loss of Nabonidus’ power in Babylon. Another text of interest regarding Nabonidus and this historical period in general, is the Dynastic Prophecy.31 The Dynastic Prophecy is a series of predictions describing the rise and fall of the empires and various kings, beginning with the overthrow of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and continuing until the rise of the Hellenistic monarchs. The prophecy proclaims that a rebel prince will arise and establish a dynasty of Harran. For seventeen years, he will oppress the land, and he will cancel the “festival of the Esagila.”32 There can be no doubt that this is clearly a reference to Nabonidus and the akītu festival. It has been suggested that the Dynastic Prophecy, the Chronicles, and the Verse Account had a common author or source—a likely suggestion as the motivation behind all these texts seems to be to justify Persian rule. The texts were not contemporary accounts of Nabonidus’ deeds but were composed well after the Achaemenid conquest, revealing more about the ideology of the Persian kings rather than Nabonidus. One way to ensure support for Persian rule was to portray Cyrus as a “good” king by comparing him to an “evil” predecessor and recounting the heretical acts of this evil king. Thus, Cyrus could present his conquest of Babylon as a command from the deity, and Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 232. This argument is detailed in Kuhrt, “Nabonidus and the Pagan Priesthood,” 119-155. 31 For text see Grayson, Babylonian Historical Literary Texts, 24-37. 32 Grayson, ibid, 33, ii 11-16. 29 30

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

139

position himself as that divinely selected king, acting to portray the Achaemenid conquest in a positive manner. Some have argued that in the final years of the Babylon Empire, two akītu festivals in Babylon were celebrated, one for Marduk in Nisannu and another for Sîn in Tašrītu. 33 This hypothesis is unlikely. The observance of an akītu for the moon god would have been held in his temple at Harran, as a local akītu festival, similar to other local akītu celebrations like the akītu of Ishtar at Arbela or Nippur. When Nabonidus finally returned to Babylonia, he arrived just in time for an akītu festival of Sîn on 17 Tašrītu. This festival, however, was celebrated in Harran as it marked the start of that city’s religious year. Whether Nabonidus actually attended this festival or sent his garment as a substitute is uncertain. Little is known about the political situation in Babylon during Nabonidus’s sojourn in Arabia. Other than the supposed interruption of the akītu festival the political and economic situation was stable until the rise of the Persian Empire. In the month of Tašrītu of 539 B.C.E., Cyrus the Great captured the city and incorporated Babylon into the Persian Empire.Cyrus and the Persian Period Despite many internal revolts, the Achaemenid kings successfully covered an enormous and diverse area for almost 200 years. Religion formed an important component of their royal politics. While retaining their own culture, they appropriated Babylonian religious traditions and ideology as a means to justify their rule. Cyrus used the worship of Marduk and the celebration of his festivals, such as the akītu, as a political tool to legitimize his conquest of Babylon. The Cyrus Cylinder, a pro-Persian propagandistic document, recounts the good deeds of Cyrus, and claims Cyrus came at the invitation of Marduk who was angry with Nabonidus.34 The text begins by describing an incompetent king who did away with the worship of Marduk. Upon hearing the cries of the people, Marduk became angry and searched for a righteous king. He called upon the name of Cyrus, who could rescue of the Wolter, “Belshazzar’s Feast,” 199-206. For text see, Mordechai Coogan, Context of Scripture II 314-316; Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 601-602; Ancient Near Eastern Texts 315-316. 33 34

140

The Akītu Festival

Babylonian people. Cyrus claims that he entered the city peacefully. He then returned the statues of the other gods that Nabonidus had removed to their sanctuaries, thus bringing the religious cult back to its Babylonian tradition. Though Cyrus states that the people of Babylon gladly and peacefully welcomed his arrival, it was only after Nabonidus was captured and Persian troops had secured the city that Cyrus staged Cyrus’ public proclamations are the his grand entrance.35 traditional rhetoric of conquerors. “They guaranteed continuity to the defeated ruler and provided a way of the local elite to collaborate with the new rulers.”36 The Persian kings manipulated local ideology to mold themselves as legitimate Babylonian kings. By appearing as active upholders of the Babylonian cult, they were able to maintain popular support, as well as to ensure control of the temple and its wealth. Though it has been claimed that Cyrus “took the hand of Marduk” and celebrated the akītu, whether he actually did is unclear. The available sources are vague on this matter. The Nabonidus Chronicle informs that once Cyrus took over there was no interruption of the festivals of the Esagila. Cyrus is also known to have supplied special garments for the gods in a rite performed in the Esagila on the seventh day of Nisannu.37 As Cyrus employed other Babylonian ideology, it is very probable that his support extended to the celebration of the akītu festival. If Marduk was so angry with Nabonidus for neglecting his festival for a decade, Cyrus’ participation in the akītu would place him in the precious position of rescuer and restorer of a time-honored cult. The chronicles state that in Cyrus’ first regnal year his son Cambyses (530-522) enacted a ritual involving the hand holding of Nabû on the fourth day of Nisannu, 538. Most assume this was a celebration of the akītu, though the hand he takes is not Bēl’s but Nabû’s. Though uncertain if this action is associated with the akītu, there is other evidence to support the argument that the Persian kings celebrated an akītu. Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 602. Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 659. 37 Reference courtesy of Karel van der Toorn. See J. N. Strasssmaier, Inscriften von Cyrus, König von Babylon (538-529 v. Chr.) (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1890) no. 186; E. Salonen, Neubabylonische Urkunden verschiedenen Inhalts, vol. 3 (Helsinki: Soumalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1980), no. 115. 35 36

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

141

A broken fragment from the palace of Babylon to Bor[sippa]38 recording events from the Achaemenid period of Xerxes II (485465 B.C.E.) mentions the performance of a festival of Bēl. It is usually taken as a reference to the fourth day of the akītu when the king sets out to Borsippa to return with Nabû. As the rest of the text is too broken for study, this information must be regarded with caution. However, we do know that Babylonian temples were still in use, including the various bīt akīti. For example, in late Babylonian Kish, there is a mention of an akītu complex restored during the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-423).39 Whether or not Xerxes actually celebrated the festival is uncertain, though the chronicles do not record any interruption of festivals. It has long been believed that Xerxes destroyed the Esagila and the Babylonian statues of the deities, based on an account by Herodotus. Herodotus claimed that Xerxes stole the solid gold statue of Marduk from the Babylonians and melted it down.40 In 484 B.C.E. the Babylonians revolted against their Persian overlords, rebelling against taxation and the deportation of workers for projects at Persepolis and Susa. The second revolt occurred in 482, and by March 481 the rebellion had ended. The temple of Marduk of Esagila was robbed of a minor gold statue, and at least one of its priests was killed. Others have argued that Xerxes’ destruction of the Esagila is false history, due to a lack of Babylonian evidence and a “careless misreading” of Herodotus’ account.41 According to the latter theory Xerxes did not destroy the temple and left the statue of Marduk intact; although the temple did sustain minor injuries during his reign. However, this theory relies on limited textual evidence and much speculation. Traditional scholarship, based the historical accounts of Alexander the Great and Herodotus’ recollection support the destruction of the Babylonian temple in 482. Though Herodotus writing is often thought Chronicle 8, line 13. Grayson, Chronicles, 112-113. G. J. P. McEwan, “Late Babylonian Kish,” Iraq 43 (1983), 121; P. Dhorme, “La fille de Nabonide,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 11 (1914), 111. 40 Herodotus, Book I 181f. 41 Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 671; Susan M. Sherwin-White, “Seleucid Babylonia: a Case-Study for the Installation and Development of Greek Rule,” in Hellenism in the East, eds., A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987), 8. 38 39

142

The Akītu Festival

dubious as a historical narrative, Arrian’s text confirms Herodotus. Flavius Arrian, who became a consul under the emperor Hadrian wrote a history of Alexander. In Anabasis of Alexander he states, “On entering Babylon Alexander directed the Babylonians to rebuild the temples Xerxes destroyed, and especially the Temple of Bel [the Esagila], whom the Babylonians honor more than any other god.” 42 The celebration of a Persian version of the akītu in the Apadana at the famous city of Persepolis has been proposed.43 The Apadana was a festival banquet hall with stairs flanked by carved figures of ceremonial procession scenes. The bas-reliefs at Persepolis have been compared to the cultic battle of the Enūma eliš. The suggestion that Darius (522-486) built Persepolis exclusively to stage the ceremonies of the Persian New Year as Fennelly suggests is far-fetched. He reconstructs, without any evidence, a Persian festival with rituals far too similar to the NeoBabylonian festival to be believable. His New Year festival includes liturgies, offerings, small cedar images holding snakes and scorpions, purification of Nabû’s sanctuary, erection of a golden heaven, tablets of destinies, sacred marriage, a grand procession, and a humiliation of the king. In his imagined akītu celebration the Persian god Ahuramazda plays the role of Marduk, and seven astral deities determine the destinies. Though Fennelly’s idea is highly speculative and other Persian evidence is scant, it is most likely that Persian kings celebrated the akītu in Babylon during their rule.44 42 Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander. 3. 16. 4. In addition see 7.17.2. “The temple of Belus was in the center of the city of Babylon, unequalled in size, and made of baked brick with bitumen for mortar; like the other shrines of Babylon, Xerxes had razed it to the ground.” 43 See Samuel K. Eddy, The King is Dead. Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-31 B.C (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1961) esp. 51-55; James M. Fennelly, “The Persepolis Ritual,” Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980), 135-162. For criticism of Fenelly’s theory see Louis D. Levine, E. J. Keall, T. Cuyler Young, Jr., and John S. Holladay, Jr., “The Persepolis Ritual. Reply to James Fennelly.” Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981), 72-74, followed by Fenelly’s response. The above authors attack Fenelly’s article, stating it is “a long fanciful, and totally inaccurate piece,” with a “van Dänikenesque quality.” I agree with this assessment. 44 See Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial,” esp. 51.

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

143

Zoroastrianism became the official state religion during the time of Cyrus and Darius, but other local gods were still being worshiped.

The Seleucid Kings Alexander the Great captured the city in 330 B.C.E. putting Babylon under Hellenistic rule. The Seleucid kings, as did their Achaemenid predecessors, assimilated Babylonian religious and ideological tenets to win popular support. The Babylonian temples were again restored and in use during much of the Seleucid era. A telling example is the Borsippa inscription of Antiochus Soter I (281-260). The Borsippa cylinder, found in situ during excavations at the Ezida, celebrated the restoration of the temple and contains a prayer to Nabû. 45 As the date for the laying of the foundation for the Ezida was during early Nisannu, the traditional time of the New Year Festival, this could indicate that perhaps some type of an akītu was celebrated by Antiochus. Certainly, the ritual for bricklaying would have followed the traditional Babylonian motifs, which included dedications and other prayers. The Borsippa cylinder shows cultural continuity and the manipulation of traditional Babylonian ideologies by the Seleucid monarch. Antiochus’ self-portrayal places him in the tradition of a long line of Mesopotamian kings, who allege divine selection for kingship by the god. In addition to šar bābil, Antiochus also calls himself šar mātāti and šar kiššati, following the Babylonian traditional formula for attributing the kings as rulers, not only of Babylon, but of all the land and universe. Boasting that he is the caretaker of the temples of Marduk and Nabû,46 he surely must have celebrated their festivals, including the New Year Festival. The royal ideology in Antiochus’ inscription is thoroughly Babylonian in character. “The prayer of Nabû articulates an ideal picture of the king’s sociopolitical functions: in external relations, the conquest of enemies,

For text see Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 316-317; Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White, “Aspects of Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 111 (1991), 75-77; Also Susan Sherwin-White, “Ritual for a Seleucid King at Babylon,” Journal of Hellenic Studies 103 (1983), 156-159. 46 Lines 1-5. 45

144

The Akītu Festival

and enduring superiority, internally, justice, peace, a long reign and a stable succession.”47 Other texts hint at an akītu celebration during this later period. Chronicle 10, called the Chronicle of the Diadochoi because it records the reign of Diadochoi (320-308 B.C.E.), and Chronicle 11 detailing events from Antiochus (294-281 B.C.E.), both have the same phrase, “the dust of the Esagila is removed.”48 As the chronicles are primarily concerned with only the festival of the New Year, this strange remark could imply that the Esagila was cleansed and used for the akītu festival. It would not at all be unusual for the temple to receive a thorough cleaning before the celebration of the annual festival. Chronicle 12 discusses the end of the reign of Seleucus I (281 B.C.E.) and contains a vague reference to the “procession of Bēl,”49 which has traditionally been assumed to be the akītu procession. Chronicle 13b, concerning Seleucus III, is especially informative for understanding Seleucid ideology, detailing how in the month of Nisannu, on the eighth day, a Babylon temple official (šatammu) of the Esagila gives an offering according to a letter from the king to Bēl and Bēltīya and the ilāni rabûti for the ritual (dullu) of Seleucus.50 Because this ritual occurred on the eighth of Nisannu, it is assumed to be a reference to the traditions of the akītu festival. Chronicle 13b is the first direct evidence of the continuity of the New Year’s festival under Seleucid rule.51 A mention of the akītu being celebrated in Babylon in 204 B.C.E. is noted in an astronomical diary dealing with Antiochus III.52 that month (Nisannu) on the 8th, King Antiochus and the [ . . .] went out from the palace to the Gate of the Esagila, the [. . .] ritual of the Esagila was performed before their eyes. They entered the akītu temple, made

Kuhrt and White, “Aspects of Royal Ideology,” 78. Chronicle 10 6, r. 13, 33; Chronicle 11 2. 49 Line 2. 50 Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 283. See also SherwinWhite, “Ritual for a Seleucid King,” 156-59. 51 Sherwin-White, “Ritual for a Seleucid King,” 159. 52 For texts see A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol. 2 (Vienna: Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989), 202-203 lines 14-28 (Plate 109 34-37). 47 48

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

145

(sacrifices for) Ishtar of Babylon and the life of the king Antiochus.

In a broken section of this text, the mention of Bēl and Bēltīya, as well as the reference for the well-being of the king, compares well to the chronicle account. In addition, the text professes that the king took part in a Babylonian ritual in wearing a 400-year-old robe that belonged to Nebuchadnezzar II.53 Xenophon in Cryopadedia vii 3-4 describes a ritual in Babylon that included a royal procession, sacrifice of a bull, display of military conquests and tributes, a banquet, and a gift- giving ceremony.54 Was this an indication of an akītu celebration, or was this simply a listing of common elements contained in a royal procession? The latter seems more likely, although the idea of an akītu celebration during the Seleucid period should hardly be surprising as the extant akītu ritual texts date from that era. Though the cults and sanctuaries may have suffered some under foreign rule, there is more evidence to show continuity of religious practices between Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Seleucid periods. “The Babylonian monarchy was a dynamic mechanism foreign rulers were careful to utilize. . . the kingship and the rituals associated with it gave both the king and his subjects a framework to operate in. The Seleucids actively exploited the system.”55 The celebration of the akītu festival belonged to the religious heritage that was adapted by Achaemenids and Seleucids, offering them the opportunity to strengthen the recognition of their legitimacy.

The Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles The texts collectively known as the Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles provide crucial ingredients toward understanding Mesopotamian historiography.56 The first chronicles were written 53 Dalley, “Bel at Palmyra,” 183; Sherwin-White, “Ritual for a Seleucid King,” 156-159. 54 Kuhrt, “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial: from Babylon to Persia,” 52. 55 Sherwin-White, “Seleucid Babylonia,” 9. 56 For comprehensive study including collation, transliteration and translation of the texts, see Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles; Grayson, “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival,” in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assryriologique Internationale, ed. André Finet (Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970), 160-170; Alan R.

146

The Akītu Festival

during the Neo-Babylonian period using astronomical diaries as their main source.57 These historiographic texts are especially valuable to this study due to the almost obsessive interest the chronicler had regarding the national akītu festival. Irregularities, absences, or some mention of the festival are noted in well over half of the twenty-one chronicles.58 They range from statements claiming that the festival was interrupted, references to which gods were or were not in attendance, to vague hints regarding the cleaning of the Esagila. When the other chronicles do not mention the akītu festival, it is generally assumed that there was nothing unusual about its celebration during those periods. If the festival was celebrated as normal, there was no need for the chronicler to point it out. Though the chronicles present only a Babylonian oriented world view and were written with propagandistic intent, with a definite theological bias in favor of the cult of Marduk, the many references to the Babylonian akītu festival attest to its nationwide significance. The very inclusion of the akītu in these ideologically biased texts confirms the propagandistic nature of the observance of the festival. No other festival is mentioned in the chronicles, and Marduk’s cult at Babylon is referred to more than any other cult or god. The importance of the akītu for the chronicler, therefore, cannot be overstated. Several chronicles are of interest to this study and will be examined briefly for their reference to the festival. Three chronicles, which primarily discuss the Neo-Assyrian period in Babylon, are dealt with first. These are the Esarhaddon Chronicle, the Šamaš-šuma-ukin Chronicle, and the Akitu Chronicle.59 Grayson points out that this was a dark period in Babylon and that the author re-wrote a disgraceful period of Babylonian history in a Millard, “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text,” Iraq 25 (1963), 14-35; Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 301-307. For historical value of the texts, see Van Seters, 79-92. 57 Van Seters, In Search of History, 90. 58 Chronicle 1 i 1; ii 2’; Chronicle 5 obv 14; Chronicle 7 (Nabonidus Chronicle) ii 5-8, iii 5-12, 23-28; Chronicle 8 obv. 13; Chronicle 10 obv 6, 13 r. 33; Chronicle 11 obv. 12; Chronicle 12 (Seleucid Chronicle) obv. 12; Chronicle 13b; Chronicle 14 31-37; Chronicle 15 4-5, 22; Chronicle 16 (Akitu Chronicle) Chronicle 17 (Religious Chronicle); Chronicle 19 65; Chronicle 22 iv 5, 12; Chronicle 24 obv. 14. r. 9-10. 59 Chronicles 14, 15 and 16.

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

147

more favourable light. Thus, according to Grayson, the information found in this text must be regarded with skepticism.60 The Esarhaddon Chronicle reviews the reigns of the Assyrian kings, Sennacherib and Esarhaddon. For nine years during the reign of Sennacherib and twelve years during the reign of Esarhaddon, a total of twenty years, Bēl stayed in Ashur and the akītu festival in Babylon was interrupted (baṭālum). The texts inform that Nabû did not come from Borsippa for the procession of Bēl.61 In other words, the Babylonian festival was not celebrated. This does not mean, despite the chronicler’s insistence, that there was no akītu celebration. Sennacherib’s inscriptions boast of his building an akītu temple in Ashur and dedicating it for the great festival of Aššur in Nisannu.62 This inscription clearly indicates that an Assyrian akītu in Ashur may well have taken place during Sennacherib’s reign.63 However, according to the ideology of the chronicler, a festival of the god Assur would not have been a legitimate celebration; rather a legitimate akītu would be celebrated only in Babylon with the god Marduk playing the major role. The Esarhaddon Chronicle and the Akītu chronicle cover the same period, the Esarhaddon chronicle breaks off during Šamaš-šumukin’s reign (668-648 B.C.E.), and the Akītu Chronicle ends with accession of Nabopolassar (626 B.C.E.). The author of the Šamaššuma-ukin Chronicle used the same source material as the Akītu Chronicle, especially for the sixteenth regnal year of Šamaš-šumaukin. During the fourteenth year of Šamaš-šuma-ukin the former bed of Bēl goes from Ashur to Babylon, and the next year a new chariot of Bēl is also taken from Ashur to Babylon.64 Not directly a reference to the New Year Festival, this information may be relevant as it would be entirely appropriate for Marduk to have a Ibid., 31. Lines 31-37. 62 VAT 9656. For text see Laura Kataja and Robert Whiting, Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period, State Archives of Assyria 12 (Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1995), 104-108. 63 Von Driel notes that it is wise not to speak of a Neo-Assyrian akītu festival since no complete description or purpose of a Neo-Assyrian festival exists. See von Driel, Cult of Assur, 145. 64 Chronicle 15 line 4-5. ibid., 129. A. Millard suggests that the chariot was frequently required for other religious ceremonies in addition to the akītu. See Millard, “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text,” 23. 60 61

148

The Akītu Festival

new chariot to convey him from the Esagila to the bīt akīti during the New Year’s festival. During the fifth and sixth year of Nabûšuma-iškun the festival is interrupted, and Nabû does not come out for the procession of Bēl.65 The Akītu chronicle lists interruptions of the festival during the reign of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Šamaš-šum-ukin, and Nabopolassar beginning with Sennacherib’s sack of Babylon in 689 B.C.E. and ending with Nabopolassar in 626 B.C.E.66 Solely concerned with the disturbances in the festival, every event including wars, rebellions, and hostilities are listed only as they pertain to the interruption of the festival. 1.For [eight] years during (the reign of) Se[nnacherib], 2.for twelve years (during the reign of)Esar[haddon] 3.twenty years (altogether) - Bēl s[tayed] in Ashur 4.the Akitu festival was interrupted. 5.The accession year of Šamaš-šuma-ukin: In the month Ayaru [Bēl] 6.and the gods of Akkad went out from Ashur and 7.on the twenty-fourth day of the month Ayaru they entered Babylon. 8.Nabû and the gods of Borsippa went to Babylon. 9. The sixteenth year of Šamaš-šum-ukin: From the month Ayaru until the month Tebētu 10.the rab bīti conscripted troops in Akkad. 11.On the nineteenth day of the month Tebētu hostilities began between Assyria and Akkad. 12. The king withdrew before the enemy into Babylon. 13. On the twenty-seventh day of Adar the armies of Assyria and Akkad 14. did battle in Hirit. The army of Akkad 15. retreated from the battlefield and a major defeat was inflicted upon them. 16. there were still hostilities (and) warfare continued. 17. The seventeenth year: There were insurrections in Assyria and Akkad. 18. Nabû did not come from [Borsippa] for the procession of Bēl (and) 19. Bēl did not come out.

65 66

132.

Chronicle 15 line 22, Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 130. BM 86379. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 35-36; 131-

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

149

20. The eighteenth year: Nabû did not come from Borsippa for the procession of Bēl (and) 21. Bēl did not come out. 22. The nineteenth year: Nabû did not come(and) Bēl did not come out. 23. The twentieth year: Nabû did not come(and) Bēl did not come out. 24. After Kandalanu,67 in the accession year of Nabopolassar, 25. There were insurrections in Assyria and Akkad. 26. There were hostilities (and) warfare continued. 27. Nabû did not come(and) Bēl did not come out.

When Sennacherib raided the Esagila he took Marduk’s statute to Assyria where it remained all during his reign. Because the statue of Marduk was away from Babylon, according to the chronicle, it was impossible to celebrate the akītu. In 669 Esarhaddon attempted to return the statue,68 but it was only early in Assurbanipal’s reign that it was returned to its rightful place. The Akitu chronicle ends when Nabopolassar took the throne. At that time the political situation was stable enough so that there would have been no interruptions of the festival, therefore the author would not have needed to continue his account as the chronicle primarily deals with the festival interruptions.69 Another chronicle concerned with the festival is the Religious Chronicle, a narration of events from an earlier period, particularly, Grayson notes, “apparently there was no interruption of the akitu during Kandalānu’s reign but the chronicler did not want to leave his name out altogether (to show he had not overlooked him) so he simply said ‘after Kandalānu’” Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 132. note 24. Because Kandalānu is not attested in historical documents or letters, some have identified him with Ashurbanipal, claiming that after the death of Šamaš-šum-ukin Ashurbanipal adopted this name. However, it is now understood that they were two separate individuals with Kandalānu’s reign from 624-27 B.C.E. See Grant Frame, Babylonia, 193195; 296-306 for discussion. 68 Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars II, 32; K 6048+8323 discusses Esarhaddon’s plan to return the statue. See Wilfred G. Lambert, “Esarhaddon’s Attempt to Return Marduk to Babylon,” in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum: Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987, eds.G. Mauer and U. Magen (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 157-174. 69 Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 35. 67

150

The Akītu Festival

the reign of Nabu-shumu-libur (1032-1025 B.C.E.) until Nabumukin-apli (977-972 B.C.E.).70 This text reveals that for nine years the New Year’s festival could not be celebrated. Due to warfare, communications between cities were difficult, and it was impossible for the statues of the neighboring deities to enter and assemble in Babylon during this period. A significant implication gleaned from this chronicle is that all of the other gods must be present to celebrate the akītu properly. In addition to interruptions in the akītu, the Religious Chronicle also lists bizarre phenomena, very similar to the omen protases, which must have had some ominous significance to the akītu. Circumstances such as wild animals appearing in the city, various astronomical occurrences, as well as moving statues and walls were of unusual interest in this chronicle. At first glance, the recording of these strange occurrences in conjunction with the akītu festival seems arbitrary, but Grayson explains that the sudden appearance of a wild beast in the center of the city or an eclipse of the sun would be incidents that any modern daily newspaper would record for public interest.71 Nevertheless, one wonders why the scribe felt that it was important to record these events. Grayson explains, The reason the chroniclers recorded unusual occurrences connected with the Babylonian akītu is obvious. The festival was of major importance to the Babylonians and the chroniclers attempted to record momentous happenings in general, be they religious, political, or military. The New Year’s festival naturally fell within this sphere whenever anything out of the ordinary occurred in connection with it.72

The recording of bizarre phenomenon was nothing unusual for the Babylonians, yet this text clearly illustrates that there existed certain religious notions concerning the celebration of the akītu. If the circumstances in the city were not in perfect harmony, the festival Chronicle 17, ibid., 133-138; Also see Pallis, Babylonian Akitu, 2-5. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 38. However, Van Seters disagrees with Grayson’s argument that this material was extracted from a running account of Babylonian history. He reasons that the author must have had access to a temple record dealing with interruptions in the akītu, as well as omen texts and hemerologies. For van Seters the Religious Chronicle is a combination of all these texts. See van Seters, In Search of History, 79-92. 72 Grayson, “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival,” 164. 70 71

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

151

could not be properly conducted. If something were to go wrong that year, it could possibly be blamed on an irregular akītu. For instance, the chronicle informs us that there were problems with the lambs for the procession of Bēl, but the sacrifices were offered as in normal times.73 For three years in succession the chariot of Bēl did not come out nor did the king offer sacrifices of the akītu.74 No explanation is given here, but later the chronicle states that during the reign of Nabu-mukin-apli for another twelve successive years Nabû or Bēl did not come out. The statements that follow could be seen as an explanation of the interruptions of the festival—a statue on the door of the shrine was seen to move, and a demon was seen in the bedchambers of Nabû.75 Was the chronicle trying to say that because the omens were bad there was no akītu celebration that year? Unfortunately that answer is not clear. In Chronicle 24, the Eclectic Chronicle, six lines of the text refer to the interruptions in the festival.76 This chronicle relates events between 1080 B.C.E. until Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.C.E.). The phrase “Marduk stayed on the dais (ina parakki)” has been interpreted to mean that the akītu festival did not take place. For the entire year Marduk stayed on the dais in his shrine and did not go out in procession for the akītu.77 In Shalmaneser’s second year, the festival resumed as Eriba-Marduk took the hand of Bēl and of his son.78 Chronicle 1 covers the period from the reign of Nabu-nasir to Šamaš-šum-ukin (747-648 B.C.E.). This chronicle records mostly political events, and there are two direct references to the akītu festival, one commenting on the absence of the festival and the other discussing its celebration:

Lines ii 2-4. Lines ii 16-18. 75 Lines iii 13-19. 76 Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 180-181, lines 14- r.1. 77 Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 181; Grayson, “Chronicle and the Akītu festival,” 162. Though the signs could also be read to mean in the month of Nisannu rather than ina parakki, Grayson rightfully notes that Bēl (in the month) of Nisannu would hardly make sense and ina parakki offers a plausible interpretation. 78 Rev. 9-10. 73 74

152

The Akītu Festival Bēl did not come out.79 (In) the 13th year of Sargon II he took Bēl’s hand.80

Chronicle 5 records political events during the twenty-first year of Nabopolassar (605 B.C.E.) until the tenth year of Nebuchadnezzar II (595 B.C.E.). in the month of Nisannu he took the hand of Bēl and the son of Bēl and celebrated the akītu festival.81

As discussed earlier, Chronicle 7, the Nabonidus Chronicle, is a narration of from events 556 B.C.E. until sometime after 539 B.C.E. In the seventh year of his reign Nabonidus was in Teima, and the akītu was interrupted. Nabû did not come to Babylon and Bēl did not come out. Offerings were presented to the gods of Babylon and Borsippa in Esagila and Ezida as in normal times. The šešgallu made a libation and inspected the temple.82 The eighth year is skipped, but most assume that because Nabonidus was still in Teima no akītu celebration was held. However, offerings were still made as in the previous year. During the ninth, tenth, and eleventh years the chronicler records that Nabonidus was still in Teima, he did not come to Babylon, and the akītu festival was interrupted. Offerings to the gods as in “normal times” still occurred. In the seventeenth year, Nabonidus returns and the akītu festival is celebrated normally. The text informs us that Nabû comes from Borsippa for the procession of Bēl and Bēl comes out. The king enters the Eturkalamma, where he makes a libation of wine in the temple. Bēl comes out, and they perform the akītu as in normal times.83 The chronicle continues with the Persian capture of the city. Mentioned almost immediately after this is the revival of the festivals. The chronicle states that no interruptions of the rites of the Esagila and the other temple rituals are performed. No performance was missed. The implication here is that the Persian kings celebrated the akītu festival. Later the death Line i 1. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 70. Line ii 1’. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 75. A reference to the Tašrītu akītu is implied in lines ii 40-41; “during the sixth year of Sennacherib at the end of the month of Tishri, Shamash did not go out of the Ebabbarra.” This occurred during an Elamite invasion, and a festival could not be celebrated because of the political situation. 81 Line 14. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 100. 82 Line ii 5-8. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 106-107. 83 Lines iii 5-8. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 109. 79 80

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

153

of the king’s wife is mentioned. The mourning period lasts from the twenty-seventh of the month of Adar until the third of Nisannu. The fact that the chronicler mentions the starting day of the akītu as the fourth of Nisannu indicates that this in itself was unusual. Van der Toorn understands this to indicate that the akītu always started on 4 Nisannu. I, however, interpret it to mean just the opposite. The statement that the festival was celebrated as in normal times would probably have been used, rather than mentioning the starting date. In no other chronicle is the starting date of the festival even mentioned. The chronicle goes on to describe how on the fourth day of Nisannu, the akītu festival, Cambyses took the hand of Nabû.84 Though the chronicles often contain a biased rendition of historical events, Grayson acknowledges that information about the akītu festival is usually accurate and reliable.85 Yet, this information must be checked against the ideology of the chronicler. His aim, regarding the akītu, seems to be to record any unusual factors. As noted above there are various phrases that indicate whether the akītu actual took place. The references that directly indicate an interrupted or absent festival are: 1) Bēl ul ūṣâ (Marduk did not come out)86 2) Bēl ina parakki (Marduk stayed on the dais)87 3) gišnarkabassu ša Bēl ul ūṣâ (the chariot of Bēl did not come out)88 4) Nabû ana aṣê dBēl ul illiku (Nabû did not come for the procession of Marduk)89 5) Nabû ultu Borsippa ana aṣê ul illiku (Nabû did not come from Borsippa for the procession [of Bēl])90 6) isinnu akītu batil (the festival was interrupted)91

84 The text is very broken, but most presume that he took the hand of the god. iii 18-28. 85 Grayson, “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival,” 170. 86 Chronicle 1; Chronicle 7 passim; Chronicle 16 19; Chronicle 17 ii 18, iii 6, 9, 14, 15. 87 Chronicle 24 14. 88 Chronicle 17 ii 17. 89 Chronicle 16. 90 Chronicle 14; 15; 16. 91 Chronicle 7.

The Akītu Festival

154

7) niqê ša akīti ina Esagila kî pî ul iqqi ([the king did not] offer sacrifices of the akītu in the Esagila (as prescribed).92 8) Bēl ina Baltil ašib (Bēl stayed in Ashur)93

To indicate celebration of the festival we find either the absence of any notation (i.e., the festival was celebrated without any irregularities) or the following phrases, often used in combination: 1) Bēl ūṣâ94 (Bēl went out) 2) isinni akīti ki šalmu īpušu95(they did [celebrated] the akītu festival as normal) 3) qātē Bēl iṣbat (he took the hand of Bēl)96

qātē DN ṣabātum The most discussed aspect and a key element in the festival is the last phrase referred to above, qāt Bēl ṣabātum. This expression concerns the king’s taking of the hand of the chief god, Marduk. In an attempt to understand the significance and implication this phrase held, a survey of the traditional interpretations of qātē Bēl ṣabātum is required. Popular interpretations follow Pallis who view this “hand holding” as a formal ceremonial act in which the king takes the hand of the (statue of) god to lead him in procession.97 The king taking Marduk’s hand was merely another way of saying that at the akītu festival the king conducts the procession of the gods.98 According to this argument, the action does not constitute any independent ritual component beyond the procession. It is another, albeit important, part of the festival. Though Grayson acknowledges the hand grasping as a significant festival event, he Chronicle 17. line iii 9. Chronicle 14. 94 Chronicle 7; 24. 95 Chronicle 7. 96 Or he took the hands of Bēl and Bēl’s son. Chronicle 1 ii 1; Chronicle 5 14; Chronicle 24 r.10. 97 Pallis, Akitu, 174-179. Also subscribing to this theory are René Labat, Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1939), 174-176; van der Toorn, “The Babylonian New Year Festival”, 333; Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods, 326. 98 Pallis, Akitu, 179. 92 93

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

155

also maintains that it held no legitimating functions but was merely Black, a “physical gesture inaugurating the procession.”99 modifying a similar interpretation, asserts that “taking the hand” was not even a separate ceremony but simply an invitation to depart.100 A second hypothesis has taken the opposite viewpoint, attributing the king’s lawful right to rule based solely on the hand holding action of the festival. These scholars claim that “no one could rightfully be king unless he ‘seized the hands of Marduk,’ not merely on the New Year but on each and everyday,”101 or that the king would have no legal standing if he had not taken the hands of Bēl.102 These arguments envision the taking of the god’s hand as a royal investiture. Both of these interpretations are problematic. The akītu festival was not a coronation festival and therefore cannot act as an investiture of the king. Many kings, including the Neo-Assyrian kings such as Esarhaddon, never “took the hand of Marduk” in the Babylonian festival; yet they were still recognized as legitimate kings over Babylon. No monarch was ever said to be illegally on the throne of Babylon simply based on whether or not he “took the hand of Marduk” at the akītu. Therefore, recognition of a Babylon ruler did not depend upon his participation in the akītu nor on any hand-holding ceremony. If it did, it would seem likely that this ritual action would have been included in all the coronation ceremonies. According to interpretation of Langdon, taking Bēl by the hand was a “royal handshake” in which Marduk bestowed all his “Marduk power” on the king, changing the king into Marduk so that the king could act ritually as Marduk.103 The king therefore Grayson, “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival,” 166 note 1. Black, “Taking Bēl by the Hand,” 45. 101 Albert T. Olmstead, Cambridge Ancient History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1970), 3:62 quoted by Grayson, “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival,” 165 note 1. 102 Sidney Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts: Relating to the Capture and the Downfall of Babylon (New York: G. Olms, 1924). 103 Quoted by Pallis, The Antiquity of the Iraq, 688. Kilmer also suggests that expressions built with qātum might be related to a “handshake.” See Anne D. Kilmer, “Symbolic Gestures in Akkadian Contracts from Alalakh and Ugarit,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 94 (1974), 183. 99

100

156

The Akītu Festival

had the power of the deity. Langdon’s argument is based on the Western notion of handshaking, a gesture that cannot easily be documented in the ancient Near East. Additionally, Langdon’s argument fails regarding another critical element—a handshake is a mutual action between two parties. If Langdon is correct in asserting that Marduk gives his power to the king in the handshake, how does the king reciprocate? Another curious interpretation of qāt Bēl ṣabātum has been suggested by forcing a parallel between this phrase and the familiar biblical phrase, ‫“ ראה פנ ייהוה‬see the face of Yahweh.”104 Wilson argued that the Hebrew phrase was borrowed from the Babylonian concept and that the phrase in the Bible had nothing to do with theophonies but was actually a cultic ritual carried out on a regular basis.105 Visitors to the temple saw the face of the priest who ritually represented the Hebrew god. Similar to the procession of Marduk, the Israelite priest led the worshiper into a sacred area associated with the divine presence of Yahweh. In Wilson’s analysis, the action of the Mesopotamian qāt Bēl ṣabātum or the Hebrew ‫ ראה פנ ייהוה‬were identical as both were symbolic of the worshiper’s entering into the presence of the god. The Babylonians felt this presence during the procession of the statue of Marduk and the Hebrew god was represented by a priest, rather than a statue, because of the prohibition against any idolatry. Wilson’s thesis echoes pan-Babylonianism and is contested from both the Assyriological and biblical perspectives.106 The phrase qātē DN ṣabātum occurs in royal inscriptions, ritual texts, temple dedications, and the chronicles. In some texts, such as in the Uruk Tašrītu akītu rituals, it refers not only to Marduk but to various deities including Anu, Ishtar, and Nabû. Other temple personnel, such as the šešgallu, frequently “take the hand” of the god in ritual context.107 In those contexts, taking the hand of a god does seem to refer only to a procession. However, when Marduk is 104 See Exodus 23:17;34:23-24; Deut 16:16; 31:11; 1 Sam 1:22; Ps 42:2; Isa 1:12. 105 E. Jan Wilson, “The Biblical Term lir’ot‘et penei yhwh in the Light of Akkadian Cultic Material,” Akkadica 93 (1995), 24. 106 For rebuttal and criticism, see Klaas R. Veenhof, “Seeing the Face of God: The Use of Akkadian Parallels,” Akkadica 94-95 (1995), 33-37. 107 See Pongratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi īrub, 171-174, for a list of occurrences of the phrase.

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

157

involved the phrase suggests a situation of a more momentous consequence. The phrase qāt(ē) Bēl iṣbat in reference to the king and the chief god at the New Year Festival is found almost exclusively in the chronicles. For the author of the chroniclers this phrase must have held some unique connotation beyond leading the god in a procession, otherwise they would have employed the standard formula for the procession, Bēl ūṣâ (Bēl came out) or they would have noted the akītu festival was held as normal.108 Alternatively, they possessed a selection of other phrases and verbs that refer to the procession. While arguing that the phrase qātē Bēl ṣabātum certainly means to lead the god in a procession, PontgratzLeisten reviews many of the other verbs used in various procession terminology.109 With so many choices of terminology available to describe the cultic procession, one wonders why the chroniclers chose the phrase qāt Bēl ṣabātum. As it was often used in conjunction with one of the phrases describing a procession, this indicates that its usage may imply more than the king’s escorting the god in the parade.110 Within the liturgy of the first few days of the festival, the phrase also occurs in prayers. When praising Bēl and Bēltiya, the priest implores them each to “grasp the hands” (ṣabit qātē) of the fallen.111 Taking the hand of the god in these instances surely does not refer to a procession. Rather it symbolizes the protection and concern of the deity toward the people of Babylon. In other words, the god enters into a promise to “take the hand” of the

108 Interestingly, in the chronicles there is no negative reference to the king not taking the hand of the god to indicate that there was an interrupted akītu. What this means is uncertain, but it illustrates the uniqueness of the phrase. 109 Pontgratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi irub, 153-158. Among the many verbs used are elûm/warādum (ascend/descend), erēbum (enter), ešērum (move in a straight line), našum (lift, carry) redûm (escort, conduct), wabālum, (carry), šadāhum (pull or draw), târum (bring, lead forth), tebûm (set out), waṣûm (go out, go forth). 110 For example, see Chronicles no. 1, 5, and 7. 111 See comments above for days 2, 3, and 4. Though the prayers for the remaining days of the festival are lost, there is nothing to indicate that the same prayers were recited on each day of festival.

158

The Akītu Festival

people, most likely referring to his or hers comfort and security.112 Why then should the identical words, when used in reference to the king and the god in the same ritual text, not possess a similar meaning? In order to decipher the meaning behind qāt Bēl ṣabātum we must also attempt to understand the symbolism of “hands” in the ancient Mesopotamian texts, as well surveying various places where the phrase is employed. First, we will examine the ritual symbols evoked by utilization of hands in both a secular and sacred context. Symbolism of Hands Hands take specific positions in the taking of an oath, such as when they touch a sacred object, or are clasped.113 The sacred and the profane, the religious and the political, intermingle when the symbolism of hands is engaged. Today the hand is placed on a sacred item, such as the Bible, when taking an oath. In the United States, patriotic persons hold their hand to their heart when reciting the pledge of allegiance. Hands are used more frequently than any other body part for magical or religious processes. Moreover, many modern-day religious traditions, similar to the Babylonian “hand-raising” practice, either raise their hands or hold them together when praying. The meanings of rituals with the use of a

The idea of a god’s hand as a sign of power, guidance and protection is common in Mesopotamian and biblical literature. For one of the many biblical examples, see Ps 10:12. For Mesopotamian examples, see “A Prayer to Shamash,” where Shamash “grasps the weak by the hand and exalts the helpless.” Foster, Before the Muses, 630, and, “O Nabû, take his hand, let not your servant go under, raise him from morass . . . take his hand that he may ever glorify your divinity.” Foster, Before the Muses, 530535. In a Hymn to Nabû, a prayer in which many of the characteristics normally attributed to Marduk are heaped upon Nabû, the texts informs “the god (Nabû) grasps the living in his gentle hand.” Foster, Before the Muses, 749. In a report to the Queen Mother of Esarhaddon, the blessing formula in the salutation reads “May Tašmētu seize your hands,” implying protection to the queen. See ABL 368 line 6-7, Cole and Machinist, Letters from Priests, 66. 113 Fredrick Mathewson Denny, “Hands,” Encyclopedia of Religion, 188191. Also see James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Schribner, 1928), 6:492-498. 112

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

159

hand can indicate authority, divine presence, or some type of pledge.114 The references to body parts in the Semitic languages of ancient Near East often conveyed meaning other than the literal interpretation of the word.115 In Akkadian, the usage of a body part combined with ina or ana often results in prepositional phrases. The phrase ina pāni (face) means “in front of,” “in view of,” “before.” ina muhòhòi (lit. in the skull of) can also mean “in the debt of.” pūtum (forehead) combined with ina means “opposite.” In prepositional phrases libbum more frequently means center, in between, among, or in the midst of rather than literally referring to the heart. Even without the usage of the preposition, nouns referring to body parts possessed additional meanings. For example, ahòum (arm), idum (arm), īnum (eye), kišādum, (neck, throat), lētum, (cheek), lišānum (tongue), pānum (face), pûm (mouth), qaqqadum,(head), rēš (head), ṣerum (back), šaptum (lip), šēpum (foot), and uznum (ear) all possess alternative translations.116 Similarly, depending on its idiomatic use the noun qātum (hand) can have many connotations, such as power, authority, strength, possession, custody, jurisdiction, and control.117 This is not unlike many of our modern expressions of “pulling someone’s leg,” “lend me your ear,” or more specifically asking for someone’s hand (in marriage). The latter involves the idea of entering into a legal and binding relationship with another party, an idea perhaps similar to the hand-holding in the akītu. 114 Gertudes Jobes, Dictionary of Mythology, Folklore and Symbols (New York, Scarecrow Press, Inc. 1961), 716-720. 115 See Édouard Dhorme, L'emploi métaphorique des noms de parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien (Paris: Librairie orientaliste P. Geuthner, 1923). For other aspects of non-verbal communication see Mayer I. Gruber, Aspects of Nonverbal Communication in the Ancient Near East (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980). 116 ahòum, kišādum = bank of a river, or edge, idum = wages, payment, īnum = spring, lētum = authority, lišānum = secret agent, enemy, pûm = command, qaqqadum, rēšum = principal, capital, beginning, ṣerum = hinterland, steppe, šaptum = edge, šēpum = conveyance, transport and uznum = wisdom, intelligence. Other body part nouns such as ubānum (finger), appum (nose), hašûm (lung) are used with alternate meanings in the extispicy texts. 117 See CAD Q/189-194.

160

The Akītu Festival

qātum with verbs In the context of the ritual procession, Pontgratz-Leisten points out a few of the occasions when the phrase qāt Bēl ṣabātum is employed: 1) the procession of a god during a celebration 2) the transfer of a god into a new temple 3) the return of a god to its original temple 4) the introduction of a god to its restored temple 5) the guidance of a god to its original temple118 Additionally the verb ṣabātum is employed in combination with a number of nouns resulting in idioms that do not always refer to the “grasping” or “holding” of the said item. When combined with the noun qātum, it holds several translations:119 1) to do additional work 2) to lead a person 3) to conduct cultic objects or images in a ceremony 4) to help or assist persons 5) to guarantee As the CAD points out, qāt(ē) PN ṣabātum can also be understood as a guarantee between parties. This translation of the phrase agrees with the interpretation of the hand holding as a form of oath or contract between the king and Marduk.120 Though from an earlier period, a Middle Bronze I stone relief found at Tell-Mardikh (Ebla) may shed some light on the ritualistic notion of this gesture. Detailed on a limestone ritual basin unearthed in the temple is a scene depicting three pairs of bearded figures “grasping” each other’s hand. According to the excavators, “This scene which has no known parallels might be connected with cultic acts and could be associated with a specific historical event, such as a treaty betweenh two equal parties.”121 Thureau-Dangin’s interpretation of the action is that of “a highly symbolic gesture whereby the king receives Marduk’s Pongratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi īrub, 171. CAD /Ṣ esp. 30-32. The phrasing ina qāt PN ṣabātum can also mean to treat someone kindly. 120 In Old Babylonian, “to grasp each other by the hand,” (qātam ana qātim ṣabātum) meant to become allies; see ARM 26, 468: 8. 121 E. Ascalone and L. Peyronel, “Two Weights from Temple N at Tell-Mardikh-Ebla, Syria,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53 (2001) 3-4. 118 119

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

161

sanction for another year.”122 His suggestion is most plausible and leads to the present interpretation that “taking the hand of Marduk” should be considered a symbolic act. According to the terminology of Malul, “a symbolic act is an act or gesture which must be performable or performed, is executed intentionally and solemnly, in an appropriate context, for a limited span of time, and must symbolize a legal result which differs from its manifest physical result.”123 It involves remarks that constitute legal figures of speech or acts, which through its symbolic meaning conveys a legal result. This notion is evident with other body parts. For instance, the phrase qaqqadam kullum (to hold someone’s head) or pūt PN našûm (to raise someone’s forehead) in Mesopotamian legal documents denote surety transactions.124 These phrases do not allude to any specific act performed on the head or the forehead and therefore should not be taken literally. The word hand is also used in a similar matter in various phrases. qātum with leqûm as well as with ṣabātum means to assume surety.125 The taking of the god’s hand in the akītu can also be understood as a legal symbolic act, with the verb ṣabātum taking on a legalistic meaning.126 In this instance, the phrase symbolizes the taking of a contractual oath between the king and his god. As we have seen earlier, this concept is visible in ancient Mesopotamia as well as in today’s society. The taking of the hand of the god was also considered a positive omen as it was a symbol of union and peace. This is exemplified on one omen text which reads: “if the king takes the hand of the god, (then) the ‘bad tongue’ (i.e., the secret enemy) will be silent against the king, (and) the king will defeat his enemy.”127

Thureau-Dangin, Rituels Accadiens, 146. Meir Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, Alter Orient und Altes Testament 221 (Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988), 20. 124 Surety, or taking up a case for someone else, as understood by Malul involves parties entering into a legal relationship with one another. See Malul, Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism 19, 207-239, 272. 125 Kilmer, “Symbolic Gestures,” 183. 126 See CAD Ṣ/30. 127 CT 40 40 Rs 69. Transliteration and German translation in Pongratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi īrub, 174. 122 123

162

The Akītu Festival

The phrase qāt Bēl ṣabātum should not be taken only to refer to the king leading the god in procession. As Malul points out, expressions employing the verbs ṣabātum and/or leqûm with the noun qātātum are impossible to understand using qātātum in the literal sense of hands.128 These phrases act as legal expressions. Taking the hand of a god by a king in ancient Mesopotamia referred to the king and the god entering into a contractual agreement that was renewed annually at the occasion of the akītu. This renewal acted to legitimize the king’s power. When the king annually took the hand of the god, he did so not only for himself, but also for his subjects. As legal contract involves two parties, the Babylon akītu therefore can not be legitimately enacted without either party. Both Marduk and the king were integral to a proper and legitimate celebration, their contract acting as a mutual guarantee to each other. The same contract is verbally renewed by the king’s confession before the high priest in Marduk’s cella. However, the visible manifestation of the contract was illustrated for the people of Babylon through the procession. An example is the case of Nabonidus. Sometime in the third year of the reign of Nabonidus, as shown on the building inscriptions for the restoration of the Ebabbar in Sippar, the text reads, “Nabonidus took the hand of Šamaš on the New Year and caused him to dwell in the Ebabbar.”129 In taking the hand of the god, Nabonidus was not only leading the god in a royal procession, but also entering into a contract with him that will guarantee his dwelling in a restored Ebabbar, and other promises. In the Babylonian festival, after the king makes his vow before the priest and the god, he “takes the hand” of Marduk and both parties enter into a contract for another year—the king promising to honor Marduk and his rituals, and Marduk promising to protect Babylon and its citizens, especially the kidinnu.

128 129

Malul, Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, 223-224. Beaulieu, Nabonidus, 7.

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

163

Role of the King To understand fully the sociopolitical significance of the akītu one must discuss the Mesopotamian concept of kingship.130 The institution of kingship existed in the earliest period of Mesopotamian history. The king’s role closely resembles that of Marduk The epithets normally attributed to Marduk are now transferred to the king, titles such as the ruler of the heavens, giver of life, and controller of the cosmos and the order of the universe. This is witnessed by the Enūma eliš, which depicts the divine authority of Marduk and his right to rule over his city, Babylon. The recitation of the text during the New Year Festival serves as a political device to transfer this supreme power and trust from Marduk to his earthly representative, the king. If the Enūma eliš functions as a justification of the monarchy and rule of the king, then the akītu festival regulates and legitimizes this royal status quo. The role of the king was central to Babylonian society. According to Babylonian political theology, kingship was necessary for an orderly civilization. The king, therefore, was under divine obligation to maintain the political, social, ideological-religious order of the state. As the chosen one of Marduk, he was particularly responsible for the city of Babylon and its privileged citizens. The king stood at the head of society, similar to Marduk’s role as the head of the pantheon. In addition, the king was guardian and protector of the people. He provided temple funds, for repair and restoration of temple sites and donated land. In cultic matters, the king participated in rituals and other temple events. His actions were to ensure and guarantee divine protection to the state. Kings built and restored the temples in return for divine favor. They provided new cultic paraphernalia such as statues, clothing and jewels for the statues, and other ritual objects. Regular temple offerings and donations could be instituted by royal mandate, including various food offerings, land and valued objects from the community. Successful monarchs were dependent upon the acceptance of the chief priesthood as well as the majority of the populace. How was that acceptance guaranteed? By active 130 For a brief summary see Wilfred G. Lambert, “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day. (Sheffield: JSOT 1998). 54-70. Also see Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods.

164

The Akītu Festival

participation in the akītu and by paying strict adherence to these religious rituals, he ensured prosperity of the land and gained the acceptance of the people. The regular fulfillment of his cultic responsibilities, as evidenced in his role at the akītu, reaffirmed the king’s position as head of the social order. The king’s participation in the festival was not only extremely important but mandatory for a “legitimate” akītu to be celebrated.131 His ritual actions mark the high point of the festival. Without his contractual oath with Marduk, exhibited by the qāt Bēl ṣabātum, the akītu festival would not be legitimate nor hold any political significance. In addition to his cultic duties, the Mesopotamian king was also responsible for the administration of government, the military, foreign relations, and maintenance social justice. For example, King Hammurapi claimed he was “the king of justice.” The king was also the protector and the defender of the law. The city depended upon the king economically, theologically, politically, and legally.

Economic Situation in First-millennium Babylon A brief word regarding the economic situation in late firstmillennium Babylonian is in order. There are numerous legal and economic texts from Nebuchadnezzar until Darius I. We know that maintaining the temple and the palace in any period required a considerable amount of revenue. Income included items such tribute, booty, gifts, land ownership, credit activities, slave sales, temple offerings and mainly taxation. The New Year was a prosperous time for the city of Babylon. Accounts were settled at this time and temple loans became due at the New Year. One text from Borsippa informs, “In the spring time, the king, my lord, sent a bodyguard with the following orders: Make an account of the

In a recent dissertation, Judith Paul argues that Assyriologists have exaggerated the role of the king in the New Year festival. She claims his role is essentially passive since he does not make an appearance until the 4th day. Her argument fails especially in the case of Nabonidus. See Judith Roberta Paul, “Mesopotamian Ritual Texts and the Concept of the Sacred in Mesopotamia” (Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1992) esp. 116ff. 131

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

165

bulls and sheep belonging to Nabû.”132 Another specifically states the exact day for this reckoning, “The seventh day (of Nisannu) is the day for balancing accounts; may Nabû settle the accounts of the king, my lord, for eternity, in his ledger of life,”133 and, “Today is the New Year’s day; may Bēl and Nabû reckon the days of the king, my lord, for success and his days for profit!”134 The temples controlled the economy and means of production and distribution, as they were the banks of ancient Mesopotamia. State income was derived from taxes, and in the late first millennium royal taxes were often paid in silver. The Achaemenid period brought about two centuries of changes in administrative policies. In the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid period temple economy was organized by prebends, the right to an income from the temple in return for a service connected with the cult. The profession, period of service, the deity, or the temple where it was performed, characterized the prebends. Many Babylonian citizens held prebends, but it was not very likely prominent families such as those under kidinnu protection held prebends.135 The mār banî were the legally defined group of citizens who held these temple prebends.136 The temple played a central role in the administration of the city. “As corporations, the temples engaged in large scale economic enterprises that were predicated on a centralized authority and administration, direct ownership or control of productive resources, and the employment and remuneration of a sizeable labor force.”137 132 Line 14 ff. ABL 1202; See Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars, 289-291. 133 ABL 545. See Cole and Machinist, 82. 134 ABL 959 line 7 ff. 135 For detailed study of prebends in the late first millennium Babylon and Uruk see McEwan, Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon; J. MacGinnis, “Neo-Babylonian Prebend texts from the British Museum,” Archiv für Orientforschung 38/39 (1991/1992), 74-100. For Sippar see A.C.V.M Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian EBABBAR Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its Prosopography (Leiden: Nederlands HistorischArchaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1997). 136 Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, 618. 137 John F. Robertson, “The Social and Economic Organizations of Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, 447.

166

The Akītu Festival

Land was owned by the state during the Neo-Babylonian period, but during the Achaemenid period royal land increased. The temple and state owned vast land estates; the population increased, causing a rise in the founding of new settlements and the construction of new canals.138 The people of the city of Babylon enjoyed special privileges bestowed by the Achaemenid kings,139 most likely a continuation of the kidinnu privileges from earlier times. During this period there were three distinct sectors, the palace economy, temple estates, and private households.140 Each sector played a role in contributing to the fiscal situation in Babylon. Most scholars have argued for selfsustaining subsistence economy, but Damandyev argues convincingly for a market economy and developed private sector, allowing for the freedom to buy and sell. For instance, several well-known private sector business firms, such as the houses of Egibi, and the Murashû, played imperative roles in internal trade and in the market sector. The house of Egibi, known from more than one thousand documents dated between 690 and 480 B.C.E., sold, bought, and traded houses, lands, and slaves, as well as engaging in several aspects of bank operations.141 Another family, the Murashû, attested in about eight hundred documents dating from 454 to 404 B.C.E., reflects the changes brought about the during the Achaemenid administration.142 They leased lands and rented crown property. Dandamayev asserts the main function of the Mursahû family was to mediate between a system of land 138 Muhammad A Dandamayev, “An Age of Privatization in Ancient Mesopotamia,” in Privatization in the Ancient Near East and Classical World, ed. Michael Hudson and Baruch Levine, Peabody Museum Bulletin 5 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 198. 139 Luigi Cagni, “History, Administration and Culture of Achaemenid Mesopotamia,” in Monarchies and Socio-Religious Traditions in the Ancient Near East. Papers read at the 31st International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa, ed. H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984), 60. 140 Dandamayev, “An Age of Privatization,” 197. 141 Dandamayev, “An Age of Privatization,” 201. Also see Muhammad A. Dandamayev, “State and Temple in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC,” in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East, ed. E. Lipiński, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5-6 (Leuven: Peeters, 1979), 589-596. 142 Dandamayev, “An Age of Privatization,” 202.

Political, Historical, And Ideological Analysis

167

tenure and production by selling crops for silver to pay landholders and the royal treasury.143 These families were able to maintain their properties and social status until at least the beginning of the reign of Xerxes. Their role in the akītu festival is speculative, but perhaps they were members of the kidinnu, who warranted special status in Babylonian society. As Dandamayev states, “the elite (mostly royal functionaries) used the advantages of a centralized economy for their own enrichment.”144 Economically, the temple generated significant profit during the festival with several, perhaps up to twelve, days of the finest offerings, not only from the citizens and the monarchy but also from the many visiting dignitaries and deities. Certainly, no visiting deity attended the akītu with the national god without a substantial offering! Governors and priests of neighboring cities, seeking to guarantee prosperity for the upcoming year, would offer gifts and tribute to Marduk at this occasion. Politically, this festival was time to pay homage to Marduk and the king of Babylon.

Power and Authority Though these terms are often interchanged, they have distinct connotations. Authority refers to socially acknowledged control, such as in the case of a ruling king. The group or person in authority possesses the notion that they can exercise influence over 145the behavior of others. One way this authority is communicated is through rituals. However, behind this authority can be another agency that is actually in power, or holds the reins of power. Power, therefore, is the ability to achieve changes through this authority. In Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Babylonia, the authority was most certainly held by the monarchy, which consisted of the cohesion of political and social systems dependent upon this centralized authority. The power, however, was not only held by the monarchy, but divided between other groups--the temple and the wealthy families. The latter category included landowners, the kidinni, and other elite citizens, and during the late periods families such as the Egibi and Murashû. Priestly power Ibid., 202. Dandamayev, “An Age of Privatization,” 209. 145 This is the classical Weberian distinction, see Max Weber, The Sociology of Religion (London: Methuen, 1965), passim. 143 144

168

The Akītu Festival

was embedded within the social political order, as there was no separation between the religious cult and state. The interrelationship was mutually beneficial to all parties. The temple functionaries, the ruling class, and the privileged group of citizens combined religious authority, political power, and socioeconomic influence through their unity in rituals of the akītu, resulting in an alliance of political, religious, and social values. The akītu, as a time-honored tradition, functioned as a legitimation of this power. The king, the temple, and the kidinnē were honored and revered at the festival. The monarchy needed the support of the urbanized Babylonian cities in order to enforce the governmental policies of the non-urban areas. In order to placate the cities, the kings awarded them special rights, namely the kidinnu rights. The elite citizenry to some degree was often in charge. “The city was an autonomous community, centered around a temple, where most of the leading citizens held offices, with a self-governing body, the assembly.”146 The popular assembly (puhru), centered on the main temple, may have been the physical expression of this self-rule. However, the poorer citizens were excluded from this general assembly. The ability to make political decisions and important administrative policies was obviously diminished when the king was at war or when hostile enemies were in his country. Therefore, the importance of all the pomp and circumstance of the akītu was a critical component of the king’s domestic policy. The local dignitaries would come to Babylon once a year for these days to meet with the king and discuss political treaties and probably taxation policies. Royal gifts in the name of offerings to the gods were given to the temple during the akītu.

146

Van de Mieroop, The Ancient Babylonian City, 138.

CONCLUSION The akītu rituals changed throughout time, developing from the local agrarian fertility celebration of Sumerian times to the national political festival of the late first millennium. There can be no question that until Seleucid times, and perhaps much later, the festival was celebrated throughout most of Mesopotamia. The survival of the akītu throughout the history of Mesopotamia is well attested. Though the festival underwent significant changes and transformations through its long history, some key elements from earlier stages remained. With the rise of urbanization the festival moved from a rural celebration to a socio-political device employed by the monarchy and the priesthood to ensure political and religious continuity. Smaller celebrations that may have taken place in local akītu chapels now were performed in the splendid Babylonian temple, the Esagila and its shrines. The earlier fertility aspects were superceded by political motives. For instance, semiannual first fruits and harvest festival became an annual national holiday; rebirth was not celebrated in the annual crop harvest but in the formal recitation of the creation epic; ritual reenactment of the sacred marriage may have been replaced by prayers to the gods and goddesses imploring them to grant their blessings. Because the place of tradition in Mesopotamian society was extremely powerful, the transformation of the akītu from a religious festival to a political one was easily accomplished. Ancient time-honored customs were venerated. By the late NeoBabylonian period the political rites of the akītu were firmly established. Once these rituals were established they took on a life of their own, allowing the power behind the rituals to be transferred to anyone who partakes in the ritual. The transformative power of the ritual permitted the empires to take advantage of this festival to enforce their ideology. To obtain approval from the citizens and the priesthood all a new monarchy had to do was to adopt and promote these time-honored traditions, 169

170

The Akītu Festival

often substituting and adapting local customs and rituals to correspond to the established structure of the New Year festival. The most important ritual elements in the akītu, (i.e., the handholding ceremony, the celebration of the king, and the protection of its privileged citizens) were utilized to promote the ideas of the new ruling empires. The festival functioned on social, political, and religious levels. At a community level, the akītu rituals built solidarity. For instance, during religious festivals, temples distributed meat and other food to members of the community.1 This may have been the only time throughout the year where the average citizen enjoyed meat and other luxuries. Public holidays were held during the akītu period. It certainly was no economical loss, and a very good psychological strategy considering all this extra revenue, for the king to allow workers a day or two off during the celebration of the festival. Being involved in the preparations for such a divine and important occasion would produce a sense of community involvement and importance. The importance of the governors and their patron deities certainly required only the best of accommodations. To prepare for all these visitors and meals, the majority of the population in service to the king and temple must have had to double and triple their workload. If they reasoned that their increase of work was for religious reasons and in honor of Marduk, it acted as a means to ensure their own prosperity for the coming year. Believing that they were honoring their gods, the people may have been much more cooperative than if they knew they were just giving extra grain or offerings for the sake of the governing class. The “sacred” element of the akītu could be employed ideologically to reinforce the sense of community among the society. The akītu also allowed the king to demonstrate publically his concern for the people of Babylon. It provided public proof of the maintenance of the world order. The king, acting as the divine patron of the citizens, created ritual symbols of inclusion that reaffirmed the entire society, even though in actuality he was only promoting the interests of the few. Even groups who were excluded could feel some connection within the social cohesion created by the akītu.

1

Dandamayev, “An Age of Privatization,” 208.

Conclusion

171

To propose that the celebrations included the everyday citizens for the length of the entire festival would be misleading. Their participation must have been limited to a few days, and their daily lives were more determined by socio-economic factors rather than state rituals. Yet, the akītu was important to the socioeconomic system as the system was guaranteed by the proper functioning of royal and divine rituals. The complicated rituals of the New Year were meant to enhance the prestige of the ruling class and the priesthood among the citizens of Babylon. For the people of Babylon the most important ceremony was the stately procession of deities parading around the city in all their finery. Once a year the gods presented themselves to the people in a grand display. Only privileged citizens were allowed to take part in the procession and the common citizens were onlookers. The onlookers may have attempted to touch the statue of the god and hold up sick children or objects to have them blessed for another year. The ensuing result of such an overwhelming festival would have been one of great and reverent respect. The procession evoked emotional responses from all the citizens while reinforcing the grandeur of the powerful. By participating in the rites, the Babylonians identified with a greater political force and demonstrated their support of the authority and the power structures. The sociological implications of such a long and grand festival are obvious. The importance of religion in Babylonian society, the celebration of the supremacy of Marduk and his priesthood, the divine reaffirmation of the king, and the determination of the fates for the following year, all contained with the akītu festival, reinforced the solidarity of the community. For these twelve days a year, presumably the society would form some sort of social cohesion. Whether they were physically together and involved in all aspects of the festival is not particularly relevant. What is important is the sense of community and solidarity that the events would have generated. The use of ritual actions and drama enforced stronger emotions than those of verbal statements. The temple and the monarchy served as a unifying symbol to the Babylonians. Through the myth of the Enūma eliš and the akītu rituals, the festival provided religious and social legitimation. As social reality

172

The Akītu Festival

was rooted in the cosmogonic myth, the accompanying rituals served to propagate that myth. Administrative policy changes often coincided with the New Year, as did the reestablishing of treaties with neighboring cities, and the commencement of military campaigns. Epistolary documents show that officials from throughout Babylonia were in the capital at the beginning of the year, while those who could not attend sent good wishes in writing.2 Presence at the New Year festival was a test of allegiance for dignitaries and vassals as treaties were concluded at that time.3 The Neo-Babylonian, Persian, and Seleucid empires were successive versions of a similar power structure. Internal power struggles resulted in new leaders. These leaders utilized traditional religious ideologies, namely the celebration of the akītu festival, to promote and legitimate their rule. The celebration of the New Year festival provided an opportunity for the introduction of a new ideology, utilized in turn by each new empire. Rituals persuade the acceptance of ideologies of the privileged or the ones in control of the ritual. The Neo-Assyrian kings, the Achaemenid, and the Seleucid kings, adopted this popular Babylonian festival to win general support of the priesthood and the populace. They were adapting the older Babylonian festival for political power and control. Each empire put its own unique ideological stamp on the festival. Ritual was employed to legitimate authority. The akītu ritual worked because of its ability to change and adapt to each empire. New political systems borrowed legitimacy from the old by nurturing the old ritual forms redirected to new purposes.4 The Neo-Assyrian king’s ideology told the Babylonians that they could still have their festivals and myths but substituted the more powerful Assyrian gods for the Babylonians. Assyrian akītu festivals were held in Assyrian cities with Assur playing the role of Marduk. The ideology reflected Assur’s triumph over Marduk, as the Assyrians triumphed over the Babylonians. Next, the NeoBabylonian monarchs put Marduk back in his rightful place as the See F. Joannès, “Trois texts de Surru à l’époque néobabylonienne,” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 81 (1987), 147-158. 3 See Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths, 18; The vassal treaty of Esarhaddon was planned for Nisannu 9 before the statues of Bēl and Nabû. 4 Kertzer, Ritual Power, 42. 2

Conclusion

173

supreme god of Babylon. According to the chronicles, the festival of the akītu was “normal” for a while, until the “absence” of the festival during Nabonidus’ 10 years in Arabia. Marduk was still the chief deity, but with Nabonidus’s elevation of Sîn, the priesthood and the elite needed to produce propaganda against Nabonidus. What better illustration than an alleged cancellation of the beloved festival? This socio-political move was said to open the door for the Persian kings, who celebrated the akītu again to win popular and political support. The Persian kings worshiped Marduk as one of many gods. Their message to the Babylonian citizen was clear. Their festivals and myths could still be celebrated; but as Marduk had selected a Persian rather than a Babylonian king, the Persians were superior. Marduk searched everywhere to find Cyrus, a righteous king, illustrating how the Babylonian’s own chief god had sanctioned and elevated the Persian’s rule above the Babylonians. During the Persian period, it was politically profitable for new monarchs to celebrate the festival due to its popular appeal. Later, the elite and priestly class of cities like Palmyra may have used the same “theme” of the akītu to reinforce power and create a sense of continued community. Perhaps this later foreign akītu may have served as it did in Babylon to legitimate the ruling party and their ideology, though it is more likely that the continuity of the festival served as a cultic vestige than a political force. Certainly, the festival had become a part of the religious culture, adapted and molded for each particular place and time. Power, politics, and propaganda are interrelated with the akītu. Temple ideology and state ideology both called for the proper celebration of the akītu. The festival was a tool to connect the priesthood and the state, primarily by drawing upon the handholding ceremony. By adopting the fundamental Babylonian ideology, claiming Marduk as supreme god and celebrating the akītu, the rulers of Babylon, whether they were native or foreign, demonstrated their loyalty to the people of the land. By employing an ideology as prevalent as the akītu, they won the support of both the people and the priesthood. The akītu ritual was designed to provide legitimacy to the king in the eyes of the Babylonian populace. The festival also acted religiously and politically to legitimate the ruler and his chosen few. Through the king’s “holding the hand of Marduk,” he guaranteed the goodwill of the people by

174

The Akītu Festival

reinforcing his oath with Marduk annually. His actions served as a binding legal, political, and theological oath. During the procession he demonstrated this for all to see. The Babylonian society needed these ceremonial activities to renew and reinforce social cohesion. The akītu festival demonstrates the effectiveness of religion as a political tool. Politics and religion in ancient Babylon were irrevocably intertwined. Myths and their supportive rituals justified social institutions. The political power and the centralized priesthood of Marduk produced powerful ideologies that were legitimized via the akītu rituals. “The celebration of constant festivals would have been a particular feature of a religious centre of Babylon’s importance.” 5 The akītu as an event of national and political significance celebrated Marduk’s supremacy, the position of the king, and the divine order of the world. The role of Marduk in the NeoBabylonian festival went beyond his status as chief god; rather it acted as a political device to portray Babylon’s supremacy to the competing cities in Mesopotamia. The status quo of the privileged citizens, backed by the monarchy and the national priesthood, was confirmed and maintained. The festival symbolized the correct religious, social, political, and economical order of Babylon and of the world. The groups in control of the akītu rituals were the monarchy and the priesthood. At times their interests clashed, which is especially evident in the chronicles and other propagandistic literature. Yet through the rituals and symbolism of the akītu, the king and the priests were able to maintain the power relationships in the community. The grand procession of the king, priests, and the people of the kidinnu presented an impressive display of earthly and divine force, a compelling structure for all participants and spectators. As Durkheim states, “religion is something eminently social.”6 The religious festival of the akītu confirms this observation.

5 6

George, Babylonian Topographical Texts, 264. Durkheim, Elementary Forms, 10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abusch, Tzvi. “Marduk” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter van der Horst, 1013-1026. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000. ———. “The Form and Meaning of a Babylonian Prayer to Marduk.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983) 3-15. Albright, William F., and P.E. Dumont. “A Parallel between Indic and Babylonian Sacrificial Ritual.” Journal American of Oriental Society 54 (1934) 107-128. Altmann, Alexander. Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations. Philip W. Lown Institute of Advanced Judaic Studies, Brandeis University. Studies and Texts, v.3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966. Ahmad, Ali Yaseen, and A. Kirk Grayson. “Sennacherib in the Akitu House.” Iraq LXI (1999) 187-191. Alexander, Bobby. “Ceremony,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by Mircea Eliade, et al., Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Alster, Bendt. The Instructions of Šuruppak: A Sumerian Proverb Collection. Mesopotamia 2. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1974. Andrae, Walter. Alte Feststrassen im Nahen Osten. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1941. ———. Das wiedererstande Assur. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1938. 175

J.C.

176

The Akītu Festival

Arnold, Bill T. “The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia.” In Faith, Tradition, and History: Old Testament Historiography in Its Near Eastern Context. Edited by A. R. Millard, et al. 129-148. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Ascalone, E. and L. Peyronel. “Two Weights from Temple N at Tell-Mardikh-Ebla, Syria.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 53 (2001) 1-12. Attema, D.S. “Het gebet van Nabonidus.” In Scrift en uitleg. Edited by D. Attema, et al., 7-20. Kampen, Nederlands: J.H. Hok, 1970. Auerbach, Elias. “Neujahrs-und Versöhnungsfest in den biblischen Quellen.” Vetus Testamentum 8 (1958) 337-343. Auffarth, Christoph. Der drohende Untergang: “Schöpfung” in Mythos und Ritual im alten Orient und in Griechenland am Beispiel der Odyssee und des Ezechielbuches. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter, 1991. Beard, Mary, and John North, eds. Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Beaulieu, Paul-Alain. The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556539 B.C. Yale Near Eastern Researches 10. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989. ———. , Paul-Alain. “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52 (1993) 241-261. Bell, Catherine. Ritual Theory and Ritual Practice. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. ———. Ritual. Perspectives and Dimensions. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Bibliography

177

Ben-Barak, Zafrira. “The Coronation Ceremony in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 11 (1980) 5567. Bergamini, Giovanni. “Excavations in Shu-anna, Babylon 1987.” Mesopotamia 23 (1988) 5-17. Berger, P.-R. “Das Neujahrsfest nach Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches.” In Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assryriologique Internationale. Edited by André Finet, 155-159. Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970. Berlejung, Angelika. Die Theologie der Bilder: Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die altestamentliche Bilderpolemik. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 162. Frieburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. Black, Jeremy A. “The New Year Ceremonies in Ancient Babylon: 'Taking Bēl by the Hand' and a Cultic Picnic.” Religion 11 (January 1981) 39-59. Bleeker, Claas J. Egyptian Festival:. Enactments of Religious Renewal. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1967. Böhl, Franz M. Theodore de Liagre. Nieuwjaarsfeest en Koningsdag in Babylon en in Israel. Leiden: Nederlands Institut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1927. ———. “Mimus en Drama op het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest.” Stemmen des Tijds: Maandschrift voor christendom en cultuur. 10 (1920/21) 42-55. Bongenaar, A.C.V.M. The Neo-Babylonian EBABBAR Temple at Sippar: Its administration and its Prosopography. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1997.

178

The Akītu Festival

Borger, Riekele. “Keilschrifttexte verschiedenen Inhalts: II Zum Neujahrsfest in Babylon.” In Symbolae biblicae et Mesopotamicae. F.M. Th. de Liagre Böhl dedicatae. Edited by M.A. Beek, et al., 44-47. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1973. ———. Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 9. Graz, 1956. Borghouts, J.F. Nieuwjaar in het oude Egypte. Leiden: Ex Orient Lux, 1986. Bottéro, Jean, E. Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning, and the Gods. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc van De Mieroop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992. Bowan, Raymond A. Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. Brinkman, John A. “The Akitu Inscription of Bel-ibni and Nabûzera-ušabši.” Die Welt des Orients 5 (1969) 39-50. Brockelman, C. “Das Neujahrsfest der Jezîdîs.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 55 (1901) 388-390. Brockelman, C. “Wesen und Ursprung des Eponymats in Assyrien.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 16 (1902) 389-401. Buren, E. D. van. “The Sacred Marriage in Early Times in Mesopotamia.” Orientalia 13 (1944) 1–72. Çagirgan, Galip and W. G. Lambert. “The Late Babylonian Kislimu Ritual for Esagil.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 43-45 (199193) 89-106. ———. “Three More Duplicates to Astrolabe B.” (1984). 399-416. ———.

Babylonian Festivals. Birmingham, 1976.

Belleten 48

Ph.D. diss., University of

Bibliography

179

Cagni, Luigi. “History, Administration and Culture of Achaemenid Mesopotamia. “ In Monarchies and Socio-Religious Traditions in the Ancient Near East: Papers Read at the 31st International Congress of Human Sciences in Asia and North Africa. Edited by H.I.H. Prince Takahito Mikasa, 55-62. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1984. Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 2-3. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press, 1970-.

London:

Caplice, Richard, and Wolfgang Heimpel. “Investitur.” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5. Edited by D.O. Edzard, 1412. W. de Gruyter: Berlin and New York, 1980. Cavigneaux, Antoine. “Le temple de Nabû ša harê.” Sumer 37 (1981) 118-126. ———. “Nabû ša harê temple and Cuneiform Texts.” Sumer 41 (1981) 26-29. ———. Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša harê. Vol.1. Texts from Babylon. Baghdad: Ministry of Culture, 1981. Clifford, Richard J. Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible. CBQ Monograph Series 26. Washington, DC: The Catholic Biblical Association of American, 1994. Cocquerillat, D. “Recherches sur le verger du temple campagnard de l’Akitu.” Die Welt des Orient 7 (1972) 96-134. Cohen, Mark E. The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1993. Cole, Steven W., and Peter Machinist. Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. State Archives of Assyria 13. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1998. Cole, Steven W. “The Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabû-šuma-iškun.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 84 (1994) 220-252.

180

The Akītu Festival

Cooper, Jerrold S. “A Sumerian šu-íl-la from Nimrod with a Prayer for sin-šar-iškun. “ Iraq 32 (1970) 51-67. ———.

“Sacred Marriage and Popular Cult in Early Mesopotamia.” In Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East. The City and its Life, held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan. Edited by Eiko Matsushima, 89-96. Heidelberg: Universitatsverlag C. Winter, 1993.

Cornford, Francis Macdonald , From Religion to Philosophy: A Study in the Origins of Western Speculation. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1980. Craig, James A. Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts. vol. 1-2. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1895-1897. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. ———. The Legacy of Mesopotamia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. ———. “Bel at Palmyra and Elsewhere in the Parthian Period.” Palmyra and The Arameans. Aram 7 (1995) 137-151. ———.

“Occasions and Opportunities. Persian, Greek, and Parthian Overlords.” In The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Edited by Stephanie Dalley. 35-53. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.

Dandamayev, Muhammad A. “State Gods and Private Religion in the Near East in the First Millennium B.C.E. In Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Adele Berlin. 35-45. Bethesda, MD: University Press of Maryland, 1996. ———. “State and Temple in Babylonia in the First Millennium BC.” In State and Temple Economy in The Ancient Near East.

Bibliography

181

Edited by E. Lipínski. 589-596. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5-6. Leuven: Peeters, 1979. ———. “An Age of Privatization in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Privatization in the Ancient Near East and Classical World. 197221. Edited by Michael Hudson and Baruch Levine. Peabody Museum Bulletin 5. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. de Moor, Johannes C. New Year with Canaanites and Israelites. 2 vols. Kampen Cahiers, 21 & 22. Kampen: Kok, 1972. Deller, Karlheinz, and Veysel Donbaz. “Sanheribs Zabada-Tempel in Aššur.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 18 (1987) 221-228. ———. “*ihòhòaṣ = imhòaṣ auch altbabylonisch.” Orientalia Nova Series 35 (1966) 33-35. Depuydt, Leo. Civil Calendar and Lunar Calendar in Ancient Egypt. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 77. Leuven: Peeters, 1997. Diakonoff, Igor M. “On the Structure of Babylonian Society.” In Beiträge zur sozialen Struktu es alten Vorderaisens. Edited by H. Klengel. 15-31. Berlin: Akademierverlag, 1971. ———.

“Socio-Economic Classes in Babylonia and the Babylonian Concept of Social Stratification.” In Gesellschaftsklassen im alten Zweistromland und in den angrenzenden Gebieten. Compte Rendus Recontre Assyriologie Internationale 18. Edited by D.O. Edzard. 41-52. München: Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1972.

———. Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economical History, aCcollection of Studies by Soviet Scholars. Moscow: Nauka Publishing House, 1969.

182

The Akītu Festival

Dick, Michael Brennan. Born in Heaven, Made on Earth: The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1999. Dirven, Lucinda. “The Exaltation of Nabû: A Revision of the Relief Depicting the Battle against Tiamat from the Temple of Bel in Palmyra.” Die Welt des Orients 28 (1997) 96-116. Dombart, Th. “Esagilla und das grosse Mardukfest zu Babylon.” Journal of the Society of Oriental Research 8 (1924) 103-122. Doty, William G. Mythography. The Study of Myth and Rituals. 2nd ed. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2000. Drijvers, Han J. W. The Religion of Palmyra. Iconography of Religions 15: Mesopotamia and the Near East. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976. ———. Cults and Beliefs at Edessa. EPRO 82. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1980. Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: Allen and Unwin, 1964. Eaton, John H. Kingship and the Psalms. 2nd ed. Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1986. Ebeling, Erich. “Kultische Texte aus Assur.” Orientalia 20 (1951) 399-405. ———. “Kultische Texte aus Assur.” Orientalia 22 (1953) 25-36. ———.

Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. 2 vols. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 28/34. Leizpig: JC.Hinrichs, 1915-19.

———.

Quellen zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion I & II. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1918-1919.

Bibliography

183

Eddy, Samuel K. The King is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism 334-31 B.C. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Eliade, Mircea. Gods, Goddesses and Myths of Creation. New York: Harper and Row, 1967. ———. Images and Symbols. Translated by Philip Mairet. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991. ———. Patterns in Comparative Religion. London: Steed and Ward, 1958. ———. Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1959. ———. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Engnell, Ivan. Studies in Divine Kingship in the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Alden Press, 1943. Falassi, Alessandro, ed. Time out of Time. Essays on the Festival. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press, 1967. Fales, Frederich Mario., ed. Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis. Orientis Antiqui Collectio 17. Rome: Instituto per l’oriente, 1981. Fales, Frederich Mario, and J. N. Postgate. Imperial Administrative Records, part 1: Palace and Temple Administration. State Archives of Assyria 7. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1992. Fales, Frederich Mario, and J.N. Postgate. Imperial Administrative Records, part 2: Provincial and Military Administration. State Archives of Assyria 11. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1995.

184

The Akītu Festival

Falkenstein, Adam. “Akiti-Fest und akiti-Festhaus.” In Johannes Friedrich Festschrift zum 65. Geburstag. Edited by Richard von Kienle, et al., 147-182. Heidelburg: Carl Winter, 1959. ———. Vorläufige Bericht über die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk-Warka unternommen Ausgrabungen 15 Berlin, 1959. Farber, Walter. “Kultische Rituale.” In Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments: Orakel, Rituale Bau- und Votivinschriften Lieder und Gebete. 212-234. Edited by O. Kaiser, et al. 1986-1991 Gütersloh : G. Mohn ———.

“Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 4 vols. 1895-1909. New York: Schribner, 1995.

Fennelly, James M. “The Persepolis Ritual.” Biblical Archaeologist 43 (1980) 135-162. Finet, André. “Les dieux voyageurs en mésopotamie.” Akkadica 21 (Jan/Feb 1981) 1-13. Fontenrose, Joseph. The Ritual Theory of Myth. Berkeley; Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1971. ———. Python: A Study of the Delphic Myth and Its Origins. Berkeley; Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1959. Foster, Benjamin R. Before The Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. Vols. 1-2. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1993. ———. From Distant Days. Myth, Tales and Poetry from Ancient Mesopotamia. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press, 1995. ———. “Nabonidus at Kesh.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 77 (1983) 92-93.

Bibliography

185

Frame, Grant. Babylonia 689-627 B.C.: A Political History. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor Nabije Oosten, 1992. Frame, Grant. “Nabonidus. Nabû-šarra-usur and the Eanna Temple.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 81 (1991) 37-86. Frame, Grant and A.K Grayson. “An Inscription of Ashurbanipal mentioning the Kidinnu of Sippar.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 8/1 (1994) 3-12. Frankena, Rintje. Briefe aus dem British Museum. Alterbabylonischre Briefe in Umschrift und Übersetzung 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1966. ———. Tākultu: De sacrale Maaltijd in het Assyrische Ritueel. Leiden, 1953. ———. “New Materials for the Tākultu Ritual: Additions and Corrections. Bibliotheca Orientalis 18 (1961) 199-207. Frankfort, Henri. “Gods and Myths on Sargonid Cylinder Seals.” Iraq 1 (1934) 2-29. ———. Cylinder Seals: A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: MacMillan and Company, 1939. ———.

Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as Integration of Society and Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1948.

Frayne, Douglas R. “Notes on the Sacred Marriage.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 42 (1985) 5-22. Frazer, James G. The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion. 3rd edition. London: Macmillan, 1922. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva. “Akitu.” Encyclopedia of Religion 9. Edited by Mircea Eliade, et al. 170-172. New York: Macmillan, 1987.

186

The Akītu Festival

———. “The Tribulations of Marduk. The So-Called ‘Marduk Ordeal Text’.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 103 (1983) 131-141. Furlani, Guiseppe. “Fest.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 3. 40-47. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter and Company, 1957. Gadd, Cyril J. “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus.” Anatolian Studies 8 (1958) 35-92. Gane, Roy E. “The Nanshe New Year and the Day of Atonement,” Paper presented at the Society of Biblical Literature, San Francisco, CA 1998. ———. “Ritual Dynamic Structure. Systems Theory and Ritual Syntax Applied to Selected Israelite, Babylonian, and Hittite Festival Days.” Ph.D. Diss. University of California, Berkeley, 1992. Gaster, Theodore Herzl. Thespis: Ritual, Myth and Drama in the Ancient Near East. New York: Harper and Row, 1966. ———.

New Year: Its History, Customs, and Superstitions. New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1955.

Geller, Mark J. “The Last Wedge.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 87 (1997) 43-95. George, Andrew R. “Studies in Cultic Topography and Ideology.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 53 I 3/4 (1996) 364-395. ———. “The Bricks of E-sagil.” Iraq 57 (1995) 173-197. ———.

“Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies.” (1986) 133-146.

Iraq 48

———. “The Cuneiform text TIN.TIRki = ba-bi-lu and the Topography of Babylon.” Sumer 35 (1979) 226-232.

Bibliography ———.

187

“Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylon.” Orientalia Nova Series 66/1 (1997) 65-70.

———. “Exit the House which Binds Death: The Names of Sennacherib’s Akitu Temple and its Cella.” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. 1993/4. ———.

Babylonian Topographical Texts. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.

———. The Temple Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civilizations 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993. ———. “Four Temple Rituals from Babylon.” In Wisdom, Gods, and Literature: Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert. Edited by A. R. George and Irving L. Finkel. 259-298. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Gibson, McGuire, and Robert. D. Biggs. eds. The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987. Goff, Beatrice. “The Role of Amulets in Mesopotamian Ritual.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institutes 19 (1956) 1-39. Grayson, Albert Kirk. “Chronicles and the Akitu Festival.” In Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assryriologique Internationale. Edited by André Finet, 160-170. Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970. ———. “Divination and the Babylonian Chronicles. A Study of the Role which Divination Plays in Ancient Mesopotamian Chronology.” In la Divination en Mésopotamie ancienne. XIVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Strasbourg, 2-6 juillet 1965. 69-76. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1966. ———.

Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources, Locust Valley, NY: J.J. Augustin, 1975.

188

The Akītu Festival

———. Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1975 Grayson, Albert Kirk and W.G. Lambert. “Akkadian Prophecies.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 18 (1964) 7-30. Green, Anthony. “Neo-Assyrian Apotropaic Figurines.” Iraq 43 (1958) 87-96. Green, Tamara. The City of the Moon God: Religious Traditions of Harran. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1992. Greengus, Samuel. “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia.”In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. Edited by Jack M. Sasson, 469-484. New York: Schribner, 1995. Grimes, Ronald L. “Ritual Studies.” In The Encyclopedia of Religion, vol. 12. Edited by Mircea Eliade, et al. 422-25. New York: Macmillan, 1987. Groneberg, Brigitte R. M. Lob der Ištar: Gebet und Ritual an die altbabylonische Venusgöttin. Groningen: Styx Publications, 1997. Gurney, Oliver R. Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1989. Haas, Volkert. “Neujahr(sfest)” In Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9 /3-4. Edited by D.O. Edzard, 298. Berlin and New York, 1999. ———. Aussenseiter und Randgruppen: Beiträge zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Alten Orients. Xenia 32. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1992. Hallo, William W. The Exaltation of Inanna. Yale Near Eastern Researches 3. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968.

Bibliography

189

Hallo, William, and K. Lawson Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World. Vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997. Hallo, William W. and K. L. Younger, eds. The Context of Scripture: Monumental Inscriptions from the Biblical World. Vol. 2. New York, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000. Harper, Robert F. Assyrian and Babylonian Letters Belonging to the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. London and Chicago: Luzac and Company, 1892-1914. Heidel, Alexander. The Babylonian Genesis. 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1951. Heimpel, Wolfgang. “The Nanshe Hymn.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 33 (1981) 65-139. Henshaw, Richard A. Female and Male: The Cultic Personnel: The Bible and the Rest of the Ancient Near East. Allison Park, PA: Pickwick Publications, 1994. Hillers, Delbert R., and Eleonora Cussini. Palmyrene Aramaic Texts. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins Press, 1996. Hoftijzer, Jacob. Religio Aramaica: Godsdienstige verschijnselen in Aramese Teksten. Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux, 1968. Hooke, Samuel H. Myth and Ritual. Essays on the Myth and Ritual of the Hebrews in relation to the Cultural Pattern of the Ancient East. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1933. Hooke, Samuel H. The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual. London: Oxford University Press, 1938. Horowitz, Wayne. Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1998.

190

The Akītu Festival

Hunger, Hermann. Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings. State Archives of Assyria 8. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992. Hunt, Joel. “The Hymnic Introduction of Selected Šuilla Prayers Directed to Ea, Marduk, and Nabu.” Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University. UMI, 1995. Hvidberg, Flemming Friis. Weeping and Laughter in the Old Testament. A Study of Canaanite-Israelite Religion. Translated by Niels Haislund. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962. Ishaq, Danial. “The Excavations at the Southern Part of Procession Street and Nabû sa hare temple.” Sumer 41 (1981) 30-33. Ismail, Bahija Khalil. “New Texts from the Procession Street.” Sumer 41 (1981) 34-35. Jacobsen, Thorkild. “Religious Drama in Mesopotamia.” In Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and Religion of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts. 65-97. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975. ———.

Toward the Image of Tammuz and Other Essays on Mesopotamian History and Culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.

———. Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976. ———. “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2 (1943) 159-172. James, Edwin O. Myth and Ritual in the Ancient Near East. New York: Frederick Praeger, 1958. ———.

Seasonal Feasts and Festivals. Noble, 1962. 70-91.

New York:

Barnes and

Bibliography

191

Jensen, Peter C. “Bel im Kerker und Jesus im Grabe.” Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 27 (1924) 573-80. ———. Texte zur assyro-babylonischen Religion. Berlin: Reuther and Reichard, 1915. Jestin, Raymond. Tablets sumériennes de Šuruppak. Paris: Rue de Medicis, 1937. Joannès, Francis. “Trois textes de Surru à l’epoque néobabylonienne.” Revue d’Assyriologie 81 (1987) 147-58. ———. Textes économiques de la Babylonie recente. Paris: Éditions Recherche sur les civilisations, 1982. Johnson, David. “The Wisdom of Festival.” Parabola 2 (1977) 2023. Kataja, Laura, and Robert Whiting. Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period. State Archives of Assyria 12. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1995. Kelly, John D., and Maureen Kaplan. “History, Structure, and Ritual.” Annual Review of Anthropology 19 (1990) 119-50. Kertzer, David I. Rituals, Politics and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988. Kirk, Geoffrey S. Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Klein, Jacob. Three Šulgi Hymns. Ramat-Gan, Israel: University Press, 1981

Bar-Ilan

———. “Akitu.” Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1. Edited by David Noel Freedman, 138-140. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Köcher,

F. “Ein mittelassyrisches Ritualfragment zum Neujahrfest.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 50 (1952) 192-202.

192

The Akītu Festival

Koldewey, Robert. Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1911. Kraeling, Emil G. “The Real Religion of Ancient Israel.” Journal of Biblical Literature 47 (1928) 133-159. ———. “Some Babylonian and Iranian Mythology in the Seventh Chapter of Daniel.” In Oriental Studies in Honour of Cursetij Erachji Pavry. Edited by Jal Dastur Cursetji Pavry. 228-31. London: Oxford University Press,1933. ———. Cuneiform Studies and the History of Literature: The Sumerian Sacred Marriage Texts. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107/6. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1963. ———. “The Dumuzi-Inanna Sacred Marriage Rite: Origin, Development, Character.” in Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assryriologique Internationale. Edited by Andre Finet, 136141. Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970. ———. Le Mariage Sacré à Sumer et à Babylone. Translated by J. Bottéro. Paris: Berg International, 1983. ———. The Sacred Marriage Rite: Aspects of Faith, Myth and Ritual in Ancient Sumer. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1969. Kuhrt, Amelie and Susan Sherwin-White. “Aspects of Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 111 (1991) 71-86. ———.

“Xerxes’ Destruction of Babylonian Temples.” In Achaemenid History II: the Greek Sources. Proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop. Edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt. 69-78. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1987.

Bibliography

193

Kuhrt, Amelie. “Usurpation, Conquest and Ceremonial: From Babylon to Persia.” In Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies. Edited by David Cannadine and Simon Price, 20-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. ———. “Nabonidus and the Pagan Priesthood.” In Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by Mary Beard and John North. 119-155. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. ———. The Ancient Near East. 2 vols. London: Routledge, 1995. Kwasman, Theodore, and Simo Parpola. Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh. v. 1. Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhaddon. State Archives of Assyria 6. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1991. Labat, René. Hémérologies et ménologies d’Assur. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’orient adrien-maisonneuve, 1939. Labat, René. Le caractère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient AdrienMaisonneuve, 1939. Lackenbacher, Sylvie. “Un Nouveau Fragment de la ‘fête d’Ištar’” Revue d’assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 71 (1977) 39-50 Lambert, Wilfred G. “Prostitution,” in Volkert Haas. Aussenseiter und Randgruppen: Beiträge zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Alten Orients. Xenia 32. 127-148. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1992.” ———.

“An Address of Marduk to the Demons.” Archiv für Orientforschung 17 (1954-6) 310-321.

———. “ Esarhaddon’s Attempt to Return Marduk to Babylon.” in Ad bene et fideliter seminandum. Festgabe für Karlheinz Deller zum 21. Februar 1987. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Edited by G. Mauer and U. Magen. 157-174. Kevelaer:

194

The Akītu Festival Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988.

———. “Myth and Ritual as Conceived by the Babylonians.” Journal of Semitic Studies 13 (1968) 104-112. ———. “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year. The Conflict in the Akitu House.” Iraq 25 (1963) 189-90. ———.

“Myth and Mythmaking in Sumer and Akkad.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. ed. Jack M. Sasson, 1825-1835. New York: Schribner, 1995.

———. “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion.” In The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek, Edited by W.S. McCullough, 3-13. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1964. ———. Babylonian Wisdom Literature. Oxford: Claredon, 1960. ———. “Kingship in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar. Edited by Johh Day. 5470. Sheffield: JSOT Suppl. 270, 1998. ———. “Processions to the Akitu House.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 91 (1997) 49-80. Landsberger, Benno. Der kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrer. Leipziger Semitistische Studien VI. : Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs1915. Reprint 1968. Lanfranchi, Giovanni B., and Simo Parpola. The Correspondence of Sargon II, part 2: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces. State Archives of Assyria 5. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1990.

Bibliography

195

Langdon, Stephen. “The Babylonian and Persian Sacaea.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. (1924) 6572. ———. Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendar. Schweich Lectures 1933. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1935. ———. Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich Buchhandlung, 1912. ———. The Epic of Creation. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1923. ———. Tammuz and Ishtar. Oxford: Claredon, Press, 1914. Largement, R. “Nouvel An. Dans la religion suméro-akkadienne.” In Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément. 555-597. Paris : Letouzey et Ané, 1928. Lau, Robert Julius. Old Babylonian Temple Records. New York: Columbia University Press; London: Macmillan and Company, 1906. Lawson, Jack. The Concept of Fate in Ancient Mesopotamia: Toward an understanding of šimtu. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana. Wiesbaden: O. Harassowitz Verlag, 1994. Leemans, Wilhelmus. F. “Kidinnu, un symbole de droit divine babylonien.” In Symbolae ad ius et historiam antiquitatis pertinentes Julio Christiano van Oven dedicatae. Edited by M. David, B. A. van Groningen, and E. M. Meyers. 36-61. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1946. Leichty, Erle “Esarhaddon, King of Assyria.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 949-958. New York: Schribner, 1995. Levine, Louis D. “The Persepolis Ritual. Reply to James Fennelly.” Biblical Archaeologist 44 (1981) 72-74.

196

The Akītu Festival

Lewy, Julius. “The Assyrian Calendar.” Archiv Orientáli 11 (1939) 35-46. ———. “The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus.” Hebrew Union College Annual 19 (1945/46) 405-489. Lipiński, Edouard, ed. State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East. Vol.1 & 2. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 5-6. Leuven: Peeters, 1979. Liverani, Mario. “The Ideology of the Assyrian Empire.” In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Edited by Mogens Trolle Larsen, 297-317. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. Livingstone, Alasdair. “The weapons in Assur’s akītu chariot. Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. 1990/88. ———. Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. State Archives of Assyria 3. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1989. ———. Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1986. Luckenbill, Daniel. Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1926-27. MacGinnis, John. “Neo-Babylonian Prebend Text from the British Museum.” Archiv für Orientforschung 38/39 (1991/1992) 74-100. MacGinnis, John. “The Royal Establishment at Sippar in the 6th Century BC.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 84 (1994) 198-219. MacGinnis, John. Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the E-Babbar in the Late Babylonian Period. Poznan, Poland: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1995.

Bibliography

197

Malul, Meir. Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 221. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1988. Marzahn, J. Babylon und das Neujahrfest. Vorderasiatisches Museum 1. Kleine Schriften. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1981. Matsushima, Eiko. “Le lit de Šamaš et le rituel du mariage à l’Ebabbar.” Acta Sumerologia 7 (1985) 129-137. ———. “Le rituel hiérogamique de Nabû.” Acta Sumerologia 9 (1987) 131-175. ———.

“Les rituels du mariage divin dans les documents accadiens.” Acta Sumerologia 10 (1988) 95-128.

———.

“Divine Statues in Ancient Mesopotamia: Their Fashioning and Clothing and their Interaction with the Society.” In Official Cult and Popular Religion in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Eiko Matsushima. Papers of the First Colloquium on the Ancient Near East. The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan. 209-219. Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag C. Winter, 1993.

Mattila, Raija. “Balancing the Accounts of the Royal New Year’s Reception.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin IV (1990) 722. Maul, Stefan M. “kurgarrû und assinu und ihr Stand in der babylonischen Gesellschaft.” In Xenia 32 Aussenseiter und Randgruppen. Beiträge zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Alten Orients. Edited by Volkert Haas. 159-172. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1992. McEwan, Gilbert J. P. Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylon. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1981.

198

The Akītu Festival

Meier, Gerard. “Ein Kommentar zu einer Selbstprädikation des Marduk aus Assur.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 13 (1942) 241246. Menzel, Brigette. Assyrische Tempel. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10. 2 volumes. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1981. Miglus, Peter. A. “Architekture der Festhäuser in Assur und Uruk sowie des Assur-tempels in Kar-tukulti-Ninurta.” Baghdader Mittelugen 24 (1993) 193-215. Mikasa, Takahito, ed. Cult and Ritual in the Ancient Near East. Bulletin of the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, 6. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1992. Millard, Alan R. “Another Babylonian Chronicle Text.” Iraq 25 (1963) 14-35. ———. “Nabû.” In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Edited by Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter van der Horst.1141-1147. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000. Morgestern, Julian. “The New Year for Kings.” In Occident and Orient: Gaster Anniversary Volume. Edited by Bruno Schindler. 439-456. London: Taylors Foreign Press, 1936. Mousavi, A. “Tepe Horreeye, le bit akitu de Tchogha Zanbil?” In Contribution a l’historie de I’Iran: Mélanges offertes à Jean Perrot. Paris: Edition Recherches sur les Civilisations. 1990. Müller, K.F. Das assyrische Ritual. Teil 1: Texte zum assyrischen Königsritual. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen aegyptischen Gesellschaft. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1937. Nakata, Ichiro. “Problems of the Babylonian Akitu Festival.” Journal of the American Near East Society 1 (1968) 41-49. Nilsson, Martin P. Primitive Time Reckoning. A Study of the Origins and First Development of the Art of Counting among the Primitive and

Bibliography Early Culture Peoples. (1960).

Lund:

199 C. W .K. Gleerup, 1920

Oates, David. “Ezida: The Temple of Nabu.” Iraq 19 (1957) 2639. Oates, Joan. Babylon. London: Thames and Hudson, 1979. Olmstead, Albert T. History of Assyria. New York and London: C. Scribner, 1923. Oppenheim, A. Leo. Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait of a Dead Civilization. 2nd ed. Revised by Erica Reiner. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977. ———.

“The Mesopotamian Temple.” (1944) 54-63.

Biblical Archaeologist 7

Otto, Eckart. “Neujahrfest.” In Neus Bibel-lexikon. Band II H-N. 922-923. Zürich and Düsseldorf: Benziger Verlag, 1995. Pallis, Svend Aage. The Antiquity of Iraq: A Handbook of Assyriology. Copenhagen: Enjar Munksgaard Ltd., 1956. ———. The Babylonian Akîtu Festival. Copenhagen: Host & Son, 1926. Pap, L. I. Das israelitsche Neujahrfest. Kampen: Kok, 1933. Parker, A. and W. Dubberstein. Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. – A.D. 75. Providence, RI: Brown University Press, 1956. Parpola, Simo. The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part 1: Letters from Assyria and the West. State Archives of Assyria 1. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1987. Parpola, Simo, and Kazuko Watanabe. Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1988.

200

The Akītu Festival

Parpola, Simo. “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 39 (1987) 164-183. Parpola, Simo. Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. State Archives of Assyria 10. Helsinki, 1993. Parpola, Simo. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esharhaddon and Assurbanipal. Pt. I: Texts. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/1. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970. Parpola, Simo. Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esharhaddon and Assurbanipal. Pt. II: Commentary and Appendices. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1983. Parpola, Simo. Assyrian Prophecies. State Archives of Assyria 9. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997. Parpola, Simo. “The Assyrian Cabinet,” In Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift fur Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburststag. Alter Orient und Altes Testament. Edited by Manfried Dietrich and Oswald Loretz. 379-401. Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Parpola, Simo, and Whiting, Robert., ed. Assyria 95. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997. Paul, Judith Roberta. “Mesopotamian Ritual Texts and the Concept of the Sacred in Mesopotamia.” Ph.D. diss. University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilm, 1992. Pederson, Johannes. Israel, Its Life and Culture, I-II. London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1926.

Bibliography

201

Petersen, Allan Rosengren. The Royal God: Enthronement Festivals in Ancient Israel and Ugarit? Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, Supplement Series 259. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1998. Pettazoni, Raffaele. “Der babylonische Ritus des Akitu und das Gedicht der Weltschöpfung.” Eranos-Jahrbuch 14 (1950) 403-30. Pinches, Theophilus G. Texts in Babylonian Wedge Writing. London: Offices of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, 1882. Pongratz-Leisten, Beate. “Territorialer Führungsanspruch und religiöse Praxis in Assyrien: Zur Stadtgott-Theologie in assyrischen Residenz-und Provinzstädten.” In Stätten und Formen der Kommunikation im Altertum 6. Edited by Gerhard Binder and Konrad Ehlich. 9-34. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier, 1997. ———. “The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in Assyrian Politics.” In Assyria 95. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. 245-252. Edited by Simo Parpola and Robert Whiting. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997. ———.

Ina šulmi īrub: Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akitu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im I. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Baghdader Forschungen 16; Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1994.

———. “Neujahr(sfest)” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 9/3-4. Edited by D.O. Edzard, 294-298. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Porter, Barbara Nevling, “Gods’ Statues as a Tool of Assyrian Political Policy: Esarhaddon’s Return of Marduk to Babylon.” In Religious Transformation and Socio-political Change. Eastern Europe and Latin America. Religion and Society 33. Edited by Martin H. Luther. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1993.

202

The Akītu Festival

Porter, Barbara Nevling. Images, Power and Politics: Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon's Babylonian Policy. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1993. ———. “The Relative Status of Nabu and Marduk in the Late Assyrian Period.” In Assyria 95. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Edited by Simo Parpola and Robert Whiting. 253260. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997. Postgate, John N. “The bīt akīti in Assyrian Nabu Temples.” Sumer 30 (1974) 51-74. ———.

“Two Marduk Ordeal Fragments.” Assyriologie 60 (1970) 124-127.

Zeitschrift für

———. Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London and New York: Routledge, 1992. ———. “State Administration and Ideology in Sumer and Akkad.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 395-411. New York: Schribner, 1995. ———. “The Economic Structure of the Assyrian Empire.” In Power and Propaganda: A Symposium on Ancient Empires. Edited by Mogens Trolle Larsen, 193-221. Mesopotamia 7. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1979. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Radau, Hugo. Bel, the Christ of Ancient Times. Chicago: Open Court Pub. Co., 1908. Radner, Karen. Die neuassyrischen Privatrechtsurkunden als Quelle für Mensch und Umwelt. State Archives of Assyria Studies 6. Helsinki: University of Helsinki Press, 1997.

Bibliography

203

Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie. Eds.E. Ebeling, B. Meissner and E. Weidener. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1928-. Reisman, D. “Iddin-Dagan’s Sacred Marriage Hymn.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 25 (1973) 185–202. Renger, Johannes. “isinnam epēšum: Überlegungen zur Funktion des Festes in der Gesellschaft.” In Actes de la XVIIe Rencontre Assryriologique Internationale, Edited by André Finet. 75-80. Ham-sur-Heure: Comité belge de recherches en Mésopotamie, 1970. Reviv, Hanoch. “Kiddinu: Observations on Privileges of Mesopotamian Cities.” Journal of Economical and Social History of the Orient 31 (1988) 286-298. Reynolds, Fran. Review of Cohen, Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bibliotheca Orientalis 53 1/2 (1996) 89-95. Robertson, John F. “The Social and Economic Organizations of Ancient Mesopotamia,” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 443-454. New York: Schribner, 1995. Rochberg-Halton, Francesca. “Calendars, Ancient Near East.” In Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman, 810-813. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Roth, Martha T. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995. Sachs, Abraham J. “Akkadian Rituals.” In Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Edited by James B. Pritchard, 331-345. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. Sachs, Abraham J. and H. Hunger. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Vol. 2. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1989.

204

The Akītu Festival

Sack, Ronald H. Amel-Marduk 562-560 BC. Kevelaer; Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1972. ———. “The Nabonidus Legend.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 77 (1983) 59-67. ———. “Nabonidus of Babylon.” In Crossing Boundaries and linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on his 80th Birthday. Edited by Gordon Young, Mark Chavalas and Richard Avebeck. 455-473. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1998. Sallaberger, Walther F. “Neujahr(sfest)” in Reallexikon der Assyriologie IX/3-4. Edited by D.O. Edzard, 291-294. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999. Salvensen, Alison. “The Legacy of Babylon and Nineveh in Aramaic Sources.” In The Legacy of Mesopotamia. Edited by Stephanie Dalley, 139-161. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. San Nicolò, Mariano. “Bestellung eines Pförtners für das akitiFesthaus der Ištar von Uruk.” in Miscellanea Govanni Mercati. Vol. VI. Rome: Città de Vatticano, 1946. 1-10. Sasson, Jack M., ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. New York: Schribner, 1995. ———. “King Hammurabi of Babylon.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by Jack M. Sasson. 901-915. New York: Schribner, 1995. ———. “The Calender and Festivals of Mari during the Reign of Zimri-Lim.” In Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 203. Edited by Marvin A. Powell and Ronald Sack. 119-141. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1979.

Bibliography

205

Scheil, P. Esagil ou le temple de Bêl-Marduk à Babylone. Klinskseck, 1913.

Paris:

Schmidt, E. F. Persepolis. 3 Volumes. The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publication 68-70. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953-70. Segal, Judah B. Edessa: The Blessed City. University Press, 1970.

Oxford:

Oxford

Seyrig, Henri. “Antiquités syriennes, 17: Bas-reliefs du temple de Bêl à Palmyre.” Syria 15 (1934) 155-186. ———. “Antiquités Bêl de Palmyre.” Syria 48 (1971) 85-114. Sherwin-White, Susan M. “Seleucid Babylonia: A Case-study for the Installation and Development of Greek Rule.” In Hellenism in the East. Edited by A. Kuhrt and S. SherwinWhite. 1-31. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987. Sherwin-White, Susan M. “Ritual for a Seleucid King at Babylon?” Journal of Hellenic Studies 103 (1983) 156-59. Smith, Jonathan Z. “A Pearl of Great Price and a Cargo of Yams: A Study in Situational Incongruity.” In Imagining Religion: From Babylon to Jonestown. 90-101. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982. Smith, Sidney. Assyrian Sculptures. From Shalmaneser III to Sennacherib. London: The British Museum, 1938. ———. Babylonian Historical Texts: Relating to the Capture and the Downfall of Babylon. New York: G. Olms, 1975. Reprint of 1924. ———. “Sennacherib and Esarhaddon.” Cambridge Ancient History 3. 3rd ed. 61-87. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970-.

206

The Akītu Festival

Snaith, Norman H. The Jewish New Year Festival: Its Origins and Development. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1947. Sommer, Benjamin D. “The Akitu Festival: Its Purpose and Meaning in Light of a Recent Comparative Approach.” Paper presented at the 207th annual meeting of the American Oriental Society, Miami, FL., March 1997. Sommerfeld, Walter. Der Aufstieg Marduks: Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 213. Kevelaer: Butzon & Bercker, and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982. Steiner, R. C. “The Aramaic Text in Demotic Script: The Liturgy of a New Year’s Festival Imported from Bethel to Syene by Exiles from Rash.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 11 (1991) 363-363. ———. “Papyrus Amherst 63: A New Source for the Language, Literature, Religion, and History of the Aramaens.” Studia Aramaica (1995) 199-207. Tadmor, Hayim. “Monarchy and the Elite in Assyria and Babylonia: The Question of Royal Accountability.” In The Origins and Diversity of Axial Age Civilizations. Edited by S.N. Eisenstadt, 203-224. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1986. Teixidor, Javier. The Pantheon of Palmyra. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979. Thureau-Dangin, François. “Le temple de L’Akîtu à Uruk.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 31 (1934) 145-146. ———. “Les fêtes d’Akîtu d’après un texte divinatoire.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 19 (1922) 141-148. ———. “La procession du Novel an à Uruk.” Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 20 (1923) 107-112.

Bibliography

207

———. Rituels accadiens. Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1921. Trankwalder-Piesl, Helga. “The Procession Street of Marduk in Babylon: Some Remarks on its Terminology and Function.” Sumer 41 (1981) 36-40. ———. “Some Remarks on the Name Esagila.” Sumer 37 (1976) 233-236. Tubach, Jürgen. “Das akītu-fest in Palmyra.” Arameans. Aram 7 (1995) 121-135.

Palmyra and the

Unger, Eckhart. Babylon. Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier. Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Company, 1931. Van Buren, E. Douglas “The Sacred Marriage in Early Times in Mesopotamia.” Orientalia 13 (1944) 1-72. Van Buren, E. Douglas. “The Scorpion in Mesopotamian Art and Religion.” Archiv für Orientforschung 12 (1937) 1-28. van de Mieroop, Marc. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Oxford: Claredon Press, 1997. van der Meer, P.E. “A Topography of Babylon.” Iraq 5 (1938) 5564. van der Spek, R. J. “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 50 (1993) 91-101. ———. “Cyrus de Pers in Assyrisch Perspectief.” Tijdschrift voor Gescheidenis 96 (1983) 1-27. van der Toorn, Karel, Bob Becking, and Pieter van der Horst., eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd ed. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2000.

208

The Akītu Festival

van der Toorn, Karel. “The Babylonian New Year Festival: New Insights from the Cuneiform Texts and Their Bearing on Old Testament Study.” In Congress Volume Leuven 1989, Vetus Testamentum. Supplement 43. Edited by J. A. Emerton. 331-344. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1991. ———. “Seleucid Royal Ideology, the Babylonian Akitu Festival, and the Interpretatio Graeca of Some Mesopotamian Deities.” Unpublished paper. ———. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1996. ———. “Het Babylonische Nieuwjaarsfeest.” Phoenix 36 (1990) 10-29. van Dijk, J. J. “Le fête du nouvel an dans un texte de Šulgi.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 11 (1954) 83-88. ———.

Cuneiform Texts of Varying Content. Museum 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976.

Texts in the Iraq

Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. Veenhof, Klass R. “Seeing the face of God: The Use of Akkadian Parallels.” Akkadica 94-95 (1995) 33-37. Versnel, H. S. Transition and Reversal in Myth and Ritual. Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion II. Studies in Greek and Roman Religion 6. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1993. von Driel, G. The Cult of Assur. Assen, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Van Gorcum & Company, 1969. von Soden, W. “Ein neues Bruchstück des assyrischen Kommentar zum Marduk-Ordeal.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 52 (1957) 224-34.

Bibliography

209

von Soden, W. “Gibt es ein Zeugnis dafür, daß die Babylonier an die Wiederauferstenhug Marduks geglaubt haben?” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 51 (1955) 130-166. Wakeman, M. K. “Sacred Marriage,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (1984), 21-31. Weidner, Ernst F. “Der Tag des Stadtgottes.” Orientforschung 14 (1941-44) 340-342.

Archiv für

———. “Die Fahrt zum Neujahrsfest.” Nieuwe Theologische Studiën: Praktisch-maandschrift voor godgeleerdheid Groningen. 6/4 (1923) 97-103. Weinstock, Stefan. “Saturnalien und Neujahrsfest in den Märtyracten.” In Mullus: Festschrift Theodor Klauser. Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 1. 391-400. Münster: Aschendorffsche Verlagbuchhandlung, 1964. Wensinck, Arent J. Some Semitic Rites of Mourning and Religion: Studies on Their Origin and Mutual Relation. Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam 18. Amsterdam: Johannes Müller, 1917. ———. Arabic New-Year and the Feast of Tabernacles. Amsterdam, 1925. ———. “The Semitic New Year and the Origin of Eschatology.” Acta Orientalia 1 (1923) 158-99. Wiggermann, Frans A. M. Babylonian Prophylactic Figures: The Ritual Texts. Amsterdam: The Free University Press, 1986. Wilson, E. Jan. “The Biblical Term lir’o'et penei yhwh in the Light of Akkadian Cultic Material.” Akkadica 93 (1995) 21-25. Winter, Irene J. “'Idols of the King’: Royal Images as Recipients of Ritual Action in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Journal of Ritual Studies 6 (1992) 13-42.

210

The Akītu Festival

Wiseman, Donald J. “Babylonia.” Cambridge Ancient History 3/2. 3rd edition. 229-251. London: Cambridge University Press, 1970-. Wiseman, Donald J. Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (626-556) in the British Museum. London, 1961. Wiseman, Donald J., and Jeremy A. Black. Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû. British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1996. Wolter, Al. “Belshazzar’s Feast and the Cult of the Moon” Bulletin of Biblical Research 5 (1995) 199-206. Wright, David P. The Disposal of Impurity: Elimination Rites in the Bible and in Hittite and Mesopotamian Literature. SBLDS 101. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Wright, G. R. H. “Dumuzi at the Court of David.” In As On The First Day: Essays in Religious Constants. Edited by G. R. H. Wright, 50-59. Originally published in Numen 28 (1981) Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1987. Zimmern, Heinrich. Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest. Berichte über die Verhadlungen de sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften. Phil.-hist Klasse 53/3. Leipzig, 1906. Zimmern, Heinrich. Zum babylonischen Neujahrsfest, zweiter Beitrag. Berichte über die Verhadlungen der sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften.70/5. Leipzig, 1918. Zimmern, Heinrich. “Das babylonische Neujahrsfest.” Der alte Orient 25 (1926). 2-22. Zimmern, Heinrich. “Ein babylonisches Ritual für eine Hausweihe.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 23 (1909) 369-376. Zimmern, Heinrich. “Zu einigen neueren assyriologischen Fragen, Über Alter und Herkunftsort des babylonischen

Bibliography Neujahrsfestrituals.” 189-198.

211

Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 35 (1922)

Zuesse, Evan M. “Ritual” In The Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol. 12. Edited by Mircea Eliade, et al., 405-422. New York: Macmillan, 1987.

INDEX Abusch, 122, 175 Achaemenid, 4, 127, 129, 138, 139, 141, 143, 165, 166, 167, 172, 179, 192, 207 Adad, 33, 87 Akitu Chronicle, 3, 132, 146 Alster, 18, 175 ancient Israel, 7, 32, 108 Antiochus, 143, 144, 192 Anu, 48, 54, 56, 62, 64, 65, 69, 78, 84, 87, 88, 90, 105, 116, 117, 156 Arrian, 142 Asalluhòi. See Marduk Ashur, 3, 24, 78, 147, 148, 154 assembly of the gods, 34, 91, 93 assinnu, 120, 121 Assur, 8, 19, 25, 29, 37, 48, 51, 75, 92, 115, 116, 122, 147, 172, 175, 182, 193, 196, 198, 208 Assurbanipal, 17, 19, 51, 91, 92, 100, 119, 149, 179, 200 Assyria, 3, 6, 18, 27, 29, 30, 37, 51, 60, 63, 83, 85, 92, 100, 116, 147, 148, 149, 179, 183, 185, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 206

Assyrian and Babylonian chronicles, 2, 4, 27, 35, 88, 94, 127, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 140, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 173, 174 atonement, 79, 186 Baal, 7, 24, 82 Babylon, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 36, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 90, 93, 94, 96, 99, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 152, 155, 157, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 173, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 182, 186, 187, 192, 193, 197, 199, 201, 204, 205, 207 213

214

The Akītu Festival

Babylonian Chronicle, 3, 88, 146, 147, 198 Beaulieu, 36, 124, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 162, 176 Bēl. See Marduk Bell, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 25, 176 Belshazzar, 34, 133, 135, 136, 139, 210 Berger, 94, 95, 177 Berlejung, 125, 177 Berossus, 30, 63 Biblical connections, 7, 18, 28, 29, 31, 32, 43, 45, 78, 82, 84, 85, 122, 156, 158, 163, 175, 176, 179, 189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 198, 201, 202, 203, 207, 208, 209, 210 New Testament, 18, 19, 40, 97, 191 bīt akīti, 6, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 33, 34, 62, 75, 87, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 104, 105, 106, 107, 111, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 135, 141, 148, 175, 194, 202 bīt erši, 105 Black, 27, 28, 55, 59, 75, 80, 89, 90, 94, 96, 101, 155, 177, 210 Bleeker, 8, 177 Böhl, 177, 178 Bongenaar, 165, 177 Borsippa, 47, 51, 62, 71, 76, 104, 106, 112, 113, 117, 123, 130, 132, 133, 141,

143, 147, 148, 149, 152, 153, 164, 192 Bottéro, 90, 102, 127, 178, 192 Brinkman, 50, 178 Çagirgan, 26, 42, 45, 46, 47, 55, 58, 67, 74, 75, 76, 79, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 94, 95, 101, 105, 108, 110, 178 calendar, 7, 41, 43, 44, 65, 87, 109, 123 Cambyses, 44, 136, 140, 153 Canaanite, 7, 82, 102, 190 Cavigneaux, 62, 93, 179 Clifford, 9, 31, 56, 63, 179 Cohen, 8, 28, 34, 42, 43, 44, 45, 76, 86, 87, 88, 89, 94, 101, 108, 109, 118, 179, 203 Cole, 100, 104, 158, 165, 179 Cooper, 62, 102, 103, 106, 180 cosmogonic myth, 25, 26, 172 cultic battle, 1, 21, 24, 25, 27, 101, 142 cultic drama, 21, 24, 32 cultic objects, 69, 70, 160 cylinder seals, 23, 103, 113, 122 Cyrus, 11, 30, 44, 131, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 143, 173, 207 Dalley, 5, 20, 29, 35, 37, 63, 69, 75, 89, 98, 121, 145, 180, 204 Dandamayev, 114, 166, 167, 170, 180 Darius, 142, 164

Index demons, 40, 65, 71, 72, 74, 75, 82, 83, 100, 125 destiny, 34, 89, 90, 92 determining of the destinies, 2, 4, 21, 35, 40, 49, 59, 88, 89, 92, 94, 105, 106, 118 Dhorme, 141, 159 Diadochoi, 144 Dirven, 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 182 divination, 92, 159 Doty, 21, 66, 182 Drijvers, 33, 35, 36, 182 Dura-Europos, 29, 32, 34, 36, 124 Durkheim, 9, 10, 11, 174, 182 Ea, 56, 59, 62, 64, 65, 84, 91, 112, 122, 190 Ebabbarra, 75, 152 Ebeling, 122, 182, 203 economy, 3, 4, 6, 10, 42, 44, 45, 50, 51, 52, 59, 82, 93, 100, 106, 114, 115, 117, 135, 139, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 171 Edessa, 32, 33, 35, 36, 124, 182, 205 Edzard, 7, 8, 179, 181, 188, 201, 204 Egypt, 7, 41, 57, 125, 130, 181 Egypt, 8 Egyptian, 177 Eliade, 9, 14, 25, 26, 39, 66, 72, 79, 126, 175, 183, 185, 188, 211 Engnell, 21, 22, 183 Enlil, 34, 53, 54, 62, 64, 69, 90, 97

215 enthronement, 4, 27, 31, 79, 80 Enūma eliš, 1, 4, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 31, 36, 49, 54, 56, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70, 75, 78, 89, 90, 91, 116, 118, 122, 127, 142, 163, 171 ērib-bītī, 96, 119 Esagila, 6, 14, 21, 23, 24, 26, 31, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 56, 59, 61, 62, 65, 67, 71, 73, 77, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 89, 93, 95, 96, 97, 101, 105, 106, 107, 111, 112, 115, 119, 120, 121, 124, 126, 130, 132, 134, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 146, 148, 149, 152, 154, 169, 207 Esarhaddon, 3, 30, 51, 91, 100, 146, 148, 149, 155, 158, 172, 179, 193, 195, 201, 202, 205 Esarhaddon Chronicle, 3, 146 Esharhaddon, 92, 200 Etemenanki, 23, 112, 130 Eumuša, 61, 62, 72, 78, 90, 119 exorcism, 15, 40, 49, 55, 58, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 83, 86, 111, 118, 121, 127 Ezida, 14, 62, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 89, 96, 132, 134, 143, 152, 199 Falkenstein, 8, 42, 105, 184 Farber, 45, 59, 184 fate. See šimtu

216

The Akītu Festival

fertility, 7, 20, 22, 40, 41, 57, 67, 84, 102, 103, 105, 110, 169 Foster, 20, 52, 53, 55, 75, 121, 123, 134, 135, 158, 184 Frame, 51, 149, 185 Frankfort, 1, 21, 22, 23, 87, 101, 103, 154, 163, 185 Frazer, 21, 29, 79, 185 Frymer-Kensky, 18, 185 Gane, 79, 186 Gaster, 21, 23, 24, 39, 79, 186, 198 Geertz, 9 Geller, 34, 35, 37, 186 George, 29, 34, 47, 56, 58, 75, 91, 99, 100, 112, 113, 116, 126, 127, 135, 174, 186, 187 gift-giving, 14, 85, 87, 94, 104, 106, 108, 116, 135, 147, 191 Gilgamesh, 5, 63, 98 Grayson, 3, 27, 51, 59, 88, 101, 108, 131, 136, 138, 141, 144, 145, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 175, 185, 187, 188 Hammurapi, 53, 64, 117, 126, 164 hand, 2, 4, 12, 21, 50, 55, 57, 61, 62, 77, 78, 81, 83, 88, 95, 97, 120, 122, 127, 135, 140, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 170, 173 hand-washing, 77, 78, 83, 88, 127

Harran, 3, 19, 32, 34, 51, 130, 131, 134, 136, 138, 139, 186, 188 Heidel, 31, 63, 189 Herodotus, 23, 136, 141 high priest. See šešgallu Hittite, 7, 186, 210 holidays, 5, 14, 92, 98, 170 Hooke, 21, 22, 23, 104, 189 Horowitz, 43, 59, 189 humiliation ritual, 4, 25, 28, 59, 70, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 118, 142 hymns, 17, 31, 34, 49, 82, 90, 103 Iddin-Dagan, 103, 203 Ideology, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 22, 24, 28, 29, 33, 45, 53, 82, 96, 99, 131, 138, 139, 140, 143, 144, 147, 153, 169, 172, 173, 186, 192, 196, 202, 208 images, 2, 3, 7, 14, 20, 36, 37, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 76, 77, 78, 87, 92, 96, 97, 98, 99, 124, 125, 131, 141, 142, 149, 151, 154, 156, 160, 171 Inanna, 19, 32, 102, 103, 188, 192, See Ishtar Ishtar, 19, 20, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 57, 87, 88, 94, 95, 99, 101, 113, 114, 116, 120, 121, 123, 139, 145, 156, 195 Ishtar Gate, 94, 99, 113 isinnu, 12, 153 Israelite, 7, 32, 79, 82, 156, 186, 190 Jacobsen, 24, 25, 70, 190

Index Jensen, 18, 191 Jestin, 42, 191 Joannès, 172, 191 kalû, 110, 120 Kandalānu, 149 Kertzer, 9, 172, 191 kidinnu, 3, 5, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 60, 61, 77, 81, 82, 96, 99, 162, 163, 165, 166, 168, 170, 171, 174 kingship, 7, 12, 22, 26, 60, 62, 70, 77, 78, 80, 92, 100, 105, 123, 133, 134, 136, 143, 145, 163 Kish, 19, 141 Klein, 103, 191 Koldewey, 99, 112, 192 Kraeling, 31, 32, 192 Kramer, 102, 103 kudurru, 52 Kuhrt, 5, 12, 50, 51, 53, 94, 95, 96, 115, 120, 131, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 165, 192, 193, 205 kurgarrû, 120, 121, 197 Labat, 154, 193 Lambert, 29, 53, 64, 67, 75, 92, 94, 98, 100, 121, 149, 163, 178, 187, 188, 193 Langdon, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 69, 84, 101, 104, 108, 109, 110, 155, 195 Leemans, 50, 195 Livingstone, 18, 19, 55, 57, 87, 88, 120, 196 loans, 78, 114, 164 Machinist, 100, 104, 158, 165, 179

217 Madānu, 55, 56, 86 Malul, 81, 161, 162, 197 Maqlû,, 59 Marduk, 2, 3, 5, 6, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 46, 47, 48, 49, 52, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 186, 187, 190, 193, 198, 201, 202, 204, 205, 207, 208 Mari, 19, 33, 121, 204 mašmaššu, 71, 73, 74, 96, 106, 121 Matsushima, 95, 102, 105, 180, 197 Mattila, 6, 100, 197 McEwan, 47, 96, 111, 120, 121, 141, 165, 197 meals, 14, 37, 47, 62, 71, 73, 76, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 111, 124, 136, 142, 145, 170

218

The Akītu Festival

Millard, 85, 146, 147, 176, 198 mīs pî, 74, 125 mubannu, 46 myth and ritual, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 41, 67, 69, 79, 87, 101, 189, 190, 192, 194, 208 Nabonidus, 3, 4, 34, 36, 44, 52, 100, 101, 115, 123, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 146, 152, 162, 164, 173, 176, 184, 185, 186, 193, 196, 204 Nabopolassar, 99, 123, 130, 147, 148, 149, 152 Nabû, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 55, 56, 59, 62, 70, 71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 86, 87, 89, 91, 92, 93, 99, 102, 104, 105, 106, 108, 111, 113, 115, 120, 123, 130, 132, 135, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 156, 158, 165, 172, 178, 179, 182, 185, 190, 197, 198, 210 Namburbi, 48, 74 nāru, 54, 67, 120 Nebuchadnezzar, 4, 33, 64, 89, 99, 109, 112, 113, 116, 119, 130, 131, 134, 135, 145, 152, 164, 194 Neo-Assyrian period, 4, 51, 104, 146 Neo-Assyrian prophecies, 92 Neriglissar, 76, 131 New Testament., 18 Nilsson, 43, 198

Nineveh, 6, 19, 48, 53, 55, 101, 130, 193, 200, 204 Ninurta, 34, 91, 198 Nippur, 19, 34, 42, 49, 51, 53, 54, 133, 139, 187 Nisannu, 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14, 19, 33, 35, 36, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 70, 72, 78, 85, 86, 87, 88, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 111, 135, 139, 140, 143, 144, 147, 151, 152, 153, 165, 172 oath, 2, 49, 53, 57, 80, 82, 95, 127, 136, 158, 160, 161, 164, 174 Oppenheim, 50, 51, 52, 67, 90, 110, 115, 125, 199 Pallis, 20, 23, 89, 92, 104, 105, 106, 121, 150, 154, 155, 199 Palmyra, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 124, 145, 173, 180, 182, 206, 207 parak šīmāte, 14, 21, 89, 94, 120 Parpola, 3, 29, 43, 91, 92, 136, 149, 165, 172, 193, 194, 199, 200, 201, 202 Persepolis, 101, 141, 142, 178, 184, 195, 205 Persian, 17, 26, 30, 31, 44, 52, 131, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 152, 172, 173, 180, 195 Pongratz-Leisten, 29, 93, 94, 95, 97, 116, 118, 156, 160, 161, 201

Index Postgate, 60, 81, 91, 105, 116, 183, 202 prayer, 1, 5, 31, 34, 40, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 100, 101, 106, 108, 109, 122, 123, 126, 134, 143, 157, 158, 169 prebends, 165 priesthood, 1, 2, 3, 5, 12, 24, 52, 99, 112, 115, 124, 132, 133, 134, 136, 163, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174 procession, 2, 5, 6, 14, 19, 22, 29, 32, 35, 37, 62, 70, 76, 83, 89, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 113, 118, 142, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 157, 160, 162, 171, 174, 206 Processional Way, 99, 113, 130 purification, 13, 40, 48, 49, 55, 59, 71, 72, 73, 74, 78, 83, 104, 109, 126, 127, 142 qātē Bēl ṣabātum, 2, 154, 157 river ordeal, 126 Rochberg Halton, 43, 44 Rosh Hashannah, 7, 17, 40 ṣabātum, 57, 154, 156, 158, 160, 161, 162, 164 Sacaea, 17, 29, 30, 195 sacred marriage, 1, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 32, 34, 58, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 142, 169, 178, 180, 185, 192, 197, 203, 207, 209 sacred space, 74, 112

219 sacrifice, 1, 3, 5, 14, 21, 22, 40, 55, 59, 69, 71, 72, 73, 76, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 88, 114, 116, 145, 151, 154 Šamši-Adad, 33 šangû, 120 Sargon, 51, 152, 194, 199 Sasson, 43, 64, 121, 184, 188, 194, 195, 202, 203, 204 Saturnalia, 17, 29 scapegoat, 29, 40, 73, 79 scorpion, 55, 57, 58 Seleucid, 4, 17, 26, 28, 45, 63, 69, 84, 85, 88, 107, 108, 110, 117, 119, 120, 121, 127, 129, 130, 141, 143, 144, 145, 146, 169, 172, 205, 207, 208 Seleucus I, 144 Sennacherib, 17, 24, 101, 116, 119, 147, 148, 149, 152, 175, 186, 187, 205 šešgallu, 14, 45, 47, 48, 49, 53, 54, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 83, 84, 86, 88, 96, 110, 119, 120, 126, 132, 152, 156 Shalmaneser, 51, 151, 205 Shamash, 75, 87, 91, 102, 130, 134, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 158, 162, 197 sheep-shearing, 117 Shulgi, 103 šimtu, 90, 195 Sîn, 11, 34, 35, 52, 109, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 173 snake, 55, 57, 58

220

The Akītu Festival

state ideology, 1, 3, 173 Strabo, 30 šuilla, 31, 60, 62, 106 Sumerian, 1, 3, 8, 20, 23, 41, 42, 47, 49, 62, 71, 82, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 119, 122, 169, 175, 180, 192 Tablet of Destinies, 65, 186 taklimtu, 20 Tammuz, 18, 19, 20, 23, 32, 82, 101, 102, 103, 117, 190, 192, 195, 210 Tašmētu, 94, 104, 105, 106, 158 Tašrītu, 1, 19, 34, 43, 44, 85, 88, 108, 110, 111, 136, 139, 152, 156 taxation, 5, 50, 141, 164, 168 tears, 20, 78, 82, 83, 97, 190 Thureau-Dangin, 19, 43, 45, 69, 85, 88, 94, 110, 160, 161, 206 Tiamat, 21, 29, 35, 36, 64, 65, 69, 78, 91, 92, 93, 116, 123, 182 Tiglath-Pilesar, 51 TIN.TIR, 56, 90 Turner, 9 ubšukkinna., 56, 91, 108, 112 Underworld, 20, 30, 49, 56, 85, 87, 89, 101, 104, 110 Ur, 19, 26, 41, 42, 52, 109, 131, 133, 134 Uruk, 19, 34, 42, 43, 49, 51, 54, 63, 69, 75, 78, 88, 94, 104, 108, 116, 117, 120,

122, 133, 134, 156, 165, 184, 198, 204, 206 van Buren, 57, 102 van de Mieroop, 50, 113, 115, 168, 207 van der Toorn, 7, 12, 14, 18, 27, 28, 37, 42, 58, 59, 62, 68, 80, 88, 89, 92, 95, 98, 108, 122, 123, 125, 140, 153, 154, 175, 198, 207, 208 van Gennep, 28 Veenhof, 156, 208 vernal equinox, 20, 30, 39, 43, 54 von Driel, 8, 25, 147, 208 von Soden, 18, 24, 91, 200, 208, 209 water, 14, 46, 47, 49, 54, 60, 64, 71, 72, 73, 78, 95, 114, 120, 126, 127 Weber, 167 Weidner Chronicle, 85, 176 Wiggermann, 55, 209 Wiseman, 81, 113, 130, 210 Wright, 73, 74, 117, 210 Xenophon, 136, 145 Xerxes, 32, 141, 142, 167, 192 zagmukku, 41, 42, 76, 89 Zarpānitu, 60, 61, 71, 85, 88, 93, 94, 95, 105, 106, 122, 123, 135, 144, 145 Zimmern, 17, 18, 20, 21, 30, 104, 120, 210 zodiac, 36, 110