The Moon God Sin in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Times (Dubsar: Altorientalistische Publikationen / Publications on the Ancient Near East, 20) 9783963271403, 396327140X

Citation preview

dubsar 12 The Moon God Sîn Hätinen • in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Times

www.zaphon.de

The Moon God Sîn in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Times Aino Hätinen

dubsar 20 Zaphon

dubsar-20-Hätinen-Cover.indd 1

02.12.2020 15:22:12

The Moon God Sîn in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Times

Aino Hätinen

dubsar Altorientalistische Publikationen Publications on the Ancient Near East Band 20 Herausgegeben von Kristin Kleber und Kai A. Metzler

The Moon God Sîn in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Times

Aino Hätinen

Zaphon Münster 2021

Cover illustration by Aino Hätinen.

Aino Hätinen : The Moon God Sîn in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Times dubsar 20

© 2021 Zaphon, Einkingweg 36, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. Printed in Germany. Printed on acid-free paper

ISBN 978-3-96327-140-3 (Buch) ISBN 978-3-96327-141-0 (E-Book) ISSN 2627-7174

Table of Contents Preface I. Introduction I.1. The Moon God Sîn in Assyriological Research I.2. Reflections on Methodology and Terminology I.3. Sources I.3.1. Prayers to Sîn I.4. Lunar Phases II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia II.1. The Moon and the Moon God II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors II.2.1. Sîn II.2.2. Nannāru II.2.3. The Crescent II.2.4. The Boat and the Barge II.2.5. The Fruit II.2.6. Lord of the Crown II.2.7. Crown of Splendour II.2.8. Ellammê II.2.9. Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time II.4.1. The Moon God and Time II.4.2. The Lunar Month and the Days Connected to Sîn II.4.2.1. 1st Day (Reappearance of the Moon) II.4.2.2. 2nd Day II.4.2.3. 3rd Day II.4.2.4. 5th Day II.4.2.5. 6th Day II.4.2.6. 7th Day (Waxing Half Moon) II.4.2.7. 9th Day II.4.2.8. 10th Day II.4.2.9. 11th Day II.4.2.10. 12th Day II.4.2.11. 13th Day II.4.2.12. 14th Day II.4.2.13. 15th Day (Full Moon) II.4.2.14. 16th Day II.4.2.15. 17th Day II.4.2.16. 18th Day II.4.2.17. 20th Day II.4.2.18. 21st Day (Waning Half Moon)

ix 1 1 3 7 10 16 19 19 28 28 31 38 45 54 60 65 68 71 78 90 91 98 99 101 102 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 105 106 106 113 114 115 116 117

vi

Table of Contents

II.4.2.19. 22nd Day II.4.2.20. 23rd Day II.4.2.21. 24th Day II.4.2.22. 25th Day II.4.2.23. 26th Day II.4.2.24. 27th Day II.4.2.25. 28th and 29th Day (Lunar Invisibility) II.4.2.26. 30th Day II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions II.6.1. Sîn’s Power over Divine Decisions II.6.2. Signs of the Moon II.6.2.1. Unpropitious Appearances of the Moon II.6.2.2. Lunar Eclipses II.6.2.3. Protection Against the Evil of the Eclipse II.6.3. The Presence of Sîn in the Extispicy Ritual II.6.4. Sîn and Dreams II.7. Sîn and Kingship II.7.1. Sîn as King II.7.2. Sîn as Giver of Royal Insignia and Protector of Kingship II.7.3. Sîn, Šamaš, and the King II.7.4. Sîn, Theophoric Personal Names, and Kingship II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals II.8.1. Sîn as Creator and Father II.8.2. Fertility and Growth II.8.3. Cattle II.8.4. Wild Animals II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments II.9.1. Oaths and Contracts II.9.2. Sîn and Forms of Punishment II.9.2.1. Curse Formulae II.9.2.2. Penalty Clauses II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing II.10.1. Epilepsy and Fever II.10.2. Skin Diseases II.10.3. Blindness II.10.4. The Role of Sîn in Healing II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn II.11.1. Enlil and Ninlil II.11.2. Ningal II.11.3. Šamaš II.11.4. Ištar

118 119 119 119 119 120 122 127 136 150 150 156 163 167 175 181 189 196 196 206 217 226 229 230 236 240 247 249 250 254 255 264 270 271 281 285 286 289 291 296 305 309

Table of Contents

II.11.4.1. Nanaya II.11.4.2. Anunītu II.11.5. Nusku II.11.6. Ningublaga and Nin(e)igara II.11.7. Alamuš II.11.8. Amarazu and Amaraḫea II.11.9. Bēlet-ilī III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area III.1.1. The Temple Complex Ekišnugal III.1.2. The Ziqqurrat Elugalĝalgasisa III.1.3. The Temple of Ningal III.1.4. Edublamaḫ III.1.5. Eĝipar and the Consecration of En-niĝaldi-Nanna III.1.6. Kissik III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia III.2.1. Nippur III.2.2. Uruk III.2.3. Sippar III.2.4. Larsa III.2.5. Babylon III.2.6. Borsippa III.3. Ḫarrān III.3.1. Local Aspects of the Moon God’s Cult in Ḫarrān III.3.2. The Temple Eḫulḫul, Sargonid Kings, and Nabonidus III.3.3. The Akītu-Festival of Sîn in Ḫarrān III.3.4. The Moon God of Elumu III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities III.4.1. Assur III.4.2. Kalḫu III.4.3. Dūr-Šarrukīn III.4.4. Nineveh IV. Conclusions V. Text Editions V.1. “Sîn 1” V.2. “Sîn 2” V.3. “Sîn 3” V.4. “Sîn 9” V.5. “Sîn 11” V.6. “Sîn 14” V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//) V.8. Making the Unpropitious Appearance of Sîn Good (K. 6018+//)

vii

312 313 314 317 322 324 325 330 331 333 343 349 356 360 367 368 368 371 373 377 378 383 384 387 396 410 415 416 416 423 426 431 439 452 452 462 464 474 477 479 483 497

viii

Table of Contents

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//) V.10. A War Ritual before the Moon and the Sun (CBS 1516) Abbreviations Bibliography Index Compositions Text publications and museum numbers of cuneiform sources Museum numbers of other objects Names of deities Names of temples and sanctuaries Personal names Geographical names (ancient and modern) Thematic index Selective glossary Copies of Cuneiform Tablets

507 520 527 534 596 596 600 613 613 619 620 623 625 639

Preface This book is a revised version of the dissertation that was accepted at the Philosophical Faculty of the University of Heidelberg in November 2017. The long process resulting in the present study could not have been possible without the help and advice from several people. The initial suggestion to write a monograph about the moon god came from Prof. emeritus Simo Parpola. I am grateful to Prof. Stefan M. Maul for accepting me as a doctoral student under his supervision at the University of Heidelberg. I also thank Sanna Aro-Valjus and Raija Mattila (University of Helsinki) who offered their assistance in the preparatory phase of my doctoral studies. In 2012–2014, my studies were financed by a scholarship from Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD). In addition, smaller stipends from the Foundation for Finnish Assyriological Research have made conference attendance and a brief visit to the British Museum possible. In the years 2014–2019 I had the pleasure of working in the project “Edition der literarischen Keilschrifttexte aus Assur” (Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften) led by Stefan M. Maul. Previously unpublished tablets and fragments are published here courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum and the University of the Pennsylvania Museum. Collations of tablets at the British Museum and the University of Pennsylvania Museum were kindly made possible by Jon Taylor and Philip Jones, respectively. During the time of writing my dissertation, my friends and colleagues have always been open for discussions and sharing their unpublished work. I thank Enrique Jiménez, who not only has shared his discoveries of unpublished fragments and his unpublished work but also has taken numerous photographs for me during his museum visits, and read parts of the present book. Anmar Fadhil graciously gave his edition of a previously unknown prayer to Sîn to my disposal before its publication. Also Erica Couto-Ferreira, Stefan M. Maul, Hanspeter Schaudig, Daisuke Shibata, Lorenzo Verderame, and Kamran Zand have given me the generous opportunity to see their unpublished work. I also thank Wiebke Meinhold and Hanspeter Schaudig for their comments on certain topics discussed in the present study. In the initial phase of my research, access to the digital database of the “Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project” developed by Simo Parpola was highly valuable; I thank him for allowing me to have this access. Since English is not my native language, this book initially benefited from the comments made by Mary Frazer, Gina Konstantopoulos, and Selena Wisnom. Furthermore, Denise Bolton thoroughly revised the final manuscript. Any remaining mistakes are, of course, my own. I also thank my friends and colleagues Ali Al-Magasees, Saskia Baderschneider, Odette Boivin, Stefania Ermidoro, Adrian Heinrich, Carlos Langa Morales, Changyu Liu, Saki Kikuchi, Sam Mirelman, Luis Saenz, Marie Young, and Shana Zaia for their friendship and inevitable influence on the present work.

x

Preface

Last but not least, I want to express my gratitude to my parents and my husband, who have never questioned my endeavours in a field as marginal as Assyriology; the years of research would not have been possible without their unwavering support. The present study very much follows the path laid out by Knut Tallqvist (1865–1949), the first professor of Assyriology at the University of Helsinki. For this reason, I wish to dedicate it to Finnish Assyriology and Finnish Assyriologists.

I. Introduction I.1. The Moon God Sîn in Assyriological Research The moon god Nanna/Sîn is one of the primary deities in the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon, and, for this reason, has aroused the interest of many an Assyriologist since the early days of Assyriological research. In addition to the ubiquitous presence of Sîn in cuneiform sources, and the crescent moon in Mesopotamian art, scholarly interest in him can be attributed to his prominent role in the context of celestial divination: the lunar omens dominate the sphere of celestial divination in the 1st millennium BCE. Also, the marked interest of the Sargonid kings of Assyria in the Ḫarranian moon god in the 8th–7th centuries BCE and the veneration of Sîn by Nabonidus in the 6th century BCE have received much attention from various scholars. Still, no extensive modern research on Sîn has been published. The essential information concerning the moon and the moon god (names, principal epithets, and designations of lunar phases) had already been presented by the end of the 19th century,1 but it was not further utilised to offer a comprehensive study of Nanna/Sîn. One reason, perhaps, for the abstinence on the part of Assyriologists to treat the topic rises from the Panbabylonian school of thought that was prominent at the beginning of the 20th century: the speculations on astronomical knowledge and celestial interpretations of myths presented by the Panbabylonian scholars marred the reputation of studying Mesopotamian celestial deities in relation to celestial objects.2 The two studies of the moon god that were written around the time of the polemic around the ideas of Panbabylonists concentrated on the tangible philological facts: in the year 1907, E. Guthrie Perry published the short study Hymnen und Gebete an Sîn, and in the following year 1908, a monograph that combined text editions with a study of the moon god’s cult (Histoire du culte de Sin en Babylonie et en Assyrie) was published by Etienne Combe. The endeavour to publish reliable editions of the textual sources pertaining to the Sumero-Babylonian moon god continued to be the focus of research as the

1

See the chapter concerning the moon in P. Jensen’s monograph on Babylonian cosmology (Jensen 1890, 101–108). 2 For example, see the sections outlining the significance of the moon god in the Babylonian pantheon and mythology in Jeremias 1906, 100–105 and Jeremias 1929, 355–362. The ideas presented by Panbabylonian scholars like A. Jeremias were met with criticism by F. Kugler, who stressed the shortcomings in their methodology and their inadequate understanding of actual astronomical phenomena (see Kugler 1909 and 1910). For a recent historical overview of the scholars who promoted Panbabylonism, see Marchand 2009, 236–244. Panbabylonism as a cultural theory and its influence at the beginning of the 20th century has also been discussed by M. Weichenhan (2016). The stigma that Panbabylonianism attached to studying the astral aspects of Mesopotamian deities and myth is briefly characterised in Cooley 2013, 2–13.

2

I. Introduction

dissertation of Åke W. Sjöberg, Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischen Überlieferung, was published in 1960, around 50 years after the editions of prayers to Nanna/Sîn presented by Perry and Combe. Sjöberg’s text edition was intended to be the first part of a two-volume work, but the second part that was to be dedicated to the analysis of the available sources was, however, never completed.3 The study planned by Sjöberg was later written by a student of his, Mark G. Hall, whose dissertation A Study of the Sumerian Moon-god, Nanna/ Suen (1985) is based on the Sumerian sources (from the Early Dynastic times to the Old Babylonian period), and it remains the only detailed analysis of the Sumerian moon god Nanna/Suen. Since the scope of Hall’s dissertation is the Sumerian sources of the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE, the materials from the 1st millennium BCE have remained without any analysis that includes the spectrum of theological ideas about the moon god and his cult in Babylonia and Assyria. Nevertheless, substantial contributions have been published in the form of articles. In his article from the year 1992, “The Moon as Seen by the Babylonians”, Marten Stol outlines the broad range of notions connected to the moon and the moon god. The most comprehensive overview of the Mesopotamian moon god was delivered by Manfred Krebernik in his concise but informative article “Mondgott” in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie (1995), in which the different aspects concerning Nanna/Sîn – including names, family, cult places, and theological notions – are outlined. In the case of the iconographic sources depicting the moon god, the discussions by Eva Braun-Holzinger (1993), Dominique Collon (1992, 1995, and 1997), Othmar Keel (1994), Hartmut Kühne (1997), and Tallay Ornan (2001) have been significant. In respect to the epithets of the moon god, the value of Knut Tallqvist’s work in his Akkadische Götterepitheta (1938a) cannot be stressed enough: with his list of the moon god’s qualities, Tallqvist set the foundation for every discussion of Nanna/Sîn to be published in the following decades, and his approach has also served as a model for the structure of the present study. Incidentally, Tallqvist authored two monographs on the moon and the moon god that have remained unrecognised in Assyriology, primarily for linguistic reasons.4 The first book, written in Finnish and published in 1938, was Kuu ja ihminen: kuu-uskomuksia ja kuunpalvontaa itämailla ja muualla. In this book, Tallqvist used the epithets that he had gathered for Akkadische Götterepitheta along with other sources and comparative data from other cultures to present the principal aspects of the

3

See the introductory remarks in Sjöberg 1960, 9: the analysis he planned was intended to cover the Sumerian sources from the 3rd millennium BCE until the end of the Old Babylonian period. 4 As a notable exception, Å. Sjöberg was familiar with the Swedish version of Tallqvist’s book, as shown by his references to it in his text edition of Sumerian prayers and hymns addressing Nanna/Suen (see e.g. Sjöberg 1960, 178 note 11).

I.2. Reflections on Methodology and Terminology

3

Mesopotamian moon god. Almost a decade later, an extended Swedish version of the book was published with the title Månen i myt och dikt, folktro och kult (1947). These two books were written for a non-academic audience and their focus was on ethnographic comparison instead of Assyriological philology, but they nevertheless illustrate that Tallqvist was perceptive of even the most minute details concerning Nanna/Sîn. The significance of the moon god in the political and religious context of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian empires has been a prominent topic of interest. In this respect, specifically the Ḫarranian moon god and his home city have been the focus of questions pertaining to his role alongside Aššur as a supra-regional god in the western provinces of Assyria, and to his elevation to the head of the pantheon during the reign of Nabonidus. Especially following the publication of relevant sources in the series State Archives of Assyria, much has been written about the Ḫarranian moon god, his city, and his/its significance during the rule of the Sargonid dynasty.5 As to the importance of Ḫarrān as a religious centre in the western provinces of Assyria and the role of the Ḫarranian moon god, as well as to the status of Sîn during Nabonidus’ years on the throne, the contributions of Tamara Green (1992), Steven W. Holloway (1995; 2002), Ursula Seidl (2000), and Christoph Uehlinger (1997) have been especially influential. In the dissertation of Gabriele Theuer, the moon god of Ḫarrān was studied alongside the other lunar deities in the Syro-Palestinian geographic area (2000). The building activities of Assurbanipal in Ḫarrān have been treated extensively in Jamie Novotny’s dissertation (2003), in which modern transliterations of the relevant sources are also presented. The relationship of Nabonidus with Ḫarrān through his mother, and the exaltation of the moon god in his inscriptions, have been discussed chiefly by Julius Lewy (1945), Hayim Tadmor (1965), and Paul-Alain Beaulieu (1989; 2007).

I.2. Reflections on Methodology and Terminology The enterprise of describing a deity, who existed in a semantic system that is chronologically and geographically distant from modern Western European culture, is a formidable one. One can argue that to offer adequate depictions of the divine beings that inhabited ancient Mesopotamia and of their veneration is not at all possible since too much information has been lost as the Babylonian and Assyrian cultures morphed into the cultures that followed them in the area that is nowadays Iraq, and since the sources that are at our disposal illuminate merely minor, individual aspects of extensive, plural systems of religious knowledge.6 Even within a short historical period, the often complete lack of sources and the

5

See the references to several works discussing Ḫarrān and the Ḫarranian moon god on p. 384 below. 6 Oppenheim 1977, 172–183.

4

I. Introduction

concentration of textual evidence on the social context of the ruling elite indeed rule out the possibility of offering a study that would present the complete spectrum of religious notions attached to a specific deity. Despite the obstacles posed by the nature of the available sources, the description of a single deity – the moon god Sîn – is the task that this study aims to fulfil. There are multiple approaches to a descriptive study of a deity: for example, one could focus on a single genre of texts (such as royal inscriptions) or a single aspect of the divine persona (such as the role of the moon god in relation to kingship). Since no comprehensive, modern Assyriological study of the moon god Sîn has yet been published, the approach in the present study, in order to offer a fuller understanding of the god Sîn, is forced to encompass a multitude of textual sources, images, and material remains. Therefore, it is an attempt to present all available information of the theologies and the cult of the moon god in Assyria and Babylonia. By the adoption of the term “theology” to describe the religious knowledge in Mesopotamia, the present study advocates for the use of this term in the study of Mesopotamian religion. Research in Assyriology traditionally abstains from using such a term to describe the religious concepts of the Sumerians, the Babylonians, and the Assyrians: it is indicative that there is no article concerning Mesopotamian theology in the Reallexikon der Assyriologie, which advises the reader to consult the articles dealing with god-lists, pantheon, and priests instead, but does not name these as sources of theological knowledge.7 It has, however, been shown by Angelika Berlejung that Assyriologists have a legitimate claim for speaking of Mesopotamian theology, or rather theologies due to the omnipresent plurality of religious traditions within this cultural area that only on the surface is deceptively uniform.8 Despite the connotations that the term “theology” has in the context of Christianity, it can be utilised in connection with all religious systems that have knowledge about the divine and about the human–divine relationship, and that reflect and organise this knowledge.9 Berlejung advocates the adoption of terminology utilised by Jan Assmann in his description of ancient Egyptian religion: implicit theology and explicit theology.10 The former of these terms, implicit theology, denotes the theoretical system of religious knowledge that is the prerequisite for any religious activity, and that is 7

RlA 13, 632. The lack of discussions on Mesopotamian religious knowledge is, in part, the result of a situation, in which comprehensive descriptions of the individual deities and their cult have necessarily not been published. 8 Berlejung 2004, 105–124. 9 Berlejung 2004, 110. For the application of the term “theology” in religious studies to describe non-Christian religions, see also von Stietencron 1986, 9–24 and Rudolph 2001, 196–198. 10 Berlejung 2004, 110–113. For the definition of this terminology, see Assmann 1986, 46–53 as well as Assmann 1991, 21–23; 178–183 and 192–198.

I.2. Reflections on Methodology and Terminology

5

consequently present in the sources that concern these activities (e.g. rituals, omen texts, and hemerologies).11 The elaboration, reflection, and systematisation of this fundamental knowledge in different discourses are designated with the latter term, explicit theology.12 Thus, as formulated by Berlejung, the primary theological notions (implicit theology) can lead to questions that are answered by elaborating on the subject (explicit theology), which does not demand the construction of a uniform theological system.13 As a result, there is a plurality of theologies tied to a specific context of discourse. The distinction between implicit and explicit theologies of the moon god can be exemplified by his appellation/epithet nannāru, “luminary”.14 Its general use stresses its first connotations: celestial luminosity and brightness. Exceptionally, a commentary on the opening lines of the omen compendium EAE delivers information to us about the possibilities of theological interpretation and elaboration based on this noun: this commentary notes how the written form of nannāru is comprised of the logogram for the moon god (dNanna) and the sign RU, which, when read logographically, denotes the Akkadian verb edēšu, “to become new”. Thus explicit theological knowledge concerning the moon god’s regenerative abilities is created by the analysis of the written form of nannāru.15 This example also illustrates the nature of the material that is discussed in the following chapters. For the most part, the information about the theologies of the moon god is implicitly present in a variety of instances: in the names designating him, the epithets used to praise him, and the theological connections between him and the deities belonging to his household. These sources always stand in relation to their purpose, which is the reason why, whenever possible, their “Sitz im Leben” has to be taken into consideration.16 Through the combination of implicit and explicit 11

Implicit theology is compared to the grammar of a language: each language has a fixed set of rules that govern it although they are not necessarily written down or studied. As opposed to explicit theology which is connected to specific discourses, implicit theology is ahistorical by nature, and it can endure, for example, political changes without being modified to the extent of becoming unidentifiable (Assmann 1986, 46–53 and Assmann 1991, 178–183). 12 See Assmann 1986, 46–53 and Assmann 1991, 192–198. 13 Berlejung 2004, 113. 14 See the discussion on p. 31ff. below. 15 The nature of Mesopotamian knowledge as based on the written form, and the creation or accentuation of ideas on the basis of writing has been recently discussed by M. van de Mieroop (2015). For such hermeneutical methods see also Maul 2003a, 65–76. The Mesopotamian commentaries have been studied by E. Frahm (2011). 16 For the plurality of divine names and divine personalities in different contexts, see Uehlinger 2008, 31. Some dangers of a weak methodological approach, including the overinterpretation of evidence with the little regard to the context, are outlined in Frahm 2000–2001, 31–45. The acknowledgement of the network of meaning within one cultural system can be designated with the term “thick description”, coined by C. Geertz (see

6

I. Introduction

theologies, a nuanced description of the moon god Sîn should arise. In contrast to views according to which religious information from each textual genre should be studied separately, the goal of attaining a synthesis of a multitude of sources and theological information is, in my opinion, best tackled by reaching across the boundaries of textual genres: if the focus is on a single genre at a time, the overarching ideas are easily lost.17 It is common for a single source to contain several layers of information. For example, a reference to Sîn in the cylinder inscription of Sargon II from Dūr-Šarrukīn informs us that the month Ṣītaš (Simānu) was associated with the moon god in Mesopotamia, that Sîn was the son of the god Enlil, and that Sîn was considered to hold power over divine decisions which were made manifest in lunar signs.18 This is why several genres of sources are treated in a single chapter focusing on a specific theological aspect of the moon god. For this reason, the structure of the following chapters – arranged by conceptual categories, not by textual genres – endeavours to capture the spectrum of theological knowledge of the moon god in the NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources. The analytic categories are modelled on the overview of the moon god’s epithets presented by Knut Tallqvist: Sîn as a celestial light, as a sign-giver and decision-maker, and as a god promoting fertility and growth.19 In addition, more context-bound categories such as Sîn’s activity in the context of oaths and contracts – an activity associated with his position in the local cult – are also discussed. It should be stressed that although the following presentation perhaps reaches an adequate depiction of Sîn in relation to his meaning in the sphere of official royal theology, it certainly does not do justice to the theological ideas about the moon and the moon god in the minds of the ordinary people living in Assyria and Babylonia. The available sources reveal only a minor portion out of several levels of theological knowledge that can be distinguished: in practice, only the official theology of the land or the individual cities is available in our sources, leaving the theologies of the households as well as of the peripheral areas in the dark.20 This distortion in the sources is especially pertinent in the context of lunar divination, which was a matter that in Mesopotamia concerned only the ruler of the land. How normal people living in cities or in the countryside perceived the different appearances of the lunar disc is not revealed by the available sources. Geertz 1973, 3–30). 17 The analysis of cultic texts, god-lists, and mythological literature separately is advocated in Komoróczy 1976, 80–86. 18 Sg Zyl, 57 (Fuchs 1994, 41 and 294; see also the citation on p. 294 below). 19 Tallqvist 1938a, 442–448. 20 Six different spheres of theological thinking are recognised in Berlejung 2004, 118– 119: 1) official theology of the land/the king 2) official local theology of the cities 3) local cult of the periphery 4) personal piety of the urban elite 5) piety of the city dwellers 6) private cult of the household.

I.3. Sources

7

The dangers of generalisation must also be noted in connection with regional differences: theological notions concerning the moon god were not the same in his two cult cities, Ur and Ḫarrān. The local traditions in both these cities had their own traits that, unfortunately, are far too seldomly explicitly expressed. The best illustration of these local differences can be found in the household of Sîn: in Ur, Sîn’s son is Ningublaga and his vizier is Alamuš, but in Ḫarrān, both of these roles belong to Nusku. Further aspects of local cults pertain to the moon god’s position in cities other than his own cult centres. If he was present in the cult, he was a part of the local theological framework, often fulfilling the role of a son (Nippur) or a father (Uruk).21 Theological pluralism, particularism, and regionalism are relevant notions in this respect,22 and it has been my goal to indicate the aspects connected to local cults when possible. Adding to the regional differences or similarities, the theologies of the moon god do not remain static through the centuries and millennia of Sumero-Babylonian religion in Mesopotamia. For this reason, sources from the 3rd and 2nd millenniums BCE, which otherwise remain outside the scope of this study, are at times referred to in order to illustrate continuity or change, or to offer a background for particular theological concepts.

I.3. Sources The textual sources used in this study to outline the theologies of the moon god and his cult in Assyria and Babylonia have been chosen to cover as much relevant information as possible. This means that in addition to the prayers and dedicatory inscriptions praising Sîn and his divine qualities, a broad range of textual sources has been taken into consideration. Although a single source can contain information about several theological aspects of the moon god, it is possible to roughly outline the importance of particular types of texts to certain aspects of this study. In the section that deals with the lunar names and epithets of Sîn (Chapter II.2.), especially the scholarly reflections accompanying the attestations in literary sources rise in importance. In the chapters outlining the significance of individual days in the lunar month (Chapter II.4.), hemerological sources, in addition to sporadic references to specific days in ritual and cultic instructions, are fundamental. The power of the moon god over divine decisionmaking and kingship is particularly reflected in his epithets found not only in prayers but also in royal inscriptions (Chapter II.6.). In connection with illnesses caused by the moon god, the diagnostic and therapeutic texts rise to importance, but curse formulae in contracts are also significant (Chapters II.9. and II.10.). Finally, administrative records can offer information concerning the cult in the

21

The plurality of theologies in Mesopotamia – each city having its own pantheon and theological system – is stressed in Lambert 1997, 158–159. 22 Berlejung 2004, 115–118.

8

I. Introduction

moon god’s temples (Chapter III.). The textual sources form the backbone of the present study, but whenever possible, artistic representations of the moon god, as well as other pertinent material remains, have been taken into consideration. The images of the moon god – be they the two-dimensional crescent emblems depicted in the iconography of stelae and seals or the three-dimensional divine objects making him manifest in the material world – become especially significant in the discussion of the equation of the moon with the moon god. It has not been my purpose to present a thorough survey of the moon god’s iconography, but the most prominent depictions of him and his crescent emblem are brought forward, especially in connection with his lunar names and epithets. The textual sources included in this study fall into three principal categories: “literary texts”, royal inscriptions, and documents (epistolary sources and administrative records). The term “literary” is used here to designate texts that are a part of the corpus that was transmitted through the centuries of scribal activity in Babylonia and Assyria. The most important types of “literary” texts for the present study are the texts with explicit religious or theological meaning (prayers,23 ritual instructions, mythological compositions) and divinatory texts (especially astrological texts and hemerologies). Also valuable are the commentaries that offer insights into the way the Assyrian and Babylonian scholars understood the aforementioned texts. Setting chronological boundaries for a study of the moon god in the 1st millennium BCE has its complications. As the title of the present study exhibits, I have chosen to concentrate on the sources that derive from the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. To be clear, these limits were chosen for practical purposes rather than to claim that they represent clear markers for cultural changes in the Mesopotamian geographical area. Due to the nature of the texts, the definition of the temporal boundaries has to be clarified for each of the three principal textual categories: royal inscriptions, “literary” texts, and documents and epistolary sources. In the case of royal inscriptions, that definition is clear: the inscriptions deriving from the time of the Neo-Assyrian rulers (Aššur-dān II to Sîn-šarru-iškun: from 934 to 609 BCE) and of the Neo-Babylonian rulers (Nabopolassar to Nabonidus: from 626 to 539 BCE) fit this category. Since the purpose of the analysis is to present a description of the theological notions attached to the moon god, each individual reference to him – for example, in lists of deities in royal inscriptions – is not recorded here, rather the focus is on the attestations that can be meaningfully analysed. In the context of Assyrian royal inscriptions, the references to the moon god are mostly found in the inscriptions of the Sargonid dynasty, which may lead to the assumption that his role in the preceding era was insignificant – a distortion plausibly caused by the style used by the Sargonid

23

A more detailed overview of the prayers to Sîn follows on p. 10ff. below.

I.3. Sources

9

kings in their inscriptions.24 In Babylonia, very few kings refer to the moon god in their inscriptions: references to the moon god Sîn or his temple in Ur (or other Babylonian cities) are mainly found in the texts written in connection with Nebuchadnezzar II’s building projects throughout the land, and in the inscriptions of Nabonidus.25 A different definition of temporal boundaries must be employed in the case of administrative documents. In Assyria, the end of Neo-Assyrian sources and of the centralised Assyrian state is tied to the destruction of the central Assyrian cities (Assur in 614 and Nineveh in 612 BCE) by the allied Babylonian and Median forces. Still, it should be noted that in provincial cities, such as Dūr-Katlimmu, cuneiform documents in Neo-Assyrian language and form continued to be used during the reign of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II.26 In Babylonia, the end of the Neo-Babylonian era should not be equated with the end of Nabonidus’ reign after the Persian invasion in 539 BCE; in the following period of ca. 60 years various aspects of Babylonian culture remained the same despite the change in political control. This period, which has been labelled as the “long sixth century”, came to an end in 484 BCE when the Persian king Xerxes removed the native Babylonian elite from their positions in response to revolts against him. As a result, the archives in the major cities in northern Babylonia came to an abrupt end.27 The “end of archives” is significant in respect to the cult in cities where extensive archives of the temple administration and private persons have been preserved (for example, Babylon and Uruk). Since such archives that reach into the Persian period present valuable information about the cult in these cities, the documents from the “long sixth century” have been included in the discussion of the moon god’s cult in Babylonia. As for Ur and the cult of the moon god there, the “long sixth century” is less significant due to the nature of the preserved archives; no temple archive from this period has been preserved in Ur, and only sporadic references to the moon god and his cult can

24

For the classification and style of Assyrian royal inscriptions, see the discussion in Grayson 1981, 35–47. As for the references to the moon god becoming more elaborate during the reign of the Sargonid dynasty, note use of astrological motifs in the inscriptions composed for Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Assurbanipal (see the discussion in Koch-Westenholz 1995, 152–161). One of the most prominent references to the moon god in the inscriptions of the pre-Sargonid kings is Assurnaṣirpal II’s account of rebuilding the temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Assur (see the discussion on p. 416ff. below). 25 Overviews of the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions are given by P.-R. Berger (1973) and R. Da Riva (2008). 26 Four documents from Dūr-Katlimmu are dated to the 2nd and 5th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II (see Radner 2002, 16–17). 27 For the definition of the term “long sixth century” see Jursa 2010, 3–5. For the revolts leading to the “end of archives” see Waerzeggers 2003–2004, 150–173.

10

I. Introduction

be found in the documents belonging to private archives.28 Clear temporal boundaries for “literary” sources are difficult to establish: the texts were transmitted over centuries of scribal activity, and separating the manuscripts of a single text from each other only because they were written in different periods leads to an artificial construct. One can argue that all the Babylonian literary sources written before the end of the cuneiform culture in the 1st century CE should be included in a study such as the present analysis of the moon god, but, for practical reasons, some limits must be set. A major factor in limiting the sources is the emergence of new astrological-astronomical ideas (for example, the horoscope) during the Late Babylonian period: a discussion of the moon god’s role in this respect needs to be presented elsewhere. In order to keep the sources manageable, the Late Babylonian literary sources from the 5th century BCE onward are only referred to when it is appropriate. It should be noted that some of the discussed texts – most notably the god-list An = Anum – are attested in Middle Assyrian, Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian manuscripts; in such cases, the Late Babylonian (as well as the Middle Assyrian) material is of course, as already pointed out, included in the discussion. Some of the discussed sources derive only from the Late Babylonian period (the eclipse ritual from Hellenistic Uruk, for example), but their inclusion is justified by the parallels that they show with the earlier sources. It should be acknowledged that many of the texts discussed in the present study were the result of a long process of textual transmission, which means that it generally can be assumed that the theological notions found in them were based on older tradition. Since the age of the compositions is in many cases unclear – for many texts, most, if not all, of the manuscripts derive from Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian or Late Babylonian sources – it has not been my purpose to trace their transmission. Due to the high number of relevant sources, no bibliographical overview of them is possible here. For this reason, information about publications, editions, and discussions of the written and other sources are given for each citation or reference in footnotes. As to the citations of texts, it should be noted that although they – especially in the case of texts that have multiple manuscripts – are generally named according to their latest editions (SAA 10 no. 59 or Schaudig 2001, 3.1, for example), the transliteration has been modified to fit the style of the present study. Moreover, unless otherwise specified, all the translations of cuneiform sources are my own.

I.3.1. Prayers to Sîn Although a variety of sources are utilised in this study, a substantial portion of the theological information about the moon god derives from Akkadian or bilin-

28

See the overview of the archives found at Ur in Pedersén 1998, 201–204 and Jursa 2005, 133–137.

I.3. Sources

11

gual prayers addressed to him. These prayers – especially the Akkadian prayers – known from manuscripts dating to the 1st millennium BCE, form the core of the present study. Three categories of function and performance can be identified since the prayers in question are associated with three different groups of professionals who communicated with the divine: the healer (āšipu), the “lamenter” (kalû), and the diviner (bārû). The following overview of the prayers is based on this distinction between these professions. The majority of the prayers to the moon god are associated with the craft of the healer (āšipūtu): they form a group of 16 “incantation prayers” presented in Tables 1–2 on p. 13–14.29 Most of these prayers are labelled šu’ila-prayers in the manuscripts, which means that they were used to greet the moon god in the ritual performance that had the structure of an audience: the human petitioner approached the divine authority in order to attain their benevolent response.30 However, the prayers in the category “incantation” can also be intended for a specific purpose, for example to appease the angered deity (the rubric diĝir-šàdab-ba gur-ru-da is attested for the prayer “Sîn 6b”). In addition to the prayers to Sîn, three prayers addressing Sîn and Šamaš as a pair are attested among the prayers of the healer (see Table 3 p. 14). It should be noted that due to their sheer number, the āšipūtu-prayers are the most important source for the moon god’s various epithets. The more general epithets of the moon god attested in these prayers – Sîn as the celestial light, for example – are naturally found also in other sources, but the use of the epithets pertaining to a person’s health and well-being sets the prayers of the āšipu apart from the other types of Sîn’s praise. In the following tables of the “incantation prayers”, the identifications (e.g. “Sîn 1”) follow the list given in Mayer 1976, 408–409. Prayers published after Mayer’s list was compiled are presented with a continuing numbering in the tables below (written with bold typeface). In comparison to the prayers performed by the healer, attested prayers of the lamenter (kalû) to Sîn are very few in number.31 Although the moon god is frequently named in balaĝ-lamentations among other deities, to my knowledge no

29

The category of “incantation” or “incantation prayer” is based on the noun šiptu (Sum. én) which was used to refer to these prayers in Mesopotamian sources. For the terminology and the different sub-genres belonging to the group “incantation prayer”, see Mayer 1976, 7–18 and Frechette 2012, 1–10. 30 For the ritual type, in which the petitioner is brought by the āšipu before the god(s) to convey their issue in an audience, see Maul 1994, 67–71 and Zgoll 2003, 181–203. For a further discussion of the hand-lifting gesture of communication between the human petitioner and the divine authority, see Frechette 2008, 41–47 and Frechette 2012. 31 For the genres of Emesal prayers in the 1st millennium BCE, see the overview in Gabbay 2014a, 5–9. The role of the kalû (Sum. gala) in Mesopotamia is discussed in Gabbay 2014a, 63–69 and Gabbay 2014b, 115–144.

12

I. Introduction

individual compositions from the 1st millennium BCE are associated with him.32 In the case of eršema-prayers, the situation is similar since no eršema from the 1st millennium BCE can be directly linked with the moon god.33 Available sources for eršaḫuĝa-prayers to Sîn – meant to appease the angered heart of the moon god – are likewise scarce: a single fragmentary manuscript for the eršaḫuĝa with the incipit “Let me raise my hand to him, I will perform a ritual of intercession” (šu ga-an-na-ab-íl ér mu-un-da-ab-ir) is available to us.34 The only other attested eršaḫuĝa to Sîn is known only by its incipit. The šu’ila-prayers of the lamenter stand out in respect to the preserved manuscripts, since the prayer “Lord, ruler” (ù-mu-un nir-ĝál) is almost completely preserved. Two other Emesal šu’ila-prayers to Sîn are known to us only from their incipits – “Lord, ruler of the heaven and the earth” (umun še-er-ma-al-la an-ki-a) and “The venerable one, strong lord” (alim-ma umun ĝìr-ra) – that are preserved in a catalogue deriving from Nineveh.35 Similarly to the šu’ila-prayers of the healer, the šu’ilaprayers of the kalû also functioned as greetings to the deities, but in a different context; they were performed for the gods and goddesses who returned to their homes in a procession.36 The setting for the performance of this ritual is apparent in the contents of the single preserved šu’ila to Sîn that stresses his role as the tutelary deity of Ur. Lastly, five different prayers to the moon god belonging to the profession of the diviner (bārû) can now be identified. These are the prayers that have the designation ikrib in Babylonian and Assyrian sources and they were recited during the ritual that preceded the inspection of the sacrificial animal’s entrails for divination.37 The ikrib-prayers to Sîn are mainly known from a single Sammeltafel that derives from Nineveh and that is edited as a part of the present study.

32

See the edition of the balaĝ-lamentations by M. Cohen (1988). See the list in Cohen 1981, 19. A catalogue of the prayers and lamentations of the kalû does not identify any eršema-prayers to Sîn (K. 2529+, 61–102; see the edition in Gabbay 2015a, 17–18). The Old Babylonian eršema BM 13930 (CT 15 pls. 16–17)// is edited in Sjöberg 1960, 44–54 and there it is taken to have the Late Babylonian duplicate SBH no. 38. However, Gabbay 2015a, 41 note 27 maintains that although SBH no. 38 (note the writing error SBH 28 by Gabbay) seems to duplicate parts of the Old Babylonian eršema, it may actually be a part of a šu’ila or balaĝ to Sîn. 34 See the overview in Maul 1988, 133. It is possible that the catalogue K. 9618, 1’–11’ names 13 eršaḫuĝa-prayers to Nanna/Sîn, but the matter remains uncertain (see Maul 1988, 66–67). 35 K. 2529+, 48–50 (see the edition in Gabbay 2015a, 18 and Shibata, HES [forthcoming]). 36 The function of the Emesal šu’ila-prayers is discussed in Shibata 2010, 67–85 as well as in Shibata, HES (forthcoming). 37 See the short overview of ikrib-prayers in Lambert 2014, 53–55. 33

I.3. Sources

13

Identification Incipit

Attested rubrics

Text/Edition

“Sîn 1”

Sîn nannāru šūpû

ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d SUEN.NA.KÁM

K. 155, 1–28// (p. 452ff. below)

“Sîn 2”

Sîn nannār[(u) ...]

not preserved

K. 10151 (p. 462ff. below)

“Sîn 3”

Sîn nannār šamê ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d NANNA.KÁM ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d30.[KÁM]

“Sîn 4”

unknown

[ŠU.ÍL.LÁ(?) d SU]EN.NA.[KAM]

K. 13277 (BMS 23)

“Sîn 5”

unknown

ŠU.ÍL.LÁ [dEN?.ZU?.KAM]

K. 6018+//, 1’–4’ (p. 497ff. below)

“Sîn 6a”

bēlu nannāru ŠU.ÍL.LÁ kullat binût Asar dEN.ZU.[KAM]

“Sîn 6b”

bēlu nannāru kullat binûti

“Sîn 7”

tattapḫa Sîn ap- IGI.DU8.A d30 kal ilānī kalāma SIG5.GA.KÁM

K. 6018+//, x+27’–x+33’ (p. 497ff. below)

“Sîn 8”

unknown

[ŠU.ÍL.L]Á d +SUEN.NA.KÁMv

K. 10550 (BMS 26)

“Sîn 9”

unknown

ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d30(.KÁM)

KAR 25, III 1’– 20’// (p. 474ff. below)

“Sîn 10”

ilānū rabûtū linammirūka

—

BM 121037, r. 1–8 (Maul 1994, 458– 459)

“Sîn 11”

[S]în ilu ellu ša ša[mê] ellūt[i]

—

KAR 74, r. 2’–24’ (KAL 10 no. 11; p. 477ff. below)

IGI.DU8.A d30 SIG5.GA.KÁM; DINGIR.ŠÀ.DAB.BA GUR.RU.DA.KAM

Table 1: “Incantation prayers” to Sîn

K. 2106, 36–70// (p. 464ff. below)

K. 6018+//, 8’–13 (p. 497ff. below) K. 6018+//, x+36’–x+44’ (p. 497ff. below)

14

I. Introduction

Identification Incipit “Sîn 12”

Attested rubrics

Sîn nannār šamê — u erṣeti

Text/Edition VAT 8004//, 11–13 (p. 507ff. below)

“Sîn 13”

(this designation should be discarded; see p. 479 below)

“Sîn 14”

Sîn aplu ašarēdu ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d +SUEN.NA.KE4 attā

STT 57+, 36–42// (p. 479ff. below)

“Sîn 15”

Sîn bēlu šaqû attā

BM 47509+, r. 18– 22 (Schuster-Brandis 2008, 265–269)

“Sîn 16”

[Sîn nannā]r not preserved āšib šamê [ellūti]

KAL 4 no. 40, r.? 11’–18’

“Sîn 17”

Sîn nannār šamê [...] šá kiš-pi i-pu-uš u erṣeti BÚR-ri-im

IM 148516, 1–r. 3 (Fadhil 2018, 197– 198)

—

Table 2: “Incantation prayers” to Sîn (continued)

Identification

Incipit

Rubric

Edition

“Sîn & Šamaš 1” Sîn u Šamaš ilānū kilallān —

CBS 1516, r. 3–25 (p. 520ff. below)

“Sîn & Šamaš 2” ina šumēlīja Sîn nannār šamê rabûti

—

BAM 4 no. 323//, 99–102 (Scurlock 2006, no. 91)

“Sîn & Šamaš 3”

—

Si. 34(+)//, 15–30 (Schwemer 2010, 486–503)

[Sî]n nūr šamê u erṣeti [m]unammir ukli

Table 3: “Incantation prayers” to Sîn and Šamaš

I.3. Sources

Rubric

15

Identification

Incipit

Edition

“Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 1”

umun še-er-ma-al- — la an-ki-a

catalogue entry K. 2529+, 48 (Shibata, HES [forthcoming])

“Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 2”

alim-ma umun ĝìr- — ra

catalogue entry K. 2529+, 49 (Shibata, HES [forthcoming])

“Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 3”

ù-mu-un nir-ĝál

“eršaḫuĝa to Sîn 1”

šu ga-an-na-ab-íl not preserved ér mu-un-da-ab-ir

K. 13454 (Maul 1988, Ešḫ n13)

“eršaḫuĝa to Sîn 2”

ša-ba-ni ga-an-ḫun — a-ra-zu ga-an-naab-du11

incipit in rituals K. 3653, 12 (Maul 1988, Rit. n1) and K. 3457+, 20(+) Sm. 95, 2’ (Maul 1988, 133)

šu-íl-la 4[8-àm 4 R2 9+// mu-ni-im (Sjöberg 1960, d (+)Su]en-na-kám 166–179; Shibata, HES [forthcoming])

Table 4: Emesal prayers to Sîn

16

I. Introduction

Identification

Incipit

Rubric

Edition

“ikrib to Sîn 1”

unknown

fragmentary

K. 2751+//, 1’–3’ (p. 483ff. below)

“ikrib to Sîn 2”

[Sîn? ilu? namru?] šūpû e[tellu ...]

ik-rib [d30 ...]

K. 2751+//, 4’–22’ (p. 483ff. below)

“ikrib to Sîn 3”

Sîn ilu ellu namru ik-rib d30 ka-a-anannāru [...] [m]a-nu-ti

“ikrib to Sîn 4”

[Sîn na]nnāru ša šamê

[ik-rib d30] UD.15.KÁM

K. 2751+//, 57’– 78’ (p. 483ff. below)

“ikrib to Sîn 5”

[Sîn ... nann]ār šamê

not preserved

K. 2751+//, 79’– 87’ (p. 483ff. below)

K. 2751+//, 23’– 56’ (p. 483ff. below)

Table 5: Ikrib-prayers to Sîn

I.4. Lunar Phases Before commencing the description of the moon god Sîn in Mesopotamia, it is useful to offer some basic information on the lunar cycle for the readers not well-acquainted with it; an understanding of the movement of this satellite as observed from the earth provides a better grasp of the sources, which refer to the different lunar phases. Variations within the lunar cycle involve both the duration of the moon’s visibility in the sky and the shape of the illuminated lunar disc (Figs. 1 and 2). As the moon orbits the earth, it completes its synodic period in ca. 29.5 days, which means that in this time it completes its cycle in relation to the earth. The sidereal period of the moon (that is, its cycle in relation to the fixed stars) is shorter: ca. 27.3 days.38 The shape of the illuminated part of the lunar disc is dependent on the moon’s position with respect to the earth and the sun. This means that as the moon is in conjunction with the sun at the end of the cycle, its illuminated part is not visible when observed from the earth. Consequently, as it is in conjunction with the sun in the middle of the cycle (i.e. opposite of the sun), it is fully illuminated. Moonrise and moonset times vary considerably during a lunar cycle. At the beginning of the cycle the moonrise occurs during the morning or day, but the thin crescent moon is especially difficult to observe during the sunlit hours. This means that the crescent moon becomes visible shortly after the sunset above the western horizon, but disappears soon after that. As the cycle proceeds towards the conjunction of the moon and the sun, the moonrise shifts into the evening 38

Unsöld & Baschek 1999, 17–19.

I.4. Lunar Phases

17

and the moonset into the night and dawn hours. In other words, the moon’s daytime visibility diminishes and its nocturnal visibility increases in accordance with the waxing lunar disc. Moreover, as the moonrise occurs closer and closer to the eastern horizon, the distance that the moon travels during the night increases until it reaches its peak during the full moon: at this point the moon rises from the eastern horizon as the sun sets, moves west across the sky and sets in the western horizon shortly after sunrise. During the latter half of the cycle, the moonrise takes place in the evening or during the night, and the moon appears to be moving westwards until it reaches its conjunction with the sun at the end of the cycle. This cycle is exemplified by the exact information for the moonrise and the moonset in Baghdad in February–March 2017.39 At these geographical coordinates, at the time of the first crescent moon (February 28th), the moonrise occurred at 07:00 and moonset at 18:54. Since the sunset on the same day was at 17:59, the crescent moon remained visible only for around one hour. During the half moon (March 7th), the moonrise had already shifted to midday, occurring at 12:05, and the moon did not set until 02:20. As the moon was full (March 14th), it rose at 19:00 (sunset at 18:10) and set at 06:45 (sunrise at 06:14). During the waning half moon (March 21st), the moonrise took place after midnight (at 01:14), and in the morning the moon remained visible until almost midday (moonset at 11:03). On the last day before the conjunction of the moon and the sun (March 25th), the moonrise was at 03:32 and the moonset at 12:33. A couple of days later, on the final day before the reappearance of the crescent (March 29th), the moon rose at 06:57 in the morning and set at 20:58 in the evening.

Fig. 1: A sketch of the synodic lunar cycle (drawing by A. Hätinen)

39

Information generated by the calculator for moonrise and moonset on the website Greenwich Mean Time (URL: https://greenwichmeantime.com/time-gadgets/moonrise/).

18

I. Introduction

Fig. 2: Overview of the lunar phases (drawing by A. Hätinen)

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia II.1. The Moon and the Moon God The nature of Sîn as both an anthropomorphic divine being and as a celestial phenomenon is a fundamental issue in any discussion concerning him, or any other Mesopotamian deities with celestial manifestations. The importance of addressing this issue rises from our modern conceptions, which draw a clear distinction between deities as anthropomorphic divine beings on the one hand and celestial bodies as physical objects on the other. From this point of view, the Mesopotamian textual sources describing Sîn and the moon, or the prayers addressed to Sîn explicitly as the moon, reveal ambiguous conceptions of deities that represent natural phenomena. However, this ambiguity is the result our own modern ontological categories rather than by those employed by ancient Mesopotamians.40 Therefore, the short study that is titled “The Moon as Seen by the Babylonians” by Marten Stol, in which he gives an overview of how the moon in its different phases is depicted in sources deriving from Babylonia and Assyria, is simultaneously a study of a natural phenomenon and of a deity.41 Despite this, a tendency to separate the moon god from the moon by modern scholars can be seen in the context of astrology-astronomy.42 The sphere of celestial ob-

40

As noted in Wiggermann 1992, 279, if nature is defined as an entity that operated according its own laws, no such concept existed in Mesopotamia. The absence of such a concept of nature and its implications for the Mesopotamian systems of knowledge, especially astrology-astronomy and divination, has recently been discussed by F. Rochberg (2016), who concludes that the cosmos was understood to function according to divinely set principles and was governed by divine decisions, and that the notion of a physical world apart from what Western science would term as “supernatural” is alien to Babylonian and Assyrian cultures. Rochberg’s evaluation of the Mesopotamian systems of knowledge and the attested ontological and epistemological notions shows that the category “natural” as opposed to “supernatural” is not applicable in Assyriological research. Her arguments are also vital in dismissing outdated notions according to which the people in Mesopotamia lacked the ability to separate deities and natural phenomena (as implied, for example, in Lambert 1990, 120: “There was always some ambiguity about the precise relationship of the deity to the aspect of nature, whether, for example, the sun god was in very fact the actual fiery ball moving across the sky, or whether he was not of human form, living in a palace and directing the actual solar body in its daily motions from a distance. Probably they were not so conscious of such problems as we are.”). 41 Stol 1992, 245–277. 42 It is maintained e.g. in Britton & Walker 1996, 43–44 that the celestial deities and celestial phenomena were perceived as distinct entities in the context of astrology-astronomy: “The sun, moon and Venus were certainly gods, but the Babylonians were able to maintain a distinction between a god as such and his or her celestial manifestation. [...] Even where the link between a deity and, say, a planet is secure, the Mesopotamian astronomer-astrologers normally used a specific name for the planet rather than the name

20

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

servations is, in fact, exactly the context in which the question concerning the divine character of the moon becomes especially important: are there indications that the moon was observed solely as a celestial object separate from the moon god – in a manner that we would call naturalistic, rational, or empirical – or was it perceived as a divine manifestation of the god Sîn? It is important in this respect to understand that there are no indications that the people who observed the sky in Assyria and Babylonia had interest in laying out empirical observations of the celestial objects as natural phenomena: even when descriptions of the stars, the planets, and the moon exist, they serve the purpose of divination.43 This question of differentiating between deities and celestial objects has recently been addressed by Francesca Rochberg, whose main point of interest was to see if such notions existed.44 She identifies two different modes, or perspectives, that can be found in the Mesopotamian sources.45 First, some of the gods have an astral nature that is elementary to their character despite the fact that they are also represented in an anthropomorphic form and often have other, additional aspects.46 Second, celestial bodies are seen as manifestations and images of deities in mythological texts or in prayers and hymns, as well as indicators of the divine will in the context of celestial divination. In this mode, celestial bodies as personifications of deities have features that would otherwise be connected with anthropomorphic beings: they act as recipients of prayers and offerings, and they can possess the same feelings as humans or human-like beings.47 The presence of deities inside or outside of the visible universe, connected with materiality, becomes significant in this respect: immaterial deities are materialised in cult statues, symbols, and stars.48 Therefore, like its cult image, the moon is a visible manifestation of the immaterial, transcendent divine being that is the god Sîn.49 of the god in recording observations.” 43 To name an example, the compendium MUL.APIN is not a description of celestial bodies as natural phenomena, but rather presents the elements that are necessary for practicing divination (Rochberg 2015, 228; see also Ossendrijver 2015, 51–52). The argument that observations were not made in order to understand natural phenomena, but rather in order “to interpret the perceived, experienced, or imagined phenomena for the purpose of divination” is also made in Rochberg 2016, 125. 44 Rochberg 2009, 41–91 as well as Rochberg 2011, 117–137. For a discussion on the astralisation of Mesopotamian deities see also Pongratz-Leisten 2011, 137–187. 45 In her first discussion on the topic, Rochberg differentiated between three different modes (Rochberg 2009, 48–83: gods as celestial bodies, celestial bodies as images and manifestations of gods, and the personifications of stars as gods), but later she modified her view to include only two modes by combining the two latter modes into one (Rochberg 2011, 123–130: “gods as stars” and “stars as gods”). 46 Rochberg 2009, 48–54. 47 See Rochberg 1996, 475–485; Rochberg 2009, 64–83 and Rochberg 2011, 123. 48 Rochberg 2009, 85. 49 For Rochberg, this means that offerings and prayers performed before the moon must

II.1. The Moon and the Moon God

21

As to the first perspective presented by Rochberg, the moon god is an ideal example of a deity with an astral aspect since the unchangeable core of his being is his nature as a celestial luminary. All the other aspects of his persona are attached to this core, forming a conglomerate of different traits and aspects that can be stressed, detached, reattached, or transferred.50 These further traits may be related to his celestial being – they often are, as is shown by the analysis of the main notions attached to Sîn in the following chapters – or they may reflect other theological aspects, such as his status in the local cult.51 In written sources, the fundamental lunar aspects of the god Sîn are exhibited in his descriptive epithets. His main names (Sîn, Nannāru, and Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt) all refer to him as the moon, and the same applies to the most important epithets used to describe him as the moon in its different phases.52 The second perspective – the moon as a personification of the god Sîn – is prevalent in rituals in which an offering and a petition in the form of a prayer are addressed to the moon god, present in his celestial form. The performance of nocturnal rituals before the moon, a manifestation of Sîn, is made clear by both ritual instructions53 and for-

be understood as symbolic acts, in which the moon is only a physical representation of the god Sîn, not the actual deity. Moreover, she considers that the moon as a celestial phenomenon cannot be equated with the entire divine being that is Sîn: “The moon cannot represent the totality of, but only a manifestation or image of, the god Sin, who was conceived of as transcending the limits of the physical world, yet was manifested in the lunar phenomena. Both notions, the transcendent and the immanent, were expressible. Thus, Sin, as divine agent removed from the visible lunar disc, could be said to ‘show’ the eclipse, just as the eclipse could be described in terms of it being the despondent moon-god in mourning.” (Rochberg 2009, 89). For a discussion concerning the existence of the moon god inside and outside the visible universe see also Rochberg 2011, 134. 50 This is given the term “divine constellation” by M. Hundley, who stresses the fluid character of Mesopotamian deities: according to him the concept of a single deity was based on the anthropomorphic core that was surrounded by different aspects and attributes that surround the core in the way that stars are grouped in constellations (Hundley 2013, 68–106). B. Pongratz-Leisten points out that as a human persona was formed out of the physical body, name, social roles, image, and physical objects such as the seal, divine personas were also thought to be amalgamations of their different qualities and the divine images or symbols that represented them (Pongratz-Leisten 2011, 139). 51 For example, the moon god as a provider of fertility is related to the celestial nature of the moon, but also to his status as the city’s patron god in Ur and Ḫarrān (see the discussion on p. 229ff. below). 52 See the discussion on p. 28ff. below. 53 That the ritual took place before the moon is shown by the instruction that specify the time and the place for the actions: e.g. K. 6018+//, x+45’ (see the edition on p. 497ff. below) specifies that the procedure should take place before the moon as it becomes visible. A similar instruction in LKA 25 further specifies that the procedure should take place at night before the moon in the river meadow – a clear indication for the actions

22

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

mulations in the performed prayers.54 As the moon, the god Sîn is able to be present in the physical world and therefore to be accessible for people who wish to communicate with him. Seen against this background, the question whether the moon is equal to the god Sîn appears redundant. The moon is the main physical form in which Sîn makes himself manifest, and although it may not encompass all of his possible attributes from all contexts, it holds a central position in the spectrum of notions that define him as a divine persona. A telling feature speaking for the indistinguishable nature of the moon and the moon god is the tendency to write the name of the celestial object with the determinative for divine beings not only when referring explicitly to the god Sîn, but also in the context of observations of the moon. In fact, no separation between the moon and the moon god can be made on a lexical basis: the divine name Sîn is also the designation of the moon as a celestial phenomenon and of objects having the shape of the moon.55 Therefore, it is unproblematic for Assyrian astrologer-astronomers to report the opposition of the moon and the sun in the middle of the lunar cycle by stating that “one god is seen with the other”.56 This shows that the moon and the sun as celestial bodies were understood to be the divine beings Sîn and Šamaš, simultaneously visible at the time of their opposition.57 The fundamental role of the moon as a defining aspect of the god Sîn can also be observed in his representations in Mesopotamian art. Although he was conceived of, and depicted, as having an anthropomorphic form – the form that he certainly had as a divine individual – it was more common to depict him as the crescent moon.58 In comparison to the popularity of the crescent emblems in iconography, anthropomorphic depictions of Sîn are rare in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian art. In fact, most of the attested depictions of Sîn in human

taking place under the open sky (see p. 506 below). 54 For example, the ikrib-prayers to Sîn underline the emergence of the moon in the night sky (see the edition of K. 2751+// on p. 483ff. below). 55 See the discussion on p. 28ff. below. 56 SAA 8 no. 371, 3: DINGIR KI DINGIR IGI-ma. The same expression is also used to indicate the opposition of the moon and the sun in the two astronomical diaries dating to the reigns of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn and Nebuchadnezzar II (Nos. -651 and -567 in Sachs & Hunger 1988, 42–53), but is no longer found in the later diaries. Note also the use of the noun ilum, “god”, in the meaning “the moon” in the Old Babylonian lunar omens (BM 22696, 22 in Rochberg 1996, 478; see also VAT 7525 in Bauer 1936, 309–312). 57 This in my opinion speaks against the view that a manifestation of a deity (e.g. the moon) was not considered to be equal on the conceptual level to the god it represented (so Pongratz-Leisten 2011, 140–147, where the argument is based on the idea of perceiving divinity as a difference in status, not in species: according to this view the material or celestial manifestations are perceived as part of the deity, but not identical to the deity, who holds the highest status). 58 See the discussion concerning the crescent on p. 38ff. below.

II.1. The Moon and the Moon God

23

form involve a combination of the symbolic and anthropomorphic images: an anthropomorphic moon god standing inside the lunar crescent.59 Furthermore, although anthropomorphic deities as objects of worship were often depicted in Neo-Assyrian cylinder seals, devotional scenes involving the moon god commonly depict him in a non-anthropomorphic form, as the crescent emblem or the crescent standard.60 Despite this scarcity of attestations, anthropomorphic Sîn is known from two Neo-Assyrian reliefs. The more prominent image is a part of the rock relief of Sennacherib at Maltai (Fig. 3).61 In this relief, the seven most important deities of the Assyrian pantheon are shown in a procession in front of the king, and the moon god Sîn is positioned directly after Aššur and Mullissu. His identity is revealed by the crescent moon emblem that is mounted on his headdress, and he is standing on a horned lion-dragon.62 Another rare example is the Neo-Assyrian relief found at Til Barsip (modern Tell Ahmar) in northern Syria, depicting the moon god standing on top of his temple (Fig. 4).63 That this deity is the moon god is clear from the presence of seven crescent moon symbols in the relief: five of the crescents are attached to the deity’s headdress, sword, hilt, and sceptre, and two large crescent standards flank the temple.64 Due to the proximity of Til Barsip to Ḫarrān and the use of the tasseled crescent standards of the Ḫarranian moon god on the stele, it is clear that this is the moon god of Ḫarrān.

59

The depictions of the moon god were first discussed in Combe 1908, 40–45. A much more recent overview can be found in Collon 1995, 371–376. For a discussion of the motif “god in the crescent” see p. 51ff. below. 60 The anthropomorphic representation of deities in Neo-Assyrian seals in comparison to the divine symbols used in Neo-Babylonian iconography is noted in Seidl 2000, 106– 107. For the depictions of Sîn on Neo-Assyrian seals see Collon 1995, nos. 33–35. 61 Thureau-Dangin 1924, 185–197 and Boehmer 1975, 42–84. 62 For a discussion of this lion-dragon see Seidl 1998, 100–113. In Ornan 2001, 24 this animal is claimed to be a bull, thus equating the moon god with the storm god Adad, who is mounted on a bull and a lion-dragon. 63 This relief was broken into two pieces, of which one is housed in Louvre and the other in Aleppo. The Aleppo piece was published in Bisi 1963, 215–221, pl. 40 and in BörkerKlähn 1982, 222 no. 240, and the piece in Louvre was published in Thureau-Dangin & Dunand 1936, 159 no. 9, pl. XVI 5a,b. The fact that these two pieces belong together was noticed by both K. Kohlmeyer and U. Seidl (Kohlmeyer 1992, 99–100 and Seidl 1993, 72). For a discussion of this relief see Keel 1994, 143–144 and Theuer 2000, 333– 334. 64 These crescent standards are further discussed on p. 41ff. below.

24

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Fig. 3: Sîn, a detail from the Maltai rock relief (Collon 1992, no. 20) Fig. 4: The moon god of Ḫarrān on top of his temple (Keel 1994, no. 10) Influence from the Syro-Anatolian tradition in the representations of the moon god in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian art has been suggested by Tallay Ornan in her discussion of the representation of anthropomorphic deities in Mesopotamia.65 According to her, although the anthropomorphic representation of the moon god was well-established in Mesopotamian iconography during the 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE,66 a shift towards representation through symbol occurred during the late 2nd millennium BCE. After this, Mesopotamian depictions of the moon god were overwhelmingly non-anthropomorphic. However, this shift did not occur in the Syro-Anatolian area, where anthropomorphic depictions of the moon god are attested for the late 2nd and also the 1st millennium BCE, as is shown by the stele found at Til Barsip. It is clear that the physical appearance of the moon god’s anthropomorphic cult images took different forms in Babylonia, Assyria, and the Syro-Anatolian area. These differences, that are otherwise only seen in the depictions of the anthropomorphic Sîn in reliefs and on cylinder seals, are given a political meaning in the propaganda text Verse Account written in the aftermath of king Nabonidus’ reign.67 In this text, the king Nabonidus is criticised for fashioning a cult image of the Ḫarranian moon god. The critique is based on actual events:

65

Ornan 2009, 139–140. For a discussion on these earlier depictions of the moon god see Braun-Holzinger 1993, 119–135. 67 Edited as Schaudig 2001, P1. 66

II.1. The Moon and the Moon God

25

when Nabonidus rebuilt the temple Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān, he also restored the cult statue that had apparently been completely destroyed in the past attack by the Babylonian-Median alliance.68 The cult statue has since entirely vanished but for a single bead, which most likely was found in Ḫarrān and is now housed in a private collection.69 On the basis of the inscription on the bead, it was attached to the sword that was given to Sîn by Nabonidus.70 Schaudig 2001, 4.1 GÍR ḫi-šíḫ-ti dEN.ZU EN DINGIR šá ina MÁŠ.GI6 I.dNÀ–I MAN TIN.TIRki i-ri-šú Sword – the desired object of Sîn, lord of the gods – that he requested from Nabonidus, king of Babylon, in a dream.71 Just as the installation of his daughter as the entu-priestess in Ur was tied to earlier tradition, Nabonidus endeavoured to connect the fashioning of Sîn’s image to the past by stressing the fact that the image was fashioned after a depiction of Sîn on a cylinder seal that had belonged to the king Assurbanipal – an episode that is described in Nabonidus’ Babylon Stele.72

68

For the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul by Nabonidus see the discussion on p. 396ff. below. It is noted in Mayer 1998, 255 that this statue was not necessarily fashioned anew. According to him, it is also possible that the statue was left intact during the plundering of Eḫulḫul and carried off to Babylon, where it was stored for 54 years. After such a long period in storage, the statue would have been in need of repair, but there was not necessarily any need for a completely new statue. 69 See Oppenheim 1956, 192. 70 See Beaulieu 1989, 201–202 note 37. The exact form of this sword of Sîn can only be guessed at, but it may have been similar to the sword that he is carrying in the depictions of him at Maltai (Fig. 3, p. 24) and Til Barsip (Fig. 4, p. 24). 71 In Oppenheim 1956, 192–193 the dedication of this sword due to Nabonidus’ dream is taken to be a revival of an older custom of making dedications to deities on the basis of messages received in dreams. However, it appears more likely that the dream in question is the same dream that delivered the divine request to rebuild the temple Eḫulḫul; the fashioning of the divine statue (to which the sword most likely belonged; see Schaudig 2001, 545) was a part of bringing the moon god back to Ḫarrān. 72 This reference to Assurbanipal’s cylinder seal is discussed in Lee 1993, 131–136 and Seidl 2000, 99. Lee observes that it cannot be known for certain whether Nabonidus actually had such a cylinder seal in his possession or not, but the similarity between the two references – the discovery of the stele of Nebuchadnezzar I and the existence of Assurbanipal’s cylinder seal – nevertheless leads us to doubt the truthfulness of his claims and both of these instances may have been “pious frauds” to lend credibility to his actions. For “pious frauds” in the case of the stele of Nebuchadnezzar I see also Powell 1991, 20–30 and Schaudig 2003, 485–488. For the installation of En-niĝaldi-Nanna as the entu-pristess of the moon god in Ur see the discussion on p. 360ff. below.

26

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Schaudig 2001, 3.3a, X 32’–45’ na4 KIŠIB na4aš-pú-u X 32’ X 33’ šu-qu-ru NA4 LUGAL-tú X 34’ šá IAN.ŠÁR–DÙ–IBILA X 35’ LUGAL KUR Aš-šur ṣa-lam d30 X 36’ a-na zi-ki-ir MU-šú X 37’ ú-ṣa-ab-bu-ú-ma X 38’ ib-nu-ú ṣe-ru-uš-šú X 39’ ta-nit-ti d30 X 40’ ina na4KIŠIB šu-a-ti X 41’ iš-ṭù-ur-ru-ú-ma X 42’ ina GÚ d30 ú-kin-nu X 43’ šá ina UD.MEŠ ul-lu-ti X 44’–45’ ⌈kul⌉?-lu-mu bu-un-na-/an-né-e-šú A cylinder seal of precious jasper, the stone of kingship, on which Assurbanipal, the king of the land Aššur, had conceived and formed the likeness of Sîn for his fame, written praise of Sîn on that cylinder seal, and then fastened it to the neck of Sîn, whose features were revealed in the distant days. A confirmation that this new image of Sîn was fashioned in Assyrian, and not Babylonian, style is found in the way it is used against Nabonidus in the Verse Account, which endeavoured to present the former king in an unfavourable light. One of the very first accusations against him in the text is the blasphemous character of his building activities at Ḫarrān and the reinstallation of the statue of Sîn in the rebuilt temple. Although this passage is not completely preserved, the main points of accusation can be identified: when Nabonidus refashioned the statue of Sîn, he created a god that had a strange appearance – something that had not been previously seen by the people of Babylonia. Schaudig 2001, P1, I 20’–II 3’ I 20’ [x x x DIN]GIR.MEŠ ip-pu-uš la me-e-su I 21’ [x x x]-na ib-ta-ni za-qí-qí I 22’ [DINGIR šá pa-na]-ma ina KUR la i-mu-ru-uš mam-ma-an I 23’ [x x x]-⌈ú⌉ KI.GAL-la ú-šar-me I 24’ [x x x] dNANNA it-ta-bi zi-kir-šú I 25’ [šá KÙ.SI22 u na4]ZA.GÌN a-pi-ir a-gu-šú I 26’ [x x x] ši-kin-šú d30 AN.MI I 27’ [i-tar-ra]-aṣv ŠUII-su ki-ma d⌈LUGAL⌉.ŠU.DU I 28’ [x x x] ši is ⌈pe⌉-re-e-tu-uš KI.GAL-la I 29’ [en-du ma-za-a]s-su a-bu-bu u ri-i-mu I 30’ [x x x] a-gu-šú i-te-me ši-kin-šú I 31’ [x x x] x-UD-šú ut-tak-ki-ir zi-mu-šú

II.1. The Moon and the Moon God

I 32’ I 33’ I 34’

27

[x x x uš]-te-lip gat-tu-uš [x x x] x gal zi-kir-šú [x x x š]á-pal-šú (gap)

II 2’ la ip-ti-qu dÉ-a ⌈mu⌉-⌈um⌉-m[u] II 3’ ul i-di zi-kir-šú U4-ma-da-nu–A-da-pà [... the go]ds, he commits unsacred (acts), [...] he created a phantom, [a god that] no one in the land had seen [befo]re, [...] he installed on a pedestal. [...] he called its name Nannāru, he wears a crown of [gold and] lapis lazuli, [...] his appearance is (of) the eclipsed moon, [he strech]es his hand [out] like Lugalšudu. [...] his hair the pedestal, a flood dragon and a wild bull [are leaning on] his [socl]e, [...] his crown, turned into his appearance, [...] he changed his facial features. [...] he made his figure grow, [...] ... his name, [...] under him, [...] (gap) that the creator Ea had not formed, U’anna-Adapa knows not his name! As has been demonstrated by Ursula Seidl, the features that are deemed sacrilegious in this passage of the Verse Account are, in fact, attested in depictions of Assyrian deities, making them foreign to the Babylonians.73 The features of the cult image here that most prominently convey the Assyrian style are the outstretched hand of the deity, the hair that is untied, and the statue’s animal pedestal. These indeed are the main differences between Assyrian and Babylonian anthropomorphic depictions of the moon god, as can be seen by comparing the Maltai rock relief and the relief from Til Barsip to, for example, the Neo-Babylonian depiction of the anthropomorphic moon god standing inside the crescent moon (Fig. 10, p. 52 below). In connection with the appearance of the statue that is likened to the eclipsed moon, Seidl suggests that perhaps these darkened features are meant to be the opposite of the divine radiance (puluḫtu) that Nabonidus uses to describe the moon god.74 The assertion that this “eclipsed” appearance is connected with the radiance and the light of the moon god is most likely true, but perhaps it is not worth trying to find a specific term for this radiance in the inscriptions of Nabonidus.75 More likely, the eclipsed appearance of

73

Seidl 2000, 98–109. Seidl 2000, 100 with reference to the lines II 23–32 in the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus (see Schaudig 2001, 3.1 and Cassin 1968, 5). 75 The Akkadian noun puluḫtu does indeed have the meaning “awe-inspiring divine quality” (see CAD P, 505–509 and AHw, 879), which is connected to divine radiance. Moreover, this divine radiance is seen as one of Sîn’s features in the inscriptions of Nabonidus, and also elsewhere. An example of this in the prayers to Sîn can be found in the bilingual šu’ila-prayer 4 R2 9+//, 14: umun n[a-á]ĝ-dìm-me-er-zu an sù-⌈dam⌉ a-ab-ba da-ma-al-la ní mu-un-gùr-ru-e / be-[lum] i-lut-ka ki-ma AN-e ru-qu-ti tam-⌈tim⌉ ra-paáš-tú pu-luḫ-tam-ma ma-lat, “Lord, your divinity is like the distant heaven (and) the 74

28

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the moon is included in the Verse Account because it contrasts with the most important quality of the moon god, therefore negating his essence and underlining the sacrilegious character of Nabonidus’ newly fashioned statue.76

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors Sîn was not the only name of the Mesopotamian moon god in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources; he had several other designations, such as Nannāru and Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt, among others. These appellations are mainly lunar in character. Therefore it is natural to find descriptions of the different lunar phases among the names, epithets, and symbols of the moon god. Admittedly, it is difficult to know exactly what connotations the ancient Assyrians and Babylonians attached to a specific name or an epithet, but we can glean some information about these notions especially in the explanatory texts that were left behind by the ancient scholars. In some cases certain names and epithets can be clearly connected to a specific day within the lunar cycle, which serves to identify the lunar phase that is connoted through these appellations or descriptive epithets. Keeping this in mind, the lunar names, epithets, and symbols of Sîn will be discussed in the following chapters. II.2.1. Sîn The moon god Sîn, who most likely was brought to southern Mesopotamia by Semitic peoples, already appears in Mesopotamian sources in the 3rd millennium BCE. The earliest certain attestations (Early Dynastic) for the spelling dEN.ZU derive from Fāra and Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ, and in the lexical lists from Ebla the name is written syllabically.77 By the 2nd millennium BCE at the latest, the older form Suen was contracted to the form Sîn.78 This is also the basis for the noun sînu, “moon”, that is used to designate moon-shaped objects.79 Despite attempts to understand what the divine name Suen/Sîn stands for, its meaning remains unclear: it can only be agreed that the name belongs to a deity of Semitic background.80

wide sea filled with awesomeness” (Shibata, HES [forthcoming] and Sjöberg 1960, 167). Still, there is little evidence to prove that this particular puluḫtu of Sîn was implied in the Verse Account. 76 See the discussion concerning Sîn as the celestial luminary on p. 78ff. below. 77 For the earliest attestations of the divine name Suen see Roberts 1972, 48–50; Hall 1985, 37 and Krebernik 1995, 361–362. 78 The contracted form of the name Sîn is mainly attested in the 2nd millennium BCE (Waetzoldt 1990, 73–74; Donbaz 1993, 4–5 and Krebernik 1995, 361), but there are indications for a contraction already in the Ur III period (see Stol 1992, 263). 79 See the attestations in CAD S, 294. 80 See Hall 1985, 40–41. For the possible Semitic root of the name see Krebernik 1995, 362. As Krebernik notes, it is uncertain whether this name is connected to Mount Sinai

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

29

Although the two moon gods, the Semitic Sîn and the Sumerian Nanna, were originally separate deities with their own cults and characteristics, they were syncretised over the course of time, and the product of this syncretisation was the Sumero-Babylonian moon god, who was identified by both of these names.81 This syncretistic history of the moon god is still visible in the 1st millennium BCE in the ways that the divine name Sîn is written. The overwhelmingly most attested way – therefore the “normal” way – is to use the numeric spelling d30.82 The logogram dEN.ZU (or dSuen) was also used, but less frequently than the numeric spelling. The name of the Sumerian moon god Nanna was still present in the logogram dNANNA, which could also be used to denote the moon god, but in these cases it is not clear if the intended reading was Sîn, Nanna or nannāru.83 An important source for the readings of logographic spellings of the moon god’s name is BM 46559 (CT 29, pl. 46), a Neo-Babylonian god-list that provides glosses for the pronunciation of all three of these names.84 BM 46559 (CT 29, pl. 46), 26–28 na-an-na.d NANNA | d[30] 26 en-zu.d EN.[ZU | MIN] 27 si-in.d ⌈30⌉ [ | MIN] 28 Particularly significant in this passage is the gloss for the logographic writing EN.ZU: according to this text, the correct value for this combination is indeed Enzu, not Suen as it is attested elsewhere. This suggests that at least in this case the scribe may have understood the logogram dEN.ZU for Sîn to be a similar construction to, for example, the divine name Enlil.85 In addition to the gloss si-

d

as has been suggested e.g. in Combe 1908, 157–158 and Lewy 1945–1946, 441–443. W. Sommerfeld has recently postulated the existence of a Sumerian moon god dEN.ZU instead of Akkadian Suen, but his arguments remain highly speculative (Sommerfeld 2011, 292–296). Before him, K. Tallqvist was of the opinion that no other explanation for the name can be given than that it derives from the Sumerian dEn-zu, “lord of knowledge” (Tallqvist 1938b, 11: “tiedon herra”; Tallqvist 1947, 201: “vetandes herre”). 81 There are traces of this syncretism visible already in the Early Dynastic times, since the hymn to the moon god of Akšak (IAS no. 253) from Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ addresses him with both the names Suen and Nanna (an edition of the text will be published by K. V. Zand). For the separate characteristics of Nanna and Suen see Hall 1985, 879–881. 82 For an overview of the numbers connected to the Mesopotamian deities see Röllig 1957–1971, 499–500. The numeric writing for the name of the moon god was already attested in the Old Babylonian period (Waetzoldt 1990, 73). Furthermore, the sign 30 has the syllabic value sin (see e.g. MZL no. 711). 83 See the discussion on the logogram dNANNA for nannāru on p. 31ff. 84 Cited in Jacobsen 1957, 93 note 3 and Litke 1998, 116 note 2. The passage is also discussed in Hall 1985, 38. 85 For the reading Suen for the logogram EN.ZU see Waetzoldt 1990, 73–74. The gloss in

30

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

in for the numeric spelling d30 in BM 46559, other syllabic attestations of the name Sîn also exist, underlining the syllabic value sin for the sign 30.86 Two glosses in texts from Assyria87 attest to the vowel e instead of i – a variation that is visible also in the syllabic spellings of some Neo-Assyrian personal names. There are only a few attestations of the theophoric element Sîn written syllabically, but they comply with the glosses in lexical texts. First, there are two certain cases of the syllabic spelling dSi-in for the name of the moon god.88 Second, the syllabic spellings in Aramaic personal names reveal that the West Semitic form of the name was Sī’ or Sē’.89 This West Semitic form is based on the Mesopotamian divine name Sîn, but it shows the loss of the final consonant n and its replacement with a glottal stop, as well as a shift from î to ē.90 In contrast to Akkadian personal names, West Semitic names with the moon god as the theophoric element are, in fact, almost always syllabically written.91 Because of this, a clear

BM 46559 led T. Jacobsen to propose that the name Suen/Sîn was a result of a defective writing for en-Suen, “Lord Suen”, and was realised as Enzu(n) (Jacobsen 1957, 93 note 3). M. G. Hall was seemingly in favour of this approach to the divine name (Hall 1985, 38–39), but as M. Krebernik noted, this writing should rather be seen as rebus writing that became a logogram, and whose sign order EN.ZU can be explained by means of other Sumerian divine names similar to En-líl (Krebernik 1995, 362). This god-list passage is also used by W. Sommerfeld as evidence in his speculations about the existence of a Sumerian moon god dEN.ZU instead of Semitic Suen (see Sommerfeld 2011, 292–296). Partly due to the existence of this gloss and its implications for scribal understanding the name, I have chosen in this study to use the reading dEN.ZU instead of dZuen (MZL, no. 164) in Akkadian contexts. In the Sumerian context the reading dSuen will be used in accordance to the spellings that require a word final /n/; see e.g. Udug-ḫul 5, 118: zi dSuenna dumu-saĝ dEn-líl-lá-ke4 ḫé-pà, “Be adjured by Sîn, the first-born son of Enlil!” (see Geller 2007, 123 and 211; Geller 2016, 199). 86 See the attestations listed in Krebernik 1995, 361–362. The attestation [d]Si-in in KBo I no. 12, o.! 10 can be added to this list (see Ebeling 1954a, 213 and p. 490 below). 87 See KAV 51, 3: [d].se-en-nu30 | [MIN] (a manuscript for An = Anum from Assur). The second gloss is found in a Middle Assyrian tablet that contains the incantation Cow of Sîn and which belongs to a private collection (see Lambert 1969, 28–39). Although deemed a scribal mistake in Lambert’s edition, the spelling gi-se-en.d30 in the line 51 of this tablet should be seen as a glossed spelling (Krebernik 1995, 361). In Veldhuis 1991, 64 the element d30 is considered to be a gloss, but that is opposed by the spelling gi-i-d30 in the line 61 of the same text. 88 SAA 6 no. 342, 1’: I.dSi-in–DU–IGI (see also PNA 3/I, 1128–1129); SAA 6 no. 148, r. 2’: I.dSi-in–ka-⌈šir⌉? (see also PNA 3/I, 1135). An uncertain attestation – possibly for the name Sîn-ēda – is found in TCL 9 no. 57, r. 16: ISi-in?–e?-da? (see PNA 3/I, 1132). 89 For this West Semitic form of the moon god’s name see Lipiński 1975, 63–64; Zadok 1977, 43; Lipiński 1994, 174–181; Krebernik 1995, 362 and Lipiński 2000, 621. 90 Zadok 1977, 254 and 261. 91 Logographic spelling (d)30 for the theophoric element Sîn/Sē’ in West Semitic personal names is attested only for the names I30–BARAG, I30–ḫa-ri, and [I3]0–na-tan-nu (Zadok

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

31

distinction between the Aramaic moon god Šēr and Sîn/Sē’ can usually be made. There are only couple of instances in which the logogram dNANNA may be used to write the divine name Sîn instead of the name Nanna; usually these two names are kept clearly apart. Examples for a clear distinction between these two names for the moon god existing still in the 1st millennium BCE are found in connection with Ur, the age-old cult city of the Sumero-Babylonian moon god. Here, the governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi calls the moon god both Nanna92 and Suen/ Sîn in his Sumerian inscriptions.93 Nanna is also the moon god’s name – the Akkadian equivalent being Nannāru94 – in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer (4 R2 9+//) that most likely is connected with the moon god’s cult in Ur.95 From this city also comes the individual whose name is written dNANNA–ibni in a letter, ABL 974.96 There is no certainty whether this name should be read Nanna-ibni or Sînibni, but in any case the name seems to reflect the affiliation of the said person to Ur as the cult city of Nanna/Sîn.97

II.2.2. Nannāru In addition to the names Sîn and Nanna, the most important appellation and epithet for the moon god in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources is nannāru, “luminary” – a description that focuses on the celestial luminosity of the moon.98 This is the name for the moon god in the Babylonian creation epic Enūma eliš, as Marduk appoints him to illuminate the night sky99 and it is this epithet that praises Sîn as a celestial light in prayers to him.100 The translations of the word

1977, 44). In PNA 3/I these names are found under Sē’-barakka, Sîn-ḫāri, and Sîn-natannu (PNA 3/I, 1098; 1133; and 1139 respectively). The logogram d30 for the name of the Aramaic moon god Šēr is attested in Neo-Babylonian documents from Nērab, in which the personal name Šēr-idrī is written d30-er–id-ri-’ (Dhorme 1928b, 58–59 and Zadok 1977, 42). For an overview of the Aramaic moon god see Lipiński 1994, 189–190. 92 E.g. RIMB, B.6.32.2003, 1: dNanna lugal an-ki-a (see the citation on p. 345 below). 93 RIMB, B.6.32.2002, 1: dSuen an-na (see the citation on p. 346 below). 94 For this spelling see the discussion on p. 31ff. below. 95 See the edition in Sjöberg 1960, 166–179 and Shibata, HES (forthcoming). 96 ABL 974, 6: I.dNANNA–ib-ni. This attestation is booked in PNA 3/I, 1133 under Sînibni, where it is noted that this person is possibly identical to one of the other individuals with the name Sîn-ibni attested for the area of Ur. Note that the logogram dNANNA is attested also in the name of the individual dNANNA–mu-še-pi from Assur in VAT 10235 (KAR 211), r. IV 8’. Although this name is included in PNA under Sîn-mušēpi (PNA 3/I, 1136), the tablet in question is Middle Assyrian, not Neo-Assyrian (Heeßel 2010, 117). For an edition of this diagnostic text see Heeßel 2010, 171–179. 97 This letter, ABL 974, 3–5, also contains a greeting formula naming Sîn (written d30). 98 For other epithets that describe the moon god as a celestial light see p. 78ff. below. 99 Enūma eliš V, 12: dNanna-ru uš-te-pa-a mu-šá iq-ti-pa, “He made Nannāru come forth and then entrusted to him the night” (see Lambert 2013, 98–99 and p. 93 below). 100 See e.g. the incipit of “Sîn 1”: Sîn nannāru šūpû ašarēd ilānī, “O Sîn, the splendid

32

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

nannāru in the Akkadian dictionaries are “Himmelsleuchte” and “luminary”,101 which capture not only the basic meaning of the word102 but also the strong celestial connotation that it bears due to the moon god being a celestial luminary. Still, Sîn is not the only god described as nannāru: the epithet is attested also for Ištar, who is a celestial luminary, and for the fire god Gira, who illuminates with fire.103 This shows that the epithet is fundamentally associated with luminosity and brightness: the moon god as nannāru namru, “the bright luminary”, is celebrated in his ability to shine light in the night sky.104 This however is not the only aspect that is implied by its use, as the word’s spellings and comments on its constituent parts show. First, the way in which this appellation was understood by Assyrian and Babylonian scholars fundamentally involved the name of the Sumerian moon god Nanna.105 Perhaps the most common way – attested passim in cuneiform sources from the 1st millennium BCE – to write this appellative is to use the logogram dNanna together with the complementary -ru or -ri. In some cases nannāru is even written using only the logogram dNANNA, but because of the well-attested expressions it is clear that nannāru, not Nanna, is meant. This spelling is found in a cylinder inscription of Sargon II,106 in Esarhaddon’s Zinçirli Stele,107 and in a cylinder inscription of Sîn-šarru-iškun.108 It is also found in an ikrib-prayer to Sîn.109 Moreover, in a bilingual šu’ila to Sîn, the

luminary, the foremost of the gods!” (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 101 AHw, 731 and CAD N/1, 260, respectively. 102 Etymologically the noun nannāru is clearly connected to the verb nawāru/namāru, “to be bright; to shine”, but the exact nominal formation remains disputed: nannāru has been analysed to be either mapras/napras (GAG § 56b; interpretation marked to be uncertain) or naprās-formation (Watanabe 1984, 109). 103 For an overview of the epithet nannāru and nannartu see Tallqvist 1938a, 141. See also the attestations in CAD N/1, 260. This description for Gira is attested in Maqlû II, 19: ÉN dGíra bēlu [g]itmālu d[na]nnarāta nabi šumka, “Incantation: O Gira, perfect lord! You are the light, your name is invoked!” (see Abusch 2016, 56 and 294; line II 20 in Meier 1966, 72). Note that two of the manuscripts use the spelling dnanna-ra-ta and thus associate Gira’s luminosity with the moon’s light in the level of the script. 104 For V. Hurowitz, the epithet nannāru namru, “bright luminary”, functions as an explanation of the appellative nannāru (Hurowitz 2010, 91; the text referred to by him is the Zinçirli Stele of Esarhaddon, RINAP 4 no. 98, 5). 105 As noted in CAD N/1, 261: “the etymology of the word is unknown; its form and meaning may have arisen from or been influenced by Sum. Nanna as name of the moon god on the one hand, and Akk. namāru, nūru on the other”. See also Schaudig 2001, 703 where the divine name Nannār(u) is explained as “etymologisierende Mischung von altem Nanna und nannāru”. 106 Sg Zyl, 57: dNANNA AN-e KI-tim (see Fuchs 1994, 41 and p. 294 below). 107 RINAP 4 no. 98, 5: d30 dNANNA nam-ru mu-dam-mì-iq GISKIM.MEŠ-ia. 108 VA Ass 2316, 5: dNANNA AN-e d30 (Ms B, line 8 in Meinhold 2009, 450). 109 K. 2751+//, 33’ (see the edition below p. 483ff.). Here the manuscript K. 2751+ uses

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

33

Sumerian divine name Nanna receives the Akkadian equivalent Nannāru, underlining the notion that these two names are related.110 It is more common in bilingual contexts, however, to equate nannāru with the Sumerian noun u4-sakar.111 Second, an insight into the way the scribes themselves understood the appellation nannāru can be found in a Late Babylonian tablet that cites and comments on the prologue of the astrological omen series EAE. 82-7-14, 4005, 15–20112 15 UD e-nu-ma | e-nu-ma | ul-tu šu-ta-mu-ú mál-ma-liš 16 TA i-nu | TA | ul-tu | RU e-de-šú 17 MÁ.GUR8 | dNanna-ru | ⌈SAKAR⌉ x x [x] 18 ⌈U4⌉.SAKAR | ár-ḫa |[ ] 19 ⌈ár⌉-ḫa | d30 20 ⌈MÚ⌉.MÚ | ud-du-⌈šu⌉ |[ ]113 UD means enūma (“when”); enūma (“when”) means ultu (“when”); they correspond to each other. TA means īnu (“when”); TA also means ultu (“when”). Barge means Nannāru; the sign RU means edēšu (“to become new”). Crescent means arḫu (“month”); the sign SAKAR means [...]. The month means Sîn, which means [...]. MÚ.MÚ (“to grow”) means uddušu (“to renew”) [...]. As expected, the name of the Sumerian moon god Nanna is central to the interthe logogram dNANNA whereas the manuscript K. 3794+ has the peculiar form dŠEŠ-ru. There are also other cases when the epithet nannāru is written only with the logogram (d)ŠEŠ(-ru) perhaps due to a scribal error. This occurs in the stele of Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēluuṣur (RIMA 3, A.0.105.2, 6), where Sîn is called dŠEŠ AN u KI. This of course stands for the well-attested epithet nannār šamê u erṣeti, “luminary of heaven and earth”. Another possible case can be found in the opening line of the šu’ila-prayer ”Sîn 1” in STT 56, 19. There the epithet nannāru is rendered either through ŠEŠ or ŠEŠ-[ru], but spelling cannot be fully reconstructed due to the damages in the line. However, the absence of the divine determinative is clear (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 110 See 4 R2 9+//, 1–9 with the invocation a-a dNanna/a-bu dNa-an-nar, “father Nanna/ father Nannār” (see Shibata, HES [forthcoming] and Sjöberg 1960, 166; the lines 1–4 are also cited on p. 147 below) 111 See e.g. Udug-ḫul 16, 83–84 (see Geller 2007, 181 and 253 as well as Geller 2016, 522; also cited on p. 173 below). 112 Published originally in King 1902b, 124–127 and Pl. XLIX. See the editions in Verderame 2002b, 36–37 and Jiménez 2014b (CCP 3.1.1.C). See also Frahm 2011, 136– 137, who notes that the apparent goal of the scribe was to create a connection between the Sumerian and Akkadian passages. 113 The transliteration of this line follows the edition in Jiménez 2014b (CCP 3.1.1.C); see also Frahm 2011, 92 note 460.

34

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

pretation, but the meaning of the element -ru is also taken into consideration. The commentary first names má-gur8, “barge”, which is how the moon god is referred to in the Sumerian part of EAE’s prologue and, as in other contexts, this designation is described as the equivalent of the appellation nannāru. After this, Nannāru is further understood by the connection of the sign RU to the Akkadian verb edēšu, “to be(come) new”.114 Therefore, the author of this particular commentary understood the normal writing dNanna-ru as consisting of the parts Nanna, who is the moon god, and the verb signifying the monthly renewal of the celestial object. Although the logogram RU for edēšu appears to be attested only in this text,115 it is clear that at least in this one instance the aspect of renewal was seen as a fundamental quality of the epithet nannāru. Perhaps the same notion is present also in the 16th tablet of Udug-ḫul, in which the king is described as “bearing radiance on his head like the constantly renewing luminary”.116 The equation of the appellations “barge” (má-gur8) and Nannāru in the commentary on the prologue of EAE reflects notions that are also known to us from the list of moon god’s names in An = Anum III, 23–25.117 Here the three names d U4-sakar, dMá and dMá-gur8 are all equated with the name Nannāru rather than with the name Sîn that was repeated in the preceding entries. The manuscript KAV 51 (VAT 11513) even separates these lines visually from the previous names in the “Sîn-list” by inserting a line after the name dUnkin-úru (An = Anum III, 22), thereby indicating the beginning of a new section in the list. KAV 51, 21–26118 21 ⌈d⌉Unkin-[an?]-úru!(URUxŠÀ) 22

114

[d]U4-sakar

MIN(= Sîn) na-an-n[a-ru]119

The practise of explaining either an Akkadian or a Sumerian word through its constituent parts is an elementary part of Mesopotamian hermeneutics and reflects the existing connotations for the different words or phrases (see Maul 2003a, 65–76 and Frahm 2011, 59–79). 115 See CAD E, 30 and AHw, 186. 116 Udug-ḫul 16, 84 (see Geller 2007, 181 and 253 as well as Geller 2016, 522; translation here according to the citation on p. 173 below). 117 For an edition of this passage of An = Anum see Litke 1998, 119 and Feliu 2006, 237. The connection between the appellations/epithets má-gur8 and nannāru was noted already in Sjöberg 1960, 27. For the epithet má-gur8 for Sîn see p. 45ff. below. 118 The lines 1–21 in this text contain An = Anum III, 1–22, but the name dMen-dàra-anna in line III, 9 is omitted in this manuscript. 119 In Litke 1998, 119 the latter part of this line is read na-an-na. The restoration na-ann[a-ru] is, however, confirmed by the manuscript SpTU 3 no. 107+, 21: dNanna-rum (see the score transliteration in Feliu 2006, 237). Because of this the use of the logogram U4.SAKAR for Nanna as suggested in Krebernik 1995, 360 should be rejected .

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

23 24 25 26

[d].maMá [dMá]-gur8 [dDili]-ím-babbar120 [dNi]n-gal

35

MIN MIN d Nam-[ra-ṣi-it] dam-bi [ ]

When this listing is considered from the viewpoint of the lunar phases, the four lines containing the names dU4-sakar, dMá, dMá-gur8, and dDili-ím-babbar/Namraṣīt seem to apply to the lunar phases in the first half of the lunar cycle: the crescent moon is called by three different names in order of size (thin crescent to gibbous) and, perhaps, the full moon, referred to as Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt.121 From this point of view the appellation Nannāru for the moon god would specifically denote the waxing, but not yet full, moon. In other words, the Akkadian noun nannāru appears to occupy the semantic field that corresponds to three different Sumerian expressions for the waxing moon. It should be noted that although the logogram U4.SAKAR also stands for the Akkadian word uskāru, “crescent moon”, as an epithet of Sîn it should be rendered as nannāru.122 Therefore, the prayer “Sîn 1” (Sîn nannāru šūpû) is cited as d30 U4.SAKAR šu-pu-ú in the tablet belonging to the ritual bīt rimki.123 Moreover, the correspondence of the logogram U4.SAKAR to nannāru shows that the incipit of the prayer “Sîn 6” should be read bēlu nannār kullati binīti, “lord, the luminary of all creation”, not “crescent of all creation”.124 While the equation u4-sakar/nannāru is widely attested, other correspondences can also be found in bilingual texts. One example is the way that the Sumerian equivalent of the Akkadian nannāru ellu ša šamê, “the radiant luminary of heaven” is “the radiant growing horn of heaven” (si mú kù an-na) in the lamentation e-lum di-da-ra.125 It is clear that the notion expressed in Akkadian by the word nannāru is, in Sumerian, connected to the growing of the lunar “horns”, i.e. the waxing moon.126 This expression also has a close parallel in an eršema to Sîn, in which the moon god is called “the radiant barge of the heaven”

120

The divine name Dilimbabbar has been previously read AŠimbabbar. For a discussion on the plausible reading dili for the sign AŠ see p. 71ff. below. 121 For discussion concerning the connection of má-gur8 and dDilimbabbar/Namraṣīt to particular lunar phases see p. 45ff. and p. 71ff. below. 122 See Borger 1970, 11, Watanabe 1984, 109, and Stol 1992, 246. For a discussion of the crescent moon symbol of Sîn see p. 38ff. below. 123 BBR 26, III 53: ÉN d30 U4.SAKAR šu-pu-ú (see Læssøe 1955, 25). For a new edition of the prayer “Sîn 1” see p. 452ff. below. 124 See the edition of K. 6018+// on p. 497ff. below. 125 Cohen 1988, 179–180 and 183; see also the citation on p. 148 below. 126 The connection of the sign SI to celestial light is clear in the lexical tradition through the equivalents nūrum, namārum, napāḫum, and šamû for it in MSL 14, 341 (ll. 168– 171). See also the discussion in Horowitz 2011, 230.

36

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

(má-gur8 kù an-na)127 – a formulation that could also be rendered in Akkadian as nannāru ellu ša šamê.128 In the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources nannāru is present either alone as an appellation of Sîn, or as a part of a more complex epithet, such as nannār šamê u erṣeti, “luminary of the heaven and the earth”. There appears to be a distinction in the use of the divine determinative and the preferred spelling in these cases: with the appellation Nannāru the spelling with the element d Nanna seems to be preferred, whereas in the case of the descriptive epithets – such as the already mentioned nannār šamê u erṣeti – the tendency is to have syllabic writings without the divine determinative.129 A notable exception to this can be found in the manuscripts for the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 3” from Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe), which use the normally logographic writing dNanna for the syllable /nan/, thereby combining the logographic representation of the Sumerian moon god Nanna with a syllabic spelling of the epithet nannāru.130 An illuminating example of the use of nannāru as a name and an epithet in a single passage can be found in the prism inscription of Assurbanipal that describes his campaign against the Elamite king Teumman. Assurbanipal Prism B, V 78–79131 V 78 ITI d30 na-an-nàr AN-e u KI-tim at-kil a-na EŠ.BAR d Nanna-ri nam-ri V 79 (in) the month of Sîn, the luminary of heaven and earth, I trusted the decision of bright Nannāru Here the epithet nannār šamê u erṣeti, “luminary of heaven and earth”, is used to describe the moon god Sîn, and in this instance nannāru is written syllabically. The following reference to the moon god, for whom the appellation Nannāru is used, utilises the spelling with the logogram dNanna. A similar example can also be found in the dedicatory inscription of Assurbanipal that was written on the wooden carrying poles of Ningal/Nikkal in Ḫarrān: the epithet nannār

127

BM 13930 (CT 15, pls. 16–17)//, 1: má-gur8-kù-an-na še-er-ma-al ní-te-na, “radiant barge of heaven, pre-eminent by his own right” (see the edition in Sjöberg 1960, 44 and 46; the line is also cited on p. 45 below). 128 This connection was first noted in Langdon 1919, 326 note 5, although no particular attention to the relationship of the Akkadian word nannāru and its Sumerian equivalents was given. See also the comment on the line in Sjöberg 1960, 47–48. 129 Syllabic spellings of Nannāru as the name of Sîn are not common, but they do exist, e.g. K. 2813+, 18: [NUN] ⌈d⌉Na-an-na-⌈ru⌉, “[prince] Nannāru” (Bauer 1933, pl. 29 and Novotny 2003, 240) and RINAP 3 no. 38, 33’: [... d]Na-an-na-ru. 130 STT 57+, 57; STT 59, 1: dnán-na-ru; STT 58, o.! 1: dnán-an-ru (see p. 464ff. below). 131 Borger 1996, 103 and 225 (now RINAP 5/I no. 3). The same line can be found in Assurbanipal Prism C, VI 80–81 (RINAP 5/I no. 6).

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

37

ilānī, “luminary of the gods”, is written syllabically and the appellation Nannāru incorporates the name of the Sumerian moon god.132 The descriptive epithets that incorporate nannāru underline the luminous qualities of the moon god in respect to the cosmos or its inhabitants.133 Central to this is Sîn’s function as a celestial luminary: he is portrayed as “the luminary of heaven” (nannār šamê134 or nannāru ša šamê135), “the luminary of the great heavens” (nannār šamê rabûti),136 “the luminary of the heavens and earth” (nannār šamê u erṣeti)137 or “the luminary of all creation” (nannār kullati binīti).138 Note also that the god-list An = Anu ša amēli gives the definition “Sîn of the heavens and earth” for Nanna, thus plausibly making a reference to the epithet nannār šamê u erṣeti.139 In addition to being the light of the upper parts of the cosmos, Sîn is also described as a luminary for the deities either in general or in heaven: as already seen, he is called “the luminary of the gods” (nannār ilānī)140

132

Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 5: dNanna-ri; 7: na-an-⌈nar⌉ DINGIR.MEŠ (Novotny 2003, 234; see also the citation of this passage on p. 301 below). 133 See already the overview of the moon god’s epithets in Tallqvist 1938a, 444. 134 nannār šamê is attested in various contexts in prayers to Sîn. Perhaps the most prominent of these is the opening line of the prayer “Sîn 3”: Sîn nannār šamê ilu etellu (see the edition on p. 464ff. below). In the syncretistic prayer to Marduk (“Marduk 24”), Sîn as nannār šamê is associated with his ability to give signals to mankind (KAR 26, 19; see Mayer 1999, 145–163 and KAL 2 no. 21. The line is also cited on p. 160 below). In a cylinder inscription of Sîn-šarru-iškun this epithet is written dNANNA AN-e d30 (VA Ass 2316, 5 = Ms B, line 8 in Meinhold 2009, 450). 135 E.g. K. 2751+//, 57’ (see the edition below on p. 483ff.). 136 BAM 4 no. 323//, 100: U4.SAKAR AN-e GAL.MEŠ (Scurlock 2006, no. 91; see also the citation on p. 108 below). In her edition, Scurlock translates U4.SAKAR literally as crescent, but as already noted, as an epithet of Sîn it stands for nannāru. 137 nannār šamê u erṣeti is mainly used in the context of royal inscriptions or other royal texts, such as the treaty of Assurbanipal with Babylonian allies (SAA 2 no. 9, r. 11’). In the inscriptions of Šalmaneser III this occurs twice (RIMA 3, A.0.102.1, I 2 and A.0.102.4, I 6). This epithet is also used in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal in the episode describing his campaign against the Elamite king Teumman (Assurbanipal Prism B, V 78–79 and Assurbanipal Prism C, VI 80–81; see the citation on p. 36 above). In addition to this, it appears that it was used in the opening line of Assurbanipal’s dedicatory inscription to Sîn of Ḫarrān, K. 8759+, 1 (see the citation on p. 142ff. below). However, this epithet is also attested outside of the royal context. In the opening line of a prayer to Sîn, in a ritual for undoing witchcraft, this epithet is used to underline his luminary aspect (IM 148516, 1; see the edition in Fadhil 2018, 197–198). In a bilingual šu’ila-prayer addressed to Marduk and Nabû, the moon god Nanna/Sîn is present with his epithet u4sakar-an-ki-a/na-an-nar AN-e u KI-tim (see line 16 in Maul 1998, 164). 138 Incipit of “Sîn 6b”; see the edition of K. 6018+// on p. 497ff. below. 139 An = Anu ša amēli, 24: dNanna | d30 šá AN-e u KI-ti (see Litke 1998, 230). This possible reference enforces the association of this appellation with the name Nanna. 140 Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 7: na-an-⌈nar⌉ DINGIR.MEŠ (Novotny 2003, 234; see also the cita-

38

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

or “the luminary of the gods of heaven” (nannār ilānī šamê).141 These epithets stress Sîn’s powers of illumination not only in relation to the heavens or the earth, but also in relation to the other deities who live in the parts of the cosmos that are invisible to people.

II.2.3. The Crescent Although the crescent moon represents only a single lunar phase, it stood as the symbol for the Mesopotamian moon god and the moon as a phenomenon.142 We can only speculate why, specifically, the crescent moon was considered the quintessential representation of the moon and the moon god, but it must be connected with the importance of the first sighting of the moon after its periodic absence from the night sky.143 The Sumerian word designating the new, crescent moon is u4-sakar, and this word was loaned to Akkadian as uskāru.144 The logogram U4.SAKAR can also have the Akkadian equivalent (w)arḫu due to the role of the crescent moon as the indicator of the beginning of the new month.145 These Sumerian and Akkadian terms, u4-sakar and uskāru, can denote not only the beginning but also the first half of the lunar cycle: this becomes clear from Ur III period Sumerian sources in which the term u4-sakar is mainly used to designate the first day of the month, but on some occasions it refers to the full moon.146 The term u4-sakar/uskāru is also used to describe objects or shapes that are crescents or semicircles, underlining its connection to the first quarter of the lunar cycle.147 The Sumerian u4-sakar is also used as the equivalent of the Akkadian appellation nannāru for the moon god, and this correspondence enforces

tion of this passage on p. 301 below). 141 BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190), r. 3: dNanna-ar DINGIR.MEŠ AN-e (see Maul 1994, 458–460 as well as the citation on p. 177 below). 142 A symbol is often only a single part of a larger phenomenon, but despite this concentration on a particular aspect it represents the many different areas of that phenomenon (see Mieth 2001, 136). Therefore the crescent moon, which depicts only a single lunar phase, can connote the whole lunar cycle and the deity that is manifested through it. 143 For a discussion of the lunar cycle see p. 90ff. below. 144 Also variant forms like askāru are attested. See AHw, 1438; CAD U–W, 278–279; Lieberman 1977, 423 and Stol 1992, 245. The Akkadian equivalent of u4-sakar is attested from Old Babylonian times onward. Note that the term “new moon” is used here and also elsewhere in this study (apart from Fig. 2, p. 18 above) to designate the first visible crescent moon, not the invisible moon during the conjunction of the sun and the moon as in the modern astronomical term. 145 See AHw, 1466 and CAD A/2, 259–263. 146 Sallaberger 1993, 39–40. 147 See e.g. Friberg, Hunger & Al-Rawi 1990, 487–488 where the shape uskāru is a crescent, and Robson 1999, 38–40 where the shape is a semicircle. For the crescent shape referred to as a characteristic, see e.g. the stone ašpû ša uskāri (kullumu), “ašpû that shows a crescent moon” in Schuster-Brandis 2008, 402–403.

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

39

the notion that the epithet nannāru describes the waxing moon of the first half of the lunar cycle.148 Moreover, it should be stressed that the Akkadian noun uskāru is never used as an epithet of the moon god, but is rather the term that designates the crescent moon as his symbol or emblem.149 The thin crescent moon acts as a manifestation of the moon god in a multitude of contexts.150 It was used in monumental art and in iconography of cylinder seals as a decorative motif, but certainly also to mark the presence of the moon god. As for monumental art and architecture, a detail speaking to the use of Sîn’s crescent to decorate the buildings of Babylon in the time of Nebuchadnezzar II is conveyed in the account of Pierre Joseph de Beauchamp, one of the early European travellers to visit the site in the late 18th century. In this account, as related in an appendix to the travel memoir of Claudius Rich, de Beauchamp is said to have made remarks on the custom of the locals to retrieve baked bricks from the site for reuse in new buildings, and how these searches often yielded other artefacts in addition to clay bricks. According to him, one of the masons recalled how he had found the figures of a cow, the sun, and the moon on a wall of a chamber, all made of glazed bricks.151 As to smaller scale objects, the lunar crescent can be found adorning various forms of jewellery and amulets. In these cases the crescent is often that of the waning moon, perhaps because its form is easier to attach to jewellery.152 For example, a stone bead necklace with a crescent moon pendant was found at Assur,153 and a stone mould for casting metal pendants and amulets found at Nineveh speaks to the popularity of jewellery in the form of a crescent moon.154 On earrings the image of the lunar crescent was that of a waxing moon, as the numerous earrings found in the queens’ tombs in Kalḫu show.155 The crescent moon may have been represented on jewellery simply for decorative purposes, but in certain cases it served as an amulet with a

148

See the discussion on p. 31ff. above. E.g. the reference to the crescent symbol of Sîn in the manuscript K. 63a+ of the mīs pî ritual (see the discussion on p. 42ff. below). 150 For an overview see Seidl 1989, 97–98. 151 Rich 1839, 302: “He has frequently found earthen vessels, engraved marbles, and about eight years ago a statue as large as life, which he threw amongst the rubbish. On one wall of a chamber he found the figures of a cow, and of the sun and moon, formed of varnished bricks. Sometimes idols of clay are found representing human figures. I found one brick on which was a lion, and on others a half-moon in relief.” This passage is cited in connection with de Beauchamp’s visit to the site of Babylon in Reade 2008, 27 and Seymour 2014, 132. 152 Collon 1992, 21. 153 VA Ass 4698 (see the photograph in Mattila 1995, 60 [no. 100]). 154 WA 91904 (see the photograph in Curtis & Reade 1995, 175 [no. 178]). This stone mould is presented along the other discovered casting moulds in Opitz 1933, 179–215. 155 See the catalogue in Hussein 2016, 59–216. 149

40

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

specific function. This is elucidated by a text describing a therapy against AN.TA.ŠUB.BA-epilepsy.156 This procedure involves making an elaborate amulet out of two bronze crescent moons and three strings of stones. BM 47509+, 7’–10’157 7’ DÙ.DÙ.BI ⌈U4⌉.SAKAR ZABAR za-ka-a DU-uš 8’ U4.SAKAR ṣe-eḫ-ri 2-ú ina lìb-bi DÙ-uš 9’ ÉN an-ni-tum ina muḫ-ḫi-šú SAR-ár 10’ ù NA4.MEŠ mim-ma lem-nu ina lìb-bi-šú ta-ka-ṣar Its ritual: You make a crescent moon out of pure bronze, you make another small crescent inside it. You inscribe this incantation on it and tie the stones against any kind of evil to it. These examples of the crescent as a form of jewellery or as a part of an amulet for therapeutic purposes must be categorised separately from the dumāqu-pectoral of the Assyrian king, which exhibited the emblems of the most important deities – including Sîn’s crescent – in the Neo-Assyrian pantheon and represented their support for the king.158 The crescent moon of Sîn had two main forms in Mesopotamian iconography. First, as already pointed out above, the simple crescent moon was one of the most popular motifs in Mesopotamian seal iconography, often depicted in the upper part of the seal as a filling motif along with other celestial symbols.159 In some cases in Neo-Assyrian and Aramaic art, an anthropomorphic deity is depicted standing inside the crescent, which in Assyrian and Babylonian art of the 1st millennium BCE was the most typical way of portraying the moon god in his anthropomorphic form.160 The second variation of the crescent moon motif – found both in Babylonian and Assyrian sources – is the round lunar disc with an embedded crescent in its lower part, or a crescent moon that forms a disc through its long cusps. An example of the crescent disc in the Assyrian context can be found on the stele of Aššurnaṣirpal II from Kalḫu, which shows the king together with the symbols of the main deities in the Assyrian pantheon, including Sîn.161 In the representations of deities especially in connection with Nabonidus’ inscriptions, this crescent moon disc in often found in a triad consisting of the three main astral symbols: the crescent disc, the sun disc of Šamaš, and

156

For the connection of the moon god to epilepsy see the discussion on p. 271ff. below. Schuster-Brandis 2008, 267–268. 158 Magen 1986, 54–55; see also the discussion and the picture of Šalmaneser III’s statue on p. 217 below. 159 Seidl 1989, 97–98 and Herbordt 1992, 100. 160 See the discussion concerning this motif on p. 51ff. below. 161 BM 118805 (Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 136); ND 1104 (Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 137). 157

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

41

the star disc of Ištar. Such is the carving on the stone bowl that was dedicated by Nabonidus to Sîn of Ḫarrān162 and also on the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus (Fig. 5).163 Another famous example of this triad in Babylonian art is the Sun God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina, in which the symbols of Sîn, Šamaš, and Ištar are presented along with captions that identify them by their names.164

Fig. 5: The relief on Ḫarrān Stele H2.B of Nabonidus (Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 264) The crescent moon also appeared mounted on a pole in a horizontal alignment, thus forming the standard (Sum. šu-nir, Akk. šurinnu) of the moon god.165 This standard appears to have been in use at least as early as the Uruk IV period, and it was often found accompanying the anthropomorphic moon god in the iconography of cylinder seals from the Akkadian period onward.166 Functionally, the

162

A photograph of the bowl is found in Dole & Moran 1991, 268–273, and an edition of the inscription is presented in Schaudig 2001, 4.2. 163 H2.A and H2.B (Gadd 1958, pl. 2 and Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 263 and 264). 164 King 1912, no. 36 (pls. 98–102). This tablet has been studied in Woods 2004, 23–103, and a new edition of the text is presented in Paulus 2014, 650–659 (NAI 3). 165 The use of the term šu-nir/šurinnu is examined in Pongratz-Leisten 1992, 299–318. It has been suggested that the term šurinnu was applied only to the crescent standard of Sîn by the Neo-Assyrian period, whereas the standards of the other deities were called urigallu (Pongratz-Leisten 1992, 318). On the basis of the function of the urigallu as a protective standard, this differentiation is most probably based on the function of the standards, not by the divine beings they represented (for an overview of the urigallu see Wiggermann 1992, 70–73). 166 For an overview of these earlier stages see Seidl 2011, 112, and for the depictions of the moon god with the crescent standard see Collon 1995, 373.

42

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

šurinnu-standard is one of the manifestations of a deity and it is similar to an anthropomorphic cult image. This is already evident from the context of legal procedures from the Old Babylonian period when the šurinnus of Sîn and Šamaš played an important role as their manifestations.167 In writing, the divine nature of the standard is implied by the use of the determinative for divine beings, i.e., d šurinnu. Moreover, non-anthropomorphic depictions of Mesopotamian deities sometimes underwent rituals of induction similar to those performed on anthropomorphic cult statues.168 In the case of the crescent standard of Sîn, two manuscripts of the mīs pî ritual refer to it as the object of cultic induction.169 The section, in which the crescent moon is attested as the equivalent of the divine image, involves the “opening of the mouth”, which enables the image to acquire the function of the deity it represents.170 For the most part this manuscript runs parallel to the other manuscripts; the major difference is that instead of an alam/ ṣalmu, “image; statue”, the object of the ritual is a u4-sakar/uskāru, “crescent”. A difference – most likely due to differences in the materials and methods for producing a standard in comparison to the more elaborate cult statue – can also be found in the list of the divine craftsmen and materials associated with the production of the crescent standards: only the divine gold smith Kusibanda and the divine jeweller Ninzadim are mentioned.171 According to the reconstruction of the mīs pî ritual, by the time the incantation u4 diĝir dím-ma alam sikil-la šu du7a, “when the god was created, the pure statue perfected”, or its variant u4 diĝir dím-ma u4-sakar sikil-la šu du7-a, “when the god was created, the pure crescent perfected”, was performed, the cultic image had already been brought out of the temple workshop (bīt mummi) and separated from the workers who took part in its crafting. Therefore it has gone through a ritual that imitates gestation and is now reborn as a god.172 By the 1st millennium BCE, the crescent moon standard was specifically connected with the Ḫarranian moon god and widely attested in the iconography of

167

Pongratz-Leisten 1992, 316. See Berlejung 1998, 188–189 and 275–281; Walker & Dick 1999, 71 and Walker & Dick 2001, 13. 169 K. 63a (4 R2 25b)+K. 3173 and K. 3367 (Mss F and G in the 3rd tablet of mīs pî in Walker & Dick 2001, 128–153). 170 This is evident from the rubrics in the other manuscripts containing this prayer: according to three texts this prayer of a “šu’ila-prayer for opening the mouth of a god” (kainim-ma šu-íl-la diĝir-ra ka-duḫ-ù-da-kam; see the line 97 in Walker & Dick 2001, 144 and 151. For the function of the “opening of the mouth” see Berlejung 1998, 188–190 and Walker & Dick 2001, 13–15). 171 Berlejung 1998, 275. 172 So according to the lines 46ff. of the Babylonian ritual tablet BM 45749 for mīs pî (Walker & Dick 1999, 72–83). 168

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

43

seals and reliefs from northern Mesopotamia.173 This Ḫarranian standard differs from the other crescent standards by the two tassels that are attached to it.174 The connection of the tasseled crescent standard with Ḫarrān is seen in the relief of Bar-rākib, the ruler of Sam’al (Zinçirli),175 in which the tasseled crescent standard is prominently depicted and accompanied by an Aramaic inscription that makes a reference to the “lord of Ḫarrān” (b‘l ḥrn), one of the appellations of the Ḫarranian moon god. For this reason, the presence of the tasseled crescent standards accompanying the anthropomorphic moon god in relief found at Til Barsip (Fig. 4, p. 24) suggest that this moon god, who is standing on top his temple, is Sîn of Ḫarrān. The crescent standard of the Ḫarranian moon god is commonly found as a non-anthropomorphic depiction of the moon god on stone stelae in the area of Ḫarrān in modern Turkey and northern Syria.176 In most cases it is presented alone (Fig. 7),177 but occasionally it is flanked by two men (Fig. 8)178 – most likely a depiction of worship of the moon god and his authorisation of a legal contract made between two parties.179A new relief can now be added to this group of representations of the Ḫarranian moon god by the crescent standard: a Neo-Assyrian rock relief located at Gisgis (Kesentaş) in the province of Diyarbakır has been recently published for the first time (Fig. 6).180 This relief depicts the triad of the main celestial deities – Sîn, Šamaš, and Ištar – as the object of veneration by the king. Of these three deities only Ištar is depicted in anthropomorphic form while both Sîn and Šamaš are made manifest by their standards. Like cult images elsewhere in Neo-Assyrian art, the images in the Gisgis rock

173

See Herbordt 1992, 101; Keel 1994, 138–147; Theuer 2000, 330–351; and Ornan 2005b, 163–167. 174 Seidl 2011, 112. These tassels pertain to the role of Sîn of Ḫarrān in the context of swearing oaths, see Seidl 2000, 93–94. The connection of the moon god to oaths is discussed on p. 249 below. 175 VA 2817 (see Orthmann 1971, 545 (Zincirli F/1); Keel 1994, 144 (no. 11); Seidl 2000, 94–96; and Theuer 2000, 358–360). 176 These stelae are included in the group of Assyrian stelae in Börker-Klähn 1982, 54 and 58, where they are referred to as cult stelae (Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 166, 206 and 230). For three further stelae, see Kohlmeyer 1992, 91–100. For an overview with detailed bibliographical information, see Keel 1994, 138–147. 177 There are six stelae that show only the crescent standard of Sîn (Keel 1994, nos. 1–6). For the stele found in Açaği Yarimca see Gadd apud Lloyd & Brice 1951, 108–110 and Pl. X. For the possibility that this stele contained an inscription of Sennacherib see also the discussion on p. 400 below. 178 Only two stelae show the crescent standard flanked by human figures (Keel 1994, nos. 7–8). 179 The legal element is stressed in Kohlmeyer 1992, 98. For the moon god as the protector of contracts, see the discussion on p. 250ff. below. 180 Köroğlu & Yumruk 2014, 2–8. The authors date this relief to the time between the reigns of Šalmaneser III and Sargon II.

44

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

relief are mounted on animal shaped pedestals – an element that further underlines the function of the standards as divine manifestations.181 In addition to the depictions of Sîn’s crescent standard in Mesopotamian and Syro-Anatolian art, there are also a few written references to it in the Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence. In a letter to Sargon II, the chief treasurer Ṭāb-šārAššur reports that two divine standards (dšurinnu) of Sîn of Ḫarrān are in good condition.182 Another reference to the šurinnu-standard is made in a report concerning gold and silver work for the temple of Sîn, sent to Assurbanipal.183 The sender of this letter, Sîn-na’id, assures the king that contrary to the rumours of its collapse, the divine standard is in perfect condition.184 Since the letter was sent from Assur, it can be expected that this emblem was located somewhere in the city. The “Courtyard of Standards” (tarbaṣ šurinnē) on the western side of the Old Palace was a likely place, but unfortunately, no precise information is available.185

Fig. 6: The crescent moon standard mounted on a hybrid creature (Köroğlu & Yumruk 2014, Fig. 7)

181

Cf. e.g. the rock relief at Maltai (Boehmer 1975, 42–84). A detail of this relief, depicting the moon god standing on a lion-dragon, can be seen in Fig. 3, p. 24 above. 182 SAA 1 no. 50, 1–8: “To the king, my lord: your servant Ṭāb-šār-Aššur. Good health to the king, my lord! As to the emblem of the moon god of Ḫarrān of which the king my lord wrote to me, there are two good ones which [...] for the watch of [...] of the king, my lord [...].” (see also the discussion and the citation of the letter on p. 399 below). 183 SAA 13 no. 28 and no. 29. The sender, Sîn-na’id, was active as the mayor of Assur (ḫazannu) around the middle of the 7th century BCE, i.e. during the reign of Assurbanipal. Simultaneously he acted as the chief goldsmith, the role that he has in this letter (Radner 1999, 16–19). 184 SAA 13 no. 28, r. 10–12: ù ina UGU tak-ku-us-si ša dšu-ri-in-ni / ša LUGAL be-lí iqbu-u-ni ma-a a-sem-mi / ma-a ra-man-ša ta-ad-dib šul-mu a–dan-niš, “And concerning the pole of the divine emblem about which the king, my lord, spoke, saying: ‘I have heard that it collapsed of its own accord’ – it is (in fact) in excellent condition.” 185 As pointed out in Novotny 2003, 52 note 168.

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

Fig. 7: Açaği Yarimca Stele (Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 206)

45

Fig. 8: Göktaçköyü Stele (Keel 1994, no. 8)

II.2.4. The Boat and the Barge The idea that the moon is a heavenly boat that travels across the night sky was among the most important Mesopotamian lunar metaphors: the epithets má, “boat”, and especially má-gur8, “barge”, were common for the Sumerian moon god Nanna, and they also remained in use in relation to the moon god Sîn.186 A prime example of this can be found in an eršema to the moon god that opens with the line “radiant barge of heaven, pre-eminent by his own right” and in the following lines describes the moon god sailing in the heavens.187 In addition to the boat metaphor used in Sumerian literary texts, both “boat” and “barge” appear as Sîn’s names in the god-list An = Anum. In this list, he is first given the name dMá-gu-la-an-na, “The Great Boat of Heaven”,188 a name that is conceptually connected to dMá-bàn-da-an-na, “The Small Boat of Heaven”, a name for

186

See Tallqvist 1938a, 445; Sjöberg 1960, 27; and Hall 1985, 675–678. BM 13930 (CT 15, pls. 16–17)//, 1: má-gur8 kù an-na še-er-ma-al ní-te-na, “radiant barge of heaven, pre-eminent by his own right”; 9: má-gur8 an-šà-ga diri-ga še-er-ma-alla-zu-dè, “as (you), barge, that is drifting in the midst of heaven, are prestigious” (see the edition in Sjöberg 1960, 44–54). Note that the first line of this eršema is similar to the epithet si mú kù an-na, “the radiant growing horn of heaven”, for the moon god in the lamentation e-lum di-da-ra (see Cohen 1988, 179–180 and 183 as well as the discussion on p. 35 above; the relevant lines are also cited on p. 148 below). 188 An = Anum III, 14 (Litke 1998, 118 and Feliu 2006, 235). 187

46

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the sun god Šamaš.189 On the basis of the moon god’s seniority over the sun god, these names function as a reminder of their genealogical relationship.190 The two further names in An = Anum are dMá, “Boat”, and dMá-gur8, “Barge”, found in the section listing the equivalents for the moon god as Nannāru.191 In the god-list An = Anu ša amēli, the appellation Má-gur8 for the moon god is explained as“ Sîn of the barges”.192 Although it is clear that the epithets má, “boat”, and má-gur8, “barge”, describe the moon god in his celestial manifestation, boats were also associated with him in other ways, especially in Sumerian sources.193 Boats were used to transport deities in processions and journeys of cultic festivals194, and in the case of the moon god, a prominent example of such a journey is found in his visit to Nippur, the city of his father Enlil.195 In this composition, the building of the barge for Nanna-Suen’s journey plays an important role as a unifying force since the materials needed for its construction are obtained from various geographical regions. In addition, the evidence for the á-ki-ti festival of the moon god in Ur during the Ur III period combines the metaphor of the moon as boat with the processional boat, used by the moon god to travel to the temple Kar-zi-da in Gaeš, outside the city.196 The processional boat of Sîn with the name ĝišmá-nu-ri is attested in a list of boats belonging to different deities in the lexical list Ur5ra.197 Whether Sîn’s processional boat or a “lunar barge” was still housed in the temple Ekišnugal in the 1st millennium BCE remains unclear since no record of an akītu-festival or other kinds of processions of the moon god in Ur is preserved for this period. Still, a location for storing the processional boat within the temple during the Neo-Babylonian period has been suggested. The excavations by C. Leonard Woolley inside the ziqqurrat enclosure of Ekišnugal re-

189

An = Anum III, 106 (according to Litke 1998, 129; III, 100 in Feliu 2006, 239). For the sun god Utu/Šamaš as the eldest son of the moon god p. 305ff. below. 191 An = Anum III, 24–25 (Litke 1998, 119 and Feliu 2006, 237). See also p. 34 above. 192 An = Anu ša amēli, 36: Má-gur8| MIN(=d30) | šá ma-kur-ri (Litke 1998, 231). 193 Hall 1985, 675–676: “When Nanna/Suen was identified with the moon, he was often portrayed as ‘the heavenly barge’ as the references above indicate. When he was conceptualized in anthropomorphic terms, he was described as riding a boat like humans.” 194 For the use of boats as the vehicles for deities see especially Salonen 1939, 58–66, Salonen 1957–1971, 463–464, Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 196–198, and Weszeli 2009, 161. 195 Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nippur, edited by A. Ferrara (1973; see also the edition in ETCSL t.1.5.1). 196 See Cohen 1993, 401–413 and Sallaberger 1993, 179–190. For the temple name and an overview of the sources involving it, see also George 1993, no. 570. 197 MSL 5, 177 (l. IV 312). In Cohen 1993, 402 this name is taken to mean elep nūri, “boat of light”, as a reference to the luminous celestial boat of the moon god. The reference to this boat name in Sallaberger 1993, 190 note 903 abstains from making such an interpretation. 190

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

47

vealed a building that, according to Woolley, housed the moon god’s boat, and for this reason Woolley named the building “Boat Shrine”.198 The possibility that the sanctuary housed a representation of Sîn’s lunar boat cannot, however, be confirmed due to the lack of both archaeological or textual evidence. The ceremonial name É-má-gur8, “House of the Barge”, is known from a single attestation in the balaĝ-lamentation “It Touches the Earth Like a Storm” (u4-dam ki àm-ús) to Enlil,199 but as Andrew George has noted, it is not entirely clear whether this “House of the Barge” is an epithet for the temple Ekišnugal or a physically distinct part of the temple complex.200 Because earlier lines of the passage describe the temple Ekišnugal as a cattle pen, and on the basis of the use of the appellation Má-gur8 for the moon god, it is very likely that it describes the temple Ekišnugal as the moon god’s house. Because of the association of both the “boat” (má) and “barge” (má-gur8) with the appellation/epithet nannāru for Sîn that we discussed previously, it is possible to identify both these terms as descriptions of the waxing moon. Moreover, the use of the term má-gur8/makurru in other contexts suggests that this word designated specific shapes of the waxing lunar disc: the lunar crescent,

198

The structure that Woolley called the “Boat Shrine” is located on the southeastern side of the ziqqurrat, opposite a similar building that Woolley called the “Shrine of Nannar” (Woolley 1925, 362–363 and Woolley 1939, 68). It appears that both this “Boat Shrine” and “Shrine of Nannar” were added to the area during the Neo-Babylonian period since stamped bricks of Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus were found there. The actual purpose of this building is not known, but because of the base built of fired bricks in the inner chamber of the house, Woolley – following a suggestion made by L. Legrain – proposed that this building may have housed the boat of Sîn: “[...] the long narrow base occupying the whole of the sanctuary is not at all suitable for a statue, but would serve excellently as a support for a model of the crescent-shaped barque in which Nannar crossed the sky, and Neo-Babylonian texts mention such a barque as having been dedicated at Ur.” (Woolley 1939, 68). Unfortunately, Woolley does not give any references to these Neo-Babylonian texts mentioning such a barge, and it therefore remains unclear which texts he meant. It is true that silver boat models are known both from the Royal Cemetery of Ur and from documents dating to the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods, but these models were votive gifts, not ceremonial vessels (for a further discussion on the boat models, see de Graeve 1981, nos. 96–105 and Meyer 2001, 268–283; for the votive gifts, see Oppenheim 1954, 8 note 8 and Weszeli 2009, 169). Taking this and the lack of any physical evidence besides the narrow base inside this structure into account, it seems unlikely that this building would be the “House of the Barge”, É-má-gur8 (see Mallowan 1964, 65 note 10). Nevertheless, this house must have had some cultic importance since its outer wall has the niche-pilaster structure typical of sacred buildings (Heinrich 1982, 298–299). 199 u4-dam ki àm-ús, 195: Úriki-ma é-má-gur8-[(x)]-r[e], “in Ur, the house of the barge” (Cohen 1988, 148–151). 200 George 1993, no. 711.

48

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the half moon, and the gibbous moon.201 First, the references to a makurru-boat make it clear that this was an object with very prominent “horns”, i.e. the stems that rise at the stern and prow of the ship.202 This is evident from the use of model boats to expel evil in ritual contexts. For example, in the anti-witchcraft ritual Maqlû, two figurines are placed “between the horns” of a makurru-boat in order to expel the witch by letting the river carry her away.203 The physical appearance of such model boats is confirmed by the models of boats with high-rising stems found in excavations.204 That the crescent moon with its horns resembled a makurru-boat is also indicated by an entry in the 5th tablet of EAE: in one of the fragments of the text, a protasis refers to lunar horns that resemble a makurruboat.205 The use of the term in the context of celestial observation confirms that the barge had a specific shape that could be used to describe the appearance of the crescent moon. On the other hand, it is possible that a boat resembling a coracle (quppu) – a round basket made waterproof with bitumen – was meant when this term was applied to the moon. As shown by Irving Finkel, it seems possible that such a round vessel was built by Atraḫasīs in order to survive the flood,206 and its connection to the makurru-barge is suggested by the references to such a makurru in the myth.207 The form of a coracle is a very suitable metaphor for the lunar disc: it is round when seen from above, but when it is seen from the side, its shape is a half-circle similar to the half moon.208 In addition to the shapes of the crescent and full moon, the third association of the lunar boat metaphor is with the gibbous shape of the moon, i.e. a shape that is convex on both sides. This is shown by Old Babylonian mathematical texts that speak of “the area of

201

The different perspectives that can produce different shapes (the boat seen from the side as opposed to seen from above) are briefly noted in Krebernik 1995, 360. 202 In his elementary study of Mesopotamian ships and boats, A. Salonen noted that because of the way in which the shape of the boat is described e.g. in Maqlû, and also on the basis of the model boats that have been found, the má-gur8 should not be identified with the traditional round coracle (Salonen 1939, 13). 203 Maqlû III, 116–135 (Abusch 2016, 99–102 and 311–312; III, 118–139 in Meier 1937, 25–26). For an overview of the model boats’ use in rituals see Meyer 2001, 268–283. 204 See de Graeve 1981, nos. 96–105. 205 K. 7192 (ACh Supp. 2 Sin 6), 8’: DIŠ 30 SI.MEŠ-šú GIN7 gišMÁ.GUR8 LUGAL x [...], “If the horns of the moon are like a makurru-boat, the king [...]” (Verderame 2002b, 131). 206 Finkel 2014, 119–144. 207 A vessel that is designated as ĝišmá-gur4-gur4 is mentioned in the Sumerian Flood Story and a Middle Babylonian manuscript deriving from Nippur (here makurkurru) – possibly a precursor of the coracle in the tradition of the Mesopotamian flood story (Finkel 2014, 119–121). 208 See e.g. the coracle laden with bricks depicted in a relief of Sennacherib (Finkel 2014, 137).

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

49

má-gur8” when they refer to an area that is formed by two overlapping circles.209 Moreover, the gibbous or full shape of makurru appears to have been the intended reference in a kudurru of Nazi-Maruttaš. Here the “crescent, trough (and) makurru-boat of Sîn” are listed among the 17 divine emblems (šurinnu).210 It has been argued that these are not physical emblems, but rather that they stand for the three phases of the moon: crescent, gibbous, and full.211 This is a plausible interpretation since although the crescent standard of Sîn and his processional boat are attested as physical objects, no trough (buginnu) of the moon god can be found in the available sources.212 In the 1st millennium BCE, the affinity between má-gur8 and the gibbous moon is further exhibited in the bilingual composition Exaltation of Inanna. Here, in the lines describing how the powers of Sîn are given to Ištar, his daughter, a reference is made to the “crown of splendour” (agê tašriḫti). Exaltation of Inanna, 87–88213 47 saĝ-zi ka-silim-ma gú máma-qu-ru-gur8-ra-ke4 zag-ĝá-na ba-ni-in-ĝar 48 a-ge-e taš-ri-iḫ-tum šá ki-ma re-eš dNanna-ri ina qaq-qa-di-šá uk-tin (Sum.) The crown of splendour, the ‘neck’ of the barge, he placed on her side. (Akk.) The crown of splendour that is like the head of Nannāru he has fixed on her head.

209

See CAD M/1, 142; AHw, 591; and Stol 1992, 248. The area of a ĝišmá-gur8 as a geometrical term is attested in the tablet BM 15285, which contains a variety of geometry problems, with illustrations. In this tablet, the term is clearly used to describe a segment that is convex on both sides. For a new edition of the tablet see Robson 1999, 208–217. The calculation for the area of the “barge” is found in problem xl in Robson’s edition (Robson 1999, 213). The same tablet contains geometrical problems related to the calculation of the area for u4-sakar, which in this case is a semi-circle (see Robson 1999, 212, problem xxxi). 210 MDP 2 86, IV 10–11: us-qa-ru BU.GI.NA / ma-gur-ru ša dEN.ZU (see the new edition in Paulus 2014, 325–334 [NM 2]). For a discussion of these symbols see especially Seidl 1989, 33–35; Slanski 2003, 128–130; and Slanski 2003–2004, 309–323. 211 See CAD B, 306–307; Leibovici 1962, 106 and Stol 1992, 248. Both Leibovici and Stol interpret magurru as the full moon in this case. Note, however, that both buginnu and magurru may have been understood as round objects. In the new edition of the text, Susanne Paulus interprets all three of them as designations of the lunar crescent that is depicted on the kudurru (Paulus 2014, 332–333). 212 Apart from this reference in the kudurru, in Akkadian sources the word buginnu is primarily used to denote a vessel made of reeds or wood that was used to hold water or dough (see CAD B, 306–307). The reference to the bugin of Nanna in Gudea Cyl A, XXI 18 mentioned in Stol 1992, 248 note 33 should not be seen as a predecessor for buginnu, since it should probably be read as ambar (see Wilson 1996, 96). 213 See the edition in Hruška 1969, 485–486.

50

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

The juxtaposition of the “barge” – in the Akkadian line Nannāru – with the “crown of splendour” leads us to think of the gibbous moon, since the “crown of splendour” was specifically connected to the last days before the full moon.214 A possible, though not necessary, association of the moon god as dMa-gur8 with a specific lunar phase can also be found in the letter to the god Aššur, in which Sargon II recounts his campaign against Urartu.215 TCL 3, 317–319216 317 ina qí-bi-ti ṣir-te ša dAG dAMAR.UTU ša i-na man-za-az MUL.MEŠ ša šu-ut-bé-e gišTUKUL.MEŠ-ia iṣ-ba-tu ta-lu-ku 318 ù i-da-at dum-qí ša le-qe-e kiš-šu-ti dMá-gur8 EN a-ge-e a-na šulpu-ut kurGu-tiki ú-šá-ni-ḫa EN.NUN At the exalted command of Nabû and Marduk, who in the stellar station had taken the course for starting my campaign, and on account of the propitious signs for seizing the power: Magur, lord of the crown, (made an eclipse that) lasted (through) the watch (to announce) the destruction of Gutium. This passage is the first time that an astrological motif is included in the Assyrian royal inscriptions217 and it describes a lunar eclipse that presumably occurred during Sargon’s campaign.218 Although the word eclipse is not used here, the connotation is clear: the expression maṣṣarta uštāniḫ is commonly used in astrological omens to describe an eclipse that lasted through a watch.219 The Sumerian name is most likely used here as a learned spelling of the appellation Nannāru,220 and in addition, it plausibly refers to the lunar barge that is named in the prologue of EAE.221 For this reason it is also possible that the reference to the 214

See the discussion on p. 65ff. below. Observed in Stol 1992, 248–249. 216 See Mayer 1983, 100–101. 217 See Koch-Westenholz 1995, 153–154 and Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 39. 218 See Oppenheim 1960, 137–138; Koch-Westenholz 1995, 153–154; and PongratzLeisten 1999, 39. In Koch-Westenholz 1995, 153 the tablet 16 of EAE is given as the likely source for the eclipse omen that is referred to here. This tablet contains entries that deal with lunar eclipses lasting through the watch, see e.g. EAE 16, § VII 12: DIŠ ina iti DU6 UD.14.KAM AN.MI GAR-ma EN.NUN uš-ta-ni-iḫ [...], “If an eclipse occurs on the 14th of Tašrītu and lasts (through) the watch [...]” (Rochberg-Halton 1988, 99). 219 See CAD A/2, 104–105; Oppenheim 1960, 137 and Rochberg-Halton 1988, 45. 220 It should be noted that another epithet of Sîn in the highly literary/scholarly style of the inscriptions of Sargon II is bin Daragal, “son of Daragal(= Enlil)” (see Fuchs 1994, 41 line 57 and p. 291 below). 221 See Verderame 2002b, 9 and the citation of the passage on p. 94 below. No other attestations of dMá-gur8 are known in the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, but an earlier use of the appellation can be found in an inscription of the Middle Assyrian king Tiglathpileser I (RIMA 2, A.0.87.1, I 5–6: d30 er-šu EN a-ge-e / ša-qu-ú dMá-gur8. Grayson 215

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

51

lunar barge was not intended to pinpoint a particular phase of the moon (i.e. the full moon), but rather to refer to the moon’s role as a sign-giver. If this interpretation is correct, this designation underlines the variety of possible subtexts in the use of the appellation/epithet “barge”. In addition to the textual sources, a motif that has commonly been interpreted as a depiction of the moon god’s nocturnal journey through the heavens in a lunar boat can be found particularly in Neo-Assyrian, but also in Neo-Babylonian, iconography.222 This motif, which seems to be rooted and widely spread throughout northern Mesopotamia and Syria, depicts the anthropomorphic moon god standing inside a crescent moon. It is, in fact, the most widely attested representation of the god in human form. The identification of this deity as the moon god is clear not only from the crescent moon, in which he is standing, but also from the additional crescent moon emblem that, in some cases, is attached to his headdress. An example of this is found in an Neo-Babylonian seal (Fig. 10, p. 52).223

Fig. 9: Seal of Adad-nāṣir, eunuch of Mannu-kī-māt-Aššur (Keel 1994, no. 84)

translates “god Sîn, wise one, lord of the lunar disc, lofty divine crescent”, and the use of this name in this inscription had already been pointed out in Thureau-Dangin 1923, 110 note 2). One can also speculate that this earlier attestation may have been associated with celestial omens: the epithet eršu, “wise”, for Sîn appears to be conceptually connected to omens (see p. 154ff. below) and the epithet “lord of the crown” refers to the moon as a celestial phenomenon (see p. 60ff. below). 222 For discussions of this motif see Herbordt 1992, 101; Collon 1992, 27; Keel 1994, 172–173; Kühne 1997, 375–382; Theuer 2000, 345–347; Collon 2001, 118; Ornan 2005b, 68–69; Collon 2007, 66; and Ornan 2009, 139–140. The interpretation of this motif as a lunar boat is supported especially by O. Keel, H. Kühne and G. Theuer, whereas D. Collon sees this motif as a counterpart of the winged sun disc with a torso of a deity rising from it (see especially Collon 2001, 118 and Collon 2007, 66). 223 In Collon 1995, 376 no. 37 this seal (WA 89780) is said to be Neo-Assyrian, but in Collon 1992, 27 and no. 25 and Collon 2001, no. 229 it is identified as Neo-Babylonian, which is supported by the presence of the god Marduk, the other venerated deity.

52

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Fig. 10: Detail of the Neo-Babylonian seal WA 89780 (Collon 1995, no. 37)

Fig. 11: A seal impression from DūrKatlimmu (Kühne 1997, Abb. 1)

Since the metaphor equating the moon with a boat is common, especially in Sumerian literary texts, it is alluring to see the moon god and the lunar boat depicted together in this iconographic motif. In this respect, it is significant that, in contrast to earlier periods,224 no certain examples of the moon god standing inside an actual boat are attested in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian iconography. The only possible example of the moon god standing in an explicitly non-lunar boat is on the stele of Nabonidus’ mother Adda-guppi.225 The existence of images depicting the moon god standing in his boat from the 2nd millennium BCE suggests that the motif of him standing inside the lunar crescent – attested widely in Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and especially Aramaic seals226 – is a continuation of the same theme. The crescent “boat” with the moon god standing inside it can be depicted alone, as an object of worship, or as occupying the upper part of the seal as a celestial object. In some cases, such as

224

D. Collon has argued that the oldest examples of the depiction of the lunar boat derive from Early Dynastic and Akkadian iconography, in which an anthropomorphic boat is a common motif (Collon 1995, 372 and Collon 1997, 11–12). The first clear example of the moon god – identified through the crescent moons attached to his headdress, axe, and standard – depicted as standing inside a boat can be found on a “Cappadocian” cylinder seal dating to the 19th century BCE (Collon 1992, 23 [no. 7]). Another example is found on Middle Assyrian style seal found at Samsat, in which an anthropomorphic deity holding a crescent moon emblem in his hand is standing on a pedestal inside a boat (Özgüç 1987, 436–438 and Fig. 13; Collon 1992, 25 and 36 [no. 12]). 225 This was suggested already by C. J. Gadd in his edition of the stele (Gadd 1958, 37 note 1) and further supported in Blocher 2001, 45–50. If this is true, this depiction would combine the earlier iconography of a deity standing in a boat with Neo-Assyrian depictions of cult statues standing on animal-shaped pedestals. 226 Neo-Assyrian seals with this motif are found at Kalḫu, Nineveh, Assur, Carchemish (see Herbordt 1992, 101), and Dūr-Katlimmu (see Kühne 1997, 375–382). For Aramaic seals see Bordreuil 1986, 75–107 and Keel 1994, 172.

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

53

in sealings found in Dūr-Katlimmu (Fig. 11), the lunar boat is shown hovering above vegetation, which most likely is a reference to the relationship of the moon god to vegetation and fertility.227 Despite the apparent affinity of the crescent moon as a boat to this motif, another interpretation has been suggested in the recent years. Dominique Collon has argued that the motif should be seen as an equivalent to the depictions of the sun god emerging from the winged sun disc.228 This argument is based on a comparison between the motif depicting the moon god inside the crescent, the motif of the sun god in his winged sun disc, and the depictions of deities standing in a boat. Important details shown by this comparison are that the deities standing in a boat are depicted standing on a pedestal with their feet visible and that the stems of the boat are curved outward.229 Moreover, the anthropomorphic sun god emerging from the winged sun disc is often depicted side by side with the anthropomorphic moon god standing inside his lunar crescent, as is exemplified by the seal of Adad-nāṣir, the eunuch of Mannu-kī-māt-Aššur, the governor of Guzāna (Fig. 9, p. 51).230 These factors led Collon to consider the two motifs parallel to each other. The shared feature in these depictions of Sîn and Šamaš is clear: they both combine the celestial phenomenon – i.e. the form in which the moon god and the sun god make themselves manifest in the physical world – with the anthropomorphic deity. The tendency to depict the moon god with an image that combines these two forms can perhaps be attributed to the same Syro-Anatolian influence that appears to be behind his other anthropomorphic depictions in northern Mesopotamia and Syria.231 Bearing this in mind, it is best to conclude that the motif of the moon god standing in the crescent moon can be interpreted in two different ways that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is plausible that the metaphoric description of the moon as a boat was strongly associated with these images of Sîn standing inside the crescent moon, but at the same time they can be seen to parallel the way the sun god was depicted in his sun disc.

227

For the moon god’s connection to vegetation and fertility see p. 229ff. below. For the juxtaposition of the winged sun disc with an anthropomorphic sun god and the crescent moon with the anthropomorphic moon god see Collon 2001, 118 and Collon 2007, 66. An overview of the winged disc symbol in Near Eastern art can be found in Ornan 2005a, 207–241. 229 Similar to the depiction of the moon god on the aforementioned Middle Assyrian seal found at Samsat (Özgüç 1987, 436–438 and Fig. 13; Collon 1992, 25 and 36 [no. 12]). In comparison see the cylinder seal of Sadibbu, in which the god Adad is depicted as standing inside a boat (Buchanan 1966, 114 [no. 632] and Kühne & Radner 2008, 39–41 [Abb. 15]). 230 For a photograph of, and more bibliographical information about, this seal VA 511 see Ornan 2009, 138 (Fig. 31). 231 See Ornan 2009, 139 and p. 24 above. 228

54

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

II.2.5. The Fruit Along with the boat and the barge, the appellation/epithet “fruit” (Sum. gurun and Akk. inbu) also belongs with the descriptions of the waxing moon in Assyria and Babylonia.232 The trope of the moon as a fruit is not as widely attested as that of a boat, but it holds a very prominent position in the Neo-Assyrian hemerological sources: this is the appellation that is used for the moon in the royal hemerelogy Inbu bēl arḫi, “Fruit, Lord of the Month”, which is known from a single copy from Nineveh.233 The beginning of the first tablet has not been preserved, but the title of the series is known from the colophons of the manuscripts234 and other sources naming the text.235 The title “Fruit, Lord of the Month” and the content of this series has been the main source for the interpretation of the epithet inbu, “fruit”, as the new lunar crescent that announces the beginning of a new month. However, in the context of Inbu bēl arḫi (as well as in other sources), this epithet is associated with two different lunar phases: the crescent moon and the gibbous moon. The epithet inbu (Sum. gurun) is almost exclusively restricted to Akkadian sources of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. It does not appear to be attested in Sumerian sources of earlier periods,236 and the only attestation of a Sumerian use derives from a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to Sîn, 4 R2 9+//. Simultaneously, this attestation is the only one found in prayers or hymns addressed to the moon god. 4 R2 9+//, 11237 gi-rin ní-ba mu-un-dím-ma é-mar è-a i-⌈bí⌉ ⌈bar⌉ ⌈ḫé⌉-⌈du7⌉ la-la-bi nu-gi4-gi4 en-bu šá ina ra-ma-ni-šú ib-ba-nu-u ši-ḫa gat-ta šá ana nap-lu-⌈si⌉ ⌈as⌉⌈mu⌉ ⌈la⌉-⌈la⌉-šú la ìš-še-bu-u (Sum.) Fruit that was created by itself, full-grown form that is suitable to watch, whose beauty will not be rejected. (Akk.) Fruit that was created by itself, full-grown form that is suitable to watch, with whose beauty no one can be sated. 232

See Tallqvist 1938a, 445 and Sjöberg 1960, 174. For attestations of inbu see CAD I/J, 146. The series Inbu bēl arḫi is now published in Livingstone 2013, 199–248, but see also the overview in Landsberger 1915, 101–105. Significant improvements to Livingstone’s edition are made in Marti 2014, 181–196. 234 E.g. the 8th tablet of the series (intercalary Elūlu), K. 4231, IV 13: DUB.8.KÁM GURUN EN ar-ḫi-i[m] (Livingstone 2013, 217; Marti 2014, 186. See also the photograph of the tablet in CDLI P395455). 235 SAA 10 no. 221, r. 7: ina ŠÀ GURUN EN ar-ḫi šá-ṭir, “it is written in Fruit, Lord of the Month”. 236 gurun is absent in the list of epithets for the Sumerian moon god Nanna/Suen in Hall 1985, 622. 237 Shibata, HES (forthcoming); Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 170. 233

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

55

This line has undoubtedly been one of the main reasons for seeing “fruit” as a poetic expression for the moon that grows to its full shape – a concept that was already recognised in the early days of Assyriology.238 Indeed, the power of renewal and growth, which is one of the most central traits of the moon god, is the carrying force in this line; as the “fruit that was created by itself”, the moon is a part of an endless cycle of disappearance and rebirth. The fact that the moon god is said to have been created by himself reflects the regenerative power of Sîn, the divine power behind the re-emergence of the moon at the beginning of the month.239 The reference to the full grown form here undoubtedly pertains to the gibbous or full moon as the “fruit”, adorning the night sky in its swollen figure. These aspects of creation and full-grown form are also reflected in other sources that speak of the moon as “fruit”. This is true not only in the context of the hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi but also in the few other sources that can be linked to a specific lunar phase. When these attestations are closely examined, it becomes clear that the epithet inbu is exclusively used for the moon god when the moon is a new crescent and when it is gibbous. Despite the fragmentary nature of Inbu bēl arḫi, it is evident that in this text the appellation inbu for Sîn is systematically used as the name of the moon god on both the first and the eleventh days of the month.240 On the first day of the month, the “Fruit” is the recipient of royal offerings, as is exemplified by the entry for the first day of month Araḫsamnu.241 K. 3269, I 2–3242 I2 [e-n]u-ma ina ITI 30 ut-tam-ru SIPA UN.MEŠ ra-ba-a-[ti] I3 [NIDBA]-⌈šú⌉ MAŠ.DÀ KÙ-ta ana GURUN [Wh]en the moon is lit up at the beginning of the month, the shepherd of the numero[us] people (sets) his [bread offering] (and) a pure gazelle for the Fruit. On the eleventh day of the month, the moon is again referred to by the name

238

Peter Jensen refers to this line in his discussion of the moon (Jensen 1890, 103–104). Stephen Langdon even went so far as to identify the “Fruit” as a grape in his edition of 4 R2 9+, but did not offer any references to support his suggestion (Langdon 1927, 7 note 3). This aspect of the moon as a fruit growing until it reaches its full shape is also noted in Tallqvist 1938b, 56. 239 See Lambert 1987a, 29. 240 The consistency in the structure also applies to the other days associated with Sîn, as can be seen in the overview of the hemerological sources on p. 98ff. below. 241 Similar entries are also preserved for the intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 202), intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 212; Marti 2014, 185), and Šabāṭu (Marti 2014, 189). 242 See Livingstone 2013, 217 and Marti 2014, 186.

56

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

“Fruit”, and on this occasion the appellation is connected to the “crown of splendour” that the moon wears in the days preceding the full moon.243 The most complete example of this is found in the entry for the eleventh day of the intercalary Elūlu.244 K. 4231, II 2–3245 II 2 e-nu-ma ITI AGA taš-ri-iḫ-ti na-šu-u II 3 GURUN ḫa-du-u LUGAL ina GI6 NIDBA-šú ana d30 ú-kan II 4 ni-qé-e BAL-qí niš ŠU-šú KI DINGIR ma-gir When the moon wears a crown of splendour (and) the Fruit rejoices, at night the king sets his bread offering to Sîn. He makes an (animal) offering. The raising of his hands will be agreeable to the god. The appellation “Fruit” is also prominent in text K. 3597// which appears to be related to Inbu bēl arḫi.246 Although the exact nature of this text remains unclear due to its fragmentary nature, it contains lines that are very closely connected to this royal hemerology. Its general style is the same in divinatory texts with a protasis and an apodosis clearly presented. The first reference to the moon god as “Fruit” is found in the line “at the (beginning of the) month the Fruit will reduce the night”.247 As Andrew George and Farouk Al-Rawi have noted, this is an allusion to the first appearance of the moon at the beginning of the month, when the lunar crescent can be seen for a short time above the western horizon.248 This is in accord with calling the moon “Fruit” in the entries for the first day of the lunar month in Inbu bēl arḫi, strongly suggesting that this royal hemerology forms the context for the “omen” text K. 3597//. Moreover, the offering of a gazelle to the “Fruit” in K. 3597// clearly reflects the gazelle offering on the first

243

For a discussion on the “crown of splendour” see p. 65ff. below. The same instruction is preserved also for the intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 204), Simānu (Livingstone 2013, 207), Šabāṭu (Livingstone 2013, 227), and the intercalary Addaru (Livingstone 2013, 230). 245 See Livingstone 2013, 214. 246 The copy of K. 3597 was published by C. Virolleaud among the fragments of the series Inbu bēl arḫi (Virolleaud 1906b, 382–383) and it has remained otherwise unedited. In Bezold’s catalogue of the Kuyunjik collection, this tablet is referred to as “part of an astrological text”, but its close connection to the hemerological series had already been noted by Th. Pinches already prior to its publication by Virolleaud (Pinches 1904, 162). Regardless of this connection, Landsberger and Livingstone did not comment on the fragment in their treatments of Inbu bēl arḫi (Landsberger 1915, 101–103 and Livingstone 2013, 199–201). Fragment K. 5645 (CDLI P395114), which was also published by Virolleaud, provides a duplicate to K. 3597 and likewise remains unedited. 247 K. 3597//, 3’: ina ITI GURUN GI6 i-na-áš-šar. 248 Al-Rawi & George 1991–1992, 63 note 41. 244

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

57

day of the month in Inbu bēl arḫi.249 The fact that “Fruit” should be understood as the name of the moon god in K. 3597// is clear by the way the text presents the “Fruit” and Šamaš as a pair of deities in the entry “The Fruit and Šamaš will be made angry in his (or: its?) month”.250 Again, this stands in connection with Inbu bēl arḫi, in which the moon god is consistently named “Fruit” in the entries for the 1st and 11th days. Outside of the context of Inbu bēl arḫi, there are only a few attestations of inbu, “fruit”, as an epithet of Sîn. One such occasion is in the explanatory text iNAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a, which is primarily known from manuscripts written by the Assyrian scholar Nabû-zuqup-kēnu. In a tablet containing the second “division” (pirsu) of the text, K. 2164+, the epithet inbu bēl arḫi of Sîn – possibly a reference to this royal hemerology – is used in the explanation for the seventh day of the month. K. 2164+, 11–13251 11 UD.⌈7⌉.[KAM AGA ma-á]š-⌈la⌉ ⌈BAR⌉ BÀ BÀ za-a-zu BÀ pa-r[asu] 12 BÀ [ba-an-t]u BÀ mi-šil BÀ 30 mi-šil míš-[li] 13 30 [A.RÁ 0;30] 15 15 A.RÁ 4 60 60 dA-num im-bi GURUN E[N ITI]252 th The 7 [day: a ha]lf [crown]. BAR(half): BÀ(30). BÀ = zâzu (“to divide”); BÀ = par[āsu] (“to cut”); BÀ = [bāmt]u (“half”); BÀ = mišil (“half”). Half(BÀ) of 30 = half of ha[lf]. 30 [× 0;30] = 15; 15 × 4 = 60. 60 = Anu, he called the Fruit, L[ord of the Month].253 The appellation “fruit” for Sîn can also be found in the catch-line of the colophon in fragment K. 2670 which belongs to the tablet that contained the third di-

249

K. 3597//, 6’: ina u4-me-šu ṣa-bi-tu KÙ-tu ana GURUN. K. 3597//, 5’: GURUN u dUTU ina ITI-šú zu-un-nu-u. According to CAD Z, 86 and AHw, 1519 this is the only attestation for a D-stem form of zenû, “to be angry”. For the use of ITI-šú in the context of lunar observations see CAD A/2, 262. 251 See Livingstone 1986, 22–23 and Lambert 2013, 188. A photograph is available in CDLI P394227. 252 The restoration b[ēl arḫi] is suggested by W. G. Lambert, but not included in his transliteration of these lines (Lambert 2013, 188). Collation of the tablet from a photograph reveals sufficient space for the signs EN and ITI, and also traces of the horizontal wedge of EN. A restoration E[N EŠ.BAR ITI] (cf. K. 170+, 9) is unlikely, because there is not enough space for three signs in the part that is broken off. 253 Lambert understood the end of this line differently from Livingstone, taking im-bi as a phonetic spelling of the epithet inbu: “60 = Anu; imbi = GURUN” (Lambert 2013, 188). My understanding of the line corresponds with the translation in Livingstone 1986, 23. 250

58

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

vision (pirsu) of i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a.254 With the help of this catch-line, the first half of the opening line in K. 170+ has been restored: “[‘Fruit’ is Sî]n because Anu called his name”.255 Later in the same text, the moon god being “called” (imbû) by Anu – in itself a pun on the noun inbu, “fruit”256 – is associated with decisions of the month by means of the line “[... Anu] called (his name), Lord of the Month’s Decisions”.257 Therefore, the moon god as “Fruit” is connected with the beginning of the month, that is, the point in time associated both with the sky god Anu and with divine decisions that are revealed by the moon’s return to the heaven after the days of its invisibility.258 The remaining clear attestations of the use of inbu as an appellation for Sîn are found in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus. In both cases it designates the fully-grown moon since it is used to describe a lunar eclipse. In an inscription of Assurbanipal, the eclipse, through which the moon god as “Fruit” reveals his divine decision, bodes the destruction of the Elam and its king Teumman. Assurbanipal Prism B, V 3–10259 I V3 Te-um-man le-mut-tu V4 iš-te-né-’a-a d30 iš-te-né-’a V5 GISKIM.MEŠ MUNUS.ḪUL ina itiŠU AN.MI šat ur-ri a-di ZÁLAG V6 uš-ta-ni-iḫ-ma dUTU IGI-šú-ma ki-ma šu-a-tu-ma V7 kal u4-me uš-ta-ni-iḫ a-na qí-it BALA.MEŠ I Te-um-man LUGAL KUR ELAM.MAki ZÁḪ KUR-šú V8 V9 ú-kal-lim-an-ni GURUN EŠ.BAR-šú ša la in-nen-nu-u Teumman strived after evil, (but) Sîn strived after evil signs. In the month Du’ūzu the eclipse endured from early morning to daybreak: Šamaš saw him and like him endured the whole day. For ending the reign of Teumman, king of Elam, (and for) the destruction of his land, the Fruit showed me his decision that cannot be changed.

254

K. 2670, 3’: DIŠ GURUN ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉ áš-šú [...], “Fruit is Sîn because [....]” (see Livingstone 1986, 28–29; a photograph is available online in CDLI P394591). 255 K. 170+, 1: [DIŠ GURUN dEN.Z]U MU dA-num im-bu-ú MU.[NI]; see also the citation of K. 170+, 1–5 on p. 139 below. 256 See Livingstone 1986, 41 and Beaulieu 2007, 150. 257 K. 170+, 9: [... dA-num i]m-bu-ú EN ⌈EŠ⌉.⌈BAR⌉ ITI | 30 | d30 (see Livingstone 1986, 30–31; a photograph of the tablet is available in CDLI P365806). 258 The last day of the month is associated with Anu in the Mesopotamian hemerological tradition (see the overview in Livingstone 2013, 253). 259 See Borger 1996, 98 and 224. The same passage can also be found in Assurbanipal Prism C, VII 115–121 (RINAP 5/I no. 6).

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

59

The En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder of Nabonidus reports a similar lunar eclipse, but the message conveyed by it is different: Sîn wants a high priestess. Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 6–10 d Nanna-ri EN a-gi-i na-áš ṣa-ad-du a-na da-ad-mi I6 I7 ú-ad-di it-ta-šu aš-šum e-re-eš NIN.DINGIR.RA I8 i-na itiKIN.d+INANNA UD.13.KAM ITI ši-pi-ir diš-tar.MEŠ d in-bi in-na-di-ir-ma i-na na-a’-du-ri-šu ir-bi I9 d EN.ZU NIN.DINGIR.RA i-ri-iš ki-a-am it-ta-šu ù pu-ru-us-su-šú I 10 Nannāru, lord of the crown, the bearer of signals for the inhabited world, revealed his sign because of his desire to have a high priestess. On the 13th of Elūlu, the month of the “work of the goddesses”, the (divine) Fruit darkened and set while being darkened. “Sîn desires a high priestess”, so (is) his sign and his decision. Neither of these references to the eclipsing moon as the “Fruit” is based on astrological literature, in which inbu is not attested as an epithet or appellation for Sîn.260 It is more likely that its use reflects the literary character of Assurbanipal’s and Nabonidus’ inscriptions. The singular attestation in the fragment DT 161, which contains a reference to the moon as a “Fruit” in connection with its appearance (tāmartu) is also more literary in character.261 The preceding lines in this fragment indicate that the text refers to Enlil’s anger, but not much more can be said of its overall content. Because the appellation “Fruit” has been used in this way in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus, there has been tendency to see it primarily as a designation for the full moon.262 However, as already shown, the use of the name “Fruit” for the moon god in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi demonstrates that it could be used to designate both the crescent moon on the first day of the month and the gibbous moon in the days preceding the full moon. Perhaps the underlying principle connecting these two opposite stages is the one expressed in the aforementioned bilingual šu’ila-prayer to the moon god: the moon creates itself anew every month and then grows like a fruit until it reaches its full, ripe form. 260

In the context of astrological omens the word “fruit” refers to actual fruit, not to the moon god, see e.g. Verderame 2002b, 80 (EAE 3, text b, 13’) and SAA 8 no. 513. 261 DT 161, 10: in-bu ina ta-mar-ti-šú x [...] / [(x) x] x ra an-ta-lu lu/ku [...] (CDLI P424515; see also the citation of line 10 in CAD T, 112). 262 Stol 1992, 249: “The Fruit, always named ‘Lord of the month’, is typical for the full moon and the days preceding it [...]”. Tallqvist 1947, 95: “Speciellt är det naturligtvis fullmånen som kallas frukt; därför omtalas en gång en månförmörkelse med uttrycket »frukten förmörkades«.” (“It is of course especially the full moon that is called fruit; therefore a lunar eclipse is once expressed with the expression »the fruit darkened«.”)

60

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

II.2.6. Lord of the Crown The crown is one of the most important lunar metaphors both in Sumerian and Akkadian sources. It describes the moon as a celestial phenomenon (“crown of heaven”), and by extension it conveys notions concerning the moon god’s ability to endow the king with the crown (among other royal insignia).263 In Akkadian sources the lunar crown is always agû, but in Sumerian contexts, two different nouns (men; aga) are used.264 The form of the lunar crown cannot be identified on the basis of these terms since aga/agû, at least, was used as a general term to denote divine or royal headgear of various shapes, from a round diadem to a high horned cap, depending on the temporal and geographical context.265 In the god-list An = Anum the crown has a prominent position as a constituent element in four names of the moon god. All of these names have a solid celestial connotation, and they refer to the moon that is visible in the night sky, spreading light in the darkness. An = Anum III, 8–11266 d III 8 Men-šu-du7 MIN(=d30) d Men-dàra-an-na MIN III 9 d Men-dàra-diĝir-ra MIN III 10 MIN III 11 dMen-zalag-búr The Perfect Crown = ditto (i.e. Sîn) Crown, Ibex of Heaven = ditto267 Crown, Ibex of the Gods = ditto Crown that Emanates Light = ditto268

263

For the moon god in connection with kingship see the discussion on p. 196ff. below. For the use of men and aga as epithets of Nanna see Hall 1985, 628–631 where it is suggested, on the basis of the line “he raised on (the temple) a crown (which was) like a new crescent moon” (Gudea Cyl A, XXIV 10: u4-sakar gibil-gin7 men bí-íl), that the word men for crown connotes the shape of a crescent moon that resembles the horned crowns known from Mesopotamian iconography (Hall 1985, 628). However, it has already been noted in Stol 1992, 249 that this association of the noun men with the crescent moon is uncertain. 265 Waetzoldt 1980–1983, 203. It should also be noted that the physical appearance of this “crown” differs greatly from the Western concept of a crown, and therefore some Assyriologists tend to avoid using this translation. Nevertheless, despite its possibly misleading connotation, I have chosen to use the translation “crown” because of its meaning specifically as a royal headdress. An overview of the physical appearance of the various headdresses in Mesopotamia can be found in Boehmer 1980–1983, 203–210. 266 See Litke 1998, 117 and Feliu 2006, 233–234. 267 Cf. An = Anu ša amēli, 32: [dMen]-⌈dàra⌉-an | MIN | šá ik-ri-be, “[Men]daran is ditto of prayers” (see Litke 1998, 231 and Feliu 2006, 234 note 30). 268 For the meaning of the verb búr as an equivalent of the Akkadian šuparruru see 264

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

61

It is perhaps possible that the full moon is meant by the name dMen-šu-du7, because the verb šu—du7 (Akk. šuklulu) denotes the act of bringing something to an end or the perfecting an object’s appearance.269 In this sense, the “Perfect Crown” is a suitable name to describe the lunar disc that has reached its full form. The names dMen-dàra-an-na and dMen-dàra-dingir-ra are problematic because there are three different possibilities for interpreting the element dàra.270 In general, this Sumerian word means the ibex (Akk. turāḫu). Therefore, the names d Men-dàra-an-na and dMen-dàra-dingir-ra contain a reference to the moon god in connection with this horned wild animal: similarly to the horns of the bull, the horns of the ibex may have been associated with the lunar crescent.271 However, other translations are also possible since in addition to turāḫu, the Sumerian noun dàra has at least two other Akkadian equivalents. First, in the lamentation “Flood which Drowns the Harvest” (a-gal-gal buru14 su-su), there is an attestation for the equation of dàra with the Akkadian adjective šaqû, “high”.272 This association appears to have been the grounds for translating these two names as “The sublime crown of heaven” and “The august crown of the gods”, respectively.273 Second, it is possible that the word “king” is denoted here since dàra is equated with both šarru and malku in lexical lists.274 Because of these possibilities, and because no commentary on these names is known, there can be no certainty about how they were perceived by Mesopotamian scholars. Perhaps all these different interpretations were at play, because the associations with the wild animals of the steppe, as well as with the sublime character of the moon as the celestial illuminator, and with the concept of kingship all fit the theological aspects of the moon god. In the astrological-astronomical literature, the use of a crown (Sum. aga, Akk. agû) to describe the moon is very well-attested.275 According to Lorenzo Verderame, the two main arguments in the discussion concerning the exact

Sjöberg 1960, 105–106 and Sjöberg 1973, 46. This verb is used in connection with moonlight and the moon’s halo (see the attestations of šuparruru in CAD Š/3, 317–318). 269 See CAD Š/3, 221–226. 270 These different possibilities have been laid out in Feliu 2006, 234 note 30. 271 For a discussion of the connection between the moon god and wild animals see p. 247ff. below. 272 a-gal-gal buru14 su-su, a+121: á dàra gašan-ḫur-saĝ-ĝá ša-(mu-un-u5) / i-dan šá-qa-a-tú be-let DINGIR.MEŠ MIN (see Cohen 1988, 508). 273 See Tallqvist 1938a, 443 and Krebernik 1995, 363. Krebernik deems that the name Men-dara-dingir-ra must be a scribal mistake for Men-dara-an-na. Tallqvist instead sees these names as a reference to the full moon (Tallqvist 1947, 87). 274 See CAD Š/2, 77 and CAD M/1, 166. 275 The latest discussion concerning agû can be found in Verderame 2002b, 60–62 where extensive bibliographical information is given; see also Weidner 1911, 23–52 and Stol 1992, 249–250.

62

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

meaning of this crown have been that agû simply refers to the form of the moon, especially to the full moon, or that it describes light phenomena, especially earthshine, which is the grey part of the lunar disc that can be seen together with the crescent moon.276 The latter argument has been especially influential. It is true that many of the depictions of the lunar crescent appear to display this phenomenon since they show the round disc with a crescent moon in the lower part.277 However, it is unlikely that this definition applies to the crown when it is used as an epithet for Sîn outside the sphere of celestial observation: the phenomena that are described by the term “crown” in astrological literature do not appear to be attached to the way in which the moon god is portrayed as the “lord of the crown”. This is suggested by the different forms, colours, and even number of crowns of the moon that are found in the protases of EAE.278 The Babylonian creation epic Enūma eliš displays a different understanding of the lunar crown in the passage that describes the creation of the moon and the lunar cycle by Marduk, and this suggests that the epithet “lord of the crown” should be understood separately from the astrological-astronomical terms.279 In the context of the Enūma eliš, the lunar crown is better understood as the lunar disc, more specifically its illuminated part that takes different forms during the different lunar phases. Therefore, the crown that can be of different sizes is used to designate the moon as it appears in the sky. This explains the half crown of the seventh day of the month, and also the specific term agê tašriḫti, “crown of splendour”, for the gibbous moon.280 We also encounter this meaning of the “crown” as the illuminated lunar disc in one of the tablets belonging to the explanatory text i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a, K. 170+.281 In this text, the crown appears in the section that mainly uses mathematical equations to explain the different associations of the first fifteen days of the lunar cycle.282 The passage states that “to wear a crown on the 15th day” is equal to the form of a circle – a reference to the round, fully illuminated lunar disc. Significantly, a newly published Old Babylonian

276

Verderame 2002b, 60. This two-fold division combines the three possibilities offered by Ernst Weidner for interpretation of the word agû: according to him, the crown can refer either to earthshine, the full moon, or atmospheric phenomena, such as a circle of light and clouds (Weidner 1911, 24–49). 277 Weidner refers to the crescent discs found on Babylonian kudurru-reliefs (Weidner 1911, 25) and elsewhere in Mesopotamian art. The same association is also made in Stol 1992, 249 note 48. For an overview of the crescent moon disc see p. 40ff. above. 278 See the overview of the entries concerning the crown in Verderame 2002b, 62–79. 279 Stol 1992, 250 and Maul 2013a, 258 note 64. 280 See the discussion on p. 65ff. below. 281 Livingstone 1986, 30–31 and Lambert 2013, 189–190. The passage is cited on p. 139 below. 282 See further discussion on this text and the association of Sîn with the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil on p. 136ff. below.

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

63

praise of the moon god reveals that the notion of the lunar disc as the moon god’s crown is rooted already in the Sumerian literary tradition: it celebrates the moon god by naming his crowns for the first 15 days of the lunar cycle, i.e. the phases of the waxing lunar disc from thin crescent to full moon.283 Therefore, in view of these attestations, it is best not to connect the crown of the moon with a particular lunar phase, such as the crescent moon during the first days of the month, but to see it as a general description of the illuminated lunar disc in its various stages. The waxing and waning of the illuminated lunar disc were controlled by the moon god Sîn, who is widely known as “Lord of the Crown” (bēl agê) in Assyria and Babylonia. It is worth noting that this epithet, or a corresponding one, appears to be absent in the earlier monolingual Sumerian literary sources or royal inscriptions, although the “crown” often appears in connection with Nanna/ Sîn.284 This suggests that this particular epithet is a relatively late innovation among epithets for the Mesopotamian moon god. Only one attestation of “Lord of the Crown” in a bilingual context is known, namely in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to the moon god, in which he is called “the lord of the splendid crown”.285 A possible origin in the Old Babylonian period should not be excluded, since the moon god as “King of the Crown” is found in Old Babylonian extispicy prayers.286 During the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods the epithet bēl agê is only sporadically attested in prayers to Sîn,287 but it is often employed in royal inscriptions.288 This underlines the significance of the moon god as “lord of the

YBC 4650, 26’–42’ (see the edition in Cohen 2017, 49–61). As an example, the line concerning the name of the moon god’s crown of the 12th day is: “Lord, ‘pure light that stands in its position in heaven’ is your crown on the 12th day” (YBC 4650, 39’: ⌈en⌉ ĝišnu11 dadag ĝišgal-bi an-na gub-ba men-zu u4-12-kam-ma). 284 The survey of the epithets relating to the crown in Hall 1985, 628–631 does not include any Sumerian equivalent for bēl agê. For the Akkadian attestations see CAD A/1, 154–155. 285 4 R2 9+//, 7: umun men dallax-na/be-lum a-ge-e šu-pu-ú (see Shibata, HES [forthcoming] and Sjöberg 1960, 166–179). Note also the reference to the “lord of the crown of splendour” in the Late Babylonian prayer to the sky god Anu (AO 6461, 5–6; see the citation on p. 68 below). 286 YOS 11 no. 22, 60 and YOS 11 no. 23, 13: dEN.ZU šar-ri a-ge-em (see the discussion on extispicy and the moon god on p. 181ff. below). The use of this epithet in the context of extispicy is still reflected in the 1st millennium BCE (see Sm. 802, 8’ on p. 187 below and K. 2571+//, 61’ on p. 483ff. below). 287 In addition to the ikrib-prayer already mentioned (K. 2571+//, 61’), Sîn as the lord of the crown (d30 EN a-ge-e) is paired with Šamaš, lord of the truth, in KAR 22, r. 4 (see Ebeling 1931b, no. 20 and Scurlock 2006, no. 131). 288 See p. 199 below. Note also the single attestation for the moon god as the lord of the crown in the letter that demands that something is explained to the king (SAA 10 no. 283

64

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

crown” in his role as the king’s patron, able to endow him with the crown.289 Still, the role of Sîn in controlling the lunar disc should not be forgotten in the royal context, since his authority over the appearance and the shape of the moon was, by definition, connected to astrology, a branch of divination that concerned the king and his land.290 Therefore, this epithet can be interpreted to have had these two connotations when employed in a royal context: the moon god as the controller of the lunar disc and the moon god as the giver of royal insignia.291 The moon god Sîn as “lord of the crown” should not be confused with the divine crown of the god Aššur that has the name “(Lord) Crown” (dBēlu-agû or d Agû).292 This divine crown is known to have been a participant in the royal rituals that took place in the months Šabāṭu and Addaru,293 and to have resided in Aššur’s temple.294 The horned crown of Aššur is also depicted in Assyrian reliefs among other symbols of the great gods.295 The name Bēlu-agû is independent of the epithet bēl agê of Sîn,296 although an association between these appellations seems inescapable. An interesting attestation of the divine name Bēlu-agû outside the cultic context of Assur is found in a letter sent to the Assyrian king by a certain Bēl-iddina, SAA 13 no. 187.297 SAA 13 no. 187, 6–12 6 Aš-šur dNin-gal dEN–AGA 7 ra-im-ú-ti [šá] šu-me 8 šá LUGAL EN-ia SILIM-mu šá LUGAL 9 EN-ia a-na da-ri-iš 10 liš-’u-lu : ṭu-ub ŠÀ-bi

286, r. 5’–6’: [x x x]-šú-nu a-na LUGAL be-lí-ia li-ip-šuv-ru / [d30] ⌈EN⌉ a-ge-e lib-bušu lu ⌈ú⌉ [x x x], “They should explain their [...] to the king, my lord! [By Sîn], lord of the crown, its meaning should be [...]!”) For a commentary on this letter see Parpola 1983, no. 128. 289 For the affiliation of the moon god to kingship see the discussion on p. 196ff. below. 290 See the discussion on p. 150ff. below. 291 As noted in Reiner 1985, 21. 292 See the discussion of this divine name in Frankena 1954, 77–78 and Menzel 1981, 57*–58*. The crown as a symbol of Aššur is also discussed in Mayer 1995, 62–63. 293 See the overview of the attestations in Menzel 1981, 57*. 294 Bēl-agê is listed directly after Aššur in Götteradressbuch, 1–2: [d]Aš-š[ur] dEN–AGA / d ⌈ ⌉Aš-šur ša sa-su-ti (Meinhold 2009, 430). 295 See Seidl 1957–1971, 486. The crown as a symbol of the god Aššur can be found e.g. in the stele of Sargon II found in Larnaka (VA 968; see Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 175). 296 Menzel 1981, 56*. 297 In Groß 2014, 150 the divine name dEN–AGA in this letter is taken to stand for the deified epithet of Sîn, i.e. dBēl agê. This is, however, very unlikely in the light of the name Lord-Crown for Assur.

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

65

11 ṭu-ub UZU.MEŠ a-na LUGAL 12 EN-ia lid-di-nu d 30 an-ni-ú dNin-gal 13 14 ⌈d⌉Nusku ša LUGAL be-lí- 15 [e]-ni-šu-nu e-mur-u-ni 16 ⌈ù⌉ ip-la-ḫu-šu-⌈nu⌉-[ni] 17 [a-na] LUGAL [EN-ia x x x] May Aššur, Ningal, and Lord-Crown, who love the name of the king, my lord, ask forever after the well-being of the king, my lord! May they give to the king, my lord, happiness, and physical well-being! May this Sîn, Ningal and Nusku, to whom the king, my lord, has been obedient, and whom he has revered, [.... to] the king, my lord. If line 6 indeed names the triad Aššur, Ningal/Nikkal, and Lord-Crown,298 this letter offers a rather unusual triad of deities to ensure the well-being of the king. This leads to the question why would Sîn’s spouse be connected to Aššur and his crown in this formula? Moreover, if the sender Bēl-iddina was indeed based in Ḫarrān as has been assumed on the basis of the letter’s content,299 why would he make a reference to the god Aššur and his crown, which were inherently connected to the cult in the city of Assur? One possible explanation for this peculiar triad is the equation of the moon god as “lord of the crown” with Aššur’s “LordCrown” due to the similarity of the epithet and the name. Therefore, this singular attestation may act as further evidence of the association of Sîn and Aššur during the Sargonid dynasty, perhaps implying that the lunar disc was equal to Aššur’s crown.300 Still, the lack of any tangible evidence for such an association apart from this single fragmentary attestation leaves the matter unresolved for the time being.

II.2.7. Crown of Splendour The lunar disc as the celestial crown is given a special designation on the days when the moon is gibbous or full: agê tašrihti, “crown of splendour”.301 References to Sîn’s crown of splendour are mostly preserved in explanatory texts by Neo-Assyrian scholars and in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi, “Fruit, Lord

298

The copy of letter SAA 13 no. 187 (K. 477) in ABL 514 clearly shows the signs dNingal. A photograph of the tablet (CDLI P334354) reveals that it has suffered some damage and the reading is not absolutely certain, but still more likely than dNIN.LÍL. 299 See PNA 1/II, 312 (no. 17). The last section of the letter (ll. r. 10’–17’) pertains to praising Sîn and the offerings made to him. 300 See the discussion on p. 395 below. 301 The noun tašriḫtu is the nomen actionis for the verb šurruḫu, “to glorify; to make magnificient” (for the attestations of its use see CAD T, 295–296).

66

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

of the Month”.302 These sources agree that the moon is covered with or wearing the “crown of splendour” (agê tašriḫti) during the days directly preceding the full moon. When this description of the moon’s appearance is compared to the simple crown, it is clear that the “crown of splendour” is meant to convey the image of the almost fully illuminated lunar disc of the gibbous moon.303 The association of agê tašriḫti with the second quarter of the lunar cycle (days 11 to 15) is well-attested in Neo-Assyrian scholarly texts.304 One of these is the fragment K. 2074 which states that during the last days before, and for the duration of, the full moon (from the 11th day of the month to the 15th), the moon wears the crown of splendour. In addition, Sîn is associated with the god Enlil during this phase.305 The fact that this notion was widely spread among Assyrian scholarly circles finds support in a letter from Balasî to the Assyrian king, in which he describes the 13th day of the lunar month, a suitable day for a dream ritual,306 by referring to the “crown of splendour” of the moon. SAA 10 no. 59, 12–15 12 UD.13.KÁM d[30] 13 a-ge-e 14 ta-áš-ri-iḫ-⌈ti⌉ 15 a-pi-[ir] On the 13th day the [moon] will be cover[ed] with the crown of splendour. This description is connected to the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi in which the 11th and 13th days of the lunar month are systematically defined by the moon that is wearing the crown of splendour. As has already been shown in connection

302

See the list of attestations in Verderame 2002b, 60–61 note 169, which contains most of the references given here. The texts K. 2514 and K. 4068 mentioned by Verderame have since been published in Livingstone 2013, 199–248. 303 In Stol 1992, 250 the use of the description “crown of splendour” is seen as a way of distinguishing the earthshine “crown” of the moon from the white “crown” of the gibbous moon: “The crown returns in the nomenclature for the moon from the eleventh through the fifteenth days of the lunar cycle [...] The Babylonians wished to distinguish this crown from ‘earth-shine’ and added the qualification ‘of splendour’: the crown had changed from ash-grey into splendid white.” However, if the lunar crown is understood as the illuminated part of the lunar disc – as argued in the previous chapter –, such a distinction rather involves the size of the illuminated portion. 304 The references to the individual days of the lunar month in relation to Sîn are discussed also on p. 98ff. below. 305 K. 2074, II 7’–8’: TA UD.11.KÁM EN UD.15.KÁM / 5 u4-mi AGA taš-ri-iḫ-ti ip-pirma d+En-líl, “from the eleventh day to the fifteenth day, five days, it wears the crown of splendour, it is Enlil” (see Lambert 2013, 186–187 and the citation on p. 138 below). 306 For the role of the moon god in dreams and dream rituals see p. 189ff. below.

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

67

with the appellation “Fruit” for Sîn, on the 11th day of the month the appearance of the moon was described by the phrase “when the moon wears a crown of splendour and the Fruit rejoices”.307 A similar description – exemplified here by the entry for the 13th day of intercalary Elūlu308 – is found in the entry for the 13th day, the day of the moon god according to Mesopotamian hemerological tradition.309 K. 4231, II 8–12310 II 8 DIŠ UD.13.KÁM šá 30 DINGIR.MAḪ UD Š[E] d 30 AGA taš-riḫ-ti ana KUR na-šu-⌈u⌉ II 9 II 10 UD šú-a-tum ki-niš LUGAL NIDBA-š[ú] II 11 ana dUTU Be-let-KUR.KUR ana 30 DINGIR.MAḪ ú-k[an] II 12 ni-qé-e BAL-qí niš ŠU-šú KI DINGIR I[GI] The 13th day, the one of Sîn (and) Bēlet-ilī. A favou[rable] day. Sîn is displaying the crown of splendour to the land.311 On that day the king faithfully se[ts] h[is] bread offering for Šamaš (and) Bēlet-mātāti, Sîn (and) Bēlet-ilī; he makes an (animal) offering. The raising of his hands will be accep[table] to the god. After the Neo-Assyrian period the crown of splendour continued to be used in religious language, but not only in connection with Sîn. As already noted in the discussion concerning the appellation má-gur8, “barge”, for the moon god, “crown of splendour” (agê tašriḫti), “barge” (ma-gur8), and nannāru, “lumina-

See the citation of K. 4231, II 2–3 on p. 56 above. Similar entries are preserved for intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 204) and Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 219). 309 See the overview of the 13th day as “Sîn’s day” on p. 105ff. below. 310 See Livingstone 2013, 214. A photograph of the tablet is available in CDLI P395455. 311 The translation for this passage in Livingstone’s edition of the text is “The 13th day, that of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī: A favorable day. Sîn carries his glistening tiara to the underworld.” (Livingstone 2013, 214). How Livingstone arrived at this translation remains unclear. For comparison see e.g. the citation of the entry for the 13th day of intercalary Elūlu in Parpola 1983, 57: “the 13th day, of the Moon and Bēlet-ilī, (is) a favourable day; the Moon displays the crown of splendour to the country” (4 R 32, II 8–9). If the translation and interpretation in Livingstone’s edition is followed, the meaning of this passage would change considerably: contrary to the entry for the 11th day, this time the “crown of splendour” would not be used as a description of the rising moon, but rather for the setting moon. There is, however, no reason to take the Akkadian mātu, meant by the logogram KUR, as a designation of the underworld: the normal semantic range of mātu encompasses different notions ranging from country as a political space to open flat land (see CAD M/1, 414–421). The reference to this passage in Langdon 1935, 76 is only “Sin bears a full crown”. 307 308

68

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

ry”, are juxtaposed as descriptions of the astral deity Inanna/Ištar in the Exaltation of Inanna.312 This descriptive epithet is also used in a Late Babylonian prayer that was recited to the sky god Anu on the 10th day of Nisannu. AO 6461, 5–6313 5 en aga ka-silim-ma u6-bi-di la-la sa5-a 6 be-lu a-gu-ú taš-ri-iḫ-tum ša a-na tab-rat la-la-a ma-lu-ú lord, crown of splendour that is full of beauty for amazement In this attestation, it is important that the day on which the prayer is recited (10th) directly precedes the days on which the moon is said to wear the crown of splendour in Neo-Assyrian sources (11th to 15th). This suggests that lunar imagery remained similar over the course of centuries, and that lunar metaphors were eventually attached to the sky god Anu in the theological development of the Late Babylonian period.314

II.2.8. Ellammê A further literary appellation for Sîn in Assyria and Babylonia is ellammê, “radiant in me-powers” or “pure in me-powers”.315 Although this name is not found in the god-list An = Anum, it is attested as a name for the moon god in a god-list fragment deriving from Nineveh.316 In this list, the name Ellammê is preceded by names that define Sîn as the establisher of the month (dŠākin-arḫi and d Mukīn-arḫi),317 and immediately followed by the name dZálag-ga which is connected to the celestial luminosity of the moon.318 This context points to a celestial connotation that ellammê as both a name and epithet most likely possessed and, in the light of the other attestations, can confidently be interpreted as a designation for the gibbous and the full moon. Probably the most prominent attestation of ellammê as an appellation of Sîn is found in a birth incantation that was intended to help a woman having diffi-

Exaltation of Inanna, 87–88 (Hruška 1969, 485–486). See also p. 49 above. See Thureau-Dangin 1921, 108–110 and Linssen 2004, 197–199. 314 See also the discussion on p. 136ff. below. 315 See the entries in CAD E, 100 and AHw, 203 as well as the list of names for the moon god in Krebernik 1995, 363. Both of the dictionary entries mention the text 3 R 55 no. 3 (K. 2074) to contain the line dNanna = d30 šá e-lam-[me-e] which is based on the inaccurate copy of the text and should be discarded: the line actually reads dNanna = d30 šá AN-e u K[I] (see the citation of K. 2074 on p. 138 below). Ellamê is translated as “pureof-water” in Stol 1992, 257–258, but this translation should be discarded. For the translation “radiant” for ellu, see the discussion on p. 88ff. below. 316 K. 4559 (CT 25, pl. 42), 3’: dEl-la-mé-e. 317 See the discussion on p. 91ff. below. 318 See the discussion on p. 78ff. below. 312 313

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

69

culties in childbirth.319 It is a mythological passage that relates to how the sun god Šamaš and the moon god, named Ellammê, see a cow that is giving birth, and they shed tears because of the difficulties she is experiencing. VS 17 no. 34, 4–7320 4 i-mu-ur-ši-i-ma dUTU i-ba-ak-ki 5 i-mu-ur-ši-i-ma el-lam-me-e i-il-la-ka 6 di-i-ma-a-šu 7 am-mi-nim-mi dUTU i-ba-ak-ki 8 [e]l-lam-me-e i-il-la-ka di-ma-šu Šamaš saw her and cried, Ellammê saw her and his tears ran. “Why does Šamaš cry, why do the tears of [E]llammê run?” The meaning of these lines is elaborated in a Late Babylonian commentary that explains the content of the said birth incantation, and, fortunately, the appellation ellammê is among the expressions that receive an analysis.321 11N-T3, 17–19322 17 el-la-me-e : AGA taš-ri-iḫ-ti 18 lìb-bu-u é-lam4-ma : É er-bi šá-niš si é-gar8-bi til-la : el-lam-mu-u 19 šá nu-ú-ru la-ni-šu ú-qat-ta-a : si : nu-ú-rum : é-gar8 : la-a-nu 20 bi : šu-u : til : qa-tu-u áš-šú d30 šá AN.TA.LÙ gam-mar-ti i-šak-kan ellammê = “crown of splendour”; the abdomen is é-lam4-ma = House of Four. Second, si é-gar8-bi til-la = ellammû (which means) his brings the light of his appearance to an end: si = nūru (“light”); egar = lānu (“form”); bi = šū (“his”); til = qatû (“to come to an end”); concerning Sîn who brings about a total eclipse. The first explanation in this passage equates ellammê with agê tašriḫti, “crown

319

See the reconstruction in Veldhuis 1989, 240–248. For Cow of Sîn see Veldhuis 1991, 7–15. In Koch-Westenholz 2001, 81 this attestation for ellammê is taken to be an appellation for Šamaš instead of Sîn, but this view should be discarded. 320 Van Dijk 1972, 343–345. This manuscript is Old Babylonian, but these lines can also be reconstructed in the later compendium BAM 3 no. 248//, I 40–41 (see Civil 1974, 334 as well as Veldhuis 1989, 243 and 255). 321 For an overview of this commentary see Frahm 2011, 231. The text was first edited in Civil 1974, 331–336; see now also the edition in Jiménez 2014c (CCP 4.2.A.a). The same passage is also found in UET 6/3 no. 897, 2’–5’ (Gabbay 2015b [CCP 4.2.A.b]). The hermeneutic principles of the text are discussed also in Cavigneaux 1987, 252–255 and its connection to lunar eclipses is briefly discussed in Stol 1992, 257–258. 322 See Civil 1974, 332 (transliteration and commentary) and Cavigneaux 1987, 254. These lines are also discussed in Veldhuis 1989, 246 and in Gabbay 2016, 157–158.

70

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

of splendour”, and therefore indicates a connection between this appellation and the gibbous or full moon.323 Further elucidation of the etymology (é-lam4-ma) appears to concern the belly of the pregnant woman, which also plausibly is related to the swollen form of the almost full moon. The second explanation of ellammê finds a reference to a lunar eclipse in this name. An equation of the eclipsed moon and ellammê is also found in the astrological commentary Šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu, in the protasis “If the moon, ellammê, cries over Ekur” which is given the explanation that a lunar eclipse takes place on the 15th day of Kislīmu.324 In the notes to the medical commentary 11N-T3, Miguel Civil suggests the translation “full moon” for the compound “30 el-lam-me-e”,325 which is, of course, correct in the sense that ellammê denotes the gibbous or full moon. Such a translation, however, lacks the connotations of radiance/purity that the literal translation of this appellation possesses. The quality of the moon and the moon god as “radiant” or “pure”, ellu, connotes not only the bright appearance of the moon when it reaches its full luminosity but also the underlined the holiness and divine powers of the moon god during this phase.326 Attestations of ellammê outside the sphere of gynaecological therapies and lunar omens are scarce and appear to be concentrated in the therapeutic texts concerning witchcraft. In the third tablet of the anti-witchcraft ritual Maqlû, the moon god is responsible for the destruction of the image of the witch, and his name is followed by the epithet ellammê. Maqlû III, 98327 30 el-lam-mé-e li-qat-ta-a pa-gar-ki May Sîn, ellammê, destroy your body!328 d

Another reference to ellammê in a similar context is a passage in an ušburudaritual.

323

See the discussion on p. 65ff. above. K. 993, 1 and K. 2181 (ACh Supp. 2 Sin 18), 21: DIŠ 30 el-lam-me-e ana É-kur i-bakki (cited in CAD E, 100 and in Koch-Westenholz 2001, 81). For the metaphor of the crying moon god in describing a lunar eclipse see the discussion on p. 170 below. 325 Civil 1974, 334. 326 For the semantic field of the adjective ellu see the discussion on p. 88ff. below. 327 See Abusch 2016, 95 and 310 (line III, 100 in Meier 1937, 25). 328 In the edition of the text by Knut Tallqvist, this epithet is taken as an adverb and translated “an der vorderseite” (Tallqvist 1895, 58–59), and in the edition by Gerhard Meier it is translated as “der Zwillings(gestaltige)” (Meier 1937, 25). This concept of the moon god with the name ellammê as the twin of Nergal or Šamaš is also portrayed in the translations “Jumeaux” (Combe 1908, 38) and “Zwillinge” (Tallqvist 1938a, 443; Tallqvist 1947, 10) for this epithet. 324

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

71

K. 8162+K. 10357, 16’–17’329 16’ ⌈i⌉-mu-ur-ši-ma d+EN.ZU (subscript: d+En-líl) i-re-di-ši 17’ [é]l-la-me-e il-la-ka ar-ki-šá Sîn (subscript: Enlil) beheld her and was pursuing her, ellammê was going after her. That this incantation was performed during the full moon – a feature common to anti-witchcraft rituals that were performed before the moon330 – is suggested not only by the epithet ellammê for Sîn but also by the signs d+En-líl that are written below d+EN.ZU in the tablet. In the edition of this text this subscript has been understood a mere variant,331 but considering the well-attested association between the moon god and the god Enlil during the full moon, it is very plausible that this should be seen as a note referring to this theological equation of Sîn and Enlil.332

II.2.9. Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt The last of the moon god’s names to be discussed here is Dilimbabbar (commonly read AŠimbabbar), which had the Akkadian counterpart Namraṣīt. Along with the names Nanna and Suen/Sîn, Dilimbabbar was the third principal name of the Sumero-Babylonian moon god throughout the millennia, from Pre-Sargonic period to the Late Babylonian times. It remains unclear if the Sumerian name Dilimbabbar had previously belonged to a distinct deity with his own cult, or if this name always has merely been a further appellation for the Sumerian moon god Nanna and later for the Semitic Sîn.333 It is certain that in the Sumerian literary sources as well as in the Old Babylonian precursor to the god-list An = Anum, Dilimbabbar was used as the third name for the moon god.334 The situation is similar in the sources deriving from the 1st millennium BCE: Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt is used as one of the names of the moon god Sîn.335

329

See Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 182 and 194 as well as Schwemer 2007a, 109. See the discussion on p. 106ff. below. 331 Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 182 note 57. 332 See the discussion concerning this association on p. 136ff. below. 333 It is possible, that the textual sources from Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ (god-lists, zà-mì hymn) reflect a distinct deity, but there is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions (Hall 1985, 42). 334 See the discussion concerning the names of the moon god in Stol 1992, 245. These names are found in the Old Babylonian forerunner of An = Anum, TCL 15 no. 10, 148– 150. For the use of these three names (Nanna, Suen, Dilimbabbar) in combination, which occurs often in Sumerian literature, see e.g. Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nippur (Sjöberg 1960, 148–165 and Ferrara 1973, 44). 335 This name appears to occur more often in the Sumerian compositions than in Akkadian compositions, see e.g. the attestations in the edition of Mesopotamian lamentations by 330

72

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Although Maurice Lambert once claimed that the name Dilimbabbar (or, in his words Ašimbabbar), “the lonely white runner”, is the only name of the Sumerian moon god that can be interpreted and understood, the matter has been proven to be, or at least appears to be, more intricate than that.336 There has been uncertainty about the correct reading of the element AŠ in this name in the past, and, therefore, it usually has been transliterated AŠ-ím-babbar.337 The possibility of reading the sign AŠ as dili had already been noted by Mark G. Hall in his study of the Sumerian moon god,338 but this reading could not be confirmed until new syllabic spellings of the name were found.339 These syllabic spellings together suggest that the name indeed should be read Dilimbabbar.340 This reading of the name leads into a discussion of its meaning: in addition to the traditional translation “the lonely white runner”, another possibility, “White Bowl”, was suggested by Mark E. Cohen.341 Although the latter suggestion has found support,342 it is implausible that such a punny spelling was consistently used to write M. Cohen (1988). The attestation of this divine name in Gilgameš (suggested in the reconstructed line VIII, 140 in George 2003, 660–661) appears unlikely in the light of the new join K. 19751, according to which the goddess Bēlet-ilī (DINGIR.MAḪ) is named in this line (Jiménez 2014a, 101–102). 336 Lambert 1962, 78–74: “De tous ces noms, ce dernier [i.e. Ašimbabbar] est le seul à bien s’expliquer; il se compose des idéogrammes UNIQUE, COURIR et BLANC et désigne de la façon la plus élégante qui soit ce «coureur blanc solitaire» qu’est notre satellite tout seul dans la nuit noir.” 337 Note also the variant spellings AŠ-im4-babbar and AŠ-im5-babbar. 338 The main reason given by Hall is the new collation of the tablet BM 96706, 15 (CT 36, pl. 26, 15). Previously D. J. Wiseman had given Å. Sjöberg a confirmation that the sign on the tablet is ÁŠ as it is copied in CT 36, pl. 26 (Sjöberg 1960, 149 note 2). However, a new collation of the tablet by W. G. Lambert proved that also on this occasion the sign is AŠ, not ÁŠ (Hall 1985, 42–43). 339 CT 58 no. 44, 4: di-li-bábbar; S 7/1600, 8: di-il-im-ba?-pa-ra (Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1994, 73–74); Meturan A, 35: dil-lim-bábbar-ra (Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1995, 197) and Meturan B, 18’: dili-bábbar-ra (Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1995, 206). See also the discussion on the reading dDili-ím-babbar in Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1994, 76; Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1995, 206; Krebernik 1995, 362–362; Cohen 1996, 11 note 20; Alster 2004, 1– 3; and Feliu 2006, 237 note 47. 340 To my knowledge, the only indication for the reading Ašimbabbar is found in the cryptographic spelling of the name Ibbi-Sîn in a collection of omens, Rm. 155//, 1 (IBABBAR-a-še-em-íb-bi [Schaudig 2019, 402]; previously understood as a spelling of the name Warad-Sîn, I⌈KAR⌉-a-še-em-éb-bé [Finkel apud Guinan 2002, 40 note 1]). 341 Cohen’s suggestion is based on the understanding of the sign sequence dili-ím as a glossed spelling for the noun dílim, “spoon; shallow bowl” (Akk. itquru). Furthermore, Cohen believes the spelling that uses the sign dili instead of dílim(LIŠ) to be a pun reflecting the meaning “unique” (Cohen 1996, 11 note 20). 342 See the support for Cohen’s suggestion in Alster 2004, 2–3 as well as the recent contribution in Steinkeller 2016, 615–625, arguing that dil-im4 is a syllabic spelling of the

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

73

the name Dilimbabbar through the millennia. Representative examples for the spellings that were used to write this name during the Neo-Assyrian and NeoBabylonian periods can be found in the Ḫarrān inscriptions of Assurbanipal: these attestations show that the name was normally written by using either the sign ím(KAŠ4) – the equivalent of the Akkadian verb šanû, “to run” – or the phonetic variant im5(SUḪUŠ) as the second element.343 Therefore, there is little reason to doubt Maurice Lambert’s translation “the lonely white runner” for this name.344 Still, among the attestations for the name Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt, a single variant spelling, found in a manuscript of the šu’ila-prayer “Šamaš 1” (K. 5780+), suggests that there may have been more to the name than can be seen in the material currently available to us. In this prayer, the opening line refers to the moon god, who is the father of Šamaš, by the name Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt.345 One of the manuscripts of this prayer from Nineveh, however, contains a variant: instead of dDILI.ÍM.BABBAR, attested in other manuscripts, the name is written AŠ.AN.AMAR.UD.346 Although at first sight this variant appears to contain a reference to the god Marduk (dAMAR.UTU), the signs AŠ and UD, corresponding to DILI and BABBAR, suggest that this indeed is a variant for

noun dilim(d)/tilimtu, “bowl”. In both cases one of the main arguments for this interpretation is the passage SLTNi 128, IV 4–5: 14 dílim má-gur8 kù-ga [1]5 dNanna lugal-zu / an-na ši-gub-bu, “14(th day?), bowl/spoon of the pure barge; 15(th day?), your lord Nanna positions himself in the sky” (see the edition in Alster 2005, 266– 273). As suggested, these lines indeed must refer to the shape of the gibbous or the full moon (for “barge” as the gibbous moon see the discussion on p. 45ff. above), and they may stand in connection with the element /dilim/ in the Sumerian name Dilimbabbar. Still, there are no Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian sources referring to the moon as a bowl, which makes it implausible that such a metaphor was central in the 1st millennium BCE. 343

See e.g. K. 2813+, r. 7: dDILI.ÍM.BABBAR (Bauer 1933, pl. 48; Novotny 2003, 241); K. 8759+, 9: ⌈d⌉DILI.IM5.BABBAR (see the citation on p. 142 below). For šanû, see the attestation in CAD Š/1, 409. The reason for using the sign SUḪUŠ to write the element /im/ is most likely based on the similarities between the signs KAŠ4 and SUḪUŠ. The use of SUḪUŠ (instead of the usual im4 or ím) to write the element /im/ in this name in an Old Babylonian royal inscription (Nūr-Adad) is taken to be a scribal mistake in Steinkeller 2016, 616. However, as the attestations show, by the 1st millennium BCE, this had become one of the normal spellings for this name. 344 In relation to this translation, a motif that has been interpreted as a running figure supporting the crescent moon is attested on a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal (Lambert 1979, no. 67 [N 2431]). If this interpretation is maintained, it could be a depiction of the moon god as a runner. Still, the figure may just as well be kneeling while supporting the crescent moon above his head. 345 See Mayer 1976, 504. For the father-son relationship of Sîn and Šamaš see the discussion on p. 305ff. below. 346

K. 5780+ (BMS 10), 7’: [É]N šur-bu-ú gít-ma-lu a-pil AŠ.AN.AMAR.UTU.

74

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt. A key to the element AŠ.AN.AMAR may be found in Babylonia, where Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, the governor of Ur, gives the name É-AŠAN-AMAR to the “abode” (ki-tuš) of Enlil, most likely located in Ningal’s temple.347 The precise meaning of this sanctuary name remains unclear, although Hanspeter Schaudig has suggested É-aš-damar, “The First(-class) House of the Divine Calf”, and É-aš-dmár, “The (like) ašmarû (shining) House”.348 Since these two names, AŠ.AN.AMAR.UD and É-AŠ-AN-AMAR, appear to be at least partly parallel to each other, and since AŠ.AN.AMAR.UD clearly stands for Dilimbabbar, new readings for them both can be tentatively suggested: perhaps the divine name in K. 5780+, 7’ should be read Dili-damar-babbar, “Unique White Divine Calf”, and the name of Enlil’s sanctuary in Ur plausibly is É-dilid amar, “House of the Unique Divine Calf”.349 In contrast to the discussion concerning the meaning of the Sumerian name Dilimbabbar, its Akkadian counterpart, Namraṣīt (“Bright at Rising”), poses no problems of interpretation.350 In the god-list An = Anum, Dilimbabbar is equated with Namraṣīt,351 and in the list An = Anu ša amēli, Dilimbabbar receives the paraphrase “whose rising is bright” (ša ṣīssu namrat).352 The equation of the Sumerian name Dilimbabbar to the Akkadian Namraṣīt is also underlined by bilingual compositions. For example, in an incantation belonging to the fifth tablet of Udug-ḫul, the epithet bēlu Namraṣīt, “lord Namraṣīt”, is given as the Akkadian equivalent to Sumerian en dDilimbabbar, “lord Dilimbabbar”. The passage in question pairs the moon god with the god Ḫendursaĝa/Išum, which highlights his role as an illuminator of the night in this context.353

347

RIMB, B.6.32.2013, 6. See also the discussion on p. 353ff. below. Schaudig 2002, 630–631. 349 The element dili-damar possibly represents the scribe’s understanding of the element /dilim/ in the name Dilimbabbar. Calf (amar) is a well-attested epithet for Nanna in Sumerian literature (see Sjöberg 1960, 24 and Hall 1985, 632–634). 350 The fact that the name Namraṣīt is a reference to the daily moonrise is stressed in Hall 1985, 536: “Though it has often been assumed from this equivalency that the epithet ašim2-babbar refers to the new moon, the Akkadian namra(m) ṣīt does not necessarily imply the first appearance of the moon at the start of each month. It refers to the daily rising of the moon in any of its phases and describes the brilliance of the moon just after it rises above the horizon. Therefore, if Akkadian namra(m) ṣīt provides any insight into the meaning of the cryptic Sumerian, aš-im2-babbar, it is only to indicate that daš-im2-babbar refers to the moon in its position just above the horizon, which of course is a nightly phenomenon.” 351 An = Anum III, 26 (Litke 1998, 119; Feliu 2006, 237); see also p. 34 above. 352 Anu = Anu ša amēli, 38: Dili-babbar-ra | MIN(=d30) | ṣi-su nam-rat (see Litke 1998, 231). It is worth noting that like in An = Anum III, 23–25, Dilimbabbar immediately follows the names (d)Má-gur8 and (d)U4-sakar also in this list. 353 For the nocturnal role of Ḫendursaĝa and Išum see George 2015, 1–8. 348

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

75

Udug-ḫul 5, 162354 zi d+Suen-na en dDili-ím-babbar-ra-ke4 ḫé-pàd ni-iš d30 EN Nam-ra-ṣi-it lu ta-ma-ta5 (Sum.) May you be adjured by Sîn, lord Dilimbabbar! (Akk.) May you be adjured by Sîn, lord Namraṣīt! Furthermore, “Lord Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt” proves to be a common epithet of the moon god in bilingual contexts. To name a further example, this epithet is employed to depict the moon god as the husband of the goddess Ningal in a bilingual hymn to her. K. 4940+K. 5118+K. 6020, 3355 [...] dam d+Suen-na lugal dDili-ím-⌈babbar⌉-e me-en [... d+]EN.ZU be-lum dNam-ra-ṣi-it at-ti-ma (Sum.)You are [...] the wife of Sîn, lord Dilimbabbar! (Akk.) You are [...] the wife of Sîn, lord Namraṣīt! The fixed character of this epithet becomes evident in a variant that is found in a manuscript for a bilingual prayer to the sun god Utu/Šamaš: here the epithet “lord Dilimbabbar” appears to have been understood as a divine name in itself since the scribe had written it den-dili-ím-babbar-ra.356 Celestial luminosity forms an essential element of both the names Dilimbabbar and Namraṣīt.357 The colour white (babbar) in the name Dilimbabbar connotes the white light of the moon, and the name Namraṣīt is entirely built around the notion of the emergence of the moon in the night sky with its bright light. This notion of luminosity is further underlined by epithets that are attached to the moon god as Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt. Thus, in Assurbanipal’s inscription for the anzû-birds of Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān, the epithets nūr elâti, “light of the upper world”, and mušaḫli ekleti, “illuminator of darkness”, are used as descriptions of the moon god who goes by this name. K. 8759+, 9358 ⌈d⌉DILI.IM5.BÁBBAR ZÁLAG ⌈AN⌉.TA.MEŠ [mu-š]áḫ-li ek-[le-ti ...] Namraṣīt, the light of the upper world, [the ill]uminator of dar[kness ...] 354

Udug-ḫul 5, 162 (see Geller 2007, 125 and 213 as well as Geller 2016, 210, where Namraṣīt is not taken as a name of Sîn, but rather an epithet “lord of luminescence”). 355 The fragment K. 5118 was published in Meek 1913, no. 23, but the joins that were made by R. Borger and W. G. Lambert remain unpublished. A photograph of the tablet is available online (CDLI P395798). 356 4 R 13 no. 2+; see line 5 in Cooper 1972, 70; see also p. 307 below. 357 For further discussion concerning the moon god’s luminosity, see p. 78ff. below. 358 Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551; Novotny 2003, 231. See also p. 142 below.

76

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

In fragment LKU 43, an Akkadian account of the destruction of Ur and the abandonment of the cult places in the city, the moon god as Namraṣīt is described as the light for the celestial Igigū-gods (nūr Igigī). LKU 43, 9–11359 9 [dN]am-ra-ṣi-it nu-ur dÍ-gì-gì ma-lik DINGIR.MEŠ G[AL.MEŠ] 10 [d]Nin-men-na dNin-gal ḫi-rat na-ra-[mi-ša]360 11 [k]i-iṣ-ṣi i-zi-bu ut-tak-ki-ru si-m[a-ak-ki]361 Namraṣīt, light of the Igigu gods, adviser of the g[reat] gods, (and) Ninmena,362 Ningal, the spouse of her beloved one, abandoned the cellas, the shrines were changed. Despite these attestations and the depictions of Dilimbabbar as a luminary in the earlier Sumerian sources,363 using this name for the moon god in Akkadian prayers puts the focus on his power over divine decision-making – a power that is also alluded to by the epithet mālik ilānī rabûti, “adviser of the great gods” in LKU 43. The most prominent example of praising this aspect of Dilimbabbar/ Namraṣīt is found in the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1” which refers to the sovereignty of the moon god in these matters by the line “O Namraṣīt, power without a rival, whose intent no one can comprehend!”.364 A similar association can be found in an ikrib-prayer to Sîn: here, in the opening lines of the prayer, the moon god is named both Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt and Anu, and the authority of his command is stressed.365 K. 2751+//, 57’–59’366 [O Sîn, the lu]minary of the heavens, [N]amraṣīt, lord of the crown, splendid god, the forerunner, great Anu, whose command cannot be [t]ransgressed!

359

See the edition in Falkenstein 1931, 14–15. Read ḫi-rat na-ra-[am-ti-šu] in Falkenstein 1931, 15. See, however, the similar formulation in Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 9: ṣa-bi-ta-at ab-bu-ti a-na na-an-⌈nar⌉ DINGIR.MEŠ na-ramì-i-šá d[30] (Novotny 2003, 234 and p. 301 below). 361 Read si-m[a-te-šu-un] in Falkenstein 1931, 15, but the combination of kiṣṣu and simakku – shrines inside a temple – is well-attested (see CAD K, 444 and CAD S, 268). 362 For the use of this name for the goddess Ningal see the discussion on p. 304ff. below. 363 UET 6/1 no. 68//, 7–8: dDili-ím-babbar kur-sùḫ-sùḫ-ḫa-ta è-a-ni / an-bar7-ra dUtu-gin7 bí-in-gub, “When Dilimbabbar came out of the darkened mountains, he stood like Utu (stands) at noon” (Hall 1986, 155–157). 364 “Sîn 1”, 17: Namraṣīt emūq lā šanān ša lā ilammadu milikšu mamman (see p. 452ff. below). 365 For the association of Sîn with Anu see the discussion on p. 136ff. below. 366 See the edition on p. 483ff. below. 360

II.2. Lunar Names, Epithets, and Metaphors

77

According to its rubric, this prayer was performed on the 15th day of the month, i.e. during the full moon.367 When this is taken into consideration, a connection between the name Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt and the full moon phase becomes unavoidable, although it is a view that opposes the one put forward by Thorkild Jacobsen in his portrait of the Sumerian pantheon. For Jacobsen, the moon god’s name Aš-im4-babbar (i.e. Dilimbabbar) represents the “new light”.368 In addition to the aforementioned ikrib-prayer, there are also a couple of other attestations that support the notion that Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt refers to the full moon. An affinity of the name Namraṣīt with both the full moon and divine decision-making is apparent in the En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder of Nabonidus: the moon god as Namraṣīt made his desire to have an entu-priestess manifest in an eclipse.369 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 1–3 I1 ì-nu dNanna-ri i-ri-šu NIN.DINGIR.RA I2 DUMU ru-bé-e gi-is-ki-im-ma-šu ú-kal-li-im ad-na-a-tì d Nam-ra-ṣi-it ú-ša-pi pu-ru-us-sa-šu ki-i-nu I3 When Nannāru desired an entu-priestess, the son of the prince showed his sign to the whole world, Namraṣit made his true decision manifest. An understanding of the name Dilimbabbar as a reference to the full moon may also have been the underlying idea behind the grouping of names dU4-sakar, dMá and dMá-gur8 (equivalents of Nannāru and appellations for the waxing moon) and dDili-ím-babbar in the god-list An = Anum: the list appears to present the stages of the waxing moon starting with the thin crescent that grows into a boat (larger crescent) and a barge (gibbous moon), and culminating in the full moon (Dilimbabbar).370 However, this interpretation remains speculative since no explicit commentary on these names is available to us. In the light of these sources, it is justified to stress the affinity between the name Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt and the notions of celestial luminosity and divine decision-making as well as, in some cases, to the middle of the lunar cycle. In the light of this source, it is plausible that the moon god as Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt was especially connected to the middle point of the lunar cycle. This was the point of time when Sîn and Šamaš met in order to make decisions and decree 367

K. 2751+//, 78’: [ik-rib d30?] UD.15.KÁM (see p. 483ff. below). For the significance of the full moon see p. 106ff. below. 368 Jacobsen 1976, 121. Jacobsen does not elucidate his use of the term “new light”, but it should be understood as a reference to the re-emergence of the moon after the days of darkness. Furthermore, Jacobsen connects the name Nanna to the full moon and the name Suen to the crescent moon. The fact that the name Dilimbabbar is not necessarily associated only with the new crescent moon has already been stressed in Hall 1985, 536. 369 For the installation of En-niĝaldi-Nanna in Ur see also p. 360ff. below. 370 See also p. 34 above.

78

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

verdicts concerning mankind and the world.371 Moreover, by this point the moon has reached its full luminous power and during its nocturnal journey from the east to west, it moves through the whole sky like a lonely white runner.

II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light The celestial, luminous aspect of the moon god is well represented in the names and epithets that are used to describe him in the various sources available.372 In the god-list An = Anum, one of the first appellations given to Sîn is dĜiš-nu11gal, “The Great Light”.373 Like the name dMá-gu-la-an-na, this name contains a reference to the father-son relationship between the moon and the sun: in comparison to his father Sîn, the sun god Šamaš is referred to merely by the name d Ĝiš-nu11, “The Light”, in An = Anum.374 In addition to the name dĜiš-nu11-gal, the moon god is characterised as the “great light of the heaven and the earth” (ĝiš-nu11-gal an-ki-a) in the Sumerian prayer that was a part of a treatment against a ghost-induced illness.375 BAM 4 no. 323//, 105376 ÉN dNanna ĝiš-nu11-gal an-ki-ke4 tu-ra nu-du10-ga zu-ĝu10-ta ba-z[i] Incantation: Nanna, great light of heaven and earth, the unpleasant sickness has been re[moved] from my body! Other attested names that directly denote the luminosity of the moon god are d Zálag and dZálag-ga, “The Bright (One)”: the former being found in the list An = Anu ša amēli and the latter in a god-list fragment from Kuyunjik.377 Sîn’s appellation “great light” is also found in the name of his temple in Ur,

371

See the discussion on p. 150ff. below. See the overview in Tallqvist 1938a, 444–445. 373 An = Anum III, 4 (Litke 1998, 117 and Feliu 2006, 233). This name appears also in the god-list fragments K. 2074 (see p. 138 below) and K. 2115 (CT 25, pl. 28). See also the Old Babylonian manuscript of the lexical work Diri, in which ĝiš-nu-gal is equated with d EN.ZU (MSL 15, Diri Nippur 195: ĝiš-nu-gal | ĜIŠ.ŠIR.GAL | dEN.ZU). As a general noun, na4giš-nu11-gal (Akk. gišnugallu) designated various white stones, such as marble, limestone and magnesite (Schuster-Brandis 2008, 412–413). It can be assumed that the white colour of these stones was associated with the luminosity of the moon. 374 An = Anum III, 102 (Litke 1998, 128; in Feliu 2006, 238 line III, 96). For the name d Má-gu-la-an-na see p. 45 above. Note that Ĝiš-nu11 is also used as the equivalent of Sîn in the bilingual litany PBS 1/2 no. 115, I 11 (see the citation on p. 96 below). 375 This treatment specifically takes place in the morning on the 15th day of the month , before the moon and the sun (see the discussion on p. 107ff. below). 376 See the edition of the text in Scurlock 2006, no. 91. 377 An = Anu ša amēli, 29: ⌈d⌉Zálag | MIN (= d30) | šá na-ma-ri, “Zalag is Sîn of being bright” (see Litke 1998, 230). In the fragment K. 4559 (CT 25, pl. 42), 4’ from Nineveh, the name dZálag-ga is listed after the name dEl-la-me-e (for Ellammê see p. 68ff. above). 372

II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light

79

Ekišnugal, “House of the Great Light”.378 This temple is praised as a source of light in The Temple Hymns with the line “beaming moonlight, which comes forth in the land; daylight, which fills all lands”.379 In the sources dating to the 1st millennium BCE, two variant spellings of this name are normally used: É-kišnu-ĝál and É-ĝiš-nu11-gal.380 Any possible reasons for choosing either one of them are however very difficult, if not impossible, to detect. There are sources that present analyses of temple names, involving a principle known from other Mesopotamian explanatory texts: the name is split into parts which are then combined with corresponding words, allowing a variety of interpretations of a single name. A Babylonian tablet that lists the Sumerian names of the temples in Babylon381 includes both spellings of the name Ekišnugal and gives two completely different explanations for the two forms of the same temple name. BM 34850, 5’–6’382 5’ [É-ĝi]š-nu11-gal É nu-úr AN-e ra-b[u-ti] 6’ [É-ki]š-nu-ĝál É na-ṣir kiš-šat UN.MEŠ [Egi]šnugal, House (of) the light of the gre[at] heavens. [Eki]šnugal, House which protects all the people. The explanation for the form É-ĝiš-nu11-gal, “House (of) the light of great heavens”, is evident on the basis of the Sumerian word ĝiš-nu11-gal, “great light”. This noun is however parsed into even smaller units which yield the equations ĝiš = nūru, “light”, and nu11 = šamû, “heaven”. The second explanation involves completely different associations, describing the temple Ekišnugal as “protector of all the people” (nāṣir kiššat nišī). As Andrew George has noted, in this case the element kiš is equated with kiššatu, “totality”, nu with nišū, “people”, and the verb ĝál with naṣāru, “to protect”.383 These two aspects of the same temple name, indicated by two different spellings, are not only found in this explanatory

378

See George 1993, no. 653. For the cult of the moon god in Ur see p. 331ff. below. The Temple Hymns, 110–111: é-kiš-nu-gál i[tix-s]aḫx-saḫx kalam-ma è-a / u4-sa9-dagal kur-kur-re si-a (Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, no. 8; see also ETCSL c.4.80.1). 380 The variant É-ĝiš-nu11-gal represents an UD.GAL.NUN-orthography in which the sign ŠIR is read nu11. For the correct reading of the name see Sjöberg 1960, 125, and for further bibliographical information see George 1992, 319–320. It is noted in Lambert 1981, 83 that the sign NU instead of nu11(ŠIR) was used to spell the temple name in the older tradition. It took several decades before the correct reading of the name É-ĝiš-nu11-gal was established, which is why the early publications speak of the temple Ekišširgal: see e.g. the article Ekišširgal in RlA 2 (Ebeling 1938b, 322). For practical reasons, the standard name Ekišnugal is used in this study to generally refer to this temple. 381 For the temple and the sanctuaries of the moon god in Babylon see p. 378ff. below. 382 George 1992, 78–79 (no. 3). 383 George 1992, 384. 379

80

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

list, but also in a syncretistic hymn to Ištar that is preserved in a manuscript from Assur. Here, in the section in which she is described as the goddess Ningal, a reference to the role of Ištar as the protectress of all the people and also as the light of the great heavens is made. KAR 109+343, 6–8384 6 [ina Ú]riki dNin-gal a-ḫat DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ 7 [d]Nin-gi-kù-ga be-let gim-ri KÙ-tu mu-ub-bi-bat KI-t[im] 8 [ina] É-kiš-nu-ĝál na-ṣi-rat kiš-šat UN.MEŠ nu-úr AN-e GAL.MEŠ [In U]r she is Ningal, sister of the great gods, Ningikuga,385 pure lady of the whole world, the one who purifies the earth. [In] Ekišnugal she is the protector of all the people, the light of the great heavens. Both of these sources, the commentary on the temple names in Babylon and the hymn to Ištar found in Assur, attest to the extensive diffusion of theological reflections on the temple name Ekišnugal both in Assyria and Babylonia. They are, however, not the only ones to provide knowledge about the hidden meanings of this temple name – a reminder of the plurality of Mesopotamian theologies. In the composition Nippur Compendium, names of the temples at Nippur are explained, Ekišnugal among them.386 In this case, the author of the text has taken the liberty of spelling the name in very atypical ways, which has also allowed him to create new etymological analyses. Nippur Compendium, § 6 ii 11’–13’387 II 11’ É-kiš-nu-ĝálĝiš-nu-ĝál É šá kak-ku-šú la im-maḫ-ḫa-ru d É mar-kás dI-gì-gì II 12’ É-kéš- Nun-gal II 13’ É-ká-èš-nun-gal É šá ana ap-si-i pe-tu-ú KÁ-šú E-kišnu-gal, House whose weapons cannot be withstood. E-keš-Nungal, House of the bond of the Igigū-gods. E-ka-ešnun-gal, House whose gate opens on to Apsû. In the first explanation here, the spelling É-kiš-nu-ĝál is interpreted to consist of the parts kiš/ĝiš for kakku, “weapon”, and ĝál for the verb maḫāru, “to receive;

384

The existence of this intertextuality is noted in George 1992, 384, where the variant Éĝiš-nu11-gal from an unpublished manuscript is also mentioned (without reference to the museum number of the text). For an edition of the text KAR 109 see Ebeling 1918, 49– 52; see also Groneberg 1987, 174–175 and Westenholz 2013, 109. 385 For the name Ningikuga for both Ningal and her mother see p. 297 below. 386 For the cult of Sîn in Nippur see the discussion on p. 368ff. below. 387 George 1992, 150–151 (no. 18).

II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light

81

to oppose”. In this sense, the given meaning of the temple name greatly differs from “House of the Great Light”. In the second interpretation the use of the sign kéš as a phonetic variant allows the connection to the verb rakāsu, “to bind”, and thus the noun markasu, “bond”, can be seen as a component of the name. In a similar fashion, in the third case the unusual selection of signs ká, “gate”, èšnun, “house of the prince” (the prince is Ea, and therefore his house is the Apsû), and gal (instead of ĝál) for petû, “to open”, allows the given Akkadian paraphrasis.388 Whether these interpretations, which differ greatly from the ones concerning the temple Ekišnugal in Babylon, reflect differing local notions concerning the moon god and his temple in Nippur remains unclear. The notion of the moon god being the light of both the upper and the lower parts of the cosmos, as well as that of the humankind, is present already in his name and epithet Nannāru, “luminary”.389 This aspect of Sîn’s nature is further displayed in the epithets employing the Akkadian noun nūru, “light”, when describing of him. He is addressed as nūr šamê u erṣeti, “light of the heaven and the earth”, in an anti-witchcraft ritual performed during the full moon.390 In the dedicatory inscription of Assurbanipal for Eḫulḫul, he is called nūr elâti, “the light of the upper world”.391 Likewise, in the dedicatory inscription of Assurbanipal for Eĝipar of Ningal/Nikkal, the moon god is described as nūr šamê nesûti, “the light of the distant heavens”.392 The epithet nūr Igigī, “light of the Igigūgods” is also connected to these descriptions of the moon god as the light of heaven, and it bears a resemblance to the description of the moon god as nannār ilānī, “luminary of the gods”.393 The way in which Sîn is made prominent within the group of deities serves to underline his status in comparison to other luminous deities, such as Šamaš and Ištar who also belonged to the Igigū-gods.394 It is not only the celestial deities who enjoy the moon’s light since Sîn, together with Šamaš, brings light also to the Anunnakū-gods living in the Netherworld,

388

See the commentary in George 1992, 446. See the discussion on p. 31ff. above. 390 Si. 34(+)//, 15: [d3]0 ⌈ZÁLAG⌉ ⌈AN⌉-⌈e⌉ ⌈u⌉ ⌈KI⌉-[tim m]u-nam-mir uk-lu (see Schwemer 2010, 487). 391 K. 8759+, 9: ⌈d⌉DILI.IM5.BABBAR ZÁLAG ⌈AN⌉.TA.MEŠ [mu-š]áḫ-li ek-[le-ti ...], “Namraṣīt, light of the upper world, [the ill]uminator of dar[kness ...]” (Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551; Novotny 2003, 231. See also the citation of this passage on p. 142 below). 392 Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 5: ⌈ḫi⌉-[rat] dNanna-ri EN a-šá-re-di šu-pu-u ZÁLAG AN-e né-suu-t[i] (Novotny 2003, 234; see also the citation of this passage on p. 301 below). 393 “Sîn 3”, 3 (see the edition on p. 464ff. below). This epithet is attested also in the NeoBabylonian fragment of a literary text describing the destruction of Ur (LKU 43, 9: [dN]am-ra-ṣi-it nu-ur dÍ-gì-gì; see the citation of the relevant lines on p. 76 above). For nannār ilī see Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 7 on p. 301 below. 394 For overviews of the deity groups Anunnakū and Igigū see Kienast 1965, 141–158 and Kienast 1976–1980, 40–44. 389

82

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

as expressed in the prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 1”.395 As opposed to the upper or the lowest parts of the cosmos, Sîn is also portrayed as the “light of mankind” (nūr tenēšēti)396 or the “light of the land” (nūr māti).397 The importance of moonlight to the people, comparable to the importance of lunar omens to the king, is plausibly reflected in the expression nūrīšu ša nišī, “his light is of the people”, in one of the ikrib-prayers to Sîn.398 Still, despite the significance of the moon as the light in the darkness, Sîn’s luminary aspect is reflected on a relatively small scale in Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian personal names. Whereas in earlier times moonlight could be a part of a complex personal name, in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources the theophoric names with the element nūru are elliptic in character.399 In the available sources, such names as Nūr-Sîn (“Light of Sîn”)400 and Sîn-nūrī (“Sîn is my light”)401 – with the western counterparts Sē’-nūrī and Šēr-nūri402 – are attested. Additionally, the name Sîn-nammir, “O Sîn, illuminate!”, is attested for an individual from Ma’allanate.403 In Babylonia and Assyria, there were several expressions that denoted the rising of the moon or other celestial bodies. From the viewpoint of human experience, especially of the observations that form the foundation for astrology, the moon becomes visible in the sky. The common term referring to the appearance of the moon in the sky is tāmartu, which can be translated as “observation”, “appearance” or “visibility” of the moon.404 This term is derived from the verb amāru, “to see”, which in the passive form is used to denote the observation of the moon.405 In contrast to the astrological context that focused on the observations made by humans, divine activity is described in the prayers that

395

CBS 1516, r. 11: dA-nun-na-ki ka-li-šú-nu tu-nam-ma-ra ki-⌈ma⌉ u4-m[e], “you illuminate the Anunnakū-gods like the daylight” (see the edition on p. 520ff. below). 396 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, II 29: dEN.ZU DINGIR el-lu EN a-gi-i nu-úr te-né-še-e-ti, “Sîn, pure god, lord of the crown, the light of the mankind”. 397 “Sîn 2”, 4: nu-úr ma-a-[ti ...], “light of the lan[d ...] (see the edition on p. 462 below). 398 K. 2751+//, 29’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 399 Cf. e.g. the Middle Babylonian name Ana-nūr-Sîn-līṣi, “May he come out to the moonlight!” (Stamm 1939, 151). The noun nūru as a part of the elliptic names is outlined in Stamm 1939, 275. 400 This name is attested both as an ancestral name of the Nūr-Sîn family (see Jursa 2005, 144–145) and as a normal personal name. For the attestations see Tallqvist 1905, 169. 401 For a Neo-Babylonian attestation of this name see Tallqvist 1905, 182 ( I.d30– ZÁLAG). In the Neo-Assyrian sources this name is attested in the letter CT 54 no. 93, 6: [I.d]30–nu-ri-i (see PNA 3/I, 1139). 402 See PNA 3/I, 1103–1105. 403 PNA 3/I, 1139 (written I.d30–nam-mir and I.d30–na-mir). According to the Assyrian King List, one of the early kings of Assyria also had this name (see also p. 226 below). 404 See CAD T, 112–113. 405 See e.g. the use of this verb passim in the Neo-Assyrian astrological reports edited in SAA 8. See also CAD A/2, 25–26.

II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light

83

praise Sîn as a celestial light. In this context, one of the verbs that are used is napāḫu, which has the basic meaning “to blow”.406 The logic behind the use of this verb is embedded in the notion that the sun, the moon, the stars, and the planets are lit up like fire as they ascend from below the horizon.407 This is the verb that is found in the incipit for the prayer “Sîn 7”, which was to be recited before the moon as it becomes visible.408 Accordingly, a noun for the moonrise was nipḫu.409 The significance of this moment is demonstrated by the fact that a specific name for Sîn – dBU.NIR, which is also found in An = Anum – is associated with it in the god-list An = Anu ša amēli.410 In the Eḫulḫul Cylinder of Nabonidus, the moonrise (nipḫu) and moonset (rību) are associated with divination through their nature as moments in time when Sîn should make the portents concerning the king good.411 In addition to the notion of being lit up like embers, an important metaphor for the rising of the moon and the sun was the opening of the doors of heaven (dalāt šamê).412 The doors of heaven, which separated the different areas of heaven, acted as an entry and an exit to the inner parts of heaven, where Sîn and Šamaš had their abodes. According to the Enūma eliš, the gates, together with their bolts, were put in place on both sides of the horizon by Marduk as he created the order in heavens.413 The attestations of this metaphor are predominantly connected to the sun god who opens the doors of heaven in the morning.414 Still, it is clear from the description of Sîn and Šamaš in the Exaltation of Inanna that both of them had the ability to open the doors of heaven.415 Moreover, the use of the term “moon’s gate” in the astrological report

406

See AHw, 732 and CAD N/1, 263–268. The rising sun as an equivalent of embers that are ignited in the morning by blowing air to them is briefly discussed in Heimpel 1986, 142. 408 K. 6018+//, x+27’: [ÉN ta-t]ap-ḫa d30 ABGAL DINGIR.MEŠ DÙ.A.BI, “[Incantation: You have ri]sen, Sîn, sage of all the gods!” (see p. 497ff. below). 409 See the attestations in CAD N/2, 242. 410 An = Anum III, 5: dBU.NIR | MIN(= d30) (Litke 1998, 117 and Feliu 2006, 233); An = Anu ša amēli, 33: [dBU].⌈NIR⌉ | MIN | šá ni-ip-ḫi (Litke 1998, 231). Unfortunately the meaning of this name remains unclear (see Krebernik 1995, 363). 411 Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 33–36 (Ex. 1); see also the citation on p. 162 below. 412 See Rochberg-Halton 1983, 214; Heimpel 1986, 132–140; Fincke 2009, 519–558; and Horowitz 2011, 266–267. According K. Tallqvist, the idea of the moon as the opener of heaven’s gates involved the notion that the two halves of the moon were doors: depending on the lunar phase, the one half would be closed and the other open (Tallqvist 1938b, 100; Tallqvist 1947, 235–236). This interpretation, however, does not agree with Babylonian and Assyrian sources. 413 Enūma eliš V, 9–10 (Lambert 2013, 98–99). 414 See Heimpel 1986, 133–134 and Polonsky 2002, 216–219. It is noted in Polonsky 2002, 219 that the doors of the Mesopotamian temples were opened in the morning as an action that mirrored the opening of the heaven’s doors by the sun god during sunrise. 415 Exaltation of Inanna, 55–56 (Hruška 1969, 484; see also the citation on p. 95 below). 407

84

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

SAA 8 no. 119 corroborates the aforementioned attestations: here “moon’s gate” is explained as the emergence of the moon in the sky.416 It is also possible that this notion was present in the iconography of the Mesopotamian seals in the motif of two trees flanking the crescent moon.417 The metaphor of celestial doors comes to life in the prayers addressed to Sîn praising his luminous emergence in the sky: like Šamaš, who rose in the morning through the gates of heaven and provided light to the world, Sîn rose in the evening to illuminate the night for mankind. This action finds a description in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to him. 4 R2 9+//, 20418 [an-ú]r-ta an-pa-šè zálag-ga mu-un-su8-su8 ĝišig an-na d[a-ma]-al-⌈la⌉ ĝiš[n]u11 ù[ĝ šár-ra m]ar-r[a] [nu?-ru? š]á iš-tu i-šid AN-e ana e-lat [A]N-⌈e⌉ [x x x x (x)] x pe-tu-u dalat AN-⌈e⌉ šá-kin n[u-ri ana kiš-š]at UN.M[EŠ] (Sum.) He steps forward from the [bas]e [of heaven] to the zenith, op[ening wid]e the door of heaven (and) providing the [whole] man[kind] with li[g]ht. (Akk.) [Light? th]at [steps forward?] from the base of heaven to the zeni[th (...)], the opener of the door of heaven (and) the provider of li[ght for the who]le mankind. The moonrise is vividly expressed by the ikrib-prayer that was performed at the time of the full moon. In this case, both notions presented above are simultaneously evoked: the moon lights up (napāḫu) and opens wide (šupalkû) heaven’s doors.419 K. 2751+//, 60’–62’420 O Sîn, as you light up, as you open wide the doors of heaven, the people are rejoicing over your glow; all the black-headed people are cheering because of you, the people, the mankind, are praying to you!

416

SAA 8 no. 119, 5–9: DIŠ dIŠKUR ina KÁ.GAL 30 GÙ-šú ŠUB-di / ŠUB-tim ERIM NIM.MAki ina gišTUKUL GÁL-ši / NÍG.ŠU KUR-šú ana KUR šá-ni-ti-im-ma NIGINḫar / an-ni-ú šá ki-i 30 in-na-mar-u-ni / dIŠKUR GÙ-šú i-na-du-u-ni, “If Adad thunders at the gate of the moon, there will be a fall of the army of Elam in battle; the possessions of its land will be collected into another land. This (means) that Adad thunders when the moon is seen.” 417 See Theuer 2000, 350, where this is seen analogue to Akkadian cylinder seals that depict the rising sun flanked by trees. 418 See Shibata, HES (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 166–179. 419 For the attestations of the verb šupalkû see CAD N/1, 270–271. 420 The same motif with a slightly different wording can be found also K. 2751+//, 45’– 48’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). A similar passage is also found in the anti-witchcraft ritual preserved in IM 148516, 6–10 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198).

II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light

85

The radiant emergence of the moon as a moment of joy that reached cosmic proportions is also described in the ikrib-prayers to Sîn. K. 2751+//, 34’–36’421 O Sîn, you come out in radiant carnelian and lapis lazuli! At the sight of Sîn the st[ars] are elated, the night rejoices! A reference to humanity’s joy at the rising of the moon and the sun can also be found in a passage included in one of the cylinder inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian king Neriglissar. Da Riva 2013, C22, II 27–30 II 27 li-na-am-ri ta-mar-ti-šu II 28 ki-ma d30 a-na ⌈ni⌉-⌈ip⌉-⌈ḫi⌉ II 29 ki-ma dUTU a-na nu-[wu]-⌈rí⌉-[im] II 30 ṣa-al-ma-at qá-qá-dam li-iḫ-[du-ù] May his appearance shine! Like Sîn at the rising, like Šamaš at illu[mi]na[ting] may the people rejoice (over it)! The concept of moonlight as a means of communication between Sîn and humankind, especially the king, is useful in understanding its significance.422 The luminosity of the moon and its appearance in the sky sent signals about the divine will to people, who diligently observed and interpreted the signs that communicated either divine favour or disfavour.423 Moreover, the darkening of the moon due to a demonic attack against him rendered the moon god unable to communicate his will: his brightness became blurred, and he fell silent.424 Therefore, in respect to divination, the luminosity of the moon possesses a significance similar to the regularity of its cycle. Because the darkening of the moon, caused either by Sîn’s own displeasure or an external attack, was a negation of the moon god’s central aspect, his luminosity, it is not surprising to find the most elaborate praise of Sîn’s illuminative powers in the prayer “Sîn 1”, which is attested in connection with lunar eclipses. In its first ten lines, this prayer extols the moon god as the unsurpassable celestial luminary, whose light is likened to fire and to the sun.

421

See also K. 2751+//, 13’–15’ in the edition on p. 483ff. below. As discussed in Cassin 1968, 41–42. 423 For the signs conveyed by the moon see the discussion on p. 156ff. below. 424 Udug-ḫul 16, 39 (Geller 2007, 179 and 252; Geller 2016, 509). For the concepts attached to lunar eclipses see the discussion on p. 167ff. below. 422

86

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

“Sîn 1”, 1–10425 O Sîn, the splendid luminary, the foremost of the gods! O Sîn, the constantly self-renewing one, the one who illuminates the darkness, the one who provides light for the teeming mankind: (down) to the black-headed people is your radiance released! Bright is your glow in the r[adiant?] heavens, glorious is your torch(var.: light), like Gira […]! Your awesome radiance fills the wi[de] earth, the people become filled with pride (and) they vie with each other to see you! O Anu of heaven, whose plan no one can comprehend, your light is supreme like Šamaš, [your] first-born son! Sîn’s activity as the illuminator of darkness (munammir ukli), is represented not only here,426 but also in the anti-witchcraft ritual that was performed during the full moon.427 Likewise, the short prayer to Sîn in a ritual against epilepsy includes the line “Sîn, you are the illuminator of the darkness!”428 This epithet has also been found in a royal context as it was used as an epithet of the moon god in the donation of a village to the moon god of Elumu by Assurbanipal.429 A closely related epithet is munammir šamê u erṣeti, “illuminator of the heaven and the earth”, which is found in two texts from Assur.430 In the syncretistic list, which describes other deities in relation to Marduk, the moon god is said to be Marduk as munammir mūši, “illuminator of the night”.431 Because the other deities in this list are presented with their respective principal qualities (e.g. the weather god Adad is Marduk of rain), this attestation indicates Sîn’s essential character as a nocturnal luminary. Another similar participle, mušaḫli ekleti, “illuminator of the darkness”, is used to describe the moon god, named Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt, in the Eḫulḫul inscription of Assurbanipal.432 In addition to being an illuminator, Sîn is a “provider of light/brightness”, šākin nūri(?) or šākin

425

See the edition on p. 452ff. below. “Sîn 1”, 2 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 427 Si. 34(+)//, 15: [d3]0 ⌈ZÁLAG⌉ ⌈AN⌉-⌈e⌉ ⌈u⌉ ⌈KI⌉-]tim m]u-nam-mir uk-lu (see Schwemer 2010, 487). 428 BM 47509+, r. 19: [d]30 mu-nam-mir ek-li at-ta (see Schuster-Brandis 2008, 268). 429 SAA 12 no. 90, r. 11: d30 EN GAL-u mu-nam-⌈mir⌉ uk-[li], “Sîn, the great lord, illuminator of the darkness”. For the moon god of Elumu see p. 415ff. below. 430 “Sîn 11”, 15: d30 mu-na-mir AN-e u KI.TIM.MEŠ (see the edition on p. 477ff. below); KAL 4 no. 40, r.? 16: [... mu-na]m-mir AN-e u K[I-tim]. 431 BM 47406 (CT 24, pl. 50), 8: dEN.ZU dAMAR.UTU mu-nam-mir mu-ši. This text is transliterated in Parpola 1995a, 398–401. See also Uehlinger 2008, 65–67, where it is noted that these deities are not aspects of Marduk as such, but Marduk is the ultimate divine power who makes himself manifest through the actions of these various deities. 432 K. 8759+, 9: ⌈d⌉DILI.IM5.BABBAR ZÁLAG ⌈AN⌉.TA.MEŠ [mu-š]áḫ-li ek-[le-ti ...], “Namraṣīt, light of the upper world, [the ill]uminator of dar[kness ...] (Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551 and Novotny 2003, 231; see also the editon on p. 142ff. below). 426

II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light

87

namirti, as the attestations in the prayers 4 R2 9+//433 and “Sîn 1” show.434 In addition to his ability to provide light to the cosmos, the character of Sîn is described by various terms pertaining to luminosity, brilliance or radiance. In “Sîn 1”, as we have already seen, the release of the moon god’s radiance (šarūru) to the people is praised.435 As a term, šarūru designates not only the glow and brilliance of celestial bodies, but also the divine radiance of gods and their temples.436 In fact, the radiance of the moon serves as the epitome of šarūru in analogies concerning the radiance of either manifestations of deities or other divine objects.437 Likewise, the term namrīrū, “awe-inspiring radiance”, used in descriptions of deities and numinous objects,438 is in “Sîn 1” utilised as a synonym for the moonlight which fills the lands.439 This noun is often attested in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions as an element in Sîn’s epithets bēl namrīrī, “lord of awesome radiance”;440 litbuš namrīrī, “clad in awesome radiance”;441 and šaqû namrīrī, “sublime in awesome radiance”.442 Another form of divine radiance attached to Sîn is found in the epithet bēl melammē, “lord of awe-inspiring radiance”, which is attested in a “love spell” from Assur.443 In the prayer “Sîn 2”, the epithet rašbu, “awe-inspiring; fearsome”, is undoubtedly used as a description of the moon god’s awesome divine splendour.444 In respect to luminosity, the adjectives namru, “bright”,445 and šūpû, “splendid”,446 are important for

433

4 R2 9+//, 20 (see the citation on p. 84 above). “Sîn 1”, 3 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 435 “Sîn 1”, 4 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 436 See CAD Š/2, 140–143 as well as the remarks made in Winter 1994, 127–128. 437 One eršema to Marduk (umun-ĝu10 za-e, 13–15) beseeches him not to obscure his appearance/radiance as the moon does: “Like the Sun, do not enter the clouds! Like the Moon, do not be obscured at your appearance (Akk.: do not obscure the radiance of your rising)! Honoured one, like the Moon, (do not be obscured) at your appearance!” (Gabbay 2015a, 90). The radiance of a consecrated bull is hoped to grow like the moon (dNanna/dNannāri) in a Late Babylonian ritual related to the covering of the lilissu-drum (W.20030/1, 35–36; see the edition in Mayer 1978, 432–434). 438 See CAD N/1, 237–238 and Cassin 1968, 2–3. 439 “Sîn 1”, 7 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 440 RIMA 2, A.0.100.1, 5 and RIMA 3, A.0.102.10, 7: d30 MAN a-ge-e EN nam-ri-ri. 441 RIMA 3, A.0.105.2, 6: d30 dŠEŠ. AN u KI na-ši SI.MEŠ MAḪ.MEŠ šá lit-bu-šú nam-ri-ri. 442 RIMA 2, A.0.101.17, I 4–5 and RIMA 2, A.0.101.20, 5: d30 er-šu EN a-ge-e ⌈LAL⌉-ú / nam-ri-ri; RIMA 3, A.0.102.6, 6: d30 MAN a-ge-e ša-qu-ú nam-ri-ri; RIMA 3, A.0.102.14, 6: ⌈d⌉[Sîn eršu] LUGAL a-ge-e šá-qu-ú nam-ri-ri. 443 KAR 69, 22: d30 EN mé-lam-me-e (Biggs 1967, 76). 444 “Sîn 2”, 6: raš-bu d30 (see the edition on p. 462ff. below). 445 See CAD N/1, 239–244. 446 See CAD Š/3, 328–329. This adjective, derived from the verb (w)apû, “to become visible”, is particularly used to describe celestial bodies. 434

88

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the portrayals of the moon god. He is praised as ilu namru, “bright god”, in the prayer “Sîn 2”,447 and more frequently as nannāru namru, “bright luminary”, for which attestations are found in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III,448 Esarhaddon,449 and Assurbanipal.450 The epithet nannāru šūpû, “splendid luminary”, is prominently displayed in the incipit of the prayer “Sîn 1”,451 but a remarkable concentration of uses of the adjective šūpû is also found in the ikrib-prayers to Sîn.452 In this context, Sîn is called ilu šūpû, “splendid god”,453 šūpû, “splendid one”,454 rubû šūpû, “splendid prince”,455 and perhaps šūpû ša Ekur, “splendid one of Ekur”456 – the last epithet is also found in the prayer “Sîn 1”.457 In the same group as epithets focusing on Sîn’s luminosity are those that describe him with the adjective ellu (Sum. kù). In general, ellu is translated as “pure” or “holy”, which are semantically related concepts in Akkadian and Sumerian.458 However, without discarding the notion of “purity” or “holiness”, the translation “radiant” is better suited for this adjective in connection with the moon as a radiant celestial object.459 As recent evaluations of the semantic scope of the term “pure” in Akkadian have shown, the underlying concept of radiance, which in some cases can take a numinous aspect,460 is very applicable to the description of the moon as a celestial light. In its simplest form, Sîn is called ilu

447

“Sîn 2”, 3: DINGIR nam-ru (see the edition on p. 462 below). Note also the aforementioned name dZálag(-ga) for Sîn (see p. 78 above). 448 RINAP 1 no. 35, I 8 & RINAP 1 no. 37, 5: [d30] na-an-na-ru nam-ru na-din gišGIDRU a-ge-e mu-kin be-lu-ti. 449 RINAP 4 no. 98, 5: d30 dNANNA nam-ru mu-dam-mì-iq GISKIM.MEŠ-ia. 450 Assurbanipal Prism B, V 78–79 and Assurbanipal Prism C, VI 80–81 (Borger 1996, 103 and 225 [RINAP 5/I nos. 3 and 6]; see also the citation on p. 36 above). 451 “Sîn 1”, 1 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 452 See the edition of K. 2751+// on p. 483ff. below. 453 K. 2751+//, 58’. 454 K. 2751+//, 4’ and 28’. 455 K. 2751+//, 7’ and 30’. 456 K. 2751+//, 24’. 457 “Sîn 1”, 14 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). For the genealogical relationship between Sîn and Enlil expressed through this epithet see p. 291ff. below. 458 The aspects of cleanliness and holiness in the Mesopotamian terms ellu (Sum. kù) and ebbu (Sum. dadag) have been discussed in van der Toorn 1985, 27–29, Wilson 1994, 67– 83, and Sallaberger 2007, 295. For two more recent contributions see Pongratz-Leisten 2009, 409–427 and Feder 2014, 87–113. 459 As in Tallqvist 1938a, 444, where ellu is found in the category “hell, strahlend”. In CAD E, 104 such uses for ellu are listed under the category for “shining purity”. 460 The basic meaning “radiant”, which can be adopted to signify purity or holiness in particular contexts, has been suggested in Feder 2014, 106–111. The connection to the radiance of stones, glazed bricks, and the sky should especially be noted in this respect (see the discussion in Feder 2014, 95–96).

II.3. The Moon God as a Celestial Light

89

ellu, “radiant god”– this is an epithet that is attested in the inscriptions of Sargon II,461 Sennacherib,462 Esarhaddon,463 Assurbanipal,464 and Nabonidus.465 The aspect of celestial radiance attached to the adjective ellu is suggested by the epithet nannāru ellu ša šamê, “radiant luminary of heaven”, which is found in the lamentation “The Honoured One Who Wanders About” (e-lum di-da-ra).466 In this case, the Sumerian equivalent of this Akkadian epithet is “radiant growing horn of heaven” (si mú kù an-na), denoting the waxing crescent moon.467 Sîn is also paired in this respect with the sun god Šamaš: together these two gods are called ilānū ellūtu, “radiant gods”, by Assurnaṣirpal II.468 One of the ikrib-prayers to Sîn refers to him as “radiant, bright god” (ilu ellu namru) in its incipit, and continues to use the adjective ellu to describe him in its later lines.469 This particular prayer is especially significant for evaluating the applicability of the translation “radiant” for ellu in this context since it describes the moonrise with vivid figurative language. Most importantly, the moon that has become visible in the night sky is portrayed as coming out like “radiant carnelian and lapis lazuli”. This, in turn, forms a connection with the use of ellu as a term for radiance in descriptions of precious stones and the moon. Two further epithets of Sîn that are formed with the adjective ellu are attested. In the context of prayers, the incipit of “Sîn 11” is ilu ellu ša ša[mê] ellū[ti], “[Sî]n, radiant god of the radiant hea[vens]”.470 In a similar vein, a Neo-Assyrian oracle query concerning a lunar eclipse includes the epithet nannār šamê ellūti, “luminary of the radiant heavens”, for Sîn.471 The luminous quality of the moon can also be found in the figurative language in which the noun nannāru is used to describe radiating light. An example of such a metaphor can be found in an inscription of Sargon II that recounts the construction of temples and palaces in Dūr-Šarrukīn.472

461

OIP 38, 130 no. 3, 1–2: dEN.ZU DINGIR KÙ KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim / ṣa-ad-di a-na I20–GIN (Fuchs 1994, 280; see also the citation of this inscription on p. 428 below). 462 RINAP 3 no. 36, 4: e-deš-šu-ú DINGIR KÙ ša GISKIM-šú la il-lam-⌈ma⌉-[du ...] (see also the citation on p. 160 below). 463 RINAP 4 no. 48, 5: d30 e-deš-šú-u DINGIR KÙ KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim ṣa-ad-di. 464 4 L , I 13: [d3]0 ⌈DINGIR el-lu⌉ áš-šú e-peš LUGAL-ti-ia uš-tak-li-ma munusSIG5 it-⌈tum⌉ (Novotny 2014, 77 and 96). 465 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, II 29: dEN.ZU DINGIR el-lu EN a-gi-i nu-úr te-né-še-e-ti. 466 e-lum di-da-ra, b+86 (Cohen 1988, 179–180 and 183; also cited on p. 148 below). 467 For this connotation of the appellation nannāru see the discussion on p. 31ff. above. 468 RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, III 90: d30 u dUTU DINGIR.MEŠ KÙ.MEŠ. 469 K. 2751+//, 23’; also the ll. 47’ and 57’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 470 “Sîn 11”, 1: [ÉN d3]0 DINGIR ⌈KÙ⌉ šá ⌈šá⌉-[me e] KÙ.ME[Š] (see p. 477ff. below). 471 K. 2884, 12: d30 na-an-nar AN-e KÙ.MEŠ (Lambert 2007, 44–47; see also the citation on p. 168 below). 472 The only other attestation listed in CAD N/1, 260 is found in SBH no. VIII, II 16 (see

90

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

AO 21371, 25–29473 25 ú-ma-am KUR-i u ti-amti ina a-ban 26 KUR-i zaq-ri ina nik-lat dNin-[zadim] 27 ú-[še]-piš-ma i-na qé-{re-bé}-ši-na 28 [KUR.MEŠ]-{niš} ú-šar-šid-ma né-reb-ši-na d Nanna-re-eš ú-šaḫ-l[i] 29 I had animals of the mountains and the sea made out of massive mountain stones through the skill of Nin[zadim], installed (them) firmly like [mountains] to them (i.e. the palaces) and made their entrances resplendent like the (divine) luminary. Here the noun nannāru is used with the adverbial ending -iš in order to form a description of the light emanating from the stone colossi that were erected at the entrances of palaces.474 Furthermore, at the scribal level, a direct reference to the moon god was made by the to use the logogram dNanna instead of a syllabic spelling.475 This suggests that, like the sun god Šamaš who has this role in NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian inscriptions in general, the moon god on this occasion was seen as an archetype of divine radiance.476

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time There can be no study of the moon god without a discussion of the concept of time. The moon was an essential indicator of time in pre-modern societies, and he played this role also in Mesopotamia: the lunar cycle defined the boundaries of a month as a temporal unit. In the following chapters, Sîn’s relationship to the prevailing concepts of time in Assyria and Babylonia will first be discussed. As will be seen, in this respect, Sîn’s agency existed in connection with that of Šamaš, the sun god. Together, these two deities were the principal indicators of time, ruling the diurnal cycle, the months, and the year, as their epithets show.

Matsushima 1987, 159). On that occasion a lunar metaphor is employed to describe the god Nabû as shining forth from Ezida. The use of lunar metaphors in connection with Nabû during the Late Babylonian period is briefly discussed on p. 149 below. 473 Fuchs 1994, 49–50 and 298–299. 474 For the radiance as a quality of Mesopotamian buildings see Winter 1994, 123–132 and Pongratz-Leisten 2009, 409–427. 475 See the discussion on p. 31ff. above. 476 See e.g. the description of Eḫulḫul’s building work in Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 11 (Ex. 11): KÙ.BABBAR ù KÙ.SI22 É.GAR.MEŠ-šu ú-šal-biš-ma ú-šá-an-bi-iṭ dUTU-ši-niš, “I decorated its walls with silver and gold and let it shine like the sun”. See also Winter 1994, 124 and Pongratz-Leisten 2009, 425. Note that the verb that is used in this context (ušaḫli, “he made resplendent”) is the same as the one used in the epithet mušaḫli ekleti for Sîn (see p. 86 above). For other attestations of the verb ḫelû, “to shine”, especially in connection with the sun god Šamaš see CAD Ḫ, 169.

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

91

Second, the lunar month will be outlined from the viewpoint of activities related to Sîn that are attested to have taken place on particular days of the month (e.g. rituals before Sîn and offerings to him). When possible, the relationship of these activities to a specific point in the lunar cycle will be discussed. As will be shown, the events related to Sîn are associated with the main points in the lunar cycle that, according to the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources, had intervals of approximately seven days: beginning with the reappearance of the moon in the sky on the first day of the month to the time of the waxing half moon, the full moon, the time of the waning half moon, and lastly to the days of the moon’s invisibility.

II.4.1. The Moon God and Time Observations of the moon as the celestial manifestation of the moon god formed one of the foundations for the Mesopotamian systems of time-keeping and calendars; because of its regular cycle and clearly visible variations, the moon is an ideal indicator of time.477 As shown by the mythological accounts concerning the moon’s role in the cosmos as a time indicator,478 and by the epithets used to describe Sîn in this respect,479 the moon was responsible for determining the perimeters of the major temporal units: days, months, and years. Naturally, the moon was not the only celestial object under observation, but the system of lunar months was embedded within a larger scheme that also relied on the move-

477

In the terms introduced by M. Nilsson, the Mesopotamian calendar system based on lunar observations falls into the category of time indication rather than time reckoning (Nilsson 1920, 9–10). The concept of time indication includes the observation of events that mark the passing of time – the first appearance of the moon at the beginning of the lunar cycle, full moon, migration of birds according to the seasons, regnal years of a ruler, etc. – but do not form an actual continuous system of counting time units. A system of time indication does not, however, exclude the existence of a system of time reckoning since time indication and time reckoning involve different levels of social interaction. As presented in Iwaniszewski 2012, 312–313 in connection with lunar calendars of preHispanic America, the time indicatory events always have relevance for the society itself: they are events that are important for the people who make the observations. This social context is emphasised by Iwaniszewski, who maintains that in many non-modern societies, lunar or celestial observations were not primarily made because they provided a tool for the intellectual search for a time reckoning system, but because the observations were socially important in connection with economic, political and ritual activities, and in relation to meteorological and earthly events. This can also be seen in ancient Mesopotamia, where the observation of lunar phases was tightly bound to different spheres of social interaction: it was not only the prerequisite for the calendrical system that was significant both in cultic and economic contexts, but it also formed the basis for celestial divination. 478 See p. 93ff. below. 479 See p. 96ff. below.

92

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

ments of the sun, the planets, the individual stars, and the constellations.480 This was a system in which the moon and the stars were the main indicators of temporal divisions between individual days of the month and the individual months of the year. The sun, although it naturally designated the sunlit part of the diurnal cycle, had a much smaller role in designating units of time.481 The Mesopotamian day began in the evening after sunset, and in a similar fashion the month began when the lunar crescent reappeared in the sky after its period of invisibility. This resulted in a month of either 29 or 30 days. If the crescent moon was visible in the evening, i.e. the beginning, of the 30th day, the day would be “turned back” (turru) and that day would become the 1st day of the next month. In this case, the month would have 29 days instead of 30. If the crescent moon was not visible at the beginning of the 30th day, that day would be “confirmed” and become the 30th day of the month.482 Because the lunar cycle never exceeds 30 days, the month ended automatically after the 30th day. A length of 30 days was considered to be the ideal or normal span for a month, as is stated in the astrological report SAA 8 no. 87,483 and it was the schematic length of a month in economic documents. More importantly from the perspective of this study, this ideal lunar month is portrayed in the numeric writing of the moon god’s name, d30.484 The observation of the moon on the 1st day of the new month was deeply rooted in Mesopotamian astrology since this was the time when divine decisions made during the conjunction of the moon and the sun were made manifest.485 The full moon, schematically visible on the 15th day of the month, was the other significant point in the lunar cycle, diligently observed and reported.486 Again, these observations had practical purposes in determining the mid-point of the month, but they also had other associations: during their opposition on the 15th day, Sîn and Šamaš decreed verdicts and made decisions concerning the land and the humankind. The role of the moon in relation to the

480

See especially the overviews in Verderame 2006–2008, 121–134; Steele 2007, 133– 148; Steele 2011, 470–485, and Steele 2012, 373–387. The significance of the ideal year in relation to celestial divination is discussed in Maul 2013a, 254–260. 481 Horowitz 2012, 9. See also Verderame 2006–2008, 128–129 noting that the roles of both the moon and the sun have to be taken into consideration in this respect. 482 The use of this terminology is discussed in Beaulieu 1993c, 67–69. See also Parpola 1983, 88. 483 SAA 8 no. 87, 5–6: [mi-na-at] ITI / [UD.30.KÁM] ú-šal-lam-ma, “[The (normal) length] of the month (means) that it will complete [the 30th day].” Reports informing the king that the month has reached this ideal length reveal that this was a very propitious sign (passim in SAA 8). 484 See also the discussion on p. 28ff. above. 485 See p. 150ff. below. 486 See the further discussion concerning the 15th day on p. 106ff. below. The observations of the full moon are attested passim in the astrological reports in SAA 8.

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

93

year as a temporal unit can be seen in its ideal conjunction with the constellation Zappu (Pleiades) on the 1st of Nisannu.487 The mythological background for the movements of the moon can be found in two 1st millennium BCE sources. The most extensive description of the lunar cycle as it was perceived by the Babylonians is embedded in the creation epic Enūma eliš, in the passage that describes how the god Marduk created the cosmos after his battle against Tiamat.488 Enūma eliš V, 12–22489 d 12 Nanna-ru uš-te-pa-a mu-šá iq-ti-pa 13 ú-ad-di-šum-ma šu-uk-nat mu-ši a-na ud-du-ú u4-mi 14 ar-ḫi-šam la na-par-ka-a ina AGA ú-ṣir 15 i-na reš ITI-ma na-pa-ḫi e-[l]i ma-a-ti 16 qar-ni na-ba-a-ta a-na ud-du-ú za-ka-ri u4-mu490 17 i-na UD.7.KÁM a-ga-a [maš]-la 18 [š]a-pat-tu lu-ú šu-tam-ḫu-rat mi-ši[l ar-ḫi]-šam 19 i-[n]u-ma dUTU i-na i-šid AN-e ina-[aṭ-ṭa-l]u-ka 20 ina [s]i-[i]m-ti šu-tak-ṣi-ba-am-ma bi-ni ar-ka-niš 21 [bu-ub-bu-l]um a-na ḫar-ra-an dUTU šu-taq-rib-ma 22 šá [x (x) UD.3]0.KÁM lu šu-tam-ḫu-rat dUTU lu šá-na-at He made Nannāru come forth and then entrusted to him the night, he assigned to him the jewel of the night491 to distinguish the days. Monthly, without ceasing, he made him sublime with a crown, (saying): “At the beginning of the month, as (you) light up ab[o]ve the land, you will shine with horns to mark the calling of the days. On the seventh day, the crown will be [ha]lf. On the fifteenth day, in the midd[le of] each [month], may you stand in opposition. W[h]en Šamaš s[ee]s you on the horizon, diminish in the p[ro]per stages and grow backwards. [On the day of disappeara]nce, draw near to the path of Šamaš and

487

MUL.APIN II, Gap A 8: [DIŠ ina itiBÁRA UD.1.K]AM MUL.MUL u d30 šit-qu-lu MU BI GI.NA-ta, “[If on the 1s]t [day of Nisannu] Zappu and Sîn are in conjunction, this year is normal” (see Hunger & Pingree 1989, 89). 488 This order that was set in place by Marduk was further discussed in scholarly works like i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a (see Lambert 2013, 186–192). 489 See the editions in Kämmerer & Metzler 2012, 230–232 and Lambert 2013, 98–99 as well as the translation in Maul 2013a, 257–258. 490 Previously reconstructed as qar-ni na-ba-a-ta ana ud-du-ú [6 u4]-mi (see Kämmerer & Metzler 2012, 230). 491 šuknat mūši, “jewel of the night”, is the Akkadian translation of the Sumerian name d Gi16-sa-an-na found in An = Anum III, 12 (see Litke 1998, 117).

94

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

[... on the 3]0th day may you stand in conjunction and be equal to Šamaš. In this short passage the main phases of the lunar cycle according to the Mesopotamian thinking – and thus the primary forms of the moon and the moon god – are represented. At its first appearance at the beginning of the cycle, the crescent moon defines the beginning of the lunar month. After the waxing phase, it reaches the point when the full moon can be seen in opposition to the sun, after which the waning phase begins. At the end of the cycle the moon disappears completely, because it stands in conjunction with the sun. The endless renewal of the moon from month to month, the movement of the moon through the different regions of the heavens, as well as the relationship between Sîn and Šamaš, two deities who complement each other, is portrayed here. As Eleanor Robson has observed, the lunar cycle was also represented in the performance of the New Year festival in which the Enūma eliš was recited. The main themes of the epic – creation, destruction, and renewal – are precisely the main qualities of the moon as a heavenly object: it is born each month, and after it reaches its culmination during the full moon it declines and perishes, only to become visible again after its days of invisibility.492 Similar reflections concerning the significance of the moon and the sun are found in the opening passage of the astrological series EAE. The two versions present, the Sumerian and the Akkadian, deal with the issue of determining time but they give importance to different deities. In the Sumerian passage, it is the moon god Sîn whose barge (má-gur8) is established in the heavens, and the appearance of the crescent moon in heaven followed by its waxing phase is juxtaposed with the signs of the heaven and earth.493 EAE 1, §0a494 ud An dEn-líl dEn-ki diĝir-gal-gal-e-ne ĝalga-ne-ne gi-na-ta me gal-gal an-kia má-gur8 dSuen-na mu-un-gi-ne-eš u4-sakar mú-mú-da iti ù-tu-ud-da ù giskim an-ki-a mu-un-gi-ne-eš má-gur8 an-na ní pa-è ak-a-dè495 šà-an-na igibar-ra-ta è When An, Enlil (and) Enki, the great gods, established with their firm counsel the great me-powers of the heaven and the earth (and) the barge of Sîn, they established the crescent moon to grow, to give birth to the month, and to

492

Robson 2004, 82. For the moon as a boat see the discussion on p. 45. The commentary to these lines (82-7-14, 4005) is cited on p. 33 in connection the appellation Nannāru for Sîn. 494 See the editions of this passage in Koch-Westenholz 1995, 77; Verderame 2002b, 9 and 13; Lambert 2013, 176; and Jiménez 2014b (CCP 3.1.1.C). 495 The reading ní for IM here is introduced in Jiménez 2014b, line 6 (with further attestations of the formulation ní pa ... è ak). 493

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

95

be the omen-bearer of heaven and earth.The barge of heaven, to make himself visible (and) to be seen, emerged in the middle of the sky . The second, Akkadian section does not mention Sîn at all: the focus is on the sun god Šamaš, who emerges from the gates of heaven.496 EAE 1, §0b497 ša-ni-iš e-nu-ma dA-num dEn-líl dÉ-a DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ ina mil-ki-šúnu ki-i-nu GIŠ.ḪUR.MEŠ AN-e u KI-tim iš-ku-nu ana ŠU DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ ú-kin-nu u4-mu ba-na-a ITI ud-du-šu ša ta-mar-ti a-me-lut-tum d UTU ina ŠÀ KÁ È-šú i-mu-ru qé-reb AN-e u KI-tim ki-niš uš-ta-mu-ú498 Secondly: When Anu, Enlil (and) Ea, the great gods, set up the plans of heaven and earth with their firm counsel (and) assigned (them) to the great gods: the day to grow, the month to renew, (the things) for the humankind to observe(?), they saw Šamaš as he emerged from the gate, (and) they faithfully took counsel in heaven and earth. That the Sumerian passage focuses on the moon god and the Akkadian on the sun god underlines the notion that was already present in the account concerning the creation of the moon in the Enūma eliš, namely the collaboration between Sîn and Šamaš.499 The complementary roles of these two deities are best seen in the two halves of the diurnal cycle: night and day. As expressed in the Exaltation of Inanna, the gods Anu, Enlil, and Ea divided the night and the day equally between Sîn and Šamaš.500 Exaltation of Inanna, 49–56501 49 saĝ-tab an dEn-líl dEn-ki-ke4 níĝ-ḫal-ḫal ba-an--eš-a-ta 50 šur-ru-ú dA-nu dEn-líl u dÉ-a ú-za-’i-i-zu zi-za-a-tim 51 [diĝir-mìn]-na-bi en-nu-un an-ki-a ĝišig-an-na ĝál-la-ar

496

For the gates of heaven as a passage for Sîn and Šamaš see p. 82ff. above. See the editions of this passage in Koch-Westenholz 1995, 77; Verderame 2002b, 9 and 13; Lambert 2013, 176; and Jiménez 2014b (CCP 3.1.1.C). 498 The suggested verbal form uš-ta-pu-ú (corresponding to the verb in the Sumerian passage; see Koch-Westenholz 1995, 77 and Verderame 2002b, 9) is not possible because the signs in the tablet clearly are uš-ta-mu-ú (see the photographs in Jiménez 2014b [CCP 3.1.1.C]). 499 As discussed in Verderame 2006–2008, 126–128. 500 It should, however, be noted that depending on the phase of the lunar cycle the moon can also be visible during the sunlit hours of the day (see the overview of lunar phases on p. 18). Therefore the manifestation of the moon god in the sky is not restricted solely to the nighttime. 501 See the edition in Hruška 1969, 484. 497

96

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

52

ana DINGIR.MEŠ ki-lal-la-an ma-aṣ-ṣa-ar AN-e u KI-tim pe-tu-ú da-lat dA-nu d Nanna dUtu-ra giĝi6 u4-da šu-ta-ta an-ni-ši-íb-si 53 54 ana d30 u dUTU u4-mu u mu-ši ma-al-ma-liš ba-šim-ma 55 an-úr-ta an-pa-šú-šè á-dù-a-bi im-ta-an-zu-zu-ne 56 iš-tu i-šid AN-e ana e-lat AN-e a-da-šú-nu ú-ta-ad-du-nu (At) the beginning, after An, Enlil (and) Enki divided the shares (Akk.: (At) the beginning Anu, Enlil, and Ea divided the shares), for the both gods, the watchers of the heaven and the earth, the openers of the doors of heaven, the night and the day were created equally for Sîn and Šamaš, and their tasks from the horizon to the zenith were assigned (to them). The notion that night was under the authority of Sîn and the daytime hours belonged to Šamaš is also portrayed in the expression Sîn ša mūši Šamaš ša kal ūmi, “Sîn of the night, Šamaš of every day”, which is used to beseech Sîn and Šamaš on multiple occasions.502 Similarly, a bilingual litany containing adjurations by different cosmic forces – e.g. stars, sunset and sunrise, light and darkness – defines Sîn and Šamaš by their authority concerning the day and the night. This is done in connection with the concept of time, revealed by the adjuration by day, month and year in the following line. PBS 1/2 no. 115, I 11–12503 I 11 ⌈zi⌉ ⌈d⌉⌈Utu⌉ ⌈ud⌉-⌈da⌉ dĜiš-nu11 ĝi6-da ḫé(-pà) niš dUTU šá u4-mu d30 šá mu-šu I 12 zi ud sakar-ud504 mu-a ḫé(-pà) niš u4-mu ár-ḫu u šat-ti Be (adjured) by Utu/Šamaš of the day, Sîn of the night! Be (adjured) by the day, the month (and) the year! One of the tasks of Sîn and Šamaš was to define the boundaries of temporal units, beginning with the day and extending to the yearly cycle. The Akkadian prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 1” praises them as deities who “daily inspect the measure

502

See the prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 1” in CBS 1516, r. 4 (edition on p. 520ff. below). This same expression can also be found in K. 1939+, r. 2–3: d+EN.ZU u dUTU DINGIR.MEŠ [x x x] / d+EN.ZU ša mu-ši d[UTU ša kal ūmi] (unpubl.). See also the citation of BM 38272, 3 in CAD U–W, 142 with this formulation. 503 Edited in Ebeling 1953b, 379–380. See also the citations in CAD A/2, 259 and CAD M/2, 292. 504 This sign is copied as GA in PBS 1/2, no. 115, but the accuracy of the copy was already in doubt in Ebeling 1953b, 379. The collation of the signs given in Lambert apud Müller-Kessler 2002, 189 is confirmed by the photograph of the tablet (CDLI P268872).

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

97

of the day, the month and the year”.505 However, Sîn alone is also praised as the god who determines the boundaries of these temporal units.506 This is shown by the epithet mu’addû ūmi arḫi u šatti, “one who determines the day, the month and the year”, in Assurbanipal’s inscription for Eḫulḫul.507 Moreover, two names for Sîn in the god-list fragment K. 4559 directly attribute control over time to him: dŠākin-arḫi, “He who establishes the month”, and dMukīn-arḫi, “He who fixes the month”.508 In addition to the notion of control over time, another concept is present in a prayer to Sîn preserved in Assur: here he is presented as the creator of the three temporal units: the day, the month, and the year.509 Moreover, Sîn is the lord of the month according to his epithet bēl arḫi, which is attested alone510 and also as a part of the title of the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi.511 Significant in this respect is also his epithet “lord of the month’s decisions” (bēl purussê arḫi), which combines his power over divine decision-making with the month as temporal unit.512 Sîn and Šamaš’ control of time is also thematised in the procedure intended to prevent births from taking place during the month Nisannu.513 In this procedure, an appeal to allow the pregnancy reach the desired term is made to both Sîn and Šamaš, thus building an association between these two deities and the passage of time. The collaboration of Sîn and Šamaš in respect to time is also reflected in the way they are praised in “Sîn & Šamaš 1” in connection with establishing the daily provisions for both the Igigū and Anunnakū gods.514

505

CBS 1516, r. 6: mìn-da-at u4-mi ITI u MU IGI.BAR-s[a u4-mi]-šam (see the edition on p. 520ff. below). 506 See Tallqvist 1938a, 446. 507 K. 8759+, 3: [m]u-ad-du-ú u4-me ITI u [šatti ...] (Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551; Novotny 2003, 231. See also the citation of this passage on p. 142 below). 508 K. 4559 (CT 25, pl. 42), 1’–2’: ⌈d⌉Šá-kin-ar-ḫi | MIN / dMu-kin-ar-ḫi | MIN. These names are followed by the appellation Ellammê (see p. 68ff. above; see also Krebernik 1995, 363). 509 KAL 4 no. 40, r.? 12’: [... b]a?-nu-u u4-mu ITI u [šatti], “[... cr]eator of the day, the month and [the year]”. 510 Šurpu IV, 92: li-iz-zi-is d30 EN ITI li-pa-áš-šir ma-ma-ti-šú, “May Sîn, lord of the month, stand by, may he undo his oaths!” (Reiner 1958, 28). 511 This title is preserved e.g. in the colophon of K. 4231, the eight tablet of Inbu bēl arḫi (see Livingstone 2013, 217 and Marti 2014, 186). For the appellation inbu, “fruit”, for Sîn see the discussion on p. 54ff. above. See also the brief remarks on inbu bēl arḫi as an epithet of Sîn in Jiménez 2016, 202–204 note 27. 512 See p. 152 below. 513 VAT 8004// (see the edition on p. 507ff. below). 514 Note also the reference to Sîn as the establisher of daily offerings in 4 R2 9+//, 16: nidba mu-⌈un-gi-eš-àm⌉ / mu-kin nin-⌈da⌉-bé-e (see Shibata, HES, forthcoming and Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 170).

98

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

CBS 1516, r. 10–12515 Without you the regular offering is not arranged among the Igigū-gods, you illuminate the Anunnakū-gods like the daylight, you prepare their provisions and you take care of their living quarters! It is plausible that this praise relates to the role of the sun and the moon in the daily temple cult as well as to their journey through the Netherworld during their invisibility.

II.4.2. The Lunar Month and the Days Connected to Sîn As we have already seen, the moon and its cycle served to define the boundaries of the month and the sequence of individual days within it (i.e. the date in the lunar month). Thus, the moon was the indicator of specific days in the temple cult as well as in the lives of ordinary people. The most significant lunar phases – the reappearance of the lunar crescent in the sky and the full moon – are consequently already attested as festival days in the earliest records of temple cult in Mesopotamia.516 Still, these festivals were not moon festivals as such, but they honoured the main deity of each city: Enlil and Ninlil in Nippur; Nanna and Ningal in Ur, and so forth. That specific lunar phases and festivals formed constituents of the month is exemplified by the formulations which use them to identify the most important individual days within one month. An example of this can be found in the lipšur-litanies which include an adjuration by “the day of eve(ning) festival, the day of eššēšu-festival, the 15th day, the 19th day, the 20th day, the day of moon’s invisibility, the 30th day, the day, the month, and the year”.517 Furthermore, an incantation in the fourth tablet of Muššu’u names the seventh day of the month together with the period of the moon’s invisibility as the points of time when the sins of the petitioner will be absolved.518 These examples reveal a schedule of festivals and ritually significant days focused on the main phases of the moon and their ideal days in the lunar month.519 Still, as has already been pointed out, while the date of these monthly festivals was indicated by the moon, they did not necessarily celebrate the moon god.

515

See the edition on p. 520ff. below. For an overview concerning the organisation of the main festivities within the lunar cycle see especially Landsberger 1915, 93–100; Hallo 1977, 4–9; Hall 1985, 287–311; Stol 1992, 247; Sallaberger 1993, 38–40; and Cohen 2015, 89. 517 KAL 10 no. 36 (AO 6775), r. 14–15: [U]D nu-bat-tum UD.ÈŠ.ÈŠ UD.15.KÁM UD.19.KÁM UD.20.KÁM UD.NÁ.ÀM [U]D.30.KÁM u4-mu ITI u MU.AN.NA (see also Nougayrol 1947, 331 as well as Wiseman 1969, 179 and 182. 518 Muššu’u IV, 18: UD.7.KAM UD.NÁ.ÀM BÚR.MEŠ ár-ni-ka, “May they absolve your sins on 7th day and the day of the moon’s invisibility!” (Böck 2007, 153 and 170). 519 Similarly, the ideal scheme of the lunar phases is visible in astrological-astronomical literature, e.g. in i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a (see Brown 2000, 113–114). 516

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

99

In the following chapters, an overview of the individual days in the lunar month that are attested to have had a connection to Sîn and his cult will be provided. In this respect, a major source of information is the corpus of hemerological texts that prescribe offerings, ritual actions, or restrictions for particular days. Since the preserved documentation for the temple cult of the moon god for this period is practically non-existent,520 the schedule of offerings in his temples or sanctuaries remains, unfortunately, largely unknown. All activities concerning, or references to, Sîn for which both its specific day within the lunar cycle and its specific month are known, are presented in a table for an accessible overview of the important dates (see Tables 6–13 on p. 129–135 below). As we shall see, almost every day was associated with Sîn in some way, either through ritual actions or hemerological remarks. The references are largely to the point: they name a specific event, e.g. a bread offering to Sîn, Šamaš, and Ningal on the 14th of Nisannu according to the Offering Bread Hemerology.521 No references survive for only the 4th, 8th, and 19th days of the month. A plausible explanation for the insignificance of these days in relation to the moon is their inconsequential position within the cycle. A further contributing factor may also be that the 4th and the 8th were the days of Nabû’s eššēšu-festival.522 As expected, the highest level of activity relating to the moon god occurred during the main phases of the moon: new crescent, waxing half moon, full moon, waning half moon, and the days of the moon’s invisibility. The significance of these phases pertained to the practical purposes of time reckoning as well as to theological notions concerning divine communication. For this reason, the reappearance of the new crescent indicated the beginning of the month, but it also communicated divine decisions. Likewise, the full moon indicated the middle of the lunar cycle, and it also marked the meeting between the moon god and the sun god on opposite horizons. By the end of the month, during the invisibility of the moon, the meeting of these two gods took place again during the conjunction of the moon and the sun. Unfortunately, the precise reason why the days directly preceding and following the full moon – the 13th and the 17th – gained specific importance cannot be decided on the basis of the current evidence. However, in the case of the 13th day, the day of the moon god’s festival, it is plausible that its position on the “eve” of the full moon is highly significant.

II.4.2.1. 1st Day (Reappearance of the Moon) The significance of the first day of the month – the day when the moon reappears in the sky after its period of invisibility – in Mesopotamian culture was immense. It was not only a prerequisite for the calendrical system used for priv-

520

See the discussion on p. 330ff. below. See the discussion on p. 106 below. 522 See the overview in Livingstone 2013, 251. 521

100

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

ate economic transactions, but it established the framework for the monthly and daily religious cult. The importance of the first day is best illustrated by its role in the cultic calendar of the Ur III period when it was celebrated as a monthly festival.523 This festival was not necessarily connected to the moon god himself but was celebrated in honour of the tutelary deity of each city.524 In the case of the moon god’s cult in the 1st millennium BCE, any practices or conceptions connected to the first day of the month remain largely obscure because the documentation concerning his cult both in Babylonia and Assyria is very sparse. An offering to Sîn on the first day of the month is prominently present only in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi. According to the entries for the first day of each month, when the moon makes its reappearance in the sky, the king should sacrifice a pure gazelle to the moon god who, is designated by the appellation inbu, “Fruit”.525 The following morning, another offering is presented to Šamaš and Bēlet-mātāti as well as to Sîn and Bēlet-ilī.526 The first offering has three significant aspects. First, it is clearly specified that the gazelle offering should take place during the night (ina mūši).527 This must refer to the brief appearance of the crescent moon directly after sunset, i.e. at the beginning of the night. Second, this nocturnal offering is the first of only two monthly offerings made to Sîn alone in Inbu bēl arḫi: only on the 1st and the 11th days of the month was Sîn the recipient of an offering given solely to him.528 Third, the use of a gazelle as a sacrificial animal occurs rarely in the 1st millennium BCE sources.529 This suggests the existence of conceptual implications that unfortunately escape us. A wild gazelle certainly denotes the wilderness in contrast to domestic sheep or cattle; this is underlined by the gazelle hunting scenes in the reliefs of Assurbanipal.530 A connection between the gazelle and the moon god 523

See especially Landsberger 1915, 93–100; Hallo 1977, 4–9; Hall 1985, 287–311; Stol 1992, 247; Sallaberger 1993, 38–40; and Cohen 2015, 89. 524 Sallaberger 1993, 38. 525 See the discussion on p. 55ff. above. 526 See e.g. the entries for Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 217) and Šabāṭu (Marti 2014, 189). 527 See e.g. K. 2514+, 2: ina GI6 SIPA UN.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ NIDBA-šu MA[Š.DÀ KÙ-ta ana GURUN ú-kan] (Livingstone 2013, 202). 528 See p. 103 below. 529 See the attestations for ṣabītu in CAD Ṣ, 42–44, according to which a gazelle as a sacrificial animal is also attested e.g. in BBR no. 100, 13. The skeleton of an animal, which possibly was a gazelle, was deposited beneath the floor in one of the corridors of the Northwest Palace at Kalḫu for purificatory purposes (see Albenda 2008, 73). 530 For the depictions of gazelles in Neo-Assyrian reliefs see the overview in Albenda 2008, 73–74. Note also that a gazelle symbolises the steppe in the bīt rimki-ritual SpTU 2 no. 12, III 23–24: as the king exits the ritual enclosure, he should strike a gazelle with a bow, recite the incantation “Lord, as he is walking in the steppe” (en an-edin-na du-a-ni). In this section, other animals symbolising the mountains and the sea are the goose and

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

101

can be traced back to the Ur III period and to the name máš-dà-gu7, “Eating of the gazelle”, for the second month of the year.531 Since no explanations for the use of the gazelle as an offering to the moon god survive, the exact nature of this association remains unclear. Mark E. Cohen has suggested that a gazelle offering in the first months of the year was made in order to reinvigorate the moon by endowing him with the energy and stamina of the leaping gazelle, but this hypothesis remains highly speculative.532 It is more likely that the connecting factor between the gazelle and the moon god in Inbu bēl arḫi is the aforementioned association with the wilderness as well as the thin horns of the gazelle that plausibly were thought to resemble the thin crescent moon of the 1st day of the month.533 In another context, the first day of the month marked the beginning of a fiveday period during which Sîn was associated with the sky god Anu.534 However, on the first day of the month attention was primarily given to astrological concerncs: as the moon reappeared in the sky, the decisions made by the gods, especially by Sîn and Šamaš during their conjunction, were made manifest.535

II.4.2.2. 2nd Day The second day after the reappearance of the moon is connected to the moon god only in few instances. The royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi is most important in this respect since it prescribes a monthly offering to Šamaš, Bēlet-mātāti, Sîn, and Bēlet-ilī on the 2nd day.536 The only other attestation of cultic activities on

the duck, respectively (SpTU 2 no. 12, III 25–26) (see Scurlock 2002, 372–373). 531 See Sallaberger 1993, 194 and Cohen 2015, 90–92. Cohen notes the use of the gazelle in the instructions of Inbu bēl arḫi: “[...], in the Neo-Assyrian period a ‘ritually clean gazelle’ was offered to the moon-god, so just possibly there was a long tradition of associating the gazelle with the moon-god” (Cohen 2015, 92). 532 Cohen 2015, 92. This notion is based on Cohen’s hypothesis regarding the moon’s waning power during the summer months (see Cohen 1996, 13–19 and Cohen 2015, 78– 80). The lack of attestations of gazelle offerings to Nanna in Ur contradicts this hypothesis: the available documentation mainly concerns gazelles that were sacrificed to Enlil and Ninlil in Nippur (Sallaberger 1993, 56 and 194 note 925). 533 See Landsberger 1915, 107 who remarked: “Das Gazellenopfer wohl im Hinblick auf die spitzen ‘Hörner’ des jungen Mondes gewählt.” This should be compared to the names of the moon god involving another wild animal with horns, the ibex (p. 60 above). For the association of the moon god with the wilderness see p. 247ff. below. 534 See the discussion on p. 136ff. below and especially the citation of K. 2074 on p. 138. 535 For the moon and the sun’s conjunction at the end of the month see p. 119ff. below; for the moon god’s importance in divine decision-making see p. 150ff. below. 536 This is attested or can be reconstructed for intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 203; Marti 2014, 183), Simānu (Livingstone 2013, 206), intercalary Elūlu (Marti 2014, 185), Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 218; Marti 2014, 187), Šabāṭu (Marti 2014, 189) and intercalary Addaru (Marti 2014, 190).

102

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the 2nd day of the month derives from Assur, where a ritual bath (rimku) of Sîn took place on the 2nd of Tašrītu.537

II.4.2.3. 3rd Day The 3rd day of the month is linked to Sîn only on specific dates, never on a monthly basis. In the first month of the year, Nisannu, Sîn, and Šamaš required a bread offering on the 3rd day according to the Offering Bread Hemerology.538 The special nature of the 3rd of Araḫsamnu in relation to Sîn is revealed by both the Prostration Hemerology539 and Inbu bēl arḫi:540 on this day a gift must be dedicated to Sîn. Unfortunately, no explanation for these prescriptions survive. II.4.2.4. 5th Day The only reference to activities concerning Sîn on the 5th day is found in the Offering Bread Hemerology, according to which a bread offering was presented to Sîn on the 5th day of Nisannu.541 II.4.2.5. 6th Day The Prostration Hemerology prescribes a prostration to Sîn on the 6th of Ayyāru.542 In another context, the 6th day of the lunar cycle marked the beginning of the second five-day segment of the month; during this half moon phase, Sîn was associated with the god Ea.543 II.4.2.6. 7th Day (Waxing Half Moon) Despite the general significance of the 7th day to the temple cult,544 only sparse evidence for cultic activities connected to Sîn are attested for this day. It is possible that a bread offering to Sîn and Šamaš on the 7th of Nisannu is included in the Offering Bread Hemerology.545 On the same day, Sîn was given a bath (rimku) in Assur.546 A Neo-Babylonian list of offerings from Sippar includes an entry which indicates that Sîn received a sheep offering on the 7th of Araḫsam-

537

BM 121206, VII 5’–7’ (Menzel 1981, T 61; see also the citation on p. 419 below). KAR 178//, I 29–30: ŠUK-su ana d30 / u dUTU GAR-ma (see Livingstone 2013, 108). 539 Prostration Hemerology, 25: ana 30 NÍG.BA lik-ru-ub (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 167; see also Livingstone 2013, 164). A variant prescribes a gift to the gods (DINGIR.MEŠ). 540 K. 3269, I 14: ana d+En-líl ana d30 NÍG.B[A lik]-ru-ub (Livingstone 2013, 218). 541 KAR 178//, I 41: ŠUK-su ana d30 GAR-ma (Livingstone 2013, 109). 542 Prostration Hemerology, 6 (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 161; Livingstone 2013, 162). 543 See the discussion on p. 136ff. below and especially the citation of K. 2074 on p. 138. 544 See especially Landsberger 1915, 93–100; Hallo 1977, 4–9; Stol 1992, 247; Sallaberger 1993, 41; and Cohen 2015, 89. 545 KAR 178//, I 54: [ŠUK-su ana d30] ù dUTU / [(x x x) GAR-ma] (Livingstone 2013, 109; see also Marti 2014, 170). 546 BM 121206, VII 5’–7’ (Menzel 1981, T 61; see also the citation on p. 419 below). 538

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

103

nu.547 According to i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a, the half moon of the 7th day was called “half crown” and “kidney” (kalītu). Furthermore, on this day Sîn was associated with the god Ea.548

II.4.2.7. 9th Day It is possible that the Offering Bread Hemerology includes an offering to Sîn and Šamaš on the 9th day of Nisannu,549 but otherwise, no connections to Sîn are attested for the 9th day of the month. II.4.2.8. 10th Day No monthly offerings or cultic activities in connection with Sîn are attested for the 10th day of the month: only three singular events are proven to have existed. In the month Ayyāru, on the 10th day, a bath (rimku) was given to Sîn in Assur.550 The Prostration Hemerology prescribes a prostration to Sîn on the 10th of Elūlu.551 A bread offering to Sîn and Šamaš on the 10th day is included in one of the versions of the Tašrītu Hemerology.552 The available sources, unfortunately, do not offer any information concerning the conceptual background of these activities. II.4.2.9. 11th Day In general, there are no attestations for cultic activities in connection with the moon god on the 11th day of the month. Despite this, the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi gives much attention to Sîn on this day, presumably each month. The prescription for this day states that the king should present offerings to Sîn during the night when the moon displays a “crown of splendour” (agê tašriḫti).553 Moreover, the moon is called “Fruit” (inbu) on this day – an appellation which, in the same text, is also used for Sîn on the 1st day of the month.554 A further connecting factor between the 1st and the 11th days is that offerings are made solely

547

CT 55 no. 469, 5 (see p. 375 below). See the citation of K. 170+, 1–5 on p. 139 below. 549 KAR 178//, I 66: [d30] u dUTU [GAR-ma] (Livingstone 2013, 110; Marti 2014, 170). 550 BM 121206, VII 5’–7’ (Menzel 1981, T 61; see also the citation on p. 419 below). 551 Prostration Hemerology, 21 (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 166). 552 BM 34602, r. 8: DIŠ UD.10.KÁM ŠUK-su ana 30 u 20 [GAR ...] (see Labat 1961, 92–93 and Livingstone 2013, 170). 553 See the discussion on p. 65ff. above. The entry for the 11th day of the intercalary Elūlu in K. 4231 is cited on p. 56 above. The same entry is attested or can be reconstructed also for intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 204), Simānu (Livingstone 2013, 207; Marti 2014, 183), Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 219; Marti 2014, 187), Ṭebētu (Livingstone 2013, 225; Marti 2014, 188), Šabāṭu (Livingstone 2013, 227), and intercalary Addaru (Livingstone 2013, 230; Marti 2014, 191). 554 For this appellation of Sîn see the discussion on p. 54ff. above. 548

104

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

to Sîn.555 The exact reason why particularly on these days the moon god is not paired with the mother goddess Bēlet-ilī, which is the norm in this text, eludes us. The explanation for the special character of the 11th day offered by Benno Landsberger is that, according to the division of the first 15 days of the month into segments of 5 days, it marked the beginning of the final phase.556 The last five days before the schematic day of the full moon (the 15th) were not only associated with the “crown of splendour”, but some sources equate Sîn with Enlil on these days.557 The reason why a similar special instruction for the 6th day, which marks the beginning of the second segment in this schema, does not exist is most likely due to the relative insignificance of the waxing half moon in comparison to the importance of the new and gibbous moon.

II.4.2.10. 12th Day The 12th day of the month does not appear to have had any cultic significance relating to Sîn. According to the Offering Bread Hemerology, however, the 12th day of the month Simānu was associated with the good disposition of the moon god and his daughter Ištar.558 A similar notion is also expressed in Inbu bēl arḫi in the last line of the entry for the 12th of Simānu. K. 4068+, I 48’559 d 30 u dI[š]-tar im-ma[n-ga?-ru? x x (x)] Sîn and I[š]tar come to an ag[reement? ...] This provides further evidence of the existence of special notions about the moon god on particular, isolated days of the year in the Mesopotamian hemerological tradition.560 The significance of these connections, unfortunately, eludes us.

555

See p. 99 above. Landsberger 1915, 129. 557 See p. 136ff. below and especially the citation of K. 2074, II 7’–8’ on p. 138). 558 KAR 178//, V 31: DIŠ UD.12.KÁM dINNIN u d30 ŠE (Livingstone 2013, 124). 559 The formulation here is similar e.g. to the entry for the 17th of Tašrītu in the Babylonian Almanac (see p. 114 below). The edition in Livingstone 2013, 207 has the transliteration and translation: d30 u dDI.KU5 imKU[R.RA ...], “Sîn and Mandānu, the East Wi[nd ...]. After the collation of the tablet from a photograph (CDLI P395381; drawing below), it is clear that the sign Livingstone reads as DI is, in fact, I[Š] and that the sign Livingstone reads as a damaged KUR is an almost complete MAN. 556

560

Compare the entry for the 3rd of Araḫsamnu in the Prostration Hemerology and Inbu bēl arḫi (see p. 102 above).

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

105

II.4.2.11. 13th Day The 13th day of each month was particularly significant to Sîn since it is labelled as “Sîn’s day” in Babylonian and Assyrian sources concerning the monthly festivities.561 This designation is known from the list of days in the lipšur-litanies562 and from hemerological texts.563 The connection of the 13th day and the moon god is also acknowledged in Inbu bēl arḫi, but in a manner typical of that text, Sîn is paired with the mother goddess Bēlet-ilī: this hemerology designates the 13th day as the “day of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī”, followed by a prescribed offering to the divine pairs Šamaš–Bēlet-mātāti and Sîn–Bēlet-ilī.564 Furthermore, the text states that, like on the 11th day, the moon displays the “crown of splendour” (agê tašriḫti) on the 13th day.565 The moon’s “crown of splendour” is also referred to in letter SAA 10 no. 59, which informs the king that the 13th day is suitable for a dream ritual.566 The hemerological texts apart from Inbu bēl arḫi do not contain prescriptions for the 13th day, with the exception of the fragmentary entry for the 13th of Nisannu in the Offering Bread Hemerology which likely mentions Sîn as the recipient of a bread offering.567 In other sources, a lone reference to the 13th day as the day of the moon god, as it is known from the hemerological tradition, can be found in the composition STT 340 that contains benedictions for the Assyrian king. STT 340, 13568 [1]3 KI.MIN .13.KAM ša d30 min? [x (x)] ⌈a⌉?-⌈na⌉? LUGAL AN-⌈e⌉ ⌈lip⌉-⌈qí⌉-du SILIM-ka 13: ditto; the 13th day, that of Sîn: may the ... [...] entrust your well-being to the king of heaven! Despite the fact that this line has not been completely preserved, the conceptual

561

See Landsberger 1915, 130 and the overview in Livingstone 2013, 251. See Wiseman 1969, 178 and 181. 563 VAT 10954+, 7’ (Hätinen & Schaudig, KAL [forthcoming]). 564 E.g intercalary Elūlu, K. 4231, II 8–12 (see p. 67 above). Similar entries are attested or can be reconstructed for intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 204), Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 219) and Šabāṭu (Livingstone 2013, 227; Marti 2014, 190). 565 For the use of agê tašriḫti see the discussion on p. 65ff. above. 566 See the further discussion on p. 191 below. 567 KAR 178//, I 84 (Livingstone 2013, 110). 568 See also the transliteration in Reiner 1967, 195 and the edition in Watanabe 1991, 349–351. In the edition by Watanabe, the line is read ⌈13⌉ KIMIN 13 KAM ša d30 MEN n[a-šú]-⌈ú a!-na!⌉ LUGAL AN-⌈e⌉ lip-qí-du DI-ka with the translation “13 dito: (Am) 13. , an welchem Sîn die Tiara trägt, mögen sie (d.i. Sin und die Tiara) Dein Wohlergehen dem König des Himmels (d.i. Šamaš) anvertrauen!”. The reference to the tiara/crown of Sîn is, however, not possible according to the copy STT 340. 562

106

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

connection between the 13th day and the king of heaven is apparent. Whether Sîn himself is the king of heaven who wears his crown of splendour on the 13th day, referred to here, remains uncertain. It should be noted that this text appears to invest the gibbous moon with importance; in addition to the line pertaining to the 13th day, it also associates the 16th day with Sîn.569 Despite these numerous attestations linking the 13th day to Sîn, no concrete references to cultic activities in the moon god’s temples or sanctuaries are, to my knowledge, attested.

II.4.2.12. 14th Day Activities concerning Sîn on the 14th day of the month can only be found in the Offering Bread Hemerology. First, this text prescribes a bread offering to Sîn, Šamaš, and Ningal on the 14th of Nisannu.570 The entry for this day also includes the instruction to speak to Sîn and Šamaš who in return will respond(?) to this person.571 Later in the same text, Sîn is the only deity referred to in the entry for the 14th of Tašrītu: here the instruction is to beseech Sîn on this day.572 II.4.2.13. 15th Day (Full Moon) The 15th day of the month, which schematically was the day of the full moon in the Mesopotamian calendar, was called šapattu in Akkadian. It is important to note that this was a designation for the day, or more accurately, for the festivities on this day, not a term used to refer to the full moon as a celestial phenomenon.573 There was no specific single term for the full moon itself, but the time of the full moon was expressed through the opposition of the moon and the sun that takes place on the 15th day of the ideal 30-day month.574 A commonly used expression to indicate the day of the full moon in Neo-Assyrian astrological reports was “the moon and the sun are seen together” (Sîn u Šamaš itti aḫāmeš innammarū),575 but also other expressions described the opposition of these celestial bodies, including “the moon and the sun are in balance” (Sîn u Šamaš šitqulū),576 “the moon and the sun are in opposition” (Sîn u Šamaš šūtatû)577 and

569

See p. 113 below. KAR 178//, II 10–11 (Livingstone 2013, 111). 571 KAR 178//, II 8–9: NA ana d30 u d[UTU] KA?-šú D[Ù] / NA BI d30 u d[UTU] KA?-šú [x] x (see Livingstone 2013, 111 with the reading DUG4-šú DÙ and translation “the man should direct his wish to Sîn and Šamaš”). One of the manuscripts (KAR 176+) names the god Anu in addition to Sîn and Šamaš. 572 KAR 178//, r. III 79: UD.14.KÁM d30 li-bal (Livingstone 2013, 138). 573 See AHw, 1172 and CAD Š/I, 449–450; see also Landsberger 1915, 132. 574 The terminology is discussed in Brown 2000, 95. 575 E.g. SAA 8 no. 19, 1: DIŠ UD.14.KÁM 30 u 20 KI a-ḫa-meš IGI.MEŠ. 576 E.g. SAA 8 no. 65, 1: DIŠ d30 dŠá-maš ši-it-qu-lu. See also CAD Š/2, 8. 577 E.g. SAA 8 no. 109, 1: DIŠ d30 u dUTU šu-ta-tu-u. See also CAD A/2, 520. 570

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

107

“(if) the moon reaches the sun and follows it closely” (Sîn Šamaš ikšudamma ittīšu ittentû).578 These formulations describe the simultaneous appearance of the moon and sun in the morning during the period of the full moon, when the setting moon lingers above the western horizon while the sun rises in the east.579 This circumstance is described in Nabû-iqīša’s answer to the king’s concern about the veracity of the full moon’s observation. SAA 8 no. 293, r. 1–9 The king, my lord, must not say as follows: “(There were) clouds; how did you see (anything)?” This night, when I saw (the moon’s) coming out, it came out when little of the day (was left), it reached the region where it will be seen (in opposition with the sun). This is a sign that is to be observed. In the morning, if the day is cloudless (lit. open), the king will see: for one double-hour of daytime (the moon) will stand there with the sun. To further underline the observation in the morning, the astrological literature reveals that Sîn was supposed to “wait” for Šamaš to appear at the time of the full moon, which indicates that he must have remained visible in the sky during sunrise.580 It is important to understand that aside from celestial observations of the full moon, the simultaneous appearance of the moon and the sun on opposing horizons was considered to be a “meeting” between the gods Sîn and Šamaš. This aspect is illustrated by a report by Ištar-šumu-ēreš, responding to the king’s worries about a successful observation of the full moon that was defined as a point in time, when “the gods see each other”. SAA 8 no. 21, 1–5 (As to) what the king, my lord wrote to me: “The clouds were dense, how did you observe that the gods saw each other (in opposition)?” This concept of interaction between Sîn and Šamaš during the time of the conjunction underlines the fact that, as we already discussed, the concepts of the moon as a physical object and as a manifestation of Sîn cannot be separated from each other.581 The theological understanding of the simultaneous presence of Sîn and 578

E.g. SAA 8 no. 294, 1–2: DIŠ d30 dUTU ik-šu-ud-ma KI-šú / it-ten-tu. See also CAD N/2, 165–166. 579 Pizzimenti 2013, 270–271 maintains that these expressions would have referred to the moonrise in the evening because this is the starting point of the day. However, this view is opposed by the descriptions provided by the Neo-Assyrian astrological reports. 580 See e.g. SAA 8 no. 499, 1: DIŠ 30 20 la ú-qi-ma ir-bi, “If the moon does not wait for the sun but sets”. 581 See p. 19ff. above.

108

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Šamaš on the day of the full moon plays an important role in the rituals that were performed in front of the moon and the sun at this particular point of time. A small group of rituals, which were to be performed in the morning at the time of the full moon, are known to us. The first of them is an anti-ghost therapy, preserved in BAM 4 no. 323//, and was prescribed for a person who suffered from continual headaches, dimmed eyes, sore neck muscles, kidney pains, troubled heart, and paralysed feet.582 It is the only preserved ritual that includes an explicit reference to the 15th day of the month; in the instructions, the text specifies the temporal setting for the therapeutic activity with the description “the day when Sîn and Šamaš stand together” (ūm Sîn u Šamaš ištēniš izzazzū).583 The description of the ritual and its accompanying prayer (“Sîn & Šamaš 2”) provide more details on the positions of Sîn and Šamaš: towards the west (moonset), an incense burner is set up for Sîn, and towards the east (sunrise), the same is done for Šamaš. For libations, Sîn receives milk (šizbu) and Šamaš receives beer (šikaru).584 The patient faces north, having the moon on his left and the sun on his right, as is also stated in the prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 2”. BAM 4 no. 323//, 99–100585 99 ana GÙB-ia d30 U4.SAKAR AN-e GAL.MEŠ ana ZAG-ia a-bi ṣalmat SAG.DU dUTU DI.KU5 100 DINGIR.MEŠ ki-lal-la-an a-bi DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ KU5-su EŠ.BAR ana UN.MEŠ DAGAL.MEŠ To my left is Sîn, the luminary of the great heavens,586 to my right is the father of the black-headed people, Šamaš, the judge; the pair of gods, fathers of the great gods, the ones who make the decisions for the widespread people! With these lines, the moon god is praised as a celestial luminary, and the sun god is designated as the supreme divine judge. The same characterisations are found in the following short Sumerian appeals to both Sîn and Šamaš, who are designated as “great light of heaven and earth” and “great judge, father of the blackheaded”, respectively.587 The additional epithet in line 100, pārisū purussê ana

582

BAM 4 no. 323//, 89–108 (Scurlock 2006, no. 91). See also Reiner 1995, 136–138. BAM 4 no. 323//, 93: ina UD.15.KÁM u4-um d30 u dUTU 1-iš GUB-zu. 584 BAM 4 no. 323//, 96–99. 585 Scurlock 2006, no. 91. 586 The epithet U4.SAKAR AN-e GAL.MEŠ is understood as uskār šamê rabûti, “moon crescent of the great heavens”, in Scurlock 2006, no. 91. However, in this context the logogram U4.SAKAR must be understood as a logographic spelling of the epithet nannāru (see the discussion on p. 31ff. above). 587 BAM 4 no. 323//, 105: ÉN dNanna ĝiš-nu11-gal an-ki-ke4; 107: dUtu ⌈di⌉-⌈ku5⌉ ⌈gal⌉ ⌈a⌉a saĝ-ĝi6-ga (Scurlock 2006, no. 91). For the epithets of Sîn describing him as a celestial light see the discussion on p. 78ff. above. 583

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

109

nišī rapšāti, “the ones who make the decisions for the widespread people”, underlines the authority of both Sîn and Šamaš in divine decision-making.588 The theme of divine decision-making can also be found in an anti-witchcraft ritual that took place before the moon and the sun during the full moon.589 This ritual, which is preserved in Neo-Babylonian manuscripts from Sippar (Si. 34(+)//), greatly differs from the other attested anti-witchcraft ritual associated with Sîn (BAM 5 no. 449+//).590 While both of them take place during the full moon, the ritual from Sippar specifies the full moon as its temporal setting with the formulation “When Sîn and Šamaš are [seen] tog[ether and] the decisions concerning the land are made by Anu and Enlil”.591 With these lines, the notion of divine decision-making is introduced already within the opening lines of the text, and the “meeting” of Sîn and Šamaš is defined as the point in time when the gods Anu and Enlil (Sîn and Šamaš can plausibly be equated with Anu and Enlil592) establish their decisions (purussû). Since, in the context of celestial divination, the opposition of the moon and the sun in the morning (as opposed to the evening) was significant, it is very likely that the ritual took place directly after the sunrise in the morning, just as it did in BAM 4 no. 323//. Moreover, the homage to Sîn and Šamaš in the context of the rituals in BAM 4 no. 323// and Si. 34(+)// is remarkably similar: like the anti-ghost ritual in BAM 4 no. 323//, the prayer that is addressed to the moon god and the sun god in Si. 34(+)// describes Sîn predominantly by his luminous qualities and Šamaš is presented as the god who decrees fates. Together, they are beseeched to give a verdict and to make a decision in the case that is brought before them.593 It is plausible that the war ritual preserved in CBS 1516 also took place during the full moon, although no explicit indication of its temporal setting is preserved. Still, the fact that the ritual was performed before the moon and the sun, most likely during their simultaneous appearance during the full moon phase, is clear from the address to these both gods included in the prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 1”.594 This prayer includes the same expression ilānū kilallān, “the pair of gods”, that is found in “Sîn & Šamaš 2”, and the theme of divine decision-making is very prominent.595 In comparison to the rituals that took place at dawn, only a single context assuredly dealing with a nocturnal ritual before the full moon is known. According

588

See also the discussion on p. 154 below. See the edition of Si. 34(+)// in Schwemer 2010, 480–504. 590 For the ritual against zikurudû-magic (BAM 5 no. 449+//) see p. 109 below. 591 Si. 34(+)//, 2–3 (Schwemer 2010, 486 and 490). See also the citation on p. 146 below. 592 For this equation see p. 136ff. below. Note that the sun god was associated with the god Enlil during sunrise (Great Star List, 288; see Koch-Westenholz 1995, 202–203). 593 Si. 34(+)//, 23: di-[n]i di-na EŠ.BAR-a-a KU5-s[a], “Judge my case, make a decision for me!” (Schwemer 2010, 487 and 491). See also the discussion on p. 154 below. 594 For a new edition of CBS 1516 see p. 520ff. below. 595 See the discussion on p. 154 below. 589

110

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

to the preserved evidence, a witch could cast a “throat-cutting spell” (zikurudû) against her victims under the moon.596 Countermeasures against such a spell were partly performed before the full moon (on the 15th day).597 The instruction for the case in which the arrabu-mouse, utilised by a witch to cast the spell, was found in the victim’s house includes an appeal to Sîn to undo the spell that had been cast. This appeal was to be repeated seven times before Sîn, and it should be followed by a prostration.598 The text continues with the specific instruction to let the patient confess all of his concerns to Sîn on the 15th day.599 The therapy continues with prayers and the burial of the mouse. On the 7th day of the following month the patient is freed from the spell that had been cast upon him. Even in cases where the victim had inadvertently discarded the arrabu-mouse, he could be freed from the spell. In such circumstances, an offering and prostration before Sîn on the 15th day, together with a confession and appeal for help were also needed.600 Other than the rituals that were performed before the moon and the sun on the morning of the 15th day and the nocturnal procedures against zikurudû-magic, the references to the performance of prayers or rituals before Sîn on the 15th day are very rare. In fact, the only explicit case is found in the context of ikribprayers to Sîn: a collection of these prayers include an ikrib which, according to its rubric, was to be performed on the 15th day.601 This prayer to Sîn praises his luminous quality and depicts him as a source of fertility by giving him the power to endow childless people with offspring. Moreover, an association is made between the moon and the (wild) animals who gather before the moon.602 The hemerological tradition, apart from Inbu bēl arḫi, generally provides only a limited number of references to Sîn in connection with the 15th day. In the 596

Maqlû IV, 52: “You (have performed) zikurudû-magic before Sîn (against me, have had performed against me: may Girra release)” (Abusch 2016, 120 and 321; see also Schwemer 2007c, 102). 597 See Reiner 1995, 136 and Schwemer 2007c, 222–224. An edition of the text BAM 5 no. 449+// is found in Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 407–415 (no. 10.3). It is possible that an anti-witchcraft ritual from Assur (IM 148516; Fadhil 2018, 197–198) also took place during the full moon although no explicit information is given. In this case, the timing is suggested by the similarities between the prayer used in this ritual and the ikrib of the 15th day to Sîn (see K. 2751+, 58’–69’ in the edition on p. 483ff. below). 598 BAM 5 no. 449+//, 24’–28’ (see Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 409 and 412). 599 BAM 5 no. 449+//, 28’: UD.15.KÁM ma-la ŠÀ-šú DAB ana 30 liq-bi, “on the 15th day, he should say everything that worries him to Sîn” (Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 409 and 412). 600 BAM 5 no. 449+//, 36’–40’ (Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 409 and 413). 601 K. 2751//, 78’: [ik?-rib? d30?] UD.15.KÁM (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). It is possible that the other prayers in this collection were also assigned to specific days, but this is the only date that survives. 602 For the association of the moon god with wild animals see p. 247ff. below.

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

111

Offering Bread Hemerology, a bread offering to Sîn is prescribed for the 15th day of Nisannu, but there are no references to Sîn in connection with the 15th day for any other months.603 It is plausible that the offering to Sîn and Šamaš in the Prostration Hemerology’s entry for the month of Du’ūzu takes place on the 15th because these two gods are named together.604 Still, since the date in this entry has not been preserved in any of the manuscripts, this remains uncertain. The entry may nevertheless be connected to the Babylonian Almanac, which includes an “eclipse of the moon” in its entry for the 15th of Du’ūzu.605 The fact that the 15th day of Nisannu and Du’ūzu have an attested connection with Sîn, or Sîn and Šamaš, leads to the question of whether this could be seen as a reflection of the vernal equinox and summer solstice, which schematically occurred on the 15th day of Nisannu and Du’ūzu, respectively, according to the astronomical compendium MUL.APIN.606 In further attestations, a Late Babylonian compilation that draws from the Prostration Hemerology prescribes the presentation of a sun disc and a crescent moon to Sîn and Šamaš on the 15th day of Araḫsamnu.607 Since the same instruction is also attested for the 28th of Araḫsamnu, the 15th day and the 28th day appear to have been conceptually connected by the meeting of the moon and the sun.608 Contrary to the sporadic offerings attested in other hemerologies, Inbu bēl arḫi instructs the king to make a bread and an animal offering to the divine pairs Šamaš–Bēlet-mātāti and Sîn–Bēlet-ilī on the 15th day each month.609 More importantly, however, the 15th day is, in this text, labelled as “accountancy of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī” (epēš nikkassi ša Sîn u Bēlet-ilī).610 Similar designations are also attested for the 21st and 22nd days of the month in Inbu bēl arḫi and the Offering Bread Hemerology.611 According to Benno Landsberger the days of “accountancy” were related to a cycle of seven days in economic transactions.612 He

603

KAR 178//, II 18: ŠUK-su ana d30 GAR-ma (Livingstone 2013, 111). Prostration Hemerology, 14 (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 163). 605 Livingstone 2013, 30. An eclipse on the 16th of Du’ūzu is included in the Offering Bread Hemerology (see below). 606 MUL.APIN II, i 9–21 (Hunger & Pingree 1989, 72–76). For the “ideal” character of this scheme see Hunger & Pingree 1989, 150–151 and Brown 2000, 117. 607 BM 34584+, IV 106–109 (Jiménez 2016, 210 and 213). See also p. 219 below. 608 See the discussion on p. 127 below. 609 See e.g. the entry for the 15th day of intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 214; Marti 2014, 186). This offering on the 15th is noted also in Reiner 1995, 113. 610 See e.g. the entry for intercalary Nisannu, K. 2514+, 45: DÙ NÍG.ŠID šá 30 DINGIR.MAḪ (Livingstone 2013, 205). The same entry is also preserved for Simānu (Livingstone 2013, 208; Marti 2014, 184), intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 214; Marti 2014, 186), and it can be reconstructed for Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 220). 611 See p. 117ff. below. 612 Landsberger 1915, 135. The expression nikkassa epēšu, “to conduct an accounting”, is 604

112

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

demonstrated that a similar designation for the 7th day of the month is found in a Neo-Assyrian letter, now edited as SAA 13 no. 100. In this letter, the act of balancing the accounts on the 7th day of an unnamed month is connected to the divine scribe Nabû, who is beseeched to forever balance the accounts of the king in his “writing tablet of life”.613 Thus, the act of “balancing the accounts” appears to have been connected to the 7th, 15th, and 21st/22nd days of the month, corresponding to the waxing half moon, the full moon and the waning half moon. Apart from this plausibly economic element, the religious aspect of “accountancy of Sîn” remains unclear since, unlike for Nabû, we do not have explicit statements concerning such activities. Although the “accountancy of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī” takes a prominent role in Inbu bēl arḫi, a similar designation for the 15th day of the month is not found in other hemerological texts. The situation is similar in the references to the “accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš” on the 21st and 22nd of the month: only the Offering Bread Hemerology includes the designation “accountancy of Sîn” for the 21st of Nisannu.614 The lack of references outside Inbu bēl arḫi suggests that Sîn was affiliated with the act of accounting mainly in the context of this royal hemerology, which possibly was an allusion to his importance in connection with kingship: the king needed to give an accounting to Sîn and Bēlet-ilī during the full moon, and to Sîn and Šamaš during the waning half moon.615 In addition to this possible significance of the full moon to the king, there are some other indications that Sîn was associated with kingship at the time of the gibbous or full moon. Such an affiliation is most apparent in the “Theology of the Moon”, according to which Sîn takes hold of Enlil’s divine powers on days 11–15 of the lunar month.616 Therefore, he also took over Enlil’s role as the divine king during these days. In addition, it appears that in the Nippurian cult, during festivities celebrating Ninurta’s return from the mountain, Sîn assumed the role of the divine king on the 15th day of Ayyāru.617 The significance of the full moon day in the temple cult is illustrated by the type of offerings made on the 15th day.618 However, the lack of material means that we have only a very small number of attestations of the offerings regularly

well-established as an economic term in Mesopotamia (see CAD N/2, 224–229). 613 SAA 13 no. 100, 7–13: UD.7.KÁM e-peš nik-ka-si / dAG ina gišLE.U5.UM-šú / ša bala-ṭi nik-ka-su / ša LUGAL be-lí-ia / ù ša DUMU.MEŠ EN-ia / [a]-na u4-me ṣa-a-ti / [lepu]-uš, “The 7th is the day for balancing the accounts: may Nabû [f]orever balance the accounts of the king, my lord, and the sons of my lord in his writing-tablet of life!” 614 See p. 117 below. 615 For Sîn as a giver of royal insignia and a protector of kingship see p. 196ff. below. 616 See the discussion on p. 136ff. below. 617 OECT 11 nos. 69+70, I 17’–19’ (see the citation on p. 205). 618 See especially Landsberger 1915, 93–100; Hallo 1977, 4–9; Hall 1985, 287–311; Stol 1992, 247; Sallaberger 1993, 38–39; and Cohen 2015, 89.

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

113

made to Sîn in his Assyrian or Babylonian temples on the day of the full moon. The only explicit reference to a sheep offering to Sîn on the 15th day of an unidentified month is made in a Neo-Babylonian offering list from Sippar.619 In this case, it remains unclear whether sheep were offered to Sîn on the 15th day of each month, or only in specific months.

II.4.2.14. 16th Day On a few occasions, the 16th day of the lunar month is referred to in connection with Sîn. Letter SAA 10 no. 298 explicitly refers to the performance of a dream ritual on the 16th day of the month Elūlu.620 According to BM 121206, Sîn’s ritual bath (rimku) takes place on the 16th of Elūlu and the 16th of Araḫsamnu.621 A Neo-Babylonian list of offerings includes an entry according to which the moon god in Sippar received a sheep offering on the 16th day of an unidentified month.622 In the hemerological tradition, the 16th day of Du’ūzu and Simānu is significant in relation to the moon god. The Offering Bread Hemerology includes the designation “eclipse of the moon or the sun” in the entry for the 16th of Du’ūzu,623 and the Prostration Hemerology instructs the worshipper to make a prostration to Sîn on the 16th of Simānu.624 The prostration to Sîn on the 16th of Simānu was also included in Inbu bēl arḫi which contains an entry for this day that deviates from the other references to the 16th day within the same text. Apart from Simānu, there is an entry involving morning offerings to the pairs Šamaš– Bēlet-mātāti and Sîn–Bēlet-ilī.625 In Simānu, however, a prostration and a bread offering to Marduk, Enlil, Sîn, and Gula is prescribed.626 This prescription most certainly is a conflation of the aforementioned prostration to Sîn on the 16th of Simānu in the Prostration Hemerology and the bread offering to Marduk, Gula, and Dilbat in the Offering Bread Hemerology.627

619

CT 55 no. 469, 9 (see p. 375 below). See the discussion on p. 190 below. 621 BM 121206, VII 5’–7’ (Menzel 1981, T 61; see also the citation on p. 419 below). 622 CT 55 no. 469, r. 19’ (see p. 375 below). 623 KAR 178//, VI 40: AN.MI d30 u dUTU (Livingstone 2013, 129). An eclipse on the 15th of Du’ūzu is included in the Babylonian Almanac (see above). 624 Prostration Hemerology, 10 (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 161; Livingstone 2013, 162). 625 K. 2514+, 49–50: [ina še-ri]m ana dUTU dBe-let–KUR.KUR ana d30 DINGIR.MAḪ NIDBA-[šú ú-kan] / [ni-qé-e BAL-qí] (see Livingstone 2013, 205; Marti 2014, 183); K. 3269, II 26–27: ina še-rim ana dUTU dBe-let–KUR.KUR ana d30 DINGIR.[MAḪ] / NIDBA-šú ú-kan ni-qé-e BAL-[qí] (Livingstone 2013, 220). 626 K. 4068+, II 17’–18’: ana dAMAR.UTU d+En-líl d30 dGu-la liš-[ken] ŠUK-su / ana d AMAR.UTU d+En-líl d30 dGu-la GAR-m[a] (Livingstone 2013, 208). 627 KAR 178//, V 44–46 (Livingstone 2013, 125). The adaptation of the Prostration Hemerology to Inbu bēl arḫi is briefly discussed in Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 188–189. 620

114

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

The nature of the 16th day in the hemerological tradition appears to be reflected in the text STT 340, which contains benedictions for the Assyrian king. This text mentions the moon god twice: first in connection with the 13th day, which was the “day of Sîn”; and second in connection with 16th day.628 STT 340, 16629 16 [KI.MIN] nu-b[at!-tu š]a ⌈d⌉⌈AMAR⌉.UTU x [x (x)] ⌈d⌉30 ⌈SU⌉.⌈LIM⌉ ÍL ⌈kul⌉-lat a-a-bi-ka i-na ŠU-ka li-⌈im⌉-nu 16: [ditto] ev[ening festival o]f Marduk ... [...] Sîn bears awesome radiance; may all of your enemies handed over to you! The description in this line – the moon bearing šalummatu-radiance on the 16th day – finds its closest match in the accounts of Sîn wearing his crown of splendour during the days of the waxing gibbous moon.630 The similarity suggests that although the terminology employed was not identical (“awesome radiance” as opposed to “crown of splendour” ), the waning gibbous moon on the 16th day may have been conceptually equal to the waxing gibbous moon.

II.4.2.15. 17th Day The 17th day finds special significance in connection with the moon god’s akītufestival in Ḫarrān. This is revealed by the letters SAA 1 no. 188 and SAA 10 no. 338, which concern the procession to the akītu-house on the 17th day of an unnamed month.631 It is possible that this date was associated with the 17th of Tašrītu which, according to the Babylonian Almanac, was a day on which Sîn is “well-disposed” (Sîn imaggar).632 This tradition is reflected in the Ḫarrān Stele For the 13th day see the discussion on p. 105ff. above. See Reiner 1967, 195 and Watanabe 1991, 349–351. 630 See the discussion on p. 65ff. above. 631 See the further discussion on p. 410ff. below. 632 Livingstone 2013, 45. The list of days in the small tablet VAT 3, r. 1 includes the same entry for the 17th day, but the list has been associated with the month Araḫsamnu in the two editions of it (see Labat 1957, 312 and Livingstone 2013, 47–52 [Unkn.2]). Due to the fact that the entries fit better to the scheme for Tašrītu, and, more importantly, because the identification of the month is not made until the second last line of the reverse after a single ruling, it is highly likely that this tablet concerns the favourable days in Tašrītu (1–r. 5), followed by a “catch-line” for the next month, Araḫsamnu. In the case of the manuscript BM 46562 [Unkn.1 in Livingstone’s edition], the entries, which pertain to Tašrītu, are presented as belonging to the month Addaru by Livingstone. In BM 46562, VII! 18 – the first column from the left on the reverse – we find the entry d30 i-ma-gàr (see the photograph of the tablet in Livingstone 2013, 77; read d30 x x in Livingstone 2013, 68). Because the other entries in this column comply with those for Tašrītu, it can be concluded that this column pertains to Tašrītu, not Addaru. This means that the columns in this tablet are organised from left to right also in the reverse (as opposed to 628 629

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

115

of Nabonidus: the 17th of Tašrītu, described with the formulation familiar from the Babylonian Almanac, is the day which marks the return of Nabonidus from Tayma.633 This reference has led several Assyriologists to conclude that the akītu-festival of Sîn in Ḫarrān took place on the 17th of Tašrītu.634 However, since the festival is not explicitly named in the Ḫarrān Stele, it is better to remain cautious and to see this reference firstly as a reflection of the Babylonian Almanac. In the Offering Bread Hemerology, the instruction for the 17th of Nisannu includes offerings to Sîn, Ningal, and Gula, as well as the god and goddess of the city. Ningal will then intercede with her husband Sîn on behalf of the supplicant.635 KAR 178//, II 36–39636 II 36 ŠUK-su ana d30 u dNin-gal d Gu-la DINGIR URU-šú dINNIN URU-šú II 37 II 38 GAR-ma ma-ḫir dNin-gal II 39 ana d30 ab-bu-su ta-ṣa-bat He should present his bread offering to Sîn and Ningal, Gula, the god of his city, the goddess of this city, and it will be accepted. Ningal will intercede on his behalf with Sîn. Ningal’s intercession on the 17th day of Nisannu also appears in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi, but the full passage is unfortunately not preserved.637

II.4.2.16. 18th Day In Inbu bēl arḫi, the 18th day of the month is labelled as the “day of Sîn and Šamaš”.638 Alternatively, the entry for Simānu holds the designation “festival of Sîn and Šamaš”.639 On this day, offerings were given to the pairs Šamaš–Bēlet-

the more common organisation from right to left on the reverse). 633 Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 13 (Ex. 1): ina itiDU6 UD.17.KAM u4-mu d30 im-ma-⌈ag⌉-⌈gàr⌉, “In the 17th of Tašrītu, the day ‘Sîn will be well-disposed’.” 634 For references see p. 412 below. 635 Ningal is commonly presented as an intermediary between her husband Sîn and the human petitioner (see the discussion on p. 296ff. below). 636 Livingstone 2013, 112. 637 Sm. 948, 3’: [... dN]in-gal ana 30 a-b[u-u]s-⌈su⌉ D[AB] (Livingstone 2013, 201 and Marti 2014, 182; see also photograph of the tablet in CDLI P425675). 638 The entry is preserved or can be restored for Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 201; Marti 2014, 182), intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 205; Marti 2014, 183), intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 215; Marti 2014, 186). 639 K. 4068+, II 25’: [DIŠ UD].18.KÁMv EZEN šá 30 u 20 (Livingstone 2013, 208). It is maintained in Marti 2014, 191 that this same designation should be restored in the entry

116

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

mātāti and Sîn–Bēlet-ilī. According to Benno Landsberger, this day should be interpreted as a Vorläufer of the festival on the 20th day.640 This interpretation is supported by the absence of other links between the 18th day and the moon god. The only other reference to the 18th day in the cult of Sîn comes from Assur, where a ritual bath (rimku) for Sîn is attested on the 18th of Šabāṭu.641

II.4.2.17. 20th Day In the Mesopotamian calendrical tradition, the 20th day belonged to the sun god Šamaš.642 The moon god steps into the picture in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi which consistently labels the 20th day of the month as the “day of the bread donation of Sîn and Šamaš”. A well-preserved example of such an entry is found for the 20th of the intercalary Addaru.643 K. 4093, II 11’–13’644 II 11’ DIŠ UD.20.KÁMV UD ZÁLAG ⌈SUM⌉ NINDA šá 30 u 20 UD ŠE ina še-rim LUGAL II 12’ NIDBA-šú ana dUTU dBe-let–KUR.KUR ana 30 DINGIR.MAḪ ⌈ú⌉-[kan] II 13’ ni-⌈qé⌉-⌈e⌉ BAL-qí niš ŠU-šú ⌈KI⌉ DINGIR ⌈ma⌉-⌈gir⌉ The 20th day: a bright day, the day of a bread donation to Sîn and Šamaš. In the morning the king s[ets] his bread offering to Šamaš (and) Bēlet-mātāti, to Sîn (and) Bēlet-ilī; he makes an (animal) offering. The raising of his hand will be agreeable to the god. As can be seen, an offering to the divine pairs Šamaš–Bēlet-mātāti and Sîn–Bēlet-ilī on the 20th day was required. It is worth noting that this particular entry (intercalary Addaru) specifies that this offering should take place in the morning (ina šēri).645 Thus it resembles the offering on the 21st day. It is plausible that

for intercalary Addaru, but in my opinion, such a restoration remains very uncertain due to the frequency of the label “day of Sîn and Šamaš”. 640 Landsberger 1915, 136. Landsberger compares the cluster of festivities in Inbu bēl arḫi on the 18th and 20th to the similar cluster on the 13th and 15th of each month. 641 BM 121206, VII 5’–7’ (Menzel 1981, T 61; see also the citation on p. 419 below). 642 See the overview of the “cultic calendar” in Livingstone 2013, 252. 643 See also the entries for Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 202), intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 205), intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 215; Marti 2014, 186), Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 221), and Ṭebētu (Livingstone 2013, 225; Marti 2014, 188). See also the beginning of this entry in 82-5-22, 528, 10’ (Livingstone 2013, 234; Marti 2014, 192). 644 The transliteration here is based on the collation of the photograph CDLI P395396. In Livingstone 2013, 231, the transliteration of the line II 12’ overlooks DINGIR.MAḪ. 645 Also the fragment K. 12000R, which was not included in Livingstone’s edition (see

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

117

morning offerings on the 20th and 21st days of the month reflect the visibility of the moon in the sky during this phase of the lunar cycle (waning half moon). The moon’s visibility in the morning hours increases towards the end of the cycle, and at the time of the waning half moon (around the 21st day) it can be seen in the sky late at night and in the morning.646 In other sources, references to Sîn in connection with the 20th day are few. A prostration to Sîn is prescribed for the 20th of Nisannu in the Prostration Hemerology, while a prostration to Šamaš should be made on the 13th.647 This means that, according to this entry, these deities should be venerated in a mirrored fashion: the prostration to Šamaš takes place on the “day of Sîn” (13th) and the prostration to Sîn on the “day of Šamaš” (20th). Some of the manuscripts for the Babylonian Almanac include an “eclipse of the moon” for the 20th of Tašrītu.648

II.4.2.18. 21st Day (Waning Half Moon) The 21st of Nisannu is the day for the “accountancy of Sîn” (epēš nikkassi ša Sîn) according to one of the manuscripts of the Offering Bread Hemerology.649 A hemerological text from Assur (VAT 10954+) includes a similar entry, but in this case, both Sîn and Šamaš are mentioned.650 A similar entry can also be found in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi which states that the 21st day of the month is the “accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš”.651 The prescriptions for this day in nearly all of the attested months include an offering to the divine pairs Šamaš–Bēletmātāti and Sîn–Bēlet-ilī.652 The entries for Simānu, the intercalary Elūlu and intercalary Addaru show that the offering should take place in the morning (ina šēri).653 As already discussed in connection with “accountancy of Sîn and BēletLivingstone 2013, 201), contains an only partly-preserved entry for the 20th day with a morning offering. 646 See the overview of the lunar phases on p. 18 above. 647 Prostration Hemerology, 3–4 (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 159; Livingstone 2013, 162). 648 Livingstone 2013, 45. Two manuscripts state that the eclipse is that of the sun and a further two speak of a lunar eclipse. 649 K. 15161, II’ 1’: DÙ NÍG.ŠID šá 30 (Livingstone 2013, 113 and 159; Marti 2014, 171). Two manuscripts from Assur (KAR 178, KAR 176+) name Šamaš instead of Sîn. 650 VAT 10954+, 11’ (Hätinen & Schaudig, KAL [forthcoming]). 651 The entry for the 21st of intercalary Addaru is best preserved, K. 4093, II 14’: DÙ NÍG.ŠID šá 30 u 20 (Livingstone 2013, 231). A similar designation can also be restored for Simānu (Livingstone 2013, 209; Marti 2014, 184), intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 215; Marti 2014, 186), and Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 221; Marti 2014, 187). The entry for the 21st of Ṭebētu possibly included the “accountancy of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī” and no offering (Marti 2014, 188). 652 An offering is absent in the entry for Ṭebētu (see previous note). 653 K. 4093, II 21’–22’: ina še-r[im LUGAL] NIDBA-šú ana dUTU dBe-let–KUR.KUR ana 30 DINGIR.MAḪ / ú-kan ni-[qé]-e BAL-qí (intercalary Addaru; Livingstone 2013, 231).

118

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

ilī” on the 15th day of the month, the days that bear this designation appear to follow the pattern of lunar phases.654 Moreover, as already noted, in comparison to the plausible practical economic purposes for conducting an account at set intervals during the month, the religious implications of the role of Sîn and Šamaš remain unclear. The fact that both Sîn and Šamaš are connected to this “accounting” on the 21st of the month may be linked to their approaching conjunction at the end of the month, during which divine decisions were made and verdicts decreed: perhaps an “account” in the sense of a confession was needed in preparation for this meeting. In an isolated case, one of the manuscripts of the Babylonian Almanac includes the entry magir dSîn, “Sîn is well-disposed”, for the 21st day of Tašrītu.655

II.4.2.19. 22nd Day Similarly to the 15th and the 21st day of the month, the 22nd day is labelled as the “accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš”, “accountancy of Sîn” or “accountancy of Šamaš” in Inbu bēl arḫi.656 As can be seen from these designations, the entries for this day are not as consistent as those for the 15th and the 21st, which are called “accountancy of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī” and “accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš”, respectively. From the assuredly attested designations, epēš nikkassi ša Sîn pertains to the 22nd of the intercalary Elūlu.657 This designation possibly appears also in the entry for intercalary Addaru, but its use cannot be confirmed.658 The “accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš” is attested for the 22nd of Araḫsamnu.659 This is also the only entry that assuredly prescribes an offering to Sîn and Bēlet-ilī in addition to Šamaš and Bēlet-mātāti. The 22nd of Šabāṭu is labelled as the “accountancy of Šamaš”.660 Unfortunately, the reason for this variation is not apparent. Perhaps the deviation of the 22nd day from the pattern 7–15–21 serves as an explanation for the incoherent way the moon god is presented in the entries for this day in Inbu bēl arḫi. Despite the variation, it is clear that the function of this day is similar to that of the 21st. A further association between the 22nd of Ayyāru and Sîn is found in a Babylonian expository text which includes an explanation for the moon god’s rise to

654

See p. 111 above. BM 64359, 4’: 21 ma-gir d30 (Livingstone 2013, 46 [Ms Si5]; see the photograph of the tablet in Livingstone 2013, 75). 656 For the possible implications of this designation see the discussion on p. 106 above. 657 K. 4231, III 12: [DIŠ UD.22.KÁM] DÙ NÍG.ŠID šá 30 (Livingstone 2013, 216). 658 K. 4093, II 23’: DIŠ UD.22.KÁM DÙ NÍG.ŠID šá 3[0] (according to Marti 2014, 192; the transliteration given in Livingstone 2013, 231 has DÙ NÍG.ŠID šá 20). Unfortunately, the collation of the tablet from a photograph (CDLI P395396) does not provide any clear proof to support the reading 3[0] or 2[0]: both of them are possible. 659 K. 3269, III 4’: DIŠ UD.22.KÁM DÙ NÍG.ŠID šá 30 u 20 (Livingstone 2013, 221). 660 K. 7079+, II 3’: [DIŠ UD.22.KÁM DÙ NÍG].ŠID šá [d]UTU (Livingstone 2013, 228). 655

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

119

the role of a divine king for this day.661 The context of this association is the Nippurian cult and the festivities concerning the god Ninurta.

II.4.2.20. 23rd Day The designation “guqqû of Sîn” for the 23rd day of the month is attested in the lipšur-litanies.662 A similar entry can also be found in the hemerological text VAT 10954+ from Assur.663 The exact nature of guqqû/guggānû-offerings remains unclear, although they are attested as early as the Ur III documentation of the festivals in Nippur.664 II.4.2.21. 24th Day The only attestation of attention given to Sîn on the 24th day of the month is found in the Offering Bread Hemerology which prescribes a bread offering to Sîn and Adad on the 24th of Tašrītu.665 II.4.2.22. 25th Day Although the 25th day of the month is attested as a festival in the offering lists deriving from Old Babylonian Ur,666 there are no Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian references to offerings to Sîn, or rituals before him, on the 25th day. II.4.2.23. 26th Day In the hemerological tradition, the interplay between Sîn and Šamaš forms a prevailing motif in the final five days of the lunar month. Starting with the 26th day and ending on the 30th, these five days serve as the temporal setting for the execution of divine decisions and the delivery of verdicts by these two deities. The

661

OECT 11 nos. 69+70, I 25’–28’ (see the citation on p. 205 below). KAL 10 no. 36 (AO 6775), r. 6’: UD.23.KÁM | lip-šur | GUG.GA-qu šá ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉; CTN 4 no. 110, r. 25: UD.23.KÁM | [lip]-šur [guqqû] šá [d3]0. See also the overview in Livingstone 2013, 253. 663 VAT 10954+, 12’ (Hätinen & Schaudig, KAL [forthcoming]). 664 This offering is only briefly mentioned in the overview of Neo-Assyrian food offerings in Gaspa 2012, 13 and 16, but it seems clear that it is a periodic offering. Note that while guqqānû is listed as the plural form of guqqû in AHw, 298, the two words are separated into different lemmas in CAD G, 135. An overview of the Sumerian materials can be found in Cohen 2015, 160–161; see also Landsberger 1915, 38 note 3. 665 KAR 178//, r. IV 6–7: ŠUK-su ana d⌈30⌉ / u dIŠKUR imMAR.TU GAR-ma, “He should place his bread offering to Sîn and Adad (towards?) west”. In Livingstone 2013, 139, this entry is translated “He should place his bread offering for Sîn and Adad and the West Wind, and it will be [acce]ptable.” The translation “Sîn and Adad-of-the-West wind” for the formulation d30 u dIŠKUR imMAR.TU is possible (see Schwemer 2001, 30 note 132), but on the other hand, the use of imMAR.TU in the Prostration Hemerelogy suggests that it indicates the direction of the offering (see Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 181). 666 See Charpin 1986, 310 and 316 as well as Stol 1992, 247. 662

120

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

conceptual background to this is the meeting between Sîn and Šamaš during the conjunction of the sun and the moon at the end of the lunar cycle. Sîn and Šamaš play the leading role in the entry for 26th of Nisannu in the Offering Bread Hemerology. Here, speaking to Sîn and Šamaš is forbidden, and it is written that “at that very time”, these two deities make the decisions (purussû) concerning the land. KAR 178//, III 2–4667 III 2 [ ana d3]0 u dUTU III 3 KA-šú NU DÙ ina UD.⌈MEŠ⌉-šú d?!(copy: AB)30668 III 4 u dUTU E[Š].BAR KUR i-par-ra-su [...] should not speak [to Sî]n and Šamaš. At that very time, Sîn and Šamaš make the de[ci]sions concerning the land. The entry concerning the 26th of Araḫsamnu in the Offering Bread Hemerology involves a prostration to Sîn.669 In this case, in contrast to the entry for the month Nisannu, no reference to divine decision-making is given.

II.4.2.24. 27th Day Like the entry concerning the 26th day in the Offering Bread Hemerology, the instruction for the 27th day of Nisannu in the same text forbids speaking to Sîn and Šamaš. In this case, the identity of the speaker is known to us: it is the king whose words should not be directed at the moon god and the sun god.670 Whereas the divine decisions made on the 26th day were said to concern the land, the verdicts (dīnu) decreed on the 27th concern the (wild) animals (umāmu).671 KAR 178//, III 8–10672 III 8 KI.MIN LUGAL ana d30 u dUTU KA-šú NU DÙ III 9 (x) x d30 u dUTU

667

See Livingstone 2013, 115 and Marti 2014, 171. This line is read DUG4-šú NU DÙ ina UD.⌈MEŠ⌉ ŠÚ ⌈d⌉(tablet: AB)30 in Livingstone 2013, 115 with the translation “he should not direct his request. On these days at the setting of Sîn [...]”. The interpretation of the sign ŠÚ as a logogram for rabû, “to set”, is unlikely in the light of the structure and the content of the passage. A more plausible solution is the temporal expression ina ūmīšu, “at that very time” (see CAD U–W, 148). 669 KAR 178//, r. IV 62: UD.26.KÁM ana d30 KI.ZA.ZA (Livingstone 2013, 141). 670 As a tentative suggestion, perhaps this specification is connected to the king’s power which extends to the wild animals and which is made visible during the royal hunt. In the entry for the 28th day, the ordinary citizen (amēlu) receives the same injunction. 671 The noun umāmu can mean both domesticated and wild land animals, but it is often specifically used to refer to wild animals (see CAD U–W, 95–97 and Streck 2014, 16). 672 See also Livingstone 2013, 115. 668

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

121

III 10 d[i-ni] ú-ma-me i-di-⌈i⌉-nu Ditto. The king should not speak to Sîn and Šamaš. [...] Sîn and Šamaš decree ve[rdicts] concerning (wild) animals. The significance of decreeing verdicts over wild animals by Sîn and Šamaš remains elusive, but it is possible to interpret it as a phase in the process of decision-making that took place at the end of the month and which had significance for the entire inhabited world, including the animals living in the wild. This is implied by the fact that on the previous day, the 26th of Nisannu, decisions (purussû) concerning the land (mātu) were made by the same deities.673 The process continued on the 28th of Nisannu when decisions concerning mankind (perhaps – the crucial part is unfortunately broken) were made.674 The theme of divine decision-making is also present in another source in relation to the 27th day of the month. The explanatory work i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a presents mathematical equations, resulting in the number 27 that denotes the 27th day of the lunar cycle.675 The further explanation that is given to this day describes it as the day on which the moon and the sun stand together and make decisions concerning the land. K. 2164+, 20–23676 20 ⌈ina⌉ [ ] x ⌈d⌉30 u dUTU 3 [A].RÁ 3 ta-nam-bi 21 [ ]⌈9⌉ A.RÁ 3 27 27 UD.27.KAM d30 u dUTU 22 [ ] GUB.ME-zu-ma EŠ.BAR KUR BÀ.MEŠ 23 [ ṣa]-ad-du ana KUR SUM.MEŠ-nu In? [...] ... you call Sîn and Šamaš 3 × 3, [...] 9 × 3 is 27, the 27th day. Sîn and Šamaš [...] stand and make the decisions concerning the land. [...] they give a [s]ign for the land. The formulation “they give a sign” in the last line of this passage contains a reference to the lunar omens because the noun ṣaddu, “sign”, is a central term in the context of celestial divination.677

673

KAR 178//, III 2–4 (see p. 120 above). KAR 178//, III 22–24 (see p. 126 below). 675 It can be assumed that the calculation 3 × 3 that serves as the starting point of this passage is based on the divine number 30 of Sîn and the reciprocal 0;3 of Šamaš’s number 20 (Livingstone 1986, 41). 676 Collated from the photograph available in CDLI (P394227) See also the edition in Livingstone 1986, 24–25 and the citation in Gabbay 2016, 170–171. 677 See the discussion on p. 159ff. below. 674

122

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

II.4.2.25. 28th and 29th Day (Lunar Invisibility) Both the 28th and the 29th day of the month – rarely also the 30th day – can have the designation ūm bubbuli (Sum. u4-ná-a/u4-ná-àm), “day of disappearance of the moon”.678 Since the conjunction of the moon and the sun lasts approximately 24 to 50 hours, the length of the moon’s absence varies each month. According to an astrological commentary, a month can have three days that are labelled days of lunar invisibility: this happens when the moon disappears on the 27th day and reappears on the 30th day.679 This explains how both the 28th and the 29th days can have the same designation even in texts deriving from the same place. A good demonstration of this variation is found in the hemerological texts from Assur: the text VAT 10954+ calls the 28th day bubbulu of Sîn, whereas VAT 10231 gives this designation for the 29th day of the month.680 In the Offering Bread Hemerology, the 29th of Nisannu is bubbulu of Sîn,681 and Inbu bēl arḫi contains this same designation for the 29th day of, presumably, each month.682 Notably, Inbu bēl arḫi also labels the 28th day of each month as bubbulu, but not of Sîn: this day is said to be the ”bubbulu of Nergal”.683 Such a designation most likely finds an explanation in the association of moonless days with the Netherworld.684 In VAT 10954+, the 29th day is called “bubbulu of Ea” which most likely is a reflection of Ea’s general association with the 29th day.685

678

See AHw, 135 (“Neumondstag”) and CAD B, 298–300 (“day of the disappearance of the moon”). The meaning of this term is discussed in Landsberger 1915, 141–144; Thureau-Dangin 1919, 152; and Lewy & Lewy 1948, 152–153. In addition to bubbulu, also the term biblu is attested (CAD B, 222). Interestingly, K. Tallqvist presented a very different interpretation of the meaning of the moon’s disappearance: according to him, the conjunction of the moon and the sun was understood as a time of their marriage, as it is known from the Greek, Latin, and Indian mythologies (Tallqvist 1938b, 28–29 and Tallqvist 1947, 41–42). However, this interpretation, based on the Sumerian term (u4-náàm) which connotes “lying down”, reveals more about Tallqvist’s eagerness to find parallels between the Mesopotamian world and other cultures than about the actual SumeroBabylonian concepts pertaining to the days of the moon’s invisibility. 679 K. 2876, II 11’–12’: DIŠ UD.NÁ.ÀM ina ITI 3-šú GÁL-ši / UD.27.KAM 30 TÙMma UD.30.KAM IGI, “If there are three days of lunar invisibility in a month (means that) the moon disappears on the 27th day and becomes visible on the 30th” (Reiner & Pingree 2005, 114–115; see also Frahm, Frazer & Jiménez 2013 [CCP 3.1.63.E]). 680 VAT 10954+, 14’ and VAT 10231, I’ 9’ (Hätinen & Schaudig, KAL [forthcoming]). 681 KAR 178//, III 37: DIŠ UD.⌈29⌉.KÁM bu-bu-lu šá d30 (Livingstone 2013, 116). 682 See the entries for Simānu (Livingstone 2013, 210; Marti 2014, 184), intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 216), Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 222; Marti 2014, 187), Ṭebētu (Livingstone 2013, 226; Marti 2014, 188), and intercalary Addaru (Livingstone 2013, 232). 683 See e.g. the entry for the 28th of Araḫsamnu (Livingstone 2013, 222; Marti 2014, 187). 684 So already Landsberger 1915, 142. 685 VAT 10954+, 15’ (Hätinen & Schaudig, KAL [forthcoming]). The association of the

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

123

The Akkadian term bubbulu is derived from the verb (w)abālum, and thus refers to the notion of the moon being taken away. The Sumerian noun, u4-náàm, denotes the “day of sleep”. That the moon was thought to have been taken away is reflected in a line preserved in a fragmentary medical procedure which takes place on “the day Sîn is taken away from the heaven”.686 Likewise, it is stated that procedures against zikurudû-magic are not to be performed on an “empty day” (ūmu rīqu), meaning that they should not take place on moonless nights.687 These two conceptually different words used to describe the same phenomenon were the subject of study in the scholarly explanatory work i-NAMĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a which, at the end of its second section, gives philological explanations for the logogram UD.NÁ.ÀM and its Akkadian equivalent bubbulu. K. 2164+, r. 12’–17’688 r. 12’ DIŠ UD.NÁ.ÀM [bu-u]4-bu-lim NÁ na-a-lum r. 13’ NÁ ṣa-la-la N[Á i]-tu-lum NÁ ra-ba-ṣu NÁ ba-nu-ú r. 14’ NÁ te-diš-ti UD [t]e-diš-ti d30 DUMU SAG ša d+⌈En⌉-⌈líl⌉ r. 15’ bu-u4-bu-[l]im BU na-sa-ḫ[u] r. 16’ UD ú-mu BU.LÌ šu-ta-as-su-ḫu r. 17’ ta-as-su-[u]ḫ-tum ta-lit-tum r. 18’ u4-mu i-li-[t]i d30 ki-i DU11.GA-ú UD.NÁ.ÀM = [bū]buli. NÁ = nâlu (“to lie down”); NÁ = ṣalālu (“to lie asleep”); N[Á = i]tūlu, (“to sleep”); NÁ = rabāṣu, (“to crouch”); NÁ = banû, (“to create”689); NÁ = tēdišti (“renewal”); ūm [t]ēdišti, day of the renewal of Sîn, the first-born son of Enlil.

29th day with Ea is also found in lipšur-litanies, but without the label bubbulu (see KAL 10 no. 34–37, 87). 686 BAM 6 no. 580, V’ 5’: u4-um d30 ina AN-e it-tab-lu (see Reiner 1995, 135). Note the use of the verbal form itbal in astrological literature to denote the disappearance of celestial objects (see CAD T, 20). 687 Abusch & Schwemer 2016, no. 10.6.2, ll. 41’’–46’’. See also the commentary BM 129092, 28–29: u4-mi ri-qí : UD.29.KÁM / [u4-mu] ⌈šá⌉ d30 la ú-šu-uz-zu, “empty day = 29th day [....] Sîn is not standing” (see the edition in Jiménez 2014d [CCP 3.5.22.A.b]). The term ūmu rīqu is translated as “distant day” in Freedman 2006, 152 and as “holiday” in Jiménez 2014d; for the translation “empty day” as a moonless night see Stol 2012, 536. The explanation in these lines refers to the entry with the protasis “If a snake sees a man on an empty day” in Šumma ālu 23 (translation “If a snake sees a man on a distant day” in Freedman 2006, 159). 688 See Livingstone 1986, 28–29 (ll. r. 25–31) and Gabbay 2016, 252. The transliteration here is based on the collation of the tablet from the photograph CDLI P394227. 689 The translation given in Livingstone 1986, 29 is “to be beautiful”.

124

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

būbu[l]i – BU = nasāḫu (“to pull out”); UD = ūmu (“day”); BU.LÌ = šutassuḫu (“to be removed”); tassuḫtu (“pulling out”690) = tālittu (“offspring”); it is as if it said “day of Sîn’s bir[t]h”. As can be seen, the part that is built around the Sumerian term for this day is focused on the notion of resting. The elaborations are made on the basis of the element NÁ in the Sumerian name of this day, and consequently, they are mostly connected to the notion of sleeping or lying down. As a result of the derivations, the day receives the explanation “day of renewal of Sîn” (ūm tēdišti Sîn). The second part, which analyses the Akkadian word bubbulu, arrives at a similar conclusion through different associations: this is the day of Sîn’s rebirth, after which he can make his reappearance in the sky. Sîn’s regeneration during his rest was, however, only one of the concepts attached to the days of the moon’s disappearance. As noted by François ThureauDangin, this period of time appears to have had a somewhat dual character because, in addition to the joyous notion of the rebirth of the moon, it was associated with death and the Netherworld.691 The realm of the dead was a location where the moon and the sun stayed during their invisibility. The mythological meeting of the moon god and the sun god in the Netherworld is attested as a motif in a Sumerian elegy that is preserved in an Old Babylonian manuscript, but similar motifs are not found in sources from the 1st millennium BCE.692 Still, there is a reference to the characters of Sîn and Šamaš as illuminators of the Anunnakū gods, the deities of the Netherworld, in the prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 1”.693 A connection between ūm bubbuli and the Netherworld can also be seen in the practice of presenting offerings to the dead (kispu) on this day. To feed ancestors was a daily task in Mesopotamian households, but a special feast built around this ritual took place the at the end of the month on ūm bubbuli.694 The identification of ūm bubbuli as a day for such rituals is based mainly on the reference to monthly kispu-offerings on this day in an Old Babylonian letter.695 Similar evidence is lacking for the 1st millennium BCE, but the character of this

690

CAD T, 283 has the translation “removal(?)” for tassuḫtu. Thureau-Dangin 1919, 152. 692 Kramer 1960, 54, ll. 88–90: dUtu en gal a-ra-li-ke4 / ki-ku10-ku10 u4-šè ú-mu-ni-in-tu diku5-zu ì-ku5-dè / dNanna-a u4-ná-a nam-zu ḫé-tar-re, “Utu, the great lord of the Netherworld, will judge your case after turning the dark places to light; may Nanna decree your fate on the day of moon’s invisibility”. See also Livingstone 1986, 42 and Lambert 2013, 191. 693 CBS 1516, r. 11: dA-nun-na-ki ka-li-šú-nu tu-nam-ma-ra ki-⌈ma⌉ u4-m[e] (see the edition on p. 520ff. below). 694 See especially the overview of bubbulu as the temporal setting for kispu-offerings in Tsukimoto 1985, 47–48; Livingstone 1986, 42; and van der Toorn 1996, 49–51. 695 AbB 1 no. 106, 17–19 (see Tsukimoto 1985, 47 and van der Toorn 1996, 50). 691

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

125

day is hinted at in lexical lists: in the list of synonymous Akkadian words, bubbulu/ūm bubbuli is equated with ūm kispi, “day of the kispu-offerings”, ūm nubatti, “day of the eve(ning) festivities” and ūm idirti, “day of darkening”.696 These juxtapositions show that, in addition to its association with the offerings for the dead, the darkness produced by Sîn’s stay in the Netherworld was one of the primary aspects of this day. However, it should be stressed that there are no Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian references to Sîn acting as a mediator between the dead and the living – a motif that is known from an Old Babylonian appeal to the moon god to “release” the dead so that they may enjoy the food and beverages offered to them.697 In contrast to the moon god’s activities in the Netherworld, the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources give more importance to the meeting of the gods which took place during the conjunction of the moon and the sun, as it was told in the Enūma eliš.698 The sources do not reveal if the meeting between Sîn and Šamaš was thought to take place in the Netherworld or in the invisible parts of the heavens where the bed-chambers of the sun and the moon were located.699 A solid reference to the divine assembly taking place at the time of the moon’s invisibility is found in the Akkadian šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1”. A passage in this prayer depicts the divine assembly as a meeting in which the great gods are seated at the feet of Sîn and discussing their decisions while receiving counsel from the moon god, who holds authority. “Sîn 1”, 11–16700 The great gods kneel before you, the decision(s) of all the lands are placed before you, the great gods ask you, and you give counsel; they sat in their assembly, they deliberated at your feet. O Sîn, the splendid one of Ekur, they ask you, and you give the response of the gods! The day of disappearance is the day of your answer, the secret of the great gods! The 30th day is your festival, the day of [your] divinity’s celebration! Here the day of the moon’s disappearance is praised as the day of the moon god’s answer (tāmītu), a secret (pirištu) of the great gods.701 The use of the word tāmītu reveals that the decisions made during this assembly were made manifest in the lunar signs: this is the term that is included in the concluding paragraph of

696

Malku III, 151–153 (Hrůša 2010, 84–85); see also MSL 5, 23 (ll. 193–200). BE 6/2 no. 111, 1–33 (Wilcke 1983, 49–54; see also van der Toorn 1996, 53). 698 Enūma eliš V, 24: za x [... š]u-taq-ri-ba-ma di-na di-n[a], “Draw near ... [...] give judgement” (Lambert 2013, 98–99). See also Lambert 2013, 191–192. 699 See Horowitz 2011, 247–252. 700 See the edition on p. 452ff. below. 701 See the remarks in Lenzi 2008, 165–166 note 145. 697

126

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the lunar section of the astrological series EAE.702 The implication of this scene is that the divine decisions made during the invisibility of the moon were made manifest in the form of lunar signs when the moon reappeared at the beginning of the month. The theme of divine decision-making is also found in the hemerological tradition in connection with the days of the moon’s invisibility. In the Offering Bread Hemerology, as we have seen, this theme already prevailed on the 26th and 27th of Nisannu,703 and it is also extended to concern the 28th day of that month. It is likely that the decisions made on the 28th day specifically concerned with a particular sphere (perhaps mankind), keeping with the decisions concerning the land and (wild) animals in the entries for the 26th and the 27th of Nisannu, but due to the damage in the line, their nature remains unknown. KAR 178//, III 22–24704 III 22 KI.MIN NA ana d30 u dUTU KA-šú NU DÙ III 23 [ina] ⌈u4⌉-me-šú d30 u dUTU III 24 [EŠ.BAR x x (x)] ⌈KU5⌉-su705 Ditto. A man should not speak to Sîn and Šamaš. [At] that very time Sîn and Šamaš make [the decisions concerning ...]. Sîn and Šamaš also appear to be mentioned later in the same entry, possibly in the sense that they “carry the decision concerning the land to An[u?]”, but the exact meaning of this formulation remains unclear.706 The theme changes when the 29th day of Nisannu, referred to as bubbulu, is reached: no references to divine decision-making are made, instead this day is described as unpropitious in many respects.707 An eclipse of the moon or the sun is even assigned to this day.708 The entry advises a person to pray to Sîn and Šamaš so that they will bless him.709 Thus, in the Offering Bread Hemerology, the description of the 29th of Nisannu greatly resembles that of the 30th of Nisannu.710 Similar reflections regarding the unpropitious nature of the 29th day are found in the entry for the 29th of Araḫsamnu in the Babylonian Almanac: here an instruction to not pros-

702

See the citation of this passage on p. 169 below. See the discussion on p. 119ff. above. 704 See Livingstone 2013, 116 as well as the remarks on p. 120 above). 705 Read [EŠ.BAR i-par-r]a-su in Livingstone 2013, 116. 706 See KAR 178//, III 30–31 in Livingstone 2013, 116. 707 KAR 178//, III 37–50 (Livingstone 2013, 116–117). 708 KAR 178//, III 43: KI.MIN AN.MI d30 u dUTU (Livingstone 2013, 116). 709 KAR 178//, III 45–46: ana d[30 u dUTU] lik-ru-ub / d30 [u dUTU ana NA BI ŠÙD-šú] (Livingstone 2013, 116). 710 See p. 127 below. The similarities must have been caused by the fact that either the 29th or the 30th day is the last day of the lunar month. 703

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

127

trate oneself before Sîn is given.711 Still, one of the manuscripts adds that a bread offering to Sîn should be made.712 The interplay of the moon and the sun at the end of the month is also reflected in the Prostration Hemerology. Here the instruction for the 28th of Araḫsamnu prescribes gifts to Sîn and Šamaš – a crescent moon and a golden sun disc, respectively.713 Since this date does not fit into the general pattern of the hemerology – the sequence of days for the month Araḫsamnu being the 3rd, 28th, 19th, and 20th –, it has been argued that the 28th day is given here instead of the 18th due to a scribal error.714 Moreover, in the latest edition of the text, the date that is given in the composite transcription of the line is the 15th instead of the 28th.715 The 15th day occurs in a similar entry in BM 34584+, but since four of the manuscripts of the Prostration Hemerology clearly speak about the 28th day, the substitution in this case remains dubious.716 When we consider the conceptual background of this entry, it is clear that the lunar cycle is the reason there are similar instructions for both the 15th and the 28th days: both of these days are marked by the joint activity of Sîn and Šamaš, who either stand in opposition during the full moon (the 15th day) or meet during the moon’s conjunction with the sun (the 28th day). As has already been seen, these two points of time in the lunar cycle were characterised by the making of divine decisions and the decreeing of verdicts by Sîn and Šamaš. Thus, a votive gift presented to Sîn and Šamaš on either of these days would have had the same function, presumably to ensure divine benevolence in connection with decisions that were currently made by these two gods.

II.4.2.26. 30th Day The 30th day, which is rarely defined as bubbulu,717 marked the end of the ideal 30-day month.718 This ideal number of days in the lunar cycle is reflected not only in the numeric spelling d30 for the name Sîn but also in the name “30th day” (šelāšû) for Sîn, attested in a fragmentary god-list from Nineveh.719

711

Livingstone 2013, 53. See Isma’el & George 2002, 256 and Livingstone 2013, 53. 713 Prostration Hemerology, 26 (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 167). 714 Marti 2014, 174. 715 Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 167. 716 These four manuscripts derive from Ḫuzirīna and Nineveh. The preference for the 15th day is not elucidated in the text edition but is it briefly noted that the manuscripts from Nineveh appear to have been copied from a single source, and they thus contain the same mistakes (Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 187). See also the discussion on p. 219 below. 717 The only attestation of the 30th day as bubbulu exists in connection with Nusku as one of the sons of Enmešara (AO 6479, III 14 and An = Anum I, 145; see p. 316 below). 718 For the system for defining the length of the month see p. 91ff. above. The character of this day is discussed briefly in Landsberger 1915, 144–145. 719 This list, which deviates from An = Anum, is cited in Feliu 2006, 236 note 43. Note 712

128

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

K. 2124 (CT 25, pl. 32), 13’–14’ d 30 | d30 13’ 14’ ⌈d⌉UD.30še-la-šú-u.KÁM | d30 The special character of this day in relation to Sîn is also reflected in the Akkadian šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1” which praises it as a festival (isinnu) of Sîn and as a day for “his divinity’s celebration”.720 The celebration of Sîn on the 30th day is certainly linked to the inevitable reappearance of the moon in the sky as the lunar month reaches its maximum length.721 Due to this, as Benno Landsberger observed, the 30th day was conceptually connected to the 1st day on which the crescent moon reappeared in the night sky.722 In the Offering Bread Hemerology, the entry for the 30th day includes a similar prohibition of speech as the entries for 26th, 27th, and the 28th days. Moreover, a reference to the decisions concerning the land is again made. KAR 178//, III 58–60 III 58 KI.MIN N[A ana d30 u] d⌈UTU⌉ KA- NU DÙ III 59 NA BI [d]30 u dUTU III 60 EŠ.BAR ⌈KUR⌉ ana DINGIR.[MEŠ GAL].MEŠ na-šu-u Ditto. A m[an] should not speak [to Sîn and] Šamaš. That man(?), Sîn and Šamaš bear the decisions of the land to the [great] god[s].723 Despite the prohibition on speaking to Sîn and Šamaš, the final lines of the entry contain the same instruction as the entry for the 29th day: one should pray to Sîn and Šamaš to receive their blessing.724

that this name is not included among the moon god’s names in Krebernik 1995, 363. 720 “Sîn 1”, 16 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 721 Koch-Westenholz 1995, 102; see also p. 91ff. above. 722 Landsberger 1915, 144. His observation is based on Inbu bēl arḫi where both the 30th and the 1st day are called “day of Anu and Enlil”; see e.g 1st day of intercalary Nisannu (Livingstone 2013, 202) and the 30th day of intercalary Elūlu (Livingstone 2013, 217). 723 The exact meaning of this line remains unclear. The translation in Livingstone 2013, 117 is “For that man, Sîn and Šamaš will carry the decision of the land to the great gods” (cf. “pour cet homme, Sin et Šamaš remettront les décisions aux grands dieux” in Labat 1939, 69; “(per) quest’uomo, Sîn e Šamaš, rimetteranno de decisioni (per) il paese ai grandi dei” in Casaburi 2003, 42). The translation in Koch 2015, 224 takes the sign KUR in the copy to actually be ŠE: “(for) that man, Sîn and Šamaš will bring a favourable decision before the great gods”. 724 KAR 178//, III 62–63: ana d30 u dUTU lik-ru-ub / u d30 u dUTU ŠÙD-šu (see Livingstone 2013, 117).

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

Nisannu

Nisannu II

1

[...] (IBA)

evening and morning offerings (IBA)

2

[...] (IBA)

[offering] (IBA)

3

bread offering (OBH)

129

Ayyāru

4 5

bread offering (OBH)

6 7

prostration (PH) bread offering (OBH) rimku of Sîn (Assur)

8 9

[bread offering] (OBH)

10 11

rimku of Sîn (Assur) [...] (IBA)

offering (IBA)

13

[bread offering] (OBH) [...] (IBA)

day of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī; offering (IBA)

14

bread offering; speech (OBH)

15

bread offering (OBH) [...] (IBA)

accountancy of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī; offering (IBA)

16

[...] (IBA)

offering in the morning (IBA)

17

bread offering (OBH) Ningal intercedes with Sîn (OBH; IBA)

18

day of [Sîn and Š]amaš; of- [day of Sîn and Šamaš]; offering (IBA) fering (IBA)

12

Table 6: Days associated with Sîn in Nisannu, Nisannu II, and Ayyāru (to be continued)

130

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Nisannu

Nisannu II

20

prostration (PH) [day of bread donation] to Sîn and Šamaš (IBA)

[day of bread donation to Sîn and Šamaš]; offering (IBA)

21

accountancy of Sîn (OBH) [...] (IBA) [...] (IBA)

22

[...] (IBA)

Ayyāru

19

[...] (IBA)

23 24 25 26

no speech; decisions about the land made by Sîn and Šamaš (OBH)

27

no speech (king); verdicts on (wild) animals decreed by Sîn and Šamaš (OBH)

28

no speech (man); decisionmaking by Sîn and Šamaš (OBH)

29

bubbulu; eclipse; prayer; blessing (OBH) [...] (IBA)

30

no speech; prayer; blessing; decisions by by Sîn and Šamaš (OBH) Table 7: Days associated with Sîn in Nisannu, Nisannu II, and Ayyāru (continued)

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

Simānu 1

[...] (IBA)

2

offering (IBA)

Du’ūzu

131

Abu Elūlu

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

prostration (PH)

11

offering (IBA)

12

Sîn and Ištar are welldisposed (OBH; IBA )

13

[...] (IBA)

14 15

accountancy of Sîn eclipse of the and Bēlet-ilī; offering moon (BA); (IBA) [offering?] (PH)

16

prostration (PH; IBA); offering (IBA)

eclipse of the moon or the sun (OBH)

dream ritual (SAA 10 no. 298); rimku of Sîn (Assur)

17 18

festival of Sîn and Šamaš; offering (IBA)

19 20

[...] (IBA)

21

[accountancy of Sîn] and Šamaš; [offering] in the morning (IBA)

22

[accountancy of ...] (IBA) Table 8: Days associated with Sîn in Simānu, Du’ūzu, Abu, and Elūlu (to be continued)

132

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Simānu

Du’ūzu

Abu Elūlu

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

bubbulu of Sîn; [offering?] (IBA)

30 Table 9: Days associated with Sîn in Simānu, Du’ūzu, Abu, and Elūlu (continued) Elūlu II 1

evening and morning offerings (IBA)

2

[offering] (IBA)

Tašrītu

Araḫsamnu

Kislīmu

evening and morning offerings (IBA) rimku of Sîn (Assur)

3

[offering] (IBA) gift to Sîn (PH; IBA)

4 5 6 7

sheep offering (Sippar)

8 9 10

offering (IBA)

offering (PH)

11

[offering] (IBA)

12 13 14

day of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī; offering (IBA)

[day of Sîn and Bēletilī]; offering (IBA) appeal to Sîn (OBH)

Table 10: Days associated with Sîn in Elūlu II, Tašrītu, Araḫsamnu, and Kislīmu (to be continued)

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

Elūlu II 15

Tašrītu

accountancy of Sîn [and Bēlet-ilī]; offering (IBA)

Kislīmu

[accountancy of Sîn and Bēlet-ilī]; [offering] (IBA)

16

offering in the morning (IBA); rimku of Sîn (Assur)

17 18

Araḫsamnu

133

Sîn is welldisposed (BA) day of Sîn and Šamaš; [...] (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

19 20

day of] bread [dona- eclipse of the day of bread donation tion] to Sîn and moon (BA) to Sîn and Šamaš; Šamaš; [offering] offering (IBA) (IBA)

21

accountancy of [Sîn Sîn is well[accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš]; offering disposed (BA) and Šamaš]; [offering] in the morning (IBA) (IBA)

22

accountancy of Sîn; [offering?] (IBA)

accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš; offering (IBA)

23 24

bread offering (OBH)

25 26

prostration to Sîn (OBH)

27 28 29

votive offering to Sîn and Šamaš (PH) bubbulu [of Sîn]; [offering?] (IBA)

bubbulu [of Sîn]; offering (IBA); no prostration; bread offering (BA)

30 Table 11: Days associated with Sîn in Elūlu II, Tašrītu, Araḫsamnu, and Kislīmu (continued)

134

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Ṭebētu

Šabāṭu

Addaru Addaru II

1

[...] (IBA)

evening and morning offerings (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

2

[...] (IBA)

[offering] (IBA)

[offering] (IBA)

[offering] (IBA) [offering] (IBA)

[offering] (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

day of Sîn [and Bēlet-ilī]; offering (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

15

[...] (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

16

[...] (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

[...] (IBA)

[...] (IBA); rimku of Sîn (Assur)

[festival? of Sîn and Šamaš; offering] (IBA)

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14

17 18 19 20

day of bread [...] (IBA) donation to Sîn and Šamaš; offering (IBA)

day of bread donation to Sîn and Šamaš ; offering in the morning (IBA)

21

accountancy of [...] (IBA) [Sîn and Bēleti]lī? (IBA)

accountancy of Sîn and Šamaš; offering in the morning (IBA)

22

accountancy of accountancy of [...] (IBA) Šamaš (IBA)

accountancy of Sî[n?] (IBA)

Table 12: Days associated with Sîn in Ṭebētu, Šabāṭu, Addaru, and Addaru II (to be continued)

II.4. The Moon God, the Lunar Cycle, and Conceptions of Time

Ṭebētu

Šabāṭu

135

Addaru Addaru II

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

bubbulu of Sîn; of- [...] (IBA) fering (IBA)

[bubbulu] of Sîn; offering (IBA)

30 Table 13: Days associated with Sîn in Ṭebētu, Šabāṭu, Addaru, and Addaru II (continued)

136

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil A prominent feature in the scholarly Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian cuneiform sources is the association of the moon god with the triad Anu, Ea, and Enlil – a phenomenon that has received the designation “Theology of the Moon” in Assyriological literature.725 The primary notion in the “Theology of the Moon” is that during the first half of the lunar cycle, while the moon waxes from a thin crescent to the full moon, the parṣū (Sum. ĝarza), “divine powers”, of Sîn are those of Anu, Ea, and Enlil.726 In the case of the waning moon, no such associations are explicitly attested, which underlines the importance of the first fifteen days of the month in Mesopotamian theological thought. How should the association of the moon god with the three deities Anu, Ea, and Enlil be understood? In the light of the available attestations, this triad must be understood as a collective term for the divine powers of the cosmos: Anu represents the heaven, Ea the underground waters, and Enlil the earth.727 It is also significant that the visible heaven was divided into three paths (ḫarrānu) – one for each of these three gods – that were used to describe the motion of celestial objects during the year and to identify the locations of celestial objects.728 As the principal divine forces in the cosmos, the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil were also perceived to be responsible for its creation and organisation, as well as generating signs that revealed the divine will to the people.729 The best example of their authority in this respect is found in the prologue of the omen series EAE, according to which Anu, Enlil, and Ea laid out the plans for heaven and the earth, created the cosmos with its celestial constellations and natural cycles, and caused the moon and the sun to emerge, bearing signs.730 Therefore, by taking over the divine powers (parṣū) of Anu, Ea, and Enlil, the moon god takes into his possession the powers of the whole cosmos (the heaven, the underground waters and

725

See Stol 1992, 250 and Beaulieu 2007, 148–152. The concept parṣu (Sum. ĝarza) has a semantic range ranging from divine powers to cultic ordinances, rites, or customs (see CAD P, 195–203). Here it is understood to mean divine powers that can transferred from one deity to another. 727 Galter 1983, 145. 728 See Horowitz 2011, 252–256. These paths run between the eastern and western horizons, and the path of Anu is located in the middle, the path of Enlil in the north, and the path of Ea in the south. Among other sources, these celestial paths are found in the Mesopotamian astrolabes (Horowitz 2014) as well as at the beginning of MUL.APIN (see ll. I i 1–ii 35 in Hunger & Pingree 1989, 18–39). In nocturnal prayers, stars are often called “those of Anu, Enlil, and Ea” which is a reference to their position in the night sky (e.g. K. 2315+, 43–44 in Oppenheim 1959, 284). 729 As noted in Galter 1983, 147. 730 See Verderame 2002b, 9 and the citation on p. 94 above. The creation of the cosmos by Anu, Enlil, and Ea is also attested in VAT 9805+, 14’–20’ (Source E in RochbergHalton 1988, 270–271; concluding paragraph of EAE 22). 726

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil

137

the earth), becoming the supreme being who holds power over divine decisionmaking. In this respect, it is significant that the sources containing “Theology of the Moon” are either explicitly or implicitly related to celestial divination. These sources include the scholarly works the Great Star List and i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-anki-a, but on the other hand, the “Theology” is quoted in one of the manuscripts of the Enūma eliš731 and in inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus.732 Whether the “Theology of the Moon” originated in Assyria or Babylonia remains unclear. The majority of sources and its earliest attestations come from Nineveh, but on the other hand, it is clear that the “Theology of the Moon” is associated with the Babylonian creation myth Enūma eliš.733 Still, it is clear that the association between Sîn and Anu, Ea, and Enlil was firmly rooted in scholarly thought during the reign of Sargon II at the latest. The reference to the moon god as Anu, Ea, and Enlil in the section of the Great Star List that explains divinatory associations as well as the structure of the heavens is explicitly associated with astrology-astronomy.734 The lines included in the Great Star List are also found in the fragmentary god-list K. 2074 which not only contains the “Theology of the Moon” – the crescent moon (uskāru) equals Anu, the half moon (kalītu, “kidney”) equals Ea, and the gibbous/full moon (agê tašriḫti) equals Enlil – but also explains the moon god’s names in a fashion similar to An = Anu ša amēli.735

731

One of the manuscripts of the Enūma eliš V (K. 13774 = STC 1, p. 191) inserts the “Theology of the Moon” into the passage in which Marduk creates the moon (see Kämmerer & Metzler 2012, 230 and Lambert 2013, 98–99). 732 See the discussion on p. 140ff. below. 733 A. Schott and E. Weidner have argued that i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a was fundamentally connected to the emergence and heyday of astronomy-astrology during the reign of Sargonid dynasty in Assyria (Schott 1934, 326–329 and Weidner 1959–1960, 105). On the other hand, both A. Livingstone and W. Lambert deny this on the basis of the lunar pattern in the Enūma eliš and also due to the unlikelihood that the cultural transfer would have gone from Assyria to Babylonia (Livingstone 1986, 18 and Lambert 2013, 187). 734 Great Star List, 281–287 (Koch-Westenholz 1995, 202–203; see also Weidner 1915, 6–20 and Weidner 1959–1960, 105–113). 735 The fragment K. 2074 is copied as 3 R 55, no. 3; a photograph of it is available in CDLI P394175. The fragment was discussed in connection to the Great Star List in Weidner 1915, 18, and it was edited in Jensen 1915, 94–95 as an appendix to the edition of the bilingual šu’ila-prayer 4 R2 9+// to Sîn. The section in the Great Star List that corresponds to this fragment was cited and discussed in connection with i-NAM-giš-ḫur-anki-a in Livingstone 1986, 47. K. 2074 was also cited in Leibovici 1962, 98 in connection with the five/seven day periods of the Mesopotamian month. For the latest discussion concerning this text see Lambert 2013, 186–187 where also the existence of the fragment K. 2115 (CT 25, pl. 28), which also seems to include the same explanatory passage, is noted. In this fragment, the line concerning the divine powers of Sîn is inserted after the line containing a glossed entry of the divine name Nanna (dŠEŠna-an-naKI), followed by a

138

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

K. 2074, II 1’–13’ II 1’ II 2’

[ŠU.NIGIN] 4 MU.MEŠ ⌈d⌉[ x (x)] ⌈šá⌉ A-nu-ú-ti-[šú]

II 3’ [DIŠ 3]0 ina IGI.LÁ-šú TA UD.1.KÁM EN UD.5.KÁM II 4’ ⌈5⌉ u4-mi U4.SAKAR dA-nu-um II 5’ TA UD.6.KÁM EN UD.10.KÁM 5 u4-mi II 6’ ka-li-tum dÉ-a II 7’ TA UD.11.KÁM EN UD.15.KÁM II 8’ 5 u4-mi AGA taš-ri-iḫ-ti ip-pir-ma d+En-líl d 30 dA-nu d+En-líl u dÉ-a par-ṣu-šu II 9’ d Nanna d30 šá AN-e u K[I]736 II 10’ d II 11’ EN.ZU d[30 šá EŠ.BAR]737 II 12’ dMIN-30 [d30 šá x x x (x)]738 II 13’ ⌈d⌉Ĝiš-n[u11-gal d30 šá x x x (x)] (rest broken away) [A total of] four names of (the god) [...] of his Anu-ship. [Sî]n in his appearance from the first day to the fifth – five days – is a sickle, he is Anu; from the sixth day to the tenth day – five days – is a kidney, he is Ea; from the eleventh day to the fifteenth day – five days – he wears the crown of splendour, he is Enlil. The divine powers of Sîn are Anu, Enlil, and Ea. Nanna is Sîn of Heaven and Ear[th.] Sîn = [Sîn of decisions]. Sîn-30 = [Sîn of ...]. Ĝišnugal = [Sîn of ...] (rest broken away) The same associations are given in a further scholarly text, i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-kia, which employs mathematics in combination with different readings of signs to explain different lunar phases and their connections to other deities.739 The list of the moon god’s other names. K. 11333, published as SAA 8 no. 299, also seems to contain a similar explanation of the moon’s stages. 736 The copy in 3 R 55, no. 3 has the signs d30 šá e-lam-[...] which are cited as an attestation of ellammê in CAD E, 100. Collation of the tablet confirms that the signs in reality are d30 šá AN-e u K[I].

737

See An = Anu ša amēli, 25: dSuen-na | MIN | šá EŠ.BAR (Litke 1998, 230). The entry dMIN-30 is also attested in the manuscript YBC 2401, IV 169 for the godlist An = Anum (see especially Feliu 2006, 233 and also Litke 1998, 116). 739 The known manuscripts of the text have been edited and discussed in Livingstone 1986, 17–52. It is worth noting that the three manuscripts that concern the moon are of Assyrian origin (K. 2164+, K. 2670 and K. 170+ ), and they were all written by the scholar Nabû-zuqup-kēnu who was active under the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib 738

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil

139

first section in tablet K. 170+ employs these methods to find the “Theology of the Moon” for the first half of the lunar cycle. First, the association of Sîn with Anu involves both the appellation “Fruit” (inbu) for him and the crescent moon at the beginning of the month.740 The terms for the half moon, the stage associated with Ea, are the “half crown”741 and the “kidney”. For the full moon, which is schematically set on the 15th day of the month, the text finds a mathematical explanation using the numerical values 30 and 2. The circular form of the lunar crown during the full moon is associated with Enlil. K. 170 (CT 25, pl. 50)+Rm. 520 (CT 46 no. 54), 1–5742 1 [DIŠ GURUN dEN.Z]U MU dA-num im-bu-ú MU-N[I] gab-bi ⌈an⌉ a ne x bi ki-lal-la-an IGI.DU8.A UD.1.KAM U4.SAKAR dA-num 2 [DIŠ Áb-kár d30 a]p-pa ár-ḫu li-iṭ-ṭu ár-ḫu liṭ-ṭu maš-l[um k]a-ra ga-na-te-nu-ú ka-ru ṭa-pa-la ga-na A.ŠÀ maš-lum AGA UD.7.KAM ka15-lit(u) dÉ-a 3 [DIŠ (x x) d3]0 EN EŠ.BAR e-šu 30 2 e-ni be-el [3]0 A.RÁ 30 15 apa-ru AGA UD.15.KAM BÙR d+En-líl 4 [x x dBA]D ⌈ta⌉-lim dÉ-a na-an-nu ŠEŠ t[a]-lim ŠEŠ ⌈ÍD⌉ na-a-ru na-a-ra dBAD 5 [ ] x mu-didli dSuen-na-ke4 [“Fruit” is Sî]n because Anu called his name All ... both. Appearance on the 1st day is a crescent; Anu. [Abkar is Sîn.743 (The sign) á]b is arḫu that is the same as liṭṭu; arḫu (as half brick) is a half liṭṭu. (The sign) kár is the sloping form of the sign gána. (When) pronounced karu it means ṭapālu (“to scorn”), (when) pronounced gana it means eqlu (“a field”). The half crown of the 7th day is a kidney shape; Ea. [(...) S]în is “Lord of Divine Decisions” (EN EŠ.BAR). ešu is 30; 2 is (the dual ending) -ēn(i), which is also lord. 0;30 × 0;30 = 0;15. To wear a crown on the 15th day is the same as a circle; Enlil.

(see PNA 2/II, 912–913 and Frahm 2011, 265–267). The only known Babylonian manuscript of the text (BM 47860) is significantly younger since it was written during the 33rd year of Darius (488 BC). This Babylonian tablet does not concern the moon: the subjects of its mathematical equations are the dimensions of the granaries and Ekur at Nippur. 740 For the appellation “Fruit” (inbu), see the discussion on p. 54ff. above. 741 For the crown of the moon, see the discussion on p. 60ff. above. 742 See Livingstone 1986, 30 and Lambert 2013, 189. Note the typographical errors li-iḫḫu and liḫ-ḫu for li-iṭ-ṭu and liṭ-ṭu in the transliteration by Lambert. The passage is also translated in Koch 2015, 190–191. A photograph is available in CDLI P365806. 743 For the name dÁb-kár for Sîn see the discussion on p. 240ff. below.

140

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

[(...) Enli]l is the (favourite) brother of Ea; nannu is šeš; (favourite) b[ro]ther is šeš. The river is nāru; narru (“wrongdoer”) is Enlil. [...] the numerous names of Sîn. In addition to the main phases of the waxing moon, the triad Anu, Ea, and Enlil appears to have been associated with longer units of time. This is expressed in a Late Babylonian theological compendium which assigns the day to Enlil, the month to Anu, and the year to Ea.744 As I have already pointed out, two Mesopotamian kings, Assurbanipal and Nabonidus, included the “Theology of the Moon” in their inscriptions. The use of these scholarly theological reflections on the moon god’s abilities was a prominent literary motif in the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus, and its use has been interpreted as a sign of his passionate veneration of Sîn.745 The passage describes the moon god as the “weapon” of Anu and furthermore assigns the divine powers of Anu, Ea, and Enlil to him in the manner that is familiar from the passages concerning the “Theology of the Moon” in the Neo-Assyrian scholarly texts. Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 22–28 (Ex. 2) d 30 EN DINGIR šá ina UD.1.KAM TUKUL dA-nù II 22 II 23 zi-kìr-šú AN-e ta-lap-pa-tú u KI-tì II 24 ta-ḫe-ep-pu-u ḫa-mi-im GARZA dA-nùII 25 tú mu-gam-mi-ru pa-ra-aṣ d+En-líl-ú-tú II 26 le-qu-u GARZA dIDIM-ú-tu II 27 ša nap-ḫar gi-mi-ir GARZA AN-e II 28 ina qa-ti-šú tam-ḫu dEn-líl DINGIR.MEŠ II 29 LUGAL LUGAL.LUGAL EN EN.EN Sîn, lord of the gods, whose name on the first day (of the month) is “weapon of Anu”, you touch the heaven and smash the earth; he who gathers the divine powers of the Anu-ship, who totally controls the divine powers of Enlilship, who takes (hold of) the divine powers of Ea-ship, who holds the totality

744

TIM 9 no. 60, III 6’: UD dEn-líl ⌈ITI⌉ dA-num MU.AN.NA d[É-a], “Day: Enlil; month: Anu; year [Ea]” (see Livingstone 1986, 77). The same text associates the 7th day of the month with Enlil and the 15th day with Ninurta (TIM 9 no. 60, III 9’) – a notion that is also found in the Neo-Assyrian text STT 400, r. 41–44 (likewise cited in Livingstone 1986, 77). As already noted in connection with the epithet “Fruit” for Sîn, the association of Anu with the month is most likely linked to his connection with the last day of the month in the Mesopotamian hemerological tradition (see Livingstone 2013, 253). 745 For the most recent discussion on the topic, see Beaulieu 2007, 148–152. It should be noted that exactly this passage is interpreted as evidence for the moon god’s “claim for universal divinity” in Nabonidus’ inscriptions in Albani 2000, 116 note 455.

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil

141

of divine powers of the heavens in his hand, Enlil of the gods, king of kings, lord of lords. The reference to the moon as the “weapon” of Anu most likely is a reference to the shape of the thin crescent moon that is seen in the heavens at the beginning of the month.746 Moreover, this could also be a reference to the curved weapon that is held by the warrior figure – perhaps Nabû747 – that is depicted inside the lunar disc in the Late Babylonian tablet VAT 7851.748 The expressions concerning “touching the sky” and “smashing the land” remain more elusive, but it is plausible that they should be seen as acts of illuminating the heaven and the earth.749 The following lines in this passage stress the ability of the moon god to take hold of the divine powers of the triad Anu, Ea, and Enlil. The reference to “the totality of divine powers of the heavens” can be understood as a reference to the moon god taking hold of all the three paths of heaven during his monthly cycle, which underlines the role of the celestial paths of Anu, Ea, and Enlil in respect to the “Theology of the Moon”. Therefore, by taking over the celestial paths of this triad, Sîn takes hold of the entire cosmos. Nabonidus has been credited as the only Mesopotamian king to include the “Theology of the Moon” in his inscriptions, and it has been thought that the compiler of the Ḫarrān inscriptions of Nabonidus had direct access to the scholarly texts explaining the phases of the moon.750 Perhaps such a link existed because the Neo-Babylonian scholars must have been well-acquainted with the theological reflections on the first half of the lunar month. However, it can now be shown that the more likely medium of transmission is to be found in Assurbanipal’s Ḫarrān inscriptions: it is plausible that Nabonidus adopted the “Theology of the Moon” from the text that Assurbanipal had ordered to be inscribed on the anzû-birds in the temple Eḫulḫul (K. 8759+).751 The opening passage of

746

For the possibilities in reading the signs KU dA-nù see Schaudig 2001, 491 note 700. KAR 307, r. 5: šá ŠÀ d30 dAG, “the inside of the moon is Nabû” (see Livingstone 1986, 82–83 and 90–91). 748 Published in Weidner 1967, 12–15 and Tf. 1–2; see also the discussion of this image in Beaulieu 1999, 91–99 and Beaulieu 2007, 153–154. This battling warrior inside the lunar disc is also briefly discussed in connection to lunar eclipses on p. 173ff. below. 749 In Beaulieu 2007, 152–153, these two expressions are understood to be references to creation myths that are known from earlier Sumerian sources, AO 4153 (Early Dynastic) and NBC 11108 (Ur III; both discussed in Sjöberg 2002, 229–247). 750 Lambert 2013, 190. 751 This tablet belongs to the group of eight inscriptions that were composed in connection with Assurbanipal’s renovation work in the temple complex Eḫulḫul (see Novotny 2003, 35–42). The fragment Rm. 288 was edited and copied in Perry 1907, 28–30 and Taf. III, and the joins were published in Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 549–557. A transliteration of the text is also provided in Novotny 2003, 231–233. For a short discussion on the 747

142

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

this text, which is known only from a fragmentary tablet from Nineveh, contains a lengthy praise of the moon god, to whom the anzû-birds were dedicated. The presence of the “Theology of the Moon” in this text has been previously unnoticed due to the errors in the copies of the tablet, and the line in question has been incorrectly interpreted as a reference to the familial relationship between Sîn, Anu, and Ea. K. 8759+Rm. 133+Rm. 288, 1–15752 1 ⌈a⌉-na d30 na-an-nàr AN-⌈e⌉ [u erṣeti ] ] 2 ⌈a⌉-pir AGA dA-nù-ú-ti š[a ] 3 [m]u-ad-du-ú u4-me ITI u [šatti 4 [m]u-kal-lim ṣa-ad-di EN A[GA ] ] 5 [n]a-din šip-ṭi KU5-is EŠ.BAR A[N-e u erṣeti 6 [m]u-ni-iḫ lìb-bi DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈mu⌉-pa-á[š-šir ] 7 ga-mir ur-ti u ṭè-e-m[e m]u-šaq-q[í ] 8 [š]a e-la šá-a-šú DINGIR.MEŠ a[t-ḫu-š]u ši-mat ⌈šu⌉-⌈ut⌉ A[N-e u KI-tim la i-šim-mu] 9 ⌈d⌉DILI.IM5.BABBAR ZÁLAG ⌈AN⌉.TA.MEŠ [mu-š]áḫ-li e[k-le-ti ] 10 [(x)] x ša ina IG[I.D]U8.A-šú t[e-diš-ta š]ak-nu ú-šá-p[u ṣa-ad-da pi-i UN.MEŠ ú-kan-nu]753 11 [kab?]-tu šá d⌈A⌉-num d+E[n-líl u d]⌈É⌉-a par-ṣu-šu [ ]→ [ ]754 12 [EN] réme-nu-ú šá it-t[i dUTU bu]-uk-ri-šú ši-t[ul-tu

form and dating of the inscription see Holloway 2002, 291 note 219. 752 See Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 549–557 and Novotny 2003, 231–233. 753 Reconstruction according to Sm. 671, 10: [... t]e-diš-ta šak-nu ú-šá-pu-u ṣa-ad-da pi-i UN.MEŠ ú-kan-nu (see Bauer 1933, pl. 49 and Novotny 2003, 249–250; a photograph of the tablet is available in CDLI P425533). In the previous editions, this line is read [MA]Ḫ ša ina IGI.DU8.A-šu KUR [x x P]A-nu (Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551) and [x] x ša ina IGI.DU8.A-šu x [x x š]ak-nu (Novotny 2003, 231). 754 Read [lit]-tu ša dA-nim li-[pu šá d]É-a par-ṣu-šu both in Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551 and Novotny 2003, 231 – an understanding of the line based on the earliest edition of Rm. 288 in Perry 1907, 29. A collation of the tablet (drawing below) shows that the sign previously identified as li is in fact d+E[n].

The epithet kabtu for the moon god is attested in SAA 12 no. 90, 2 (see the citation on p. 415 below) and “Sîn 2”, 8 (see the edition on p. 462ff. below). For the use of the adjective kabtu (“honoured, influential, venerable”) as an epithet for deities see CAD K, 26– 27.

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil

143

i-šak-ka-nu ]755 ? 13 [x x] nu ba-nu-ú m[u(or: n[a]) x x]756 DINGIR u d15 ḫa-me-[em para-aṣ dA-nù-ú-ti] 14 [na-di]n gišGIDRU gišGU.ZA B[ALA-e ù] a-ge-e EN-ú-t[i] → [ ] ? ? ?757 15 [ḫ]a -⌈’i⌉ -[i]ṭ lìb-bi UN.[MEŠ mu?-na?-ḫiš?] ka-la da-⌈ád⌉-⌈me⌉-[e a-šib É-ḫúl-ḫúl šá qé-reb uruKASKAL EN GAL-e EN-šu]758 For Sîn, the luminary of heave[n and earth ...], [the o]ne who wears the crown of Anu-ship [...], [the o]ne who defines the day, the month and [the year ...], the reveal[er] of signals, lord of the cr[own ...], [the o]ne who gives the verdict, the one who makes the decisions concerning the he[aven and the earth ...], the one who appeases the hearts of the gods, the one who undo[es ...], the one who gives the final order and comma[nd, the o]ne who raises [...], without whom the gods, [h]is br[others do not decree] the fate of the ones (livings in) h[eaven and earth], Namraṣīt, the light of the upper world, [the ill]uminator of dar[kness ...], [...] in whose appearance r[enewal] is present – he make[s ominous signs visible, he makes the mood of people stable] –, [the venerable o]ne, whose divine powers are Anu, E[nlil, and] Ea [...], the merciful [lord], who takes co[unsel] wit[h Šamaš], his [first-born s]on [...], [...] creator [...] of god and goddess, the one who gat[hers the divine powers of Anu-ship ...], [the one who giv]es the scepter, the throne, the r[eign and] the crown of lordsh[ip ...], [the one w]ho pe[netra]tes? the hearts of me[n, he who makes?] all the inhabited region[s prosperous?, who resides in Eḫulḫul in the midst of Ḫarrān, his lord]. Despite the fragmentary nature of line 11, the reference to the divine powers of Anu, Enlil, and Ea belonging to Sîn is clear: the wording ([kab]tu? Anu E[nlil u] Ea parṣūšu) is the same as that known from the Great Star List and the fragment K. 2074, II 9’ (Sîn Anu Enlil u Ea parṣūšu).759 Because this dedicatory inscrip-

755

For the beginning of the line cf. SAA 12 no. 90, 3: EN réme-nu-u (see p. 415 below). Novotny 2003, 231 suggests n[a?-ram?]. Such a formulation, however, seems unlikely when the attestations for narāmu in CAD N/1, 343–345 are taken into consideration. 757 Read ⌈mu⌉-x-UD? lìb-bi UN.[MEŠ] in Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551 and [m]u(?)⌈an(?)⌉-UD lìb-bi UN.[MEŠ] in Novotny 2003, 231. The expression ḫā’it libba nišī is attested in connection with Šamaš (see CAD Ḫ, 160). 758 The formulation munaḫḫiš kala dadmē is included both in Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 551 and Novotny 2003, 231. However, the attestations in CAD N/1, 134 do not include any parallels to this expression. The epithet munaḫḫiš dadmē is attested for Marduk (as Enbilulu) in the Enūma eliš VII, 66. 759 See the discussion on p. 137ff. above. It should be noted that the triad Anu, Enlil, and Ea also appear to have been named in the akītu-house inscription of Assurbanipal although this was not linked to the “Theology of the Moon” (Sm. 671, 13; see Bauer 1933, 756

144

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

tion of Assurbanipal is only partially preserved, it is difficult to judge whether further allusions to the “Theology of the Moon” were incorporated. Still, the same passage speaks of the appearance of the moon (at the beginning of the month) and the counsel of Sîn and Šamaš (in the middle of the month as well as during the absence of the moon at the end of the month), which exhibits an interest in the lunar cycle.760 It is also significant that the epithet ḫāmim paraṣ Anūti, an expression that is found in the later Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus, is likely to be restored in the line 13 of K. 8759+, thus providing a further link between the Ḫarrān inscriptions of these two kings.761 The important thing about the use of the “Theology of the Moon” in Assurbanipal’s inscription is that it diminishes the role that has been ascribed to the motif in the presumed elevation of Sîn by Nabonidus throughout the empire.762 The “Theology of the Moon” now receives an aspect that is inherently connected with the moon god’s central role in his cult city, Ḫarrān. Additionally, the essential role played by lunar omens in the exercise of royal power must have been an influencing factor in incorporating the “Theology of the Moon”, a text fundamentally linked to lunar astrology, in the royal inscriptions of both Assurbanipal and Nabonidus. In respect to the role of divination in the use of the “Theology of the Moon”, the association of the moon god with the sky god Anu that is also otherwise attested becomes significant.763 As we have seen, the “Anu-ship” (anūtu) became an important part of the moon god’s persona in Assurbanipal’s dedicatory inscription for Eḫulḫul: he wears the “crown of Anu-ship” and he gathers the divine powers of “Anu-ship”.764 As the other uses of the term anūtu show, it should be interpreted as a designation for the supreme divine power that belonged to Anu.765 For example, the god Ninurta, depicted as the returning divine pl. 49 and Novotny 2003, 249–250). 760 For these crucial stages of the lunar cycle see the discussion on p. 98ff. above. 761 The connection between the Ḫarrān inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus was already pointed out by H. Tadmor in his discussion of the chronological setting of Nabonidus’ building activities (Tadmor 1965, 353 note 16). For recent discussions see Michalowski 2003, 143–144 as well as Michalowski 2014, 205–208. The Assyrianstyled motifs and literary devices used by Nabonidus are outlined in Vanderhooft 1999, 57 note 206 and Schaudig 2001, 17. For the accounts concerning the renovation/rebuilding of the temple Eḫulḫul, see also the discussion on p. 396ff. below. 762 For the elevation of Sîn by the “Theology of the Moon” in Nabonidus’ Ḫarrān Stele, see e.g. Lambert 2013, 262 who describes the passage as “the most extravagant thing possible” to have been said about the moon god. 763 The name Anu is listed among Sîn’s names already in Tallqvist 1938a, 443. It should be noted that no similar equation of Ea and Sîn is attested. In the local theological context of Ur, the moon god is prominently presented in the inscriptions of the governor Sînbalāssu-iqbi as an Enlil-figure (see the discussion on p. 331ff. below). 764 K. 8759+, 2 and 13 (see p. 142 above). 765 AHw, 55–56 and CAD A/2, 150–151.

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil

145

hero, possesses a “mace of Anu-ship”766, and Ištar of Uruk is exalted as the supreme goddess by ascribing the divine powers of Anu to her.767 In the Marduk Prophecy the god Marduk is given the highest standing in the Babylonian pantheon through his “Anu-ship”.768 In this sense, Sîn’s assumption of Anu, Ea, and Enlil’s divine powers in the “Theology of the Moon” is expressed in the same way as Marduk’s rise to the top of the Babylonian pantheon.769 Further attestations of Anu’s divine powers show that the term directly relates to supreme power over fates and rule over cosmos through authoritative commands. This aspect becomes apparent in the Enūma eliš when the god Qingu receives the status of “Anu-ship” after taking hold of the Tablet of Destinies.770 Similarly, this is the power that the gods who decree destinies gave to Marduk after he defeated Tiamat. Enūma eliš IV, 3–6771 3 at-ta-ma kab-ta-ta i-na DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ 4 ši-mat-ka la ša-na-an sè-kàr-ka dA-nu-um d AMAR.UTU kab-ta-ta i-na DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ 5 6 ši-mat-ka la ša-na-an sè-kàr-ka dA-nu-um (They said,) “You, you are the most honoured among the great gods, your destiny is unequalled, your command is like Anu’s. Marduk, you are the most honoured among the great gods, your destiny is unequalled, your command is like Anu’s.” This last case is especially significant since it pertains to the immutable command over the cosmos.772 The supreme authority that accompanies Anu’s divine An-gin7 dím-ma, 131: ĝišmitum nam-an-na-mu / miṭ-ṭi da-nu-ti-ia (Cooper 1978, 78– 79). 767 RINAP 4 no. 133, 2: dINANNA UNUGki ru-ba-a-ti ṣir-ti le-qa-a-ti pa-ra-aṣ da-nù-útu, “Ištar-of-Uruk, august princess who takes (unto herself) divine powers of Anu-ship”. 768 E.g. Marduk Prophecy, I 15: gišGU.ZA da-nu-ti-ia5, “throne of my Anu-ship” (see Borger 1971, 5 and 16). For anūtu as a designation for the supreme status of Marduk see Sommerfeld 1982, 188–198. 769 See the discussion in Lambert 2013, 248–277. An example of praising Marduk as a god who possesses the powers of Anu, Ea, and Enlil can be found in Assurbanipal’s acrostic hymn to Marduk and Zarpanītu (SAA 3 no. 2, 3). The aspect of the moon god’s exaltation is emphasised by A. Livingstone in his discussion on the “Theology of the Moon” (Livingstone 1986, 47). 770 Enūma eliš I, 148–162 (see Lambert 2013, 58–59). 771 See Lambert 2013, 86–87. 772 In Dalley 1997, 170 Marduk’s possession of Anu’s powers is understood as the necessary prerequisite for him to create the heaven and its celestial bodies. However, in the broader context, supreme command over the cosmos should also be taken into consideration. 766

146

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

powers is an aspect of “Anu-ship” that is also reflected in the cases where the moon god is called by this name. In the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1”, he is named “Anu of Heaven” (Anu šamê) and the following relative clause (“whose intent no one can comprehend”) stresses his intellectual sovereignty among the deities.773 Another similar instance is found in an ikrib-prayer to Sîn in which he is praised with the line “great Anu, whose command cannot be [t]ransgressed!”774 Both of these prayers appear in the context of divination, and they underline the role that Sîn had in establishing divine decisions and decrees that were then made manifest in signs, be they in the appearance of the moon or in the entrails of the sacrificial animal. Just as Marduk received absolute command through his “Anuship”, the equation of Sîn with Anu stresses the supreme authority that he possessed within the divine assembly. It should also be noted that the notion of Sîn equalling Anu in terms of authority in giving immutable commands possibly reaches at least as far back as Old Babylonian period.775 In the “Theology of the Moon”, Sîn is associated with Anu at the beginning of the month when the crescent moon returns to the heaven after its invisibility. However, the aforementioned attestation of Sîn as Anu in one of the ikrib-prayers, explicitly connected to the 15th day of the month according to its rubric,776 shows that an association between these two deities also existed during the full moon. This is further reinforced by the apparent reference to the gods Sîn and Šamaš as Anu and Enlil in an anti-witchcraft ritual that takes place on the morning of the full moon.777 Si. 34(+)//, 2–3778 2 e-nu-ma d30 u dUTU it-ti a-ḫ[a-miš innammarūma] 3 EŠ.BAR KUR dA-num u dBAD KU5-su ina x x x [x x x] When Sîn and Šamaš [are seen] tog[ether and] Anu and Enlil make the decisions concerning the land, in ... [...]

773

“Sîn 1”, 9: Anu šamê ša lā ilammadu milikšu ma[mman], “O Anu of heaven, whose intent no one can comprehend!” (see the edition on p. 452ff. below and the discussion concerning the moon god’s wisdom in divine decision-making on p. 154ff. below). 774 K. 2751+//, 59’: dA-nu-um GAL-⌈ú⌉ šá qí-bit-su la [i]n-net-ti-qu (see p. 483ff. below). 775 A similar attestation of calling Sîn by the name Anu in respect to his immutable command is attested already in the hymn KBo I no. 12, o.! 9–13 (edited in Ebeling 1954a, 213–215; see also the citation of these lines on p. 490 below). It has been suggested in Archi 2007, 185 that this prayer dates back to the Old Babylonian period. 776 K. 2751+//, 78’: [ik-rib d30?] UD.15.KÁM (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 777 See the comments on this association in Schwemer 2010, 498–499. It is possible that the association between the sun god Šamaš and Enlil during the sunrise (Great Star List, 288; see Koch-Westenholz 1995, 202–203) also played a role in this context. For an overview of the sources pertaining to the 15th day, see also p. 106ff. above. 778 See Schwemer 2010, 486 and 490.

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil

147

The principle underlying the association the moon god with Anu both at the beginning of the month and during the full moon must be related to the significance of these two points for time in divination. Therefore, the idea that the moon god possessed the powers of Anu in respect to divine decision-making, both in the first days of the month and during the full moon, can be understood as a reference to his activities in establishing verdicts, decreeing fates, and making decisions.779 A further aspect of the moon god taking the name Anu can be found in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to him. In this prayer, the moon god receives the names Anšar and An/Anu, who both represent the heaven as a cosmic entity.780 Due to their strong association with the upper parts of the cosmos, it is possible that these names praise the supreme status of the moon god in heaven. 4 R2 9+//, 1–4781 1 ù-mu-un nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne an-ki-a dili-ni maḫ-àm be-lum e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ ša ina AN-e u KI-tim e-diš-ši-šú ṣi-i-ru 2 a-a dNanna umun An-šár nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne a-bu dNa-an-nar be-lum An-šár e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ 3 a-a dNanna umun An-gal-e nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne a-bu dNa-an-nar be-lum dA-num GAL-u e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ 4 a-a dNanna umun d+Suen-na nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne a-bu dNa-an-nar be-lum d30 e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ (Sum.) Lord, ruler of the gods – he alone is exalted in heaven and earth, (Akk.) Lord, ruler of the gods, who alone is exalted in heaven and earth, (Sum. & Akk.) father, Nanna, lord Anšar, ruler of the gods, (Sum. & Akk.) father, Nanna, lord great Anu, ruler of the gods, (Sum.) father, Nanna, lord Suen/Sîn, ruler of the gods, (Akk.) father, Nanna, lord Sîn, ruler of the gods. The šu’ila-prayer 4 R2 9+// is not the only reference to the moon god as Anšar; this name also appears in the lamentation “The Honoured One Who Wanders

779

For Sîn’s abilities in this context, see p. 150ff. below. According to the Enūma eliš I, 11–16 the sky god Anu is the offspring of the pair Anšar and Kišar (see Lambert 2013, 50–51 as well as Lambert 2013, 417–426 and 448– 449). The name Anšar for Sîn has also been seen as a further attestation of the moon god’s equation with the Assyrian head of the pantheon, Aššur (see Schaudig 2002, 630). Still, in the context of Sumerian prayers and lamentations the equation Sîn = Anšar = Aššur is implausible. In the listing of names and epithets for Sîn in Tallqvist 1938a, 443, the name An-šár for Sîn is translated as “der Gott des oberen Alls”. This is noted also in his Swedish translation of the prayer (Tallqvist 1953, 103–106). 781 See Shibata, HES (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 166 and 169. 780

148

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

About” (e-lum di-da-ra) together with the names Nanna and Dilimbabbar.782 Here the celestial connotations are presented more prominently than in 4 R2 9+//, since the waxing moon is praised using the Sumerian description “growing radiant horn of heaven” (Akk. “radiant luminary of the heaven”).783 e-lum di-da-ra, b+86–89784 b+86 si mú kù an-na še-er-ma-al-la ní-te-na diri-ga-zu-dè za-e diri-ga-zudè na-an-na-ru el-lu šá šá-me-e e-tel ra-ma-ni-šú ina šu-tu-ru-ti-ka at-ta5 MIN785 b+87 a-a dNanna si mú kù an-na še-er-ma-al-la ní-te-na b+88 a-a dNanna umun-e An-šár b+89 umun dNanna umun dDili-ím-babbar-rù (Sum.) The radiant growing horn of the heaven, pre-eminent by his own right, when you are surpassing, when you are surpassing, (Akk.) The radiant luminary of the heaven, pre-eminent by his own right, when you are surpassing, when you are surpassing, father Nanna, the radiant growing horn of heaven, pre-eminent by his own right, father Nanna, lord Anšar, lord Nanna, lord Dilimbabbar! In the light of these two attestations, it appears that the status of the moon god as a celestial authority existed especially in the Sumerian liturgical tradition.786 An782

As noted already in Sjöberg 1960, 172. It should be pointed out that the name Anšar is given not only to Sîn, but is also the name of Marduk at the first station of his journey to the akītu-house (see KAR 142, I 1 in Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 221; see also the discussion in Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 88–89). 783 The use of the Sumerian expression “growing horn” (si mú) as an equivalent of the Akkadian nannāru is discussed on p. 35 above. 784 Cohen 1988, 179–180 and 183. 785 In Cohen 1988, 179 ina šu-tu-ru-ti ka-at-tú MIN. See, however, the interpretations of ka as the possessive suffix – in correspondence to the Sumerian line – in Langdon 1919, 326 (line 15) and Sjöberg 1960, 47–48. 786 To note here only briefly: a reverse phenomenon is attested in the Late Babylonian period when lunar epithets were employed to praise the sky god Anu (see already Tallqvist 1938a, 254). For example, in AO 6461, 5–6 the epithet “lord of the crown of splendour” is used for Anu on the 10th day of Nisannu (see Thureau-Dangin 1921, 108–110 and Linssen 2004, 197–199 as well as the citation on p. 68 above). In AO 6494 the luminous qualities of Anu are praised in terms similar to the moon god’s praise (AO 6494, 15–16: [...]-ta è-zu-gé zalag-ga [m]u-un-ni? [...] / [i-n]a a-ṣ[e]-e-ka a-na ek-le?-tim? na-mir!-ti taša[k-kan] “When you come out you bring about brightness to the darkness”; see the edition in Frank 1933, 193–199).

II.5. Sîn’s Association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil

149

šar’s equation with Nanna/Sîn is plausibly reflected in the sanctuary name É-anšár, “House of all Heaven”, that according to Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s brick inscription designated a chapel for Sîn in Ningal’s temple in Ur.787 Whether the association of the moon god with Anu (and Anšar) had further theological implications in addition to his supremacy in divine decision-making and his status as a celestial authority remains uncertain. Paul-Alain Beaulieu has argued that an association between the gods Sîn, Anu, and Nabû is already apparent in the “Theology of the Moon” from the Neo-Assyrian scholarly sources,788 Nabonidus’ Ḫarrān Stele,789 and, especially Late Babylonian sources in which Nabû is praised not only as the god Anu but also in lunar terms.790 The evidence of such multifaceted theological reflections on these deities and their divine personas is, however, meagre and circumstantial, and therefore especially the equation Sîn–Nabû remains very vague. To conclude, the association of the moon god with Anu, Ea, and Enlil can find meaning on different conceptual levels. The “Theology of the Moon” presents a theological idea that was specifically connected to divination, as the references to it in scholarly contexts demonstrate. Therefore, it relates to Anu, Ea, and Enlil’s power as the supreme authorities in decreeing fates and making divine decisions: by taking over their divine powers during the first half of the

787

RIMB, B.6.32.2011, 6 (see the citation on p. 352 below). This had also been noted already in Sjöberg 1960, 172. For the sanctuaries/shrines for the moon god and Nippurian deities in Ningal’s temple in Ur, see the discussion on p. 351ff. below. 788 Note the wordplay concerning inbu (“fruit”), nabû (“to call”) and Anu becoming nābû (“the called one”) (Beaulieu 2007, 150). The section that is referred to by Beaulieu is cited on p. 139 above (K. 170+, 1–5). 789 According to Beaulieu, the stylus of Nabû is depicted mounted on the staff of Nabonidus in the Ḫarrān Stele (Beaulieu 2007, 148–149; based on the description in Gadd 1958, 40) and it corresponds to the crescent moon mounted on the staff of the king in Nabonidus’ Babylon Stele. Therefore, in his opinion, these two deities were theologically juxtaposed as gods who bestow kingship. However, in the photographs of the two stelae from Ḫarrān and their drawings in Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 263–264, the divine emblem on top of the staff is difficult to identify as a stylus, which undermines this hypothesis. 790 Nabû is associated with Anu in the procession text BM 34030 (see the edition in Lambert 1997, 161) and in a description of Nabû and Tašmētu’s marriage rites for the month Ayyāru (SBH no. VIII; see the edition in Matsushima 1987, 158–161). In this latter text, the god Nabû is described in a way that is similar to the descriptions of the moon god: he “shines forth from inside Ezida during the night like nannāru” (SBH no. VIII, II 16: ul-tu qé-⌈reb⌉ É-zi-da ina šat mu-ši uš-ta-pa-a na-an-na-ri-iš) and he “illuminates the darkness like the moon as it rises” (SBH no. VIII, II 17: ki-ma d30 ina ni-ip-ḫi-šú ú-nam-mar eklet). It has been noted that the equation of Nabû with Anu and Sîn in SBH no. VIII is connected with the month’s beginning (Beaulieu 2007, 151–152). Due to Anu and Sîn’s association with the beginning of the month, this possible connection is the most important aspect of the proposed syncretism.

150

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

lunar cycle, Sîn assumes their authority in these matters. Moreover, since the triad Anu, Ea, and Enlil represents the cosmos, Sîn simultaneously assumes the powers connected with the heavens, the underground waters, and the earth. In this respect, the moon god as he is described in the “Theology of the Moon” can be compared to the god Marduk, who also possesses “Anu-ship”, “Enlil-ship”, and “Ea-ship” as a mark of his supreme position among the gods. Outside of the “Theology of the Moon”, Sîn is associated specifically with the sky god Anu, which must be partly interpreted as a sign of his authority in the context of divine decisions and partly as a reflection of his nature as a prominent celestial deity.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions A central aspect of the moon god, in addition to his role as the celestial luminary, was his role in the context of divination. As one of the great gods of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon, Sîn had the power to make decisions concerning the cosmos and to establish the fates of mankind. His decisions, and also those of the other gods, were revealed in signs, which could be observed in the surrounding world. In the case of the moon god the main vehicle for sending signs was naturally the moon itself, the celestial manifestation of Sîn. Lunar omens form the first 22 tablets of the astrological omen series EAE, and the moon was keenly observed in order to discover the fate of the king and the land set by the gods. However, this was not the only form of divination in which the moon god played a part. As one of the great gods, who established their decisions in the divine assembly, Sîn was also consulted by using the body of the sacrificial animal as a medium. In connection to his role as a nocturnal deity, the moon god was also relatively prominent in the context of dreams. In the following chapters these aspects of the moon god – his ability to make divine decisions concerning mankind and his role in various forms of divination – will be discussed. II.6.1. Sîn’s Power over Divine Decisions The moon god was one of the highest-ranking Mesopotamian deities, who were responsible for divine decisions concerning mankind and the world. This aspect of Sîn is deeply rooted in the context of astrological omens, although glimpses of it also can be found in other contexts dealing with deliberation, advice, and the decreeing of fates. Divine decision making, in which Sîn played an important role, took place in the divine assembly (Sum. unkin; Akk. puḫru).791 In the Sumero-Babylonian tradition the moon god appears to have been closely associated with this assembly of deities: in the god-list An = Anum two of his names

791

For the assembly, composed of either gods or men, see CAD P, 485–493.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

151

are dUnkin, “Assembly”, and dUnkin-uru16, “Powerful Assembly”.792 This divine assembly and the supreme nature of Sîn within it is a theme that is present in the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1”.793 The passage, to which the attalû-formula is attached in some manuscripts, depicts the divine assembly convened with the moon god in its centre. The other deities sit at the feet of Sîn, asking his advice about the matter at hand, so that a decision could be reached. “Sîn 1”, 11–13794 The great gods kneel before you, the decision(s) of all the lands are placed before you, the great gods ask you and you give counsel, they sat in their assembly, they deliberated at your feet The divine assembly, in which the moon god takes a prominent role according to “Sîn 1”, was thought to take place at the time of the moon’s conjunction with the sun (during the moon’s invisibility). Another meeting took place when the moon and the sun faced each other during the full moon.795 A divine assembly, in which Sîn was a participant, also convened to give a verdict in a case that was presented to it in course of the extispicy ritual.796 These assemblies were the occasions for making divine decisions (Sum. eš-bar; Akk. purussû) and verdicts (Sum. di(-ku5); Akk. dīnu). Again, the lines of the Akkadian šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1” cited above inform us how the decisions concerning all the lands are laid before the moon god in the assembly.797 According to the god-list An = Anu ša amēli it was under the name Sîn/Suen that the moon god was associated with divine decisions (purussû).798 This primary connection between Sîn and purussû is further augmented by the various epithets that are build around this concept of divine decisions.799 Sîn is called bēl purussê, “lord of decisions” in the inscrip-

792

An = Anum III, 21–22 (Litke 1998, 119 and Feliu 2006, 236; see also Tallqvist 1938a, 443 and Krebernik 1995, 363). 793 Two other Akkadian prayers to Sîn also make references to his abilities in respect to the assembly. In “Sîn 3”, 6 a textual variant appears to present him as a force that convenes the assembly, but this reference remains unclear (see the edition on p. 464ff. below). In “Sîn 11” his activities in the assembly are most likely described, but a half of the line remains obscure (see the edition on p. 477ff. below). 794 See the edition on p. 452ff. below. 795 See the discussion on p. 90ff. above. It remains unclear to me whether these two assemblies differed from each other with regard to content. 796 See the discussion of Sîn’s presence in the context of extispicy on p. 181ff. below and the edition of ikrib-prayers to Sîn on p. 483ff. below. 797 “Sîn 1”, 11 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 798 An = Anu ša amēli, 25: dSuen-na | MIN(=d30) | šá EŠ.BAR (Litke 1998, 230). 799 See already the overview in Tallqvist 1938a, 447. For the use of the term purussû in the context of omen literature see Butler 1998, 36–37 and Rochberg 2004, 194–196. The

152

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

tions of Sennacherib800 and Assurbanipal.801 The epithet pāris purussê, “decision maker”, is attested in the inscriptions of Sargon II,802 Sennacherib,803 and Esarhaddon.804 The fact that these decisions concern lunar omens is clear from the use of the epithet mušaklim ṣaddi, “one who reveals signs”, together with pāris purussê.805 A variation of this same motif is also found in the incantation against Lamaštu that names Sîn among other great gods and praises him as “lord of the crown, decision maker, revealer of signs” (bēl agê pāris purussê mukallim ittāti).806 Refinements to this theme are expressed through the epithet bēl purussê arḫi, “lord of the month’s decisions”, which is attested in the text i-NAM-ĝišḫur-an-ki-a.807 In this case the role of the moon god simultaneously as an indicator of time and revealer of signs through his appearances during the lunar cycle is stressed.808 Another variation is the epithet “decision maker of heaven and earth”, which is attested in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to Sîn. 4 R2 9+//, 22809 umun ka-aš bar-bar-ra an-ki-a ⌈mu⌉-⌈LU⌉ [dug4-g]a-⌈bi⌉ nu-m[u-un-kúr-re] be-lum pa-ri-is EŠ.BAR AN-e u KI-tim šá qí-bit-su mam-m[a-an lā unakkaru] Lord, the one who makes the decisions of the heaven and earth, (and) whose command no o[ne can change]. This same epithet pāris purussê šamê u erṣeti together with the epithet nādin šipṭi, “giver of verdict”, can also be found in Assurbanipal’s dedicatory inscrip-

Sumerian equivalent of purussû, eš-bar, was used to designate the decisions made by deities, whereas ka-aš-bar (also purussû) designated the decisions made by humans (see Klein 1971, 122). 800 RINAP 3 no. 153, 7: d30 EN EŠ.BAR na-áš qar-ni gaš-ra-a-ti [...]. 801 Assurbanipal Prism A, IV 110: ina itiSIG4 ITI d30 EN EŠ.BAR; Assurbanipal Prism F, III 33–34: ina itiSIG4 ITI d30 EN EŠ.BAR-e (Borger 1996, 45; RINAP 5/I nos. 11 and 9). 802 OIP 38, 130 no. 3, 1–2: dEN.ZU DINGIR KÙ KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim / ṣa-ad-di a-na I20–GIN (Fuchs 1994, 280; see also the citation of this inscription on p. 428 below); Sg Zyl, 57: KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim ṣa-ad-di (Fuchs 1994, 41; see also the citation on p. 294 below). 803 RINAP 3 no. 36, 5: pa-ri-is puru-se-e (see also the citation on p. 160 below). 804 RINAP 4 no. 48, 5: d30 e-deš-šú-u DINGIR KÙ KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim ṣa-ad-di. 805 pāris purussê is understood as a description of Sîn as the “Supreme Divine Arbiter” in Parpola 1993c, 178 note 70, where the connotation of celestial divination is not explicitly recognised. See also the discussion on p. 154ff. below. 806 Lamaštu I, 82: KI.MIN d30 EN a-ge-e KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-kal-lim GISKIM.MEŠ (see the edition in Farber 2014, 151–153). 807 K. 170+, 9: EN EŠ.BAR ITI | 30 | d30 (see Livingstone 1986, 30–31). 808 For the moon god’s role in respect to time see the discussion on p. 90ff. above. 809 See Shibata, HES (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 170.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

153

tion to the Ḫarranian moon god.810 The immutable nature of Sîn’s command (qibītu) is expressed in 4 R2 9+//, and a similar notion is also present in Assurbanipal’s inscriptions in relation to a lunar eclipse: the moon god’s decision (purussû) is described as unalterable.811 The moon god’s importance to the decision-making process within the divine assembly is underlined in the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 11”, which states that no decisions can be made when the moon god is absent.812 It is worth noting that, unlike the sun god, who is depicted as the supreme divine judge, the moon god is not conceptually associated with verdicts as a judge (dayyānu) although he is active in decreeing verdicts (dīnu). On the basis of this difference, Sîn’s main competence lies in the realm of decisions (purussû) and advice (milku).813 In Ur the name of the moon god’s ziqqurrat in the inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi and Nabonidus is É-lugal-ĝalga-si-sá, “House of the King of Righteous Counsel”, a name that combines the notions of the moon god as the king of his home city and as a deity who gives advice to the people.814 Other terms that involve the notion of making decisions and forwarding them to the recipients as orders and commands are also associated with the moon god. In the inscription of Assurbanipal for the temple Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān the moon god is praised as “the one who gives the final order and comma[nd]” (gāmir ûrti u ṭēm[e]).815 In the same inscription the moon god is also presented as a deity who inspects the hearts of people.816 Giving orders (ûrtu) is likely to have been perceived as one of the moon god’s central qualities. This is suggested by the fragmentary relative clause “who [...] to give orders”, which was used to describe Sîn in one of Sennacherib’s inscriptions.817 The motif of the moon god as a deity who determines the fate (šīmtu) of the king is present in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer addressed to him.818 The fact that Sîn is described as a deity decreeing the king’s fate is consistent with his significance in the context of lunar astrology, a sphere of divination that concerns only the king and his land. Sîn’s importance in decreeing the fates of the beings in the heavens and on earth is un-

810

K. 8759+, 5: [n]a-din šip-ṭi KU5-is EŠ.BAR A[N-e u KI-tim ...] (see p. 142 above). Assurbanipal Prism B, V 9: ú-kal-lim-an-ni GURUN EŠ.BAR-šú ša la in-nen-nu-u (see the citation on p. 58 above). 812 “Sîn 11”, 13: d30 ša ina ba-lu-uš-šú EŠ.BAR-e la KU5-su (see p. 477ff. below). 813 To my knowledge, only one epithet describing the moon god as a judge, dayyān kiššati (“judge of the universe”), is attested on a Kassite cylinder seal (see Langdon 1919, no. 29 and Tallqvist 1938a, 80 and 447). The virtual absence of this notion in connection with the moon god is noted in Tallqvist 1938b, 99. 814 For the ziqqurrat of Sîn in Ur see the discussion on p. 343ff. below. 815 K. 8759+, 7: ga-mir ur-ti u ṭé-e-m[e] (see p. 142 above). 816 K. 8759+, 15: [ḫ]a?-⌈’i⌉?-[i]ṭ? lìb-bi UN.[MEŠ] (see p. 142 above). 817 RINAP 3 no. 153, 8: ša a-na na-dan ur-ti [...]. 818 4 R2 9+//, 17 (see the citation on p. 212 below). 811

154

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

derlined by Assurbanipal’s inscription for the temple Eḫulḫul, which states that the other gods are unable to do this without him.819 It is conspicuous that the motif of divine decisions is underlined in the prayers that were addressed to a pair of celestial authorities, Sîn and Šamaš. In these prayers, which are attested as a part of rituals performed before the moon and the sun during their simultaneous appearance at the time of the full moon, divine decision-making and divine judgements are a central theme. This is the case in the ritual against witchcraft that takes place before the moon and the sun: a divine decision (purussû) made at the place of judgement (ašar šipṭi) and a verdict given in the legal case (dīnu) presented in the ritual are central in this petition to Sîn and Šamaš.820 In the prayer to Sîn and Šamaš that is incorporated into a ritual against ailments caused by a ghost, these two deities are praised as “the ones who make decisions for the wide-spread people” (pārisū purussê ana nišī rapšāti).821 In the prayer to Sîn and Šamaš attested in a royal war ritual, these gods are even presented as personifications of their divine decisions with the line “it is you (who) are the decision(s) of the heaven and earth!”.822 This identification is combined with the notion of time (day, month, and the year), which is established by the collaboration of these two celestial bodies, and further connected to the power of Sîn and Šamaš as deities, who decree fates.823 Providing verdicts appears also as a motif in the fragmentary part of Marduk’s instructions to the moon in the 5th tablet of the Enūma eliš.824 These lines are fragmentary, but it is plausible that the collaboration between the moon and the sun as divine authorities establishing verdicts during their conjunction and opposition is alluded to here. An allusion to the collaboration between Sîn and Šamaš is also included in Assurbanipal’s dedicatory inscription for Eḫulḫul, which relates to the counsel that Sîn takes with his son, Šamaš.825 According to the view expressed by Knut Tallqvist, the moon god was wise and ineffable.826 This view of the moon’s wisdom has been further promoted by

819

K. 8759+, 8: [š]a e-la šá-a-šú DINGIR.MEŠ a[t-ḫu-š]u ši-mat ⌈šu⌉-⌈ut⌉ A[N-e u KItim la i-šim-mu], “without whom the gods, [h]is br[others do not decree] the fate for the ones belonging to the h[eaven and the earth]” (see also p. 142 above). 820 Si. 34(+)//, 18: [ina] aš-ru šip-⌈ṭi⌉ KU5-su [EŠ.BAR]; 23: di-[n]i di-na EŠ.BAR-a-a KU5-s[a] (Schwemer 2010, 487). 821 BAM 4 no. 323//, 101: KU5-su EŠ.BAR ana UN.MEŠ DAGAL.MEŠ (“Sîn & Šamaš 2”; see Scurlock 2006, no. 91). 822 CBS 1516, r. 5 (“Sîn & Šamaš 1”; see the edition on p. 520ff. below). 823 CBS 1516, r. 6–7 (“Sîn & Šamaš 1”; see the edition on p. 520ff. below). 824 Enūma eliš V, 24: za x [... š]u-taq-ri-ba-ma di-na di-n[a] (see Lambert 2013, 98–99). 825 K. 8759+, 12: [EN] réme-nu-ú šá it-t[i dUTU bu]-uk-ri-šú ši-t[ul-tu i-šak-ka-nu], the merciful [lord], who del[iberates] wit[h Šamaš], his [s]on (see also p. 142 above). 826 See Tallqvist 1938a, 446. According to Tallqvist, the wisdom of the moon is a recurring theme not only in Semitic mythology (Tallqvist 1938a, 446) but also in lunar mytho-

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

155

Simo Parpola, who has given Sîn the designation “god of wisdom/understanding” in his publications on the Assyrian roots of the kabbalistic “Tree of Life”.827 Although the basic premise of these designations is correct and based on moon god’s actual epithets, such a simplification is misleading. Upon close examination the “wisdom” of the moon god is connected solely to the realm of divine decision-making and by extension to celestial divination.828 Sîn does have the epithet eršu, “wise”, in the Nimrud Monolith of Assurnaṣirpal II829 and the same designation should probably be restored in the line describing him in the Black Obelisk of Šalmaneser III.830 Because this adjectival epithet appears together with the epithet bēl agê, “lord of the crown”, it is very likely that the wisdom of the moon god bears very specific connotations to lunar omens.831 The assumption that the moon god’s wisdom is restricted into the area of divine decisions, made manifest in celestial signs, is supported by the way that his abilities are described in prayers. In the opening line of the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 7”, attested in a ritual for making the unpropitious appearance of the moon good, Sîn bears the epithet apkal ilānī, “sage of the gods”.832 From the context of the prayer, it seems likely that the sagacity of Sîn was indeed linked to the messages observed in the lunar phenomena. A related theme is the inscrutable nature of the moon god’s mind, which is mentioned on several occasions in prayers to him. In the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1” the moon god is praised as the god Anu, whose intent no one can understand.833 Later in the same prayer, the same praise is repeated, but this time the moon god is addressed with his name Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt.834 In the ikrib-prayers addressed to Sîn during the extispicy ritual, he is extolled as a god, “whose command cannot be chan[ged] and whose will no other god knows”.835 Both of these logies around the world (Tallqvist 1947, 201–206). 827 See Parpola 1993c, 177–178 and Parpola 1995a, 379–401. 828 Moreover, to reduce the moon god’s divine persona to include only the aspect of wisdom/deliberation in decision-making is not acceptable on the basis of the abundance of references to his other qualities in Neo-Assyrian textual sources. 829 RIMA 2, A.0.101.17, I 4–5: d30 er-šu EN a-ge-e ⌈LAL⌉-ú / nam-ri-ri. 830 RIMA 3, A.0.102.14, 6: ⌈d⌉[30 er-šu] LUGAL a-ge-e šá-qu-ú nam-ri-ri. 831 This appears to also be connoted by the expression mūdû pirišti mušaklil ṭēmi u milki, “one who knows the secret, one who provides counsel and advice in full”, which is attested as an epithet of Sîn on a Kassite cylinder seal (see Langdon 1919, no. 29 and Tallqvist 1938a, 87 and 446). 832 K. 6018+//, x+27’: d30 ABGAL DINGIR.MEŠ (see p. 497ff. below). 833 “Sîn 1”, 9: Anu šamê ša lā ilammadu milikšu ma[mman], “O Anu of heaven, whose intent no one can comprehend!” (see p. 452ff. below). See also the discussion concerning the association of Sîn to the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil on p. 136ff. above. 834 “Sîn 1”, 17: Namraṣīt emūq lā šanān ša lā ilammadu milikšu mamman, “O Namraṣīt, power without rival, whose intent no one can comprehend!” (see p. 452ff. below). 835 K. 2751+//, 8’–9’; 30’–31’ (see p. 483ff. below).

156

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

instances are deeply rooted in Sîn’s character as a god who has the power to make decisions over the future of the world or to establish a verdict in a case that has been brought before him. A similar notion is expressed in an inscription of Sennacherib, which speaks of the inscrutable signs of Sîn, thus transferring this motif directly into the context of celestial omens.836 A bilingual šu’ila-prayer to the moon god in turn speaks literally of his “distant heart”, which refers both to his mind or to his desires.837 4 R2 9+//, 18838 i-bí-eš-du ĝìr-ra šà-ab sù-ud diĝir na-me nu-mu-un-⌈pà⌉-da-e-dè a-šá-re-du ga-áš-ru šá lìb-ba-šú ru-ú-qu DINGIR mam-man la ut-tu-u (Sum.) The strong foremost one, (his) distant mind no god can discover (Akk.) The strong foremost one, whose distant mind no god can discover These examples show how essential the ability to establish decisions was for the moon god. Naturally he was only one of the great gods, all of whom possessed the power to decree fates and make decisions concerning the future of the world, but he is often praised as the superior authority in these matters. The decisions, which were made in the divine assembly by Sîn and other gods, were made manifest in signs that could be observed in various phenomena in the heavens and on earth.

II.6.2. Signs of the Moon Lunar omens were the foremost medium for transmitting the moon god’s decisions and wishes to the people. Celestial divination – the observation of celestial objects as signs from the gods – was one of the most significant divinatory practices in ancient Mesopotamia and it continually gained importance in the course of the 1st millennium BCE.839 Celestial omens, i.e. signs sent by the gods, were one of the most important forms of communication between the king as the representative of humans and the divine forces who resided in their own cosmic sphere. The benign disposition of the gods towards the king was made manifest in propitious signs, and possible transgressions were met with inauspicious mes-

836

RINAP 3 no. 36, 4: ša GISKIM-šú la il-lam-⌈ma⌉-[du], “whose sign cannot be understo[od]” (see p. 160 below). 837 For this meaning of libbu see CAD L, 169–172. 838 See Shibata, HES, (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 170. 839 The principles of Mesopotamian celestial divination have been discussed at length in various publications. A notable monograph on the topic has been published by Ulla Koch-Westenholz (1995). Furthermore, the use of astrology in the exercise of royal power during the Neo-Assyrian period has been discussed in Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 17– 46 and Maul 2013a, 237–275. For overviews of astrology as one of the divinatory practices in Mesopotamia see especially Maul 2003b, 51–57 and Koch 2015, 146–196.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

157

sages. The gods were also thought to send further communications to the king when something disconcerting had occurred: this was their way of showing their concern for the king.840 References to astrological phenomena first appear in royal inscriptions during the reign of Sargon II and they served to underline the divine support for the king made manifest through auspicious celestial phenomena.841 A prominent example of the use of astrological motifs for political purposes by the king Esarhaddon is the reference to the ideal appearances of the moon and the sun at the time of his accession to the throne as a sign of divine support for his reign.842 The importance of the propitious signs sent by the moon god to the attentive king is exemplified also in the letter SAA 10 no. 13, which was sent by Ištar-šumu-ēreš, the chief scribe of the king.843 This letter includes advice concerning the favourable month and day for transporting royal statues to Ḫarrān. Specific instructions for their installation are given in the latter part of the letter, detailing the position of statues around the image of Sîn, most likely in his temple Eḫulḫul.844 SAA 10 no. 13, r. 2’–17’845 r. 2’ [šum]-ma ina IGI ⌈LUGAL⌉ ⌈EN⌉-i[a ma-ḫi-ir] r. 3’ ⌈ṣa⌉-lam LUGAL.MEŠ KALAG.[MEŠ] r. 4’ ZAG u KAB ⌈ša⌉ ⌈d⌉[30] r. 5’ lu-šá-zi-z[u] r. 6’ ṣa-lam.MEŠ ša DUMU.[MEŠ] r. 7’ ša LUGAL EN-ia ina [EGIR d30] r. 8’ ina IGI d30 lu-š[á-zi-zu] d 30 EN a-[ge-e] r. 9’ r. 10’ a[r]-ḫi-šá-am la na-[par-ka-a]

840

SAA 8 no. 63: “When I wr[ote] to the king, my lord, saying ‘the gods have opened the ears of the king, [my lord]’, (I meant) if something [happens] to [the king and] he worries, th[e gods ...] first send a message fr[om heaven] saying: [‘Let him be on guard’ ...].” See also Koch 2015, 148. 841 See Koch-Westenholz 1995, 152–161; Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 38–46; and Koch 2015, 194–195. 842 RINAP 4 no. 57, I 3’–10’ (see the citation on p. 220 below with further discussion of the role that Sîn and Šamaš played in the context of royal power). 843 For the position of Ištar-šumu-ēreš in the “inner circle” of scholars see Parpola 1993a, XXV–XXVI. 844 It has been maintained that these royal images were installed in the sanctuary of the moon god in Ḫarrān in connection with rebuilding of the temple Eḫulḫul by Esarhaddon, (Melville 1999, 59) but it seems more likely that this was done in connection with the successful campaign to Egypt, for which Sîn had given his blessing (see Uehlinger 1997, 318; Nissinen 1998, 123–124; and Novotny 2003, 69–70). 845 See also the commentary to this letter in Parpola 1983, 10–11.

158

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

r. 11’ ina ni-ip-ḫi ù [ri-i-bi] r. 12’ i-da-at d[u-un-qi] r. 13’ ⌈šá⌉ UD.MEŠ ⌈GÍD⌉.[DA.MEŠ] r. 14’ ⌈kun⌉ [ø] BA[LA-e] r. 15’ na-da-⌈an⌉ kiš-šú-[ti] r. 16’ a-na LUGAL EN-i[a] r. 17’ [la] ⌈i⌉-pa-ra-ka-⌈a⌉ If it [is acceptable] to the king, my lord, the large royal statues should be erecte[d] on the right and the left side of [Sîn]. The statuettes of the king’s son[s] should be s[et up behind] (and) in front of Sîn. Sîn, lord of the cr[own], every month without fa[il], in rising and [settings], will [not] cease (sending) h[appy] signs of long-last[ing] days, steady rei[gn] and increase in powe[r] to the king, my lord. By installing these images, Esarhaddon marked the Assyrian royal presence in Ḫarrān846 and in addition ensured that the moon god in Ḫarrān permanently received the attention of the Assyrian king and his successors. In return, the moon god would each month, without ceasing, send auspicious omens as a sign of his benevolence towards to the king and thus guarantee that his reign would be long and prosperous. Observation of the moon was primarily concerned with its first appearance as the sign for the beginning of the new month, and the opposition of the moon and the sun in the middle of the lunar cycle. This reflects the tendency to observe synodic phenomena, i.e. the return of a celestial body to a certain position in relation to the sun and the earth, which is a central feature of Mesopotamian astrology-astronomy. The interplay of the moon and the sun is reflected in the Enūma eliš, in the passage that describes the creation of the moon to illuminate the night.847 Observers paid attention not only to the time of the moon’s rising and its appearance in the night sky but also to the presence of other celestial bodies in the sky and meteorological circumstances. The idea that Sîn’s decisions were made manifest in the appearance of the moon (tāmartu) in the sky is reflected in two references to this as the moment when the decision (purussû) is given.848 The signs that were conveyed by these phenomena are recorded in the astrological omen series Enūma Anu Enlil, out of which they form the largest section (22 tablets).849 Tablets 1–14 deal with the “appearances of the moon”

846

For this “figurative policy”, which made royal power visible through stelae and rock reliefs see Uehlinger 1997, 299–305. 847 Enūma eliš V, 12–22 (Lambert 2013, 98–99; see also p. 93 above). 848 KAR 337, r.? 7’: [a?-na?] ta-mar-ti-šú EŠ.BAR i-nam-di[n] (see Lambert 1964, 12– 13); KAL 4 no. 40, r.? 13’: [... ana] IGI.DU8.A-šú EŠ.BAR AN-⌈e⌉ [...]. 849 For the latest overview of EAE see Koch 2015, 163–179.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

159

(IGI.DU8.A.ME šá 30)850 and tablets 15–22 are dedicated to lunar eclipses.851 The tablets have a thematic organisation: e.g. tablet 3 treats the “crown” of the moon and tablet 5 the “horns” of the moon.852 Thus the whole spectrum of possible scenarios for the appearance of the moon in the night sky is covered. The observations were diligently made by astrologer-astronomers in the service of the king and they were reported together with their interpretation to the royal court. The earliest preserved Neo-Assyrian report found in Kalḫu can be dated to the reign of king Assurnaṣirpal II,853 but in general the reports date to the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.854 The importance of lunar phenomena to the Assyrian king is reflected by the vast number of reports concerning lunar observations: they constitute the majority of the reported phenomena in the corpus of the Neo-Assyrian astrological reports.855 A central term in respect to signs conveyed by the moon as a celestial object and the moon god as a revealer of the divine will through omens is ṣaddu, “signal; sign”.856 That Sîn’s ability to convey signals was one of his essential characteristics is exemplified by the way this quality is presented in a syncretistic hymn to Marduk.857 In this hymn, Marduk is praised as the main Babylonian god by listing of the traits of other deities, who were perceived only to be his aspects. In this context, the god Marduk, under the name858 Nannāru, was considered to give a decision at the time of the moon’s rising,859 to convey signs to the people through lunar omens, and to decree the fate of the people. The syncretistic prayer to Marduk, KAR 26, depicts a similar situation. Here the power of Marduk is described through the activities of other deities, who could not function without him. The line referring to the moon god Sîn underlines his role as

850

See Weidner 1941–1944, 318. The tablets 1–6 have been edited by Lorenzo Verderame (2002) and he has announced his future publication of the tablets 7–13 (Verderame 2002b, VII note 3). For an overview of the tablets 1–13 see also Verderame 2002a, 447–457. The tablet 14 is published in Al-Rawi & George 1991–1992, 52–73. 851 The lunar eclipse tablets of EAE have been edited in Rochberg-Halton 1988. 852 For the concepts of the moon’s crown and horns see p. 60ff. and p. 229ff. respectively. 853 CTN 4 no. 29 (see Koch 2015, 150). 854 These reports have been edited by Hermann Hunger (1992). 855 See Koch 2015, 193. 856 See AHw, 1073 and CAD Ṣ, 56–57. 857 See the composite transliteration in Lambert 1964, 12–13. According Schwemer 2001, 665 note 5519, an edition of KAR 26 and further manuscripts has seen announced by W. G. Lambert and I. Finkel. 858 The section concerning the weather god Adad is cited in its unpublished form (see previous note) in Schwemer 2001, 665 note 5519 and it indicates that the deities listed in this hymn were thought to also be names of Marduk, and thus their traits were considered to be his aspects (see also Oshima 2011, 392–394). 859 KAR 337, r.? 7’: [a?-na?] ta-mar-ti-šú EŠ.BAR i-nam-di[n] (see Lambert 1964, 12–13).

160

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the luminous sign-giver in the heavens. KAR 26, 19860 ina NU.ME-ka d30 U4.SAKAR AN-e ṣa-ad-da a-na UN.MEŠ ul i-šaq-qá Without you Sîn, luminary of the heaven, does not rise as? a signal for the people!861 The variety of epithets describing the moon god as the giver or revealer of signs in the inscriptions of both Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings accentuates the centrality of this notion in connection with lunar omens and consequently to the exercise of royal power. A well-attested epithet mušaklim ṣaddī, “revealer of signals”, appears alongside the epithet pāris purussê, “decision maker”.862 A good example of this is the description of the moon god in an inscription of Sennacherib, in which the moon god’s aspect as a decision maker and revealer of signs is brought forth, together with a reference to the inscrutable nature of the moon god’s mind.863 RINAP 3 no. 36, 3–5 3 [d30 (...)] 4 e-deš-šu-ú DINGIR KÙ ša GISKIM-šú la il-lam-⌈ma⌉-[du ...] 5 pa-ri-is puru-se-e mu-⌈šak⌉-[lim ṣa]-ad-di [Sîn (...)], the ever-renewing one, pure god, whose sign cannot be understo[od ...], maker of decisions, reveal[er of si]gnals. A similar combination of pāris purussê and mušaklim ṣaddī can be found in the inscriptions of Sargon II864 and Esarhaddon.865 A related epithet is mukallim ṣad-

860

See the editions in Mayer 1999, 145–163 and KAL 2 no. 21. Two different opinions concerning the grammatical structure of this line have been expressed in recent publications of this prayer. According to W. Mayer, whose translation has also been adopted by D. Schwemer, the verbal form is likely to be a mistake for a Dstem form ú-šaq-qá (Mayer 1999, 161). In the translation by T. Oshima it is the noun ṣaad-da that is seen as a mistake for a nominative form ṣa-ad-du (Oshima 2011, 405), and it is interpreted as an epithet of the moon god. However, since the epithets and expressions involving the noun ṣaddu use it as the object of an action by Sîn (revealing or bearing), it is unlikely that ṣadda would be an epithet here. The suggestion here is to understand ṣadda as “Akkusativ der Beziehung und des Zustandes” (GAG § 147). 862 For pāris purussê see the discussion on p. 151ff. above. 863 See the discussion on p. 154ff. above. 864 OIP 38, 130 no. 3, 1–2: dEN.ZU DINGIR KÙ KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim / ṣa-ad-di a-na I20–GIN (Fuchs 1994, 280; see p. 428 below); Sg Zyl, 57: KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šaklim ṣa-ad-di (Fuchs 1994, 41; see also p. 294 below). 865 RINAP 4 no. 48, 5: d30 e-deš-šú-u DINGIR KÙ KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim ṣa-ad-di. 861

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

161

dī, “revealer of signals”, which is attested in the dedicatory inscription of Assurbanipal for Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān866 and in the Imgur-Enlil Cylinder of Nabonidus.867 These two epithets denote the moon god in his ability to produce signs that were observable in the moon. A different notion is that the moon god himself, in his celestial manifestation, is a “bearer of signals” (nāš ṣaddī).868 In connection with the rebuilding of the moon god’s sanctuary in Borsippa, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II called Sîn “bearer of signals (that are) favourable to me” (nāš ṣaddī damiqtīya).869 Thus it is the Babylonian king himself who is here conceived of as receiving the communications of Sîn’s will via celestial omens – a central trait of Mesopotamian lunar divination. Since the moon and the signs that it revealed during its cycle were visible to the entire population of Mesopotamia, it is no wonder that the significance of the moon as a signgiver is extended to also affect ordinary people. Thus in the En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder of Nabonidus the moon god is praised as the “bearer of signals for the inhabited world” (nāš ṣaddī ana dadmī)870 – an epithet that invokes the moon god as a celestial deity, whose embodiment and messages can be observed wherever there are people.871 The further wish in the En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder of Nabonidus suggests that the “signal” (ṣaddu) of Sîn connotes the first appearance of the moon at the beginning of the month: “Each month as you renew yourself, may I constantly see your propitious signal!”872 The propitious nature of lunar omens was dependent on the benevolence of the moon god towards the king. A disruption in the human-divine relationship e.g. through a transgression on the part of the king would become visible in the unpropitious signs that conveyed the discontent of the moon god or of other deities. Similarly, the benevolence of the gods was made visible in propitious omens. Thus the propitious signs shown by the moon god were essential for the justification of royal power.873 The power of the moon god in making signs propitious is portrayed in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder of Nabonidus. Here the moon god,

866

K. 8759+, 4: [m]u-kal-lim ṣa-ad-di EN A[GA ...] (see also p. 142 above). Schaudig 2001, 2.1, I 8: ni-bi-it dNanna-ri be-lu a-gi-i mu-kal-li-im ṣa-ad-du. 868 In Assyria, this epithet is attested in a fragmentary inscription that can be attributed to the reign of Assurbanipal (81-2-4, 251+Rm.II 243, 6: d30 na-áš ṣa-ad-di ar-[...], “Sîn, bearer of signals ... [...]”). The word beginning with the sign ar is perhaps arḫu, “month”, or one of the adverbial expressions that are derived from it. 81-2-4, 251 is transliterated in Borger 1956, § 102a, where it is identified as Esarhaddon’s inscription. 869 1 R 55, IV 61–62: dEN.ZU na-aš ṣa-ad-du / da-mi-iq-ti-ia (see also p. 383 below). 870 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 6: dNanna-ri EN a-gi-i na-áš ṣa-ad-du a-na da-ad-mi. 871 The observations made for non-royal purposes certainly pertained to time-keeping and agrarian purposes, but further popular beliefs concerning the moon elude us. 872 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, II 37–38: e-ma ITI i-na i-te-ed-du-ši-ka / ṣa-ad-da-ka da-mi-iq-ti gi-na-a lu-ut-tap-la-as (see also p. 211 below). 873 For a discussion of the moon god’s role in the sphere of kingship see p. 196ff. below. 867

162

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

for whom Nabonidus had just rebuilt his temple in Ḫarrān, is beseeched to act benevolently towards the king and make the signs auspicious for him. He also included his wish for a long and stable reign, which of course is possible only when the gods are pleased with the king. Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 33–36 (Ex. 1) d +EN.ZU LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ šá AN-e ù KI-tim i-na ni-iš i-ni-šú II 33 SIG5.MEŠ II 34 ḫa-di-iš lip-pal-sa-an-ni-ma ár-ḫi-šam-ma i-na ni-ip-ḫi ù ri-ba II 35 li-dam-mi-iq it-ta-tu-ú-a UD.MEŠ-ia li-šá-ri-ik II 36 MU.AN.NA.MEŠ-ia li-šá-an-di-il lu-ki-in pa-lu-ú-a May Sîn, king of the gods of heaven and earth, look at me joyfully with his benevolent glance and may he monthly at the rising and setting make my signs propitious, may he lengthen my days, may he increase my years, may he make my reign stable! Similar notions regarding the moon god’s role in making celestial omens propitious had been expressed before this inscription of Nabonidus was written.874 In Dūr-Šarrukīn Sargon II praises Sîn as a god making decisions and revealing signs explicitly to him as the king.875 In the Zinçirli Stele of Esarhaddon, Sîn is presented as mudammiq ittātīya, “one who makes my signs good”.876 The same epithet was also employed by king Nebuchadnezzar II in connection with his building activities in the temple complex Ekišnugal in Ur.877 In a related manner, Assurbanipal describes the moon god with the line “[S]în, radiant god, made a favourable sign visible regarding my exercising the kingship”.878 For the people who acted against his will, Assurbanipal wished for revenge from the moon god: Sîn should make the portents of such a person unpropitious.879 A different notion, Sîn’s ability to act against unspecified unpropitious signs, is underlined in the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 11” through the line “destroyer of the evil (and) bad

874

As already noted, astrological motifs emerge in royal inscriptions during the reign of Sargon II (see p. 156 above). Correspondingly, the moon god and his benevolence expressed in lunar omens are not present in the earlier stages of Assyrian royal inscriptions, but rather he is presented as one of the great gods who collectively protect the king (see e.g. Nimrud Monolith of Assurnaṣirpal II: RIMA 2, A.0.101.17, I 1–12). 875 OIP 38, 130 no. 3 (see the citation on p. 428 below). 876 RINAP 4 no. 98, 5: d30 dNANNA nam-ru mu-dam-mì-iq GISKIM.MEŠ-ia. 877 Da Riva 2012, WBC, VIII 14: a-na d30 EN mu-dam-mi-i[q Á].MEŠ-ia (see also the citation of this section on p. 342 below). 878 4 L , I 13: [d3]0 ⌈DINGIR el-lu⌉ áš-šú e-peš LUGAL-ti-ia uš-tak-li-ma munusSIG5 it-⌈tum⌉ (see Novotny 2014, 77 and 96). 879 SAA 12 no. 90, r. 12–13. For a discussion concerning curses that are related to divination see p. 260ff. below.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

163

portents and signs”.880 Since the manuscript preserving this prayer contains instructions for healing a person suffering from māmītu,881 this attests to the idea that Sîn also acted outside of the royal context: the prayers in the therapeutic procedure in this text are directed to the two main celestial authorities, Šamaš and Sîn, and clearly indicate the importance of their word in the lives of ordinary people. The counterparts to the benevolent communications conveyed by propitious lunar omens were the moon’s inauspicious signs that revealed trouble in the human-divine relationship. Among the unpropitious lunar omens, two different modes can be differentiated: one concerning the inauspicious appearances of the moon during its cycle and one concerning lunar eclipses, an infamous omen that could result in the crowning of a substitute king.

II.6.2.1. Unpropitious Appearances of the Moon The control of future events through properly executed rituals was a central method by which the Babylonians and Assyrians sought greater security in life. The ritual procedure called namburbi aimed to release the individual from the evil “infection” that had been caused by an unpropitious sign, be it a howling dog, or fungus growing on the wall of a house.882 It appears, however, that the celestial omens that were collected in the astrological omen compendium EAE were perceived as a separate group from other portents, which could be counteracted by means of such procedures: only two attested namburbi-texts refer to celestial omens, one of which is a lunar eclipse.883 In the case of unpropitious portents observed in the appearances of the moon, a universal namburbi could be performed, thus averting any sort of evil that had been announced by the omens.884 This was, however, only one of the options, as can be seen from an astrological report which informed the king about the observation of the full moon, SAA 8 no. 320. After a list of omen entries suitable for interpreting this case, the writer Munnabitu strongly recommended that the king perform either a namburbi-ritual or any other ritual that is suitable for the purpose. SAA 8 no. 320, r. 6–9885 r. 6 a-na UGU ta-ma-ra-a-ti a-gan-na-a-ti

880

“Sîn 11”, 14: mu-ḫal-liq Á.MEŠ GISKIM.MEŠ ḪUL.MEŠ NU DU10.GA.MEŠ (see the edition on p. 477ff. below). 881 The complete text is now edited as KAL 10 no. 11. 882 The texts pertaining to these rituals have been studied in detail by S. M. Maul (1994). For a brief overview of the structure and content of the namburbi-rituals see also Maul 1992, 77–86 and Maul 1999c, 123–129. 883 See Maul 1994, 453–460. For lunar eclipses see the discussion on p. 167ff. below. 884 See Maul 1994, 13 and 30. 885 Cited in Maul 1994, 20. See also the discussion in Koch-Westenholz 1995, 104.

164

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

r. 7 šá d3[0 LU]GAL la i-šá-ṭu lu-ú NAM.BÚR.BI r. 8 lu-ú [mim]-ma dul-lu šá a-na muḫ-ḫi qer-bu r. 9 LUGAL le-pu-uš [The k]ing should not be negligent about these observations of the mo[on]: may the king perform either namburbi or [an]y ritual that is pertinent to it. A valid option in this case would certainly be a ritual meant to undo the evil that had been observed in the moon. Such a ritual can be found in K. 6018+//,886 which according to the rubrics of certain sections was meant for “making the evil appearance of the moon good” (KA.INIM.MA šá IGI.DU8.A d30 ḪUL SIG5.GA.KAM).887 This rubric, which uses the term IGI.DU8.A (Akk. tāmartu), allows us to connect these rituals with the appearance of the moon which is the subject matter of the first 14 tablets of the omen series EAE,888 and which is also alluded to in the report SAA 8 no. 320 cited above. In other words, these are the protective measures that were taken in the case of inauspicious lunar portents other than an eclipse, encompassing the spectrum of lunar observations from the first appearance of the crescent at the beginning of the month to the observation of the full moon. Due to the wide spectrum of lunar phenomena, unpropitious portents belonging to this group must have been observed often, but textual references to counter-measures against them are sparse. The threat posed by such an unpropitious lunar appearance was not as dire nor dramatic as that of a lunar eclipse, which may explain the absence of specific references to the performance of protective rituals against inauspicious lunar appearances e.g. in the Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence. The ritual for averting the evil indicated by the unpropitious appearance of the moon is attested in two manuscripts of the same text: the Neo-Assyrian tablet K. 6018+ and the Neo-Babylonian tablet CBS 1695. Unfortunately the full extent of the text eludes us, but most of the content appears to have been preserved. Since the beginning of the text has not been preserved, explicit reference to the identity of the petitioner is missing. Because the lunar omens concern the king, it is very plausible that this ritual was meant for the king’s use – a hypothesis supported by the inclusion of the ritual among the tablets in the royal lib-

886

This text (K. 6018+//) is edited on p. 497ff. below and it will be only briefly discussed here, since a deeper analysis of it is out of the scope of this study. 887 Literally “It is the wording of making good the evil appearance of the moon”. In Reiner 1995, 135 this rubric is understood as an indication of another kind of purpose for the ritual: her view is that these rituals were performed “in order to turn evil into good at the first visibility of the moon”, because the first lunar appearance was considered to be a favourable moment. This interpretation however misses the central point of the text, aimed at appeasing the moon god who had sent the unfavourable portent. 888 For IGI.DU8.A.ME šá d30 as a title for this first chapter of the lunar tablets in EAE see Weidner 1941–1944, 318 and also Verderame 2002a, 447.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

165

rary of Assurbanipal.889 It also remains unclear whether this text represents a complete ritual or whether it was part of a larger ritual cycle for undoing the evil that has been revealed by unpropitious omens. The fact that the manuscript from Nineveh ends with the incipit of the šu’ila-prayer to Nergal as a catchline hints at the possibility that this text portrays only one part of a more complex whole.890 Since the text has a lacuna at the beginning and in the middle, it is difficult to tell if the whole tablet involves a single procedure or if it is a collection of separate rituals. As far a we can tell, the ritual requires the fabrication of a woollen band on two separate occasions: first a band of white wool891 and later a band of multi-coloured wool.892 In the first instance this is directly followed by the fashioning of a female puppet out of clay and the further throwing of this puppet into the river.893 What happens after this remains unclear due to the fragmentary state of the manuscript. The text resumes with the aforementioned spinning of a multi-coloured woollen band which is then tied with seven seven knots. After this, combed wool, over which an incantation has been recited seven times, is placed on the neck of the petitioner.894 Finally, another puppet is made out of clay and is thrown into the river behind the back of the person performing these actions.895 Based on the wording of the preceding prayer, it is clear that this clay substitute takes the fear and the guilt of the repenting individual upon itself, and carries them away as it disappears in the waters.896 This method of freeing oneself from evil contamination is widespread in Mesopotamian rituals: a substitute for the person is employed very often in rituals involving the cleansing and ridding a person of polluting agents.897 The river as a cleansing power and as a recipient of the substitute is also widely attested in Mesopotamian rituals.898 It is 889

See the colophon of the tablet K. 6018+ (p. 497ff. below). The prayer “Nergal 2” thematises the reconciliation of the petitioner with the divine and is also attested in connection with lunar eclipses (see the commentary on p. 506). 891 K. 6018+//, 5’–7’. 892 K. 6018+//, x+24’–x+26’. 893 K. 6018+//, 14’–16’. 894 K. 6018+//, x+34’–x+35’. 895 K. 6018+//, x+45’–x+48’. 896 As noted in van der Toorn 1985, 124. In Lambert 1974, 297 the wording of the prayer is taken to be an indication for the repenting individual bathing in the river. Although this method of cleansing is well-attested in rituals (see e.g. its role in namburbi-rituals in Maul 1994, 85–89), Lambert’s view does not take into account the following ritual that involves disposing of a substitute by means of throwing it into the river. 897 For a general overview of the use of substitutes (either figurines, animals or humans) in Mesopotamian rituals see Verderame 2013, 301–323. For the use of substitutes in different contexts see Maul 1994, 72–93 (namburbi); Maul 2004, 87–89 (nam-érim-búr-ruda); and Schwemer 2007a, 199–202 (anti-witchcraft rituals). 898 See the brief overview in Couto-Ferreira 2013, 103–104. A more detailed description 890

166

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

worth noting that a similar method of purification is found in the namburbirituals against a lunar eclipse: in the first preserved prayer in that text the guilt and transgressions of the petitioner are transferred to a sassatu-plant that is supposed to take them to Apsû.899 The conceptual background of the ritual in K. 6018+// is familiar to us from various examples pertaining to divine wrath in Mesopotamian sources: the anger of god(s), induced by the transgressions committed by the individual, was seen as the ultimate cause of not only physical, mental, and social problems but also of unpropitious omens.900 In order to fully undo the evil that was announced by the omen or indicated by an illness, the angry god needed to be pacified by the performance of penitential prayers and rituals. In the case of unpropitious lunar appearances, the misdeeds of the individual had roused the anger of the moon god (and most likely also of other deities as the catchline for “Nergal 2” at the end of K. 6018+ suggests). This anger had to be appeased by the recognition of these transgressions in a confession. The centrality of the theme of transgressions that had aroused divine anger is underlined especially in prayer “Sîn 7”, which is now better known through the new manuscript CBS 1695. Albeit still not completely preserved, this prayer appears to function as a confession by a person repenting his misdeeds. These include the transgression of the set limits and not speaking truth to his comrade.901 If the assumption that the king is the petitioner in this ritual is correct, the main concept behind the rituals is that the unpropitious lunar appearances are caused by the transgressions committed by the king through such acts as telling lies to his associates. The need to reconcile the petitioner with the moon god is also seen in the attestations of the prayer “Sîn 6a–b” and the ritual actions combined with it in other contexts. The manuscripts BAM 3 no. 316 and LKA 25 contain the prayer “Sîn6a–b” and a similar ritual section, but do not explicitly pertain to the unpropitious lunar appearances.902 Still, they are very closely related to the text K. 6018+//: the section in BAM 3 no. 316 concerns the appeasing of divine wrath and makes a reference to the evil of dreams, portents, and signs,903 and in LKA 25 the prayer “Sîn 6b” has

of the river’s role in namburbi-rituals can be found in Maul 1994, 85–89. 899 BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190), 4’–8’ (see the edition in Maul 1994, 458–459). See also the discussion on p. 176 below. 900 See van der Toorn 1985, 56–93 and Krebernik 2008, 44–55. 901 K. 6018+//, x+27’–x+32’. 902 Judging by the very fragmentary lines following the prayer to Sîn in K. 8183, this manuscript appears to contain a similar ritual for making a clay substitute. It is, however, impossible to say if the ritual in question was exactly the same as the one in the other manuscripts. 903 BAM 3 no. 316, VI 29’: ⌈ana⌉? Ḫ[U]L MÁŠ.GI6.MEŠ Á.MEŠ GISKIM.MEŠ [BÚR?]. It is suggested in van der Toorn 1985, 123 that this prayer and ritual are performed in response to the disturbed sleep of the individual. See also Reiner 1995, 135 note 628.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

167

a rubric that identifies it as an incantation for appeasing an angry god.904 Moreover, the prayer “Sîn 6a–b” is itself a modification of the wording that is attested in the diĝir-šà-dab-ba prayers, stressing the element of divine anger in the context of unpropitious lunar appearances.905

II.6.2.2. Lunar Eclipses The theme of divine anger resulting from the transgressive behaviours of the king can naturally also be found in the context of the most dangerous of the moon’s signs: the lunar eclipse.906 Most likely because of the dramatic nature of the moon’s darkening, we possess more references to eclipses than to other kinds of lunar phenomena. A reflection of the cosmic dimension of eclipses can be found in the Poem of Erra, in which the darkening of the moon and the sun appears as a motif reflecting the destruction of the cosmic order. Poem of Erra IIc, 14–15907 14 a-qab-bi šá dUTU-ši ú-šam-qa-ta šá-ru-ri 15 šá d30 ina šat mu-ši ú-kàt-tam pa-nu-[uš-šú] I command, I will quench the rays of the sun, I will cover the face [of] the moon in the night! The fact that the destruction of the moon and the sun – specifically their luminosity – is among the first steps in Erra’s plan to play havoc with the cosmic forces shows the central character of the illuminating forces of Sîn and Šamaš. The darkening of the moon in the Poem of Erra is, however, merely a brief reference to the phenomenon that attracted much attention in a variety of Assyrian and Babylonian sources. Thanks to these sources, be they mythological reflections or technical literature, we are able to glean information about the conceptual background of eclipses, the extent of their negative influence, and the methods for warding off the evils of the eclipse. The signs that could be observed during the darkening of the moon posed danger not only to the king but also to his land. The omen apodoses in the lunar eclipse tablets of the omen series EAE detail a variety of phenomena, whose character ranges from political, such as rebellion in the land, to ecological, such as devastation by a flood.908 Importantly, a lunar eclipse was potentially exLKA 25, 1.S II 10’: KA.INIM.MA diĝir-šà-dab-ba gur-ru-da-⌈kamv⌉. See also the overview of the rubrics attested for the prayer “Sîn 6a–b” in Jaques 2015, 115. 905 See Lambert 1974, 277 (ll. 55–63) and Jaques 2015, 73–74. 906 Many of the points discussed in this and the following chapter are also treated in a recently-published article by Francesca Rochberg (2018). 907 See transliteration in Cagni 1969, 86 and the translations in Cagni 1977, 40 and Foster 2005, 895. 908 See the edition of the lunar eclipse tablets in Rochberg-Halton 1988, 67–272. 904

168

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

tremely dangerous to the king, who had to be protected from its evil by the installation of a substitute king.909 A lunar observation was interpreted by analysing several aspects that were present in the eclipse: the date of the eclipse; its time and duration and its appearance in the lunar disc; the presence of other celestial objects, and the weather.910 As an example of alleviating circumstances, the presence of the planet Jupiter (a manifestation of Marduk) in the sky during the eclipse resulted in an interpretation that promised no danger to the king.911 Despite the possible absence of direct negative effects, an eclipse in itself was always perceived as a negative phenomenon. A glimpse at the ideas regarding the general disarray caused by the mere occurrence of an eclipse can be found in a tamītu-query concerning a lunar eclipse: if the eclipse were to take place, the people of the land would grieve, mourning rituals would be performed, and the bolts of the doors would remain undrawn.912 K. 2884, 10–18913 d 10 UTU EN di-nim dIŠKUR EN bi-ri 11 ina ŠÀ ITI NE lu-ú UD.12.KAM lu-ú UD.13.KAM lu-ú UD.14.KAM 12 lu-ú UD.15.KAM lu-ú UD.16.KAM d30 na-an-nar AN-e KÙ.MEŠ 13 lu-ú ina ba-ra-ar-ti lu-ú ina MURUB4-ti 14 lu-ú ina šat ur-ri AN.MI la GAR-nu 15 lu-ú ad-ru-us-su la uṣ-ṣa-am-ma UN.MEŠ KUR 16 la IGI.BAR.MEŠ-sa-šú-ma la i-sap-pi-du 17 ⌈NENNI⌉ EN SÍG u TÚG.SÍG NE ina KI.ḪUL AN.MI d30 šá ITI NE 18 la ip-pa-la-as-si-ḫu ina KÁ-šú ši-ga-ru la ip-par-ri-ku O Šamaš, lord of the judgement, Adad, lord of the inspection, within this month, either on the 12th, the 13th, the 14th, the 15th or the 16th day, will Sîn, the luminary of the radiant heavens, not set an eclipse either during the evening watch, the midnight watch or the morning watch? Or will he not

909

See the discussion concerning the substitute king ritual on p. 175ff. below. These principles have been presented in Parpola 1983, 406–408; Rochberg-Halton 1988, 36–63; Koch-Westenholz 1995, 104–111; Koch-Westenholz 2001, 72–73; and Brown 2000, 139–153. 911 See e.g. SAA 10 no. 502, r. 10–11 (Koch-Westenholz 1995, 109 and Koch-Westenholz 2001, 73). See also the brief remarks concerning the presence of Marduk in connection with the lunar eclipse myth of Udug-ḫul in Wee 2014, 56–57. 912 Koch-Westenholz 2001, 78 and Koch 2015, 195. 913 A copy of the text K. 2884 was originally published in Gurney, Meier & Weidner 1936–1937, Tf. III. The latest edition with a new copy of the tablet can be found in Lambert 2007, 44–47 (no. 2a). See also the translation in Koch-Westenholz 2001, 78 and the reference to this text in Koch-Westenholz 1995, 111. 910

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

169

come out while being darkened so that the people of the land will not see him and not grieve? So-and-so, owner of this wool and fringe, will he not throw himself to the ground in the mourning rites for the lunar eclipse in this month, will the bolts in his door not be undrawn? The general disarray brought about by the lunar eclipse is also described in the the 16th tablet of Udug-ḫul, which describes how the Anunna gods fall quiet, the wild animals become disturbed, and all the people become confused as the darkness encircles all the lands.914 Thus the effects of the eclipse concern three different spheres: the divine realm, the wilderness, and human civilisation. Further reflections on the effects of an eclipse, either lunar or solar, can be found in a Neo-Assyrian text from Assur that contains a prayer addressed to an eclipsed god.915 According to this text, an eclipse affects not only the people, who are moaning, but also the gods, who are crying. Furthermore, all temple activity ceases in the face of this calamity. The conceptual background of an eclipse is supplied by Mesopotamian astrological literature and other sources, which provide information concerning the causes for an eclipse.916 A concise summary of these causes can be found at the end of the 22nd tablet of EAE, the last tablet of the section dealing with lunar eclipses.917 Concluding paragraph of EAE 22918 1 ta-mi-a-tum an-na-a-tum e-nu-ma d30 mit-luk-ta GAR-nu DINGIR.MEŠ šá AN-e u KI-tim 2 ep-šet a-me-lu-ti tu-bu-ul-šú-nu i-ši-im-ma(var.: -mu) 914

Udug-ḫul 16, 66–69 (Geller 2007, 180–181 and 253; Geller 2016, 518–519) and Udug-ḫul 16, 109’–116’ (Geller 2007, 182–183 and 254; Geller 2016, 525–526). 915 VAT 13832; see the edition in Ebeling 1948, 416–422 and also the translation in KochWestenholz 2001, 79–80. As both of these scholars have remarked, the name of the eclipsed god is not mentioned in the prayer itself. Both Ebeling and Koch-Westenholz suggest that the prayer concerns the sun god Šamaš (against the attribution of the prayer to the moon god in CAD Q, 180 and in Rochberg 2018, 291). This view is supported by the absence of epithets otherwise known from the prayers to the moon god. It appears, however, that the identity of the eclipsed god is intentionally left very ambiguous (e.g. by the lack of well-established epithets), which suggests that the prayer could have been used to invoke either one of these main celestial luminaries. 916 See the overviews in Stol 1992, 257–263 and Koch-Westenholz 2001, 71–84. 917 This passage is found as the concluding paragraph in EAE 20 and 22, which attests to two recensions of the text (Rochberg-Halton 1988, 178–179 and 252). 918 See the edition in Rochberg-Halton 1988, 269–270. The passage has also been translated in Koch-Westenholz 1995, 100; Koch-Westenholz 2001, 74; Wee 2014, 61 and Koch 2015, 169. See also the citation of this passage in Lambert 2007, 6 in connection with the term tamītu, which is here used to mean lunar omens.

170

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

3

AN.TA.LÙ ri-iḫ-ṣu mur-ṣu mu-tum GAL5.LA.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ IMIN.BI 4 ma-ḫar d30 it-ta-nap-ri-ku These are the oracles: When Sîn establishes the decision, the gods of heaven and earth determine that they would take away(?)919 the works of humankind. (With) eclipse, devastation, sickness (and) death the great gallû-demons, the Sebettu, keep becoming obstacles before Sîn. d

These lines present the two-fold scheme that is also apparent in other sources: lunar eclipses were thought to be caused by a divine decree by the moon god himself or by other deities,920 or the eclipses were caused by malevolent demonic forces that attacked the moon god in the sky.921 That the moon god himself causes eclipses is often referred to in the omen literature or in the astrological reports to the Assyrian royal court. Sîn is said to have established (the verb šakānu, “to set”, is used) an eclipse, and he himself also has the power to undo it, to let is pass (šūtuqu).922 The anger and displeasure of the moon god – and of other great deities – could only be dissipated by the performance of apotropaic rituals, or in the worst case, the substitute king ritual.923 It is important to note that the ability to predict the occurrence of an eclipse – already cultivated by the Neo-Assyrian scholars – did not diminish the value of the eclipse as a sign informing the people of the gods’ will: only the observation of the eclipse could determine its effects and allow its the message to be interpreted.924 In astrological literature, lunar eclipses are at times described metaphorically as the “mourning” or the “distress” of the moon god.925 The expression lumun libbi, “grief; sorrow; anger”, is used in the astrological series EAE to describe the lunar eclipse.926 The crying moon god is also found in the astrological commentary series Šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu, in which the protasis describing the crying moon receives the explanation that a lunar eclipse will take place in the

919

The interpretation of the problematic word tu-bu-ul-šú-nu as a D-stem infinitive is suggested in Wee 2014, 61. 920 The importance of the other deities is discussed in Wee 2014, 43–44. 921 In Koch-Westenholz 2001, 74 this scheme is presented as having three parts.The eclipse is the result of: 1) the moon god’s own decision; 2) a decree by some other deity or 3) demonic forces. Since the first two causes both fall into the category of divine decisions, in my opinion, they should not be separated from each other. 922 See Stol 1992, 260 and Koch-Westenholz 2001, 74. 923 See the discussion on p. 175ff. below. 924 Brown & Linssen 1997, 154–156; Koch-Westenholz 1995, 110; and Koch-Westenholz 2001, 73. The ability to predict an eclipse meant that protective measures could be employed before the eclipse took place (see p. 175ff. below). 925 See Stol 1992, 257–258; Rochberg 1996, 478–481; and Rochberg 2018, 291–297. 926 See CAD L, 250–251 and Rochberg-Halton 1988, 48.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

171

month Kislīmu.927 This motif is also found in the incantation used in cases of difficult childbirth: the moon god, called Ellammê, weeps due to the distress of the cow that is giving birth.928 The commentary on the text further explains the appellation Ellammê as the moon god, who establishes an eclipse.929 This attestation of the moon god being saddened by birth pangs challenges the view that Sîn’s sadness or distress was solely caused by demonic attacks against him.930 Consequently, it is plausible that the moon god’s emotional distress was thought to have had a variety of sources, of which the mythological attack by demons and the distress of the cow represent only two. An attack against the moon by demons who cause a lunar eclipse forms the content of the 16th tablet of Udug-ḫul.931 This demonic attack against Sîn has been widely interpreted as the mythological explanation for lunar eclipses, as opposed to the “scholarly” view, according to which the moon god himself caused them.932 According to this myth, the Sebettu (the seven demons), characterised as winds, whirl at the base of heaven and constantly circle the moon (Nannāru-Sîn), diminishing his brightness and silencing him.933 In the subsequent description, the Sebettu win the gods Šamaš and Adad over to their side, forcing the goddess Ištar to hide from them.934 The vizier Nusku informs Enlil of the moon’s darkening, and Enlil in turn sends Nusku to Apsû with a message.935 There, Ea receives this message and he commands his son Marduk to go and fight the demons.936 After this the text provides ritual instructions for the protection of the king, which include the binding of prophylactic woollen bands around the palace gates and the limbs of the king.937 The purification of the king

927

See the discussion on p. 69 above. See the citation of VS 17 no. 34, 4–7 on p. 69 above with further discussion. 929 See the citation of 11N-T3, 17–19 on p. 69 above with further discussion. 930 This motif is thought to be connected to the mythological attack of the demons in Koch-Westenholz 2001, 81. 931 See the editions in Geller 2007, 178–187 and 251–257 as well as Geller 2016, 499– 541. This 16th tablet appears to stand separate from the other tablets of the series (as noted in Geller 2007, xvii). 932 Stol 1992, 260 and Koch-Westenholz 2001, 80–81. According to Thorkild Jacobsen this mythological passage represented a tradition earlier than the notions of eclipses present in the prayers or astrological literature of the 1st millennium BCE, but he presents no proof to support his argument (Jacobsen 1976, 123). 933 Udug-ḫul 16, 29–30 (Geller 2007, 178–179 and 252; Geller 2016, 507–508; see also Wee 2014, 37–38). For the aspect of the moon god’s silence in connection with his darkness see the discussion on p. 78ff. above. 934 This interpretation presented in Wee 2014, 38–43 differs from the one given by Mark Geller in his translation and various scholars before him. 935 Udug-ḫul 16, 37–53 (Geller 2007, 179–180 and 252; Geller 2016, 509–513). 936 Udug-ḫul 16, 54–78 (Geller 2007, 180–181 and 252–253; Geller 2016, 513–521). 937 Udug-ḫul 16, 79–81 (Geller 2007, 181 and 253; Geller 2016, 521). 928

172

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

was also accompanied by the noise of a copper instrument, which connects this ritual to the lunar eclipse ritual that is attested in Late Babylonian manuscripts from Uruk.938 There have been a variety of interpretations of this myth about the darkening of the moon.939 Thorkild Jacobsen, among others, saw this attack as a collaboration between the seven demons and the moon god’s children.940 According to another view, the god Anu, who had been ousted from heaven by Sîn, Šamaš, and Ištar, sent the demons to attack these deities with the result that he won Ištar over to his side.941 A compelling new interpretation of the attack on the moon by demons has recently been proposed by John Wee.942 He builds on the conceptual distinction between the two explanations for the lunar eclipse: either the moon god himself establishes the eclipse or he darkens because of an external attack by demons. The question that arises from this distinction involves divine will: how does an eclipse caused by demonic attack reflect the mind of Sîn and the other deities, whose will – favourable or disfavourable – was be made manifest in the eclipse? The answer that Wee proposes is that this eclipse myth functioned as a royal apology, underlining the innocence of the king.943 If this interpretation is correct, the myth stands in strong contrast to the substitute king ritual, which made the difficulties in the royal-divine relationship visible to the public.944 Since the lunar eclipse was the result of an external attack by demonic forces, which subdued not only the moon god Sîn, but also the gods Šamaš, Adad, and Ištar, the factor of divine displeasure is absent. Furthermore, the theme of the demonic attack is extended to the section that includes instructions for the protection of the king during the eclipse: after the lines instructing that woollen bands should be bound around the king’s limbs, the king is likened to the moon god himself. Such a comparison is understandable in the light of the strong conceptual connection between the moon and kingship,945 but it also functions on another level, making the king a fellow victim of the demonic attack.946

938

Udug-ḫul 16, 120’ and 147’ (Geller 2007, 183–184 and 254–255; Geller 2016, 526 and 529). The latest discussion concerning this copper instrument employed in rituals dispelling demons is offered in Rendu Loisel 2015, 211–227. For the eclipse ritual from Uruk, which includes citations from the eclipse myth, see on p. 180ff. below. 939 See the overview of the interpretations in Wee 2014, 36–43. 940 Jacobsen 1976, 123 and Geller 2005, 153. 941 Falkenstein 1931, 75 and Edzard 1965, 101. A similar view is briefly mentioned also in Stol 1992, 260; Hunger 1995, 359; and Krebernik 1995, 366. 942 Wee 2014, 29–67. 943 Wee 2014, 47–59. 944 As noted in Wee 2014, 50. For an overview of the substitute king ritual as a means of protection against the evil of the lunar eclipse see the discussion on p. 175ff. below. 945 See the discussion on p. 196ff. below. 946 Wee 2014, 53–54.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

173

Udug-ḫul 16, 83–84947 83 lugal-e dumu diĝir-ra-na u4-sakar dSuen-na-gin7 zi kalam-ma šu-du7 šar-ru DUMU DINGIR-šú šá ki-ma na-an-na-ri d30 na-piš-ti [m]a-a-ti ú-kal-lu 84 u4-sakar gibil-gin7 saĝ-bi su ši-lim gùr-ru-a ki-ma na-an-na-ri ed-de-ši-i ina re-ši-šú šá-lum-ma-tú [n]a-šu-u (Sum.) (It is) the king, son of his personal god, who like the moonlight provides in full the sustenance of the land, bearing radiance on his head like the new crescent moon. (Akk.) (It is) the king, son of his personal god, who like the moonlight preserves the life of the land, bearing radiance on his head like the constantly renewing luminary. The comparison between the eclipsed moon and the king continues later in the myth, in a section that relates to the darkening of the moon. The eclipse is described by means of royal symbolism: the stripping of the crown (agû, i.e. the illuminated part of the lunar disc948) and the removal of the moon’s insignia (tiqnu).949 As Mark Geller has noted and John Wee has further discussed,950 this may also be an allusion to the substitute king ritual, during which the real king gave away his royal insignia and hid himself in the guise of a “farmer”. Here, however, the stripping off of the royal insignia is portrayed as caused by external agents, and may very well have reflected the notion of royal innocence.951 There have been attempts to locate the dragon that devours the moon during the eclipse, according to later Greek tradition, in Babylonian views of lunar eclipses.952 Such an explanation for the eclipse would be conceptually similar to a demonic attack against the moon: the luminary in the night sky is violently obscured by an external agent. The main recent proponent for identifying Late Babylonian drawings of a heroic figure battling a lion-dragon inside the lunar disc953 as evidence for the existence of such a mythological explanation for lunar eclipses has been Anne D. Kilmer, who connects these depictions with lunar eclipses.954 There is, however, no textual evidence to support a Babylonian origin

947

See Geller 2007, 181 and 253 as well as Geller 2016, 522. See the discussion on p. 60ff. above. 949 Udug-ḫul 16, 110’–112’ (Geller 2007, 182 and 254; Geller 2016, 525). 950 Geller 2007, xvi and Wee 2014, 54–56. 951 Wee 2014, 56: “[...] the absence of crown and insignia represented a state of denudation and vulnerability, and the Myth’s portrayal of divestment as an act of violation might well have resounded with the king’s own sentiments and misgivings”. 952 This topic has been discussed in Stol 1992, 260–263 and Rochberg 2018, 305–311. 953 This drawing is found in the Late Babylonian tablet from Uruk, VAT 7851 (Weidner 1967, pls. 1–2). 954 Azarpay & Kilmer 1978, 369–370 and 373–374. Kilmer notes that the text connected 948

174

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

for the notion that the eclipse of the moon was caused by a dragon: the image of the hero combatting a dragon more plausibly depicts what the Babylonians saw in the disc of the moon itself.955 As Marten Stol mentioned and Paul-Alain Beaulieu later discussed, the image of the “man in the moon” is already explained in the Neo-Assyrian sources. The explanatory text KAR 307 from Assur includes a section concerning the measurements of the moon and the sun and the gods that are enclosed within the moon and the sun.956 In the same section it is stated that the god Nabû is found inside the moon.957 Moreover, this allusion to the “man in the moon” may have been a reference to the Labbu myth.958 This myth is preserved to us only in a single fragment of a manuscript from Assurbanipal’s library, and therefore much of the content remains unknown.959 However, it is certain that this myth is about the battle between the hero Tišpak and the lionserpent Labbu. This battle has many celestial connotations: the lion-serpent has been drawn into the sky by the god Enlil, and the moon god Sîn, the most prominent deity in the nocturnal sky, sends the warrior Tišpak to a battle with it. A parallel to this myth is found in KAR 6, in which it is Nergal who fights the seadragon (bašmu).960 Despite the fact that neither of these two myths featuring a fight between a hero (Tišpak/Nergal) and a dragon (labbu/bašmu) are explicitly connected to lunar eclipses, they present the same fundamental narrative found in the lunar eclipse myth in Udug-ḫul: a battle between the monster/demons and the heroic deity. Therefore, as a result of a fusion of traditions, the depiction of the hero inside the lunar disc may also have been understood to represent Marduk’s battle against the Seven, who precipitate the eclipse, instead of as the battle of Tišpak or Nergal against the labbu or bašmu.961 For this reason an “Eclipse Dragon” remains unattested in Mesopotamian mythology.

to the illustrations on the tablet concerns lunar eclipses (see Weidner 1967, 12–15). 955 As concluded in Weidner 1967, 8 and Stol 1992, 263. This interpretation is further discussed in Beaulieu 1999, 91–99. According to Knut Tallqvist, this image portrayed the fight between the new crescent moon and the black moon at the beginning of the month (Tallqvist 1938b, 21 and Tallqvist 1947, 38). 956 KAR 307, r. 4–6 (see the editions in Livingstone 1986, 82–83 and SAA 3 no. 39 as well as the citation in Beaulieu 1999, 93). 957 KAR 307, r. 5: šá ŠÀ d30 dAG, “the inside of the moon is Nabû” (see Livingstone 1986, 82–83 and 90–91). 958 See the discussion in Beaulieu 1999, 94–97. 959 Rm. 282 (CT 13, pls. 33–34). For the most recent edition of the myth see Lewis 1996, 30–33. A translation is found also in Foster 2005, 581–582; for discussions see also Wiggermann 1989, 117–120; Stol 1992, 260–262; and Cooley 2013, 120–124. 960 Beaulieu 1999, 95. 961 As noted in Beaulieu 1999, 97–98.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

175

II.6.2.3. Protection Against the Evil of the Eclipse An eclipse of the moon, the sun, or one of the planets could indicate so great a danger to the king that the performance of an elaborate ritual involving a human substitute for him was needed: this was the means for preventing the king’s death that had been predicted by the the eclipse.962 In the years following the downfall of Assyrian and Babylonian civilisations, this substitute king ritual (šar pūḫi) developed a legendary reputation based on references to it in the writings of the classical historiographers and later literature. However, our reconstruction of this ritual draws primarily on references to it found in the Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence.963 During the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, a substitute king was crowned eight times.964 According to the outlines of the ritual provided by Simo Parpola and Lorenzo Verderame, its basic principle was that a substitute (šar pūḫi) assumed the identity of the king and therefore also assumed the negative consequences announced by the lunar eclipse.965 Neo-Assyrian letters show that a substitute’s enthronement as well as the performance of bīt rimki could take place as a pre-emptive measure before the eclipse had actually occurred – an action that illustrates how the prediction of eclipses was used to take protective measures before the expected darkening of the moon.966 While the substitute held the position of the king, the real king remained incognito under the designation “farmer” (ikkaru): his true identity was restored to him only 962

The eclipses of the main celestial bodies are referred to in a text describing the substitute king ritual, K. 2600+, A 9–13: [... Ḫ]UL Á.MEŠ GISKIM.MEŠ ḪUL.MEŠ NU DU10.GA.MEŠ / [... A]N-e u KI-tim šá ana IGI-ia GIB.MEŠ / [... A]N.MI d30 AN.MI d UTU AN.MI dŠul-pa-è-a / [AN.M]I dDil-bat AN.MI mulUDU.IDIM.MEŠ / [šá ina IT]I NENNI u4-mu NENNI iš-šak-na, “[... the e]vil of evil (and) not good portents and signs, [... hea]ven and earth that stand in my way, [... an ec]lipse of Sîn, an eclipse of Šamaš, an eclipse of Šulpae’a (=Jupiter), [an eclip]se of Dilbat (=Venus), an eclipse of the (other) planets [which] was established for me [in the mont]h so-and-so, the day so-and-so (see Lambert 1957–1958, 110). Ritual texts concerning lunar eclipses have recently been discussed in Rochberg 2018, 298–304. 963 For overviews of the substitute king ritual see Parpola 1983, XXII–XXXII; RochbergHalton 1988, 16; Ambos 2013a, 89–91; Ambos 2013b, 39–54; Verderame 2013, 317– 321; and Koch 2015, 195–196. A monograph dedicated to the topic has been announced in Verderame 2013, 317 note 61. 964 See the attestations in Parpola 1983, XXIII. 965 Claus Ambos has suggested that the evil of the eclipse did not affect the king as a person, but rather the royal space occupied by the king (Ambos 2013b, 47–48). This would imply that the displeasure caused by any intentional or unintentional transgression was also tied to the royal space. 966 SAA 10 no. 240, r. 14–20: “I am also worried about the impending observation of the moon; let this be [my] advice. If it is suitable, let us put somebody on the throne. (When) the night [of the 15th day] comes, he will be afflicted [by it]; but he will sa[ve your life].” See also Parpola 1983, 176–180 as well as Ambos 2013a, 90 and 190.

176

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

after the death of the substitute.967 At the beginning and end of this whole ritual sequence, the purificatory ritual bīt rimki was performed.968 As part of bīt rimki, the king recited prayers to various nocturnal deities during his stay in a ritual structure made of reeds.969 One of the deities invoked in these prayers was the moon god, whom the king beseeched with the words of the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1”.970 This prayer is focused on the luminous character of the moon god and his power over divine decisions, both of which are aspects that are closely related to lunar omens. For the use of this prayer within the performance of bīt rimki following a lunar eclipse, a specific section, known as the attalû-formula (“eclipse formula”), was inserted into the existing prayer, thus making it useful for undoing precisely the evil that had been made manifest by the eclipse.971 This formula is attested in prayers to several deities972 – a reflection of the collective responsibility of the gods for the occurrence of the eclipse.973 The king’s purification and his reconciliation with the angry deities was an essential part of the ritual, since the ultimate reason for the eclipse lay in the king’s transgressions towards the gods.974 Even when the lunar eclipse did not foreshadow the king’s death, its negative influence needed to be warded off through protective means. The precise actions in this case are not known to us, but it is clear that an eclipse at least demanded the performance of a namburbi-ritual.975 Letter SAA 10 no. 347 suggests that a namburbi also had to be performed if the observed eclipse concerned geographical areas other than Assyria.976 Only a single namburbi-ritual (BM 121037) explicitly intended to avert the evil of a lunar eclipse is known to us, but whether this is the ritual referred to in SAA 10 no. 347 remains unknown.977 Only 967

See Parpola 1983, XXIV–XXVI and Verderame 2013, 317–318. Ambos 2013b, 40. For an overview of bīt rimki’s structure see Ambos 2013b, 41–45. 969 For the šu’ila-prayers included in bīt rimki see Frechette 2012, 176–180. 970 See the edition on p. 452ff. below. 971 Mayer 1976, 100–102. 972 It is claimed in Koch-Westenholz 2001, 75 and Koch 2015, 196 that the attalû-formula could not be inserted into the prayers addressed to the moon god, but as the prime example in “Sîn 1” demonstrates, this is not true. 973 As noted in Wee 2014, 43–44. 974 This aspect is stressed in Parpola 1993b, 52–55. For transgression as the prominent motif in the ritual for averting the evil of lunar appearances see p. 163ff. above. 975 Koch-Westenholz 2001, 75 and Koch 2015, 195. 976 SAA 10 no. 347, r. 17’–19’: a-na LUGAL EN-ía SILIM-mu ù a-na / ma-ṣar-ti lu-u la i-ši-ṭu / NAM.BÚR.BI-e-šú a-na MAN EN-ía / le-pu-šu, “For the king, my lord, all is well, but the guard should not be neglected: let them perform its namburbi for the king, my lord” (see also Parpola 1983, 267–268 and Maul 1994, 20–21). 977 The text BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190) is edited in Maul 1994, 458–460. This namburbi-ritual together with the Eclipse Hemerology was understood in Stol 1992, 258 to concern the common person, but as noted by U. Koch, it is more likely that also this 968

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

177

roughly half of the complete text is preserved for us, but some important elements linking this namburbi to the other procedures connected to the lunar omens are nevertheless apparent. The same prayer to moon god as in bīt rimki, “Sîn 1”, is attested in this ritual: this prayer is to be recited three times before Sîn after a ritual meal has been offered to him.978 After the recitation of “Sîn 1” and the following prostration, the petitioner recited another prayer to Sîn. Despite this prayer being addressed to the moon god, the wishes it expresses involve the roles played by other deities in making the moon luminous again and in pacifying the moon god’s heart. BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190), r. 1–8979 r. 1 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ li-nam-mi-ru-ka r. 2 ŠÀ-ka li-ni-iḫ-ḫu r. 3 IGI.BAR-ma dnanna-ar DINGIR.MEŠ AN-e d+EN.ZU MAŠ.MAŠ r. 4 ḪUL AN.MI ia-a-ši u É-ia r. 5 a-a TE-a a-a KU.NU a-a is-ni-qa r. 6 a-a ik-šu-da-an-ni da-li-li-ka lud-lul r. 7 ⌈u⌉ a-mi-ru-ú-a ana da-ra-a-ti r. 8 [d]a-li-li-ka lid-lu-lu May the great gods illuminate you, may they appease your heart! Look (here again), luminary of the heavenly gods, Sîn, mašmaššu! May the evil of the eclipse not come near to me or my house, may it not approach, may it not reach me! Let me proclaim your glory and the let ones who see me forever proclaim your [g]lory! The second important factor is the purification of the petitioner and the transfer of his guilt to a substitute, which were performed before the offering and petition to the moon god.980 That the guilt and transgressions of the petitioner were transferred to a plant (which carried them away to Apsû), is not only reminiscent of other namburbi-rituals, but also to the actions that were taken to protect from the unpropitious appearance of the moon in the ritual K. 6018+//.981 This petition to the moon god is also the only instance in which he is addressed with the epithet mašmaššu, “incantation priest”.982 The exact implications for the use of this namburbi was meant for the king (Koch-Westenholz 2001, 75 and Koch 2015, 195): this is suggested by the fact that BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190) forms a part of the series NAM.BÚR.BI.MEŠ in the tablet collection of Assurbanipal. 978 BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190), 9’–14’ (see Maul 1994, 458–459). 979 See the edition in Maul 1994, 458–459. 980 BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190), 4’–8’ (see Maul 1994, 458–459). 981 See the discussion on p. 163ff. above. 982 The epithet mašmaššu is otherwise well-attested in connection with Marduk/Asalluḫi (see CAD M/1, 381).

178

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

epithet to describe Sîn remain unclear, but it can be assumed that the moon god was expected to take a role in undoing the negative effects of the eclipse that he himself in his anger had caused. Another source of information for the rituals connected to lunar eclipses is the Eclipse Hemerology, which has survived in a single tablet.983 According to its colophon, this tablet, written in Neo-Assyrian script, is a copy of an original from Nippur. The Eclipse Hemerology deals with the particular actions that should be taken when a lunar eclipse takes place on the 12th, 13th or 14th day of each of the twelve months. This includes various apotropaic actions for undoing the evil of the eclipse. In the opening section, which is cited below, these actions form a sequence, performed for the duration of the eclipse, that consists of the hanging of a red garment at the gate, the offering of incense and libations to Anu and Enlil at the gate, and the smearing of the bed-frame with a mixture of swallow’s blood and cypress oil. Bu. 88-5-12, 11 (CT 4, pl. 5), 1–8984 1 DIŠ ina itiBÁRA lu UD.12.KÁMv lu UD.13.KÁMv lu UD.14.KÁM 2 AN.MI d30 GAR-un ḪUL šu-a-tu LUGAL NU DIM4 3 u4-um AN.MI d30 šak-nu-u16 TÚG sígḪÉ.ME.DA 4 KÁ tal-lal NÍG.NA úKUR.KUR ina 15 KÁ ana dA-nu-um ta-šá-kanv 5 KAŠ.ŠUR.RA BAL-qí ul tuš-ken NÍG.NA šimGIG ina GÙB KÁ 6 ana d+En-líl ta-šak-kan GEŠTIN BAL-qí ul tuš-ken 7 LUGAL T[A A]N.MI ut-ta-me-ru ana imDIŠ uš-ken ÚŠ SIM.MU!mušen! 8 KI Ì.GIŠ gišŠUR.MÌN ḪE.ḪE gišNÁ TAG Ḫ[U]L DU8-ár If Sîn establishes an eclipse on the 12th or the 13th or the 14th of Nisannu, that evil will not reach the king. As the eclipse of the moon takes place,985 you

983

The first copy of the tablet Bu. 88-5-12, 11 was published by C. Bezold (1888), but it was copied later also as CT 4, pl. 5–6. The latest editions of the text have been published in Koch-Westenholz 2001, 75–77 and Livingstone 2013, 195–198. See also the corrections to Livingstone’s edition in Marti 2014, 180–181. Eclipse Hemerology is the title given to the text by A. Livingstone, although it is in fact a menology. The entry for Simānu and its implications for the royal offspring are discussed in Cassin 1987, 258– 266, and a general overview of the text is provided in Koch 2015, 225–226. 984 Koch-Westenholz 2001, 76; Livingstone 2013, 195; and Marti 2014, 180. 985 Both U. Koch and A. Livingstone translate this sentence as referring to the day of the eclipse, (“On the day of the lunar eclipse”/“On the day that the eclipse of the moon occurs”, respectively). Thus it is seen as an indication of the commencement of the ritual activity before the eclipse had become visible. Such a literal translation is however, in my opinion, not necessary (see GAG § 174 a), because ūm can stand here for the temporal “as”. For a similar structure in connection with the lunar appearance see the ritual instructions in the text K. 6018+// (p. 497ff. below). The spelling ša-ak-nu-um for the stat-

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

179

hang a garment of red wool at the gate. You set in place an incense burner with atā’išu-plant to the right of the gate for Anu, you libate pressed beer, you do not prostrate yourself. You set in place an incense burner with kanaktu-resin to the left of the gate for Enlil, you libate wine, you do not prostrate yourself. A[s] the [ec]lipse clears up, the king prostrates himself to the south. You mix swallow’s blood with cypress oil, you smear the bed-frame. The e[v]il will be undone. The entries for other months include purification rituals, dietary restrictions, and various behavioural instructions, such as sleeping behind the door in the month Abu.986 In the month Simānu the king is instructed to stay silent, which has been interpreted as a reflection of the silenced state of the moon god during the eclipse.987 In the month Du’ūzu an eclipse in turn requires that two days be spent in the ritual enclosure bīt mēseri.988 The multiple references to the king and his country make it clear that the Eclipse Hemerology was intended for use in the royal court.989 If the role of the moon god as the main deity responsible for the eclipse is taken into consideration, it is remarkable that he is explicitly mentioned only twice in the entries of the Eclipse Hemerology: in the month Simānu a flour offering for Sîn is necessary,990 and in the month Du’ūzu the correct performance of the proper actions ensures that Sîn will look benevolently at the person (i.e. the king).991 Other deities, to whom offerings should be made or to whom pray-

ive form is clear in the copy of the tablet, although no mimation for such a form is expected. Because the value u16 for UM is attested in Old Babylonian sources as well as in Middle and Neo-Babylonian ones (see the attestations in Schaudig 2001, 113–114), a conceivable solution is to read ša-ak-nu-u16. 986 Unfortunately, it is not possible to discuss these actions here in detail. 987 Cassin 1987, 260–261. 988 Bu. 88-5-12, 11 (CT 4, pl. 5), 14: DIŠ ina itiŠU KI.MIN-ma 2 u4-me ina É me-ser(i) TUŠ, “If in the month Du’ūzu ditto, he should spend two days in bīt mēseri” (see KochWestenholz 2001, 76 and Livingstone 2013, 196). 989 Contra the view in Stol 1992, 258 that this text contained ritual instructions for common people. A. Livingstone admits to the place of this hemerology in a royal context, but strangely draws attention to the alleged “folk religion” and “superstition” found in it in comparison to Inbu bēl arḫi (Livingstone 2013, 195: “[...] its stuff is that of royal ritual but not the formal royal ritual known from texts such as Fruit, Lord of the Month. Rather, it smacks of folk religion and popular superstition and in this respect resembles most closely the Prostration hemerology.”). 990 Bu. 88-5-12, 11 (CT 4, pl. 5), 12: zìEŠA ana d30 BAL-qí, “he should pour out an offering of fine flour to Sîn” (see Koch-Westenholz 2001, 76 and Livingstone 2013, 196). An offering to Sîn in Simānu is likely to be connected to the hemerological tradition, which connects this month with the moon god (see p. 294 below). 991 Bu. 88-5-12, 11 (CT 4, pl. 5), 16: d30 ana MUNUS.SIG5 IGI.BAR-su, “Sîn will look

180

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

ers should be offered, are Anu and Enlil (Nisannu), and Marduk and Šakkan (Araḫsamnu). The constellations mulUD.KA.DU8.A (“Panther”, Akk. Nimru) and mul GÍR.TAB (“Scorpio”, Akk. Zuqāqīpu) also receive offerings.992 Owing to the lack of additional textual sources pertaining to the actions described in this menology, the circumstances for their performance remain unclear. Were these actions performed during every eclipse or did they apply only to certain specific occasions? Were all of these instructions meant for the king even though his role was not explicitly indicated? The possibility that the Eclipse Hemerology applied to every eclipse that occurred on the 12th, 13th, and 14th of the month – as opposed to only the ones interpreted as harmful to the king – has been suggested by Ulla Koch,993 and this suggestion seems very plausible. Thus the existence of this menology attests to a much more elaborate means of warding off the evil influence of the lunar eclipse than is often perceived. In addition to the performance of namburbi-rituals and to the prescriptions for behaviour given in the Eclipse Hemerology, there are indications that the evil of the eclipse was warded off by the means of rituals employing a kettledrum.994 An elaborate eclipse ritual is known from Uruk,995 but the existing manuscripts for it are all Late Babylonian.996 The basic structure of this ritual, as it has been preserved, can be divided into two parts: averting the evil during the eclipse and purification following the eclipse.997 The first part includes the performance of Emesal lamentations by the kalû during the eclipse, the burning of braziers at the temple gates and the in the main street, and the performance of funerary offerings. Moreover, the people of the land and seven soldiers must sing a song, which was intended to avert the evil of the eclipse away from the city and its temples. The second part of the ritual takes place on the following day, when the gates of the temples are unsealed, ritual paraphernalia that was most likely used

at him with favour” (see Koch-Westenholz 2001, 76 and Livingstone 2013, 196). 992 According to the compendium MUL.APIN, the constellation Panther is the god Nergal (MUL.APIN I, i 28; Hunger & Pingree 1989, 26) and Scorpio is the goddess Išḫara (MUL.APIN I, ii 29; Hunger & Pingree 1989, 38). 993 Koch-Westenholz 2001, 75. 994 See the overview in Brown & Linssen 1997, 150 and Koch-Westenholz 2001, 80. As noted in Parpola 1983, 268 and Beaulieu & Britton 1994, 77, the beating of drums or banging of metal instruments is also attested in much later times: incidents involving people banging pots during a lunar eclipse were recorded still in the 19th (Layard 1867, 314–315) and 20th centuries (Stark 1937, 60–61). See also Stol 1992, 259 for references to similar practices in the Roman era and the Middle Ages, and the discussion in Tallqvist 1938b, 25–26 and Tallqvist 1947, 185. 995 For the latest editions of BRM 4 no. 6 and BM 134701 as well as the related text CLBT, pl. 1 see Linssen 2004, 306–320. 996 Linssen 2004, 8. 997 See the outline in Brown & Linssen 1997, 150–154 and Linssen 2004, 109–117.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

181

in the performance during the eclipse is disposed of by throwing it into the river, and the temples are purified. It is worth noting that only the sanctuary of the moon god in Uruk, Edumununa,998 is mentioned by name among the temples to be purified. At the end, the paraphernalia used to purify is disposed of by the same means as before: by throwing them into the river. In connection with this eclipse ritual, a reference to the lunar eclipse myth in the 16th tablet of Udugḫul999 is made: the text BM 134701 cites this myth in Akkadian in a section that has been interpreted as a reference to the recitation of Udug-ḫul as a part of the rituals involving the purification of the temples.1000 Attestations of the playing of drums are also found in other Late Babylonian texts: in the 8th regnal year of the Persian king Cyrus, kalûs are reported to have played the kettledrum at the gate of the temple Ebabbar in Larsa and at the gate of the temple Eana in Uruk in anticipation of a lunar eclipse.1001 Due to the origin of these references in the Persian or the Hellenistic period there can be no certainty that the same actions had taken place centuries earlier during the first half of the 1st millennium BCE. However, it appears likely that similar, if not exactly the same, rituals were performed by kalûs as early as Neo-Assyrian period. A brief reference to a kettledrum in connection with a lunar eclipse, which had been observed in Akkad, Borsippa, and Nippur, can be found in letter SAA 10 no. 347.1002 Unfortunately the exact meaning of this reference remains unclear due the fragmentary state of the following lines. On the basis of the sparse references to the kettle-drum ritual in Neo-Assyrian sources and the existence of the elaborate eclipse ritual in Late Babylonian Uruk, the possibility that such rituals evolved towards greater complexity from the Neo-Assyrian period to Hellenistic times has been suggested.1003 According to this hypothesis, the ability to predict an eclipse allowed the execution of more elaborate rituals without the danger of wasting expensive paraphernalia employed in the process. However, such a hypothesis cannot be tested on the basis of the present textual sources, which only hint at possible Neo-Assyrian, or even earlier, kettledrum rituals on the occasion of an eclipse.

II.6.3. The Presence of Sîn in the Extispicy Ritual The practice of extispicy – the inspection of the entrails of a sacrificial animal for signs revealing messages from the gods – was perhaps the most important

998

For the cult of the moon god in Uruk see the discussion on p. 371ff. below. See the discussion on p. 171ff. above. 1000 Brown & Linssen 1997, 152. 1001 See Beaulieu & Britton 1994, 73–86. 1002 SAA 10 no. 347, 9–10: ⌈LI⌉.[LI.ÌZ] URUDU / is-sa-ak-nu, “A bronze d[rum] was set up”. See the commentary for these lines in Parpola 1983, 268. 1003 Brown & Linssen 1997, 154–156. 999

182

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

divinatory method in ancient Mesopotamia.1004 Nocturnal deities played a central role in the extispicy ritual, which lasted from evening to the sunrise of the following day: the nighttime stars were important messengers between mankind and the deities who had gone to their chambers to spend the night, according to the so-called “prayers to the gods of the night”.1005 Not only the stars and planets, but also the moon god, as one of the principal celestial bodies, played a role in this ritual that preceded the verdict given by the sun god at sunrise.1006 The function of the nocturnal deities has been one of the topics in recent research on the extispicy ritual, but the moon god’s role has been overshadowed by those played by the planets and the stars, which are more prominently featured in the available material. In addition to the prayers to “the gods of the night”, ikribprayers to individual divine celestial bodies have also been preserved. These include the stars Anunītu1007 and Sirius (mulGAG.SI.SÁ, Akk. šukūdu),1008 the constellation Pleiades (MUL.MUL, Akk. zappu),1009 and the planets Venus (d151010 and dNin-si4-an-na1011) and Jupiter (dŠul-pa-è).1012 Like the stars and planets, the moon god was also invoked through ikrib-prayers during the extispicy ritual, attesting to the role that he occupied in this context.1013 In this section I will discuss the structure and temporal setting of the extispicy ritual from the perspective of the moon god’s participation in it, and also describe the theological concepts that are connected to the moon god in the three preserved ikrib-prayers

1004

The role and meaning of extispicy has recently been extensively discussed by S. M. Maul (2013). For a brief overview of this divinatory practice see Maul 2003b, 69–82. 1005 See Fincke 2009, 524–541. An edition of the prayers to “the gods of the night” is being prepared by A. Al-Magasees (Heidelberg). 1006 Important discussions on the extispicy ritual – of its nocturnal character and of the legal discourse that is used in it – can be found in Reiner 1995, 63–72, Fincke 2009, 519–558, Steinkeller 2005, 11–47, Wilcke 2007, 224–241, and Maul 2013a, 32–54. 1007 IM 80214 (de Meyer 1982, 277–278). Anunītu is the eastern fish in Pisces (see KochWestenholz 1995, 207 and Hunger & Pingree 1999, 271). 1008 K. 128 (Burrows 1924, 33–40; Mayer 2005, 51–56). “Arrow star” (Sirius), is a manifestation of Ninurta. 1009 K. 6993+K. 12268 (Lambert 2004, 37–38). 1010 K. 20 (Gurney, Meier & Weidner 1936–1937, 368–369) with the duplicates K. 6993+K. 12268, K. 3930 and K. 21418 (Lambert 2004, 37–38). 1011 IM 80213 (de Meyer 1982, 274–277). According to Reiner 1995, 68 dNin-si4-an-na seems to be a male aspect of Venus. It is also possible that the broken reverse of K. 3794+ (Ms B in the ikrib-prayers to Sîn, see p. 483ff. below) contains an ikrib-prayer to Ištar/Venus as the evening star (Reiner 1995, 74). 1012 A prayer to Šulpae follows the ikrib-prayer to Sîn in K. 3794+ (Ms B in the edition on p. 483ff. below). 1013 Five different ikrib-prayers to Sîn are known to us from tablets from Nineveh (see Table 5 on p. 16 above and the edition on p. 483ff. below). For a brief account of ikribprayers as a genre see Lambert 2014, 53–55.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

183

addressed to him. The examination of the liver of a sacrificial animal was preceded by a complex ritual which, including all its many preparations, lasted from the late afternoon to the following morning, and which naturally could only take place on an auspicious day.1014 Certain days of the month were deemed completely unsuitable for this endeavour, and these days are listed in hemerologies as days on which the bārû should not give a prognosis.1015 There seems to be a certain lunar pattern in the distribution of the days unsuitable for extispicy, since they follow a pattern of roughly seven day sequences in the lunar cycle. This is most evident in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi, in which the days that are deemed inauspicious are the 7th, 14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th.1016 A more complex model is found in the Offering Bread Hemerology from Assur, KAR 178, in which the unsuitable days for the bārû to give a prognosis are the 1st, 7th, 9th, 14th, 19th, 21st, 28th, 29th, and 30th.1017 Moreover, the extispicy compendium KAR 151 provides a list of the days that are auspicious for extispicy and these complement the inauspicious days known from the sources mentioned above.1018 Still, a certain amount of incoherence appears to have existed: an unpublished fragment from Assur suggests a different scheme with six inauspicious days for extispicy, the last three of them being the 20th?, 23rd, and 25th of the month.1019 Despite this, the basic structure found in Inbu bēl arḫi was perhaps one of the underlying principles behind the varying schemes. The reason why the days of the waxing half moon, the full moon, and the waning half moon were so inauspicious escape us, but in the case of the moon’s disappearance at the end of the month the negative connotations pertaining to darkness, the Netherworld, and demons contribute to the unlucky

1014

See Jeyes 1991–1992, 30–31; Maul 2003b, 76–77; Fincke 2009, 556 note 183; and Maul 2013a, 34–35. 1015 For discussions concerning the auspicious days for extispicy as they are attested in hemerologies see Livingstone 1993, 108–111; Livingstone 1997, 174–176; PongratzLeisten 1999, 172–175; Livingstone 2013, 275; and Maul 2013a, 34–35. 1016 Landsberger 1915, 119. See now the edition in Livingstone 2013, 119–248 with significant corrections that are made in Marti 2014, 181–193. 1017 KAR 178//, r. VI 64–69 (see Labat 1939, 144–147; Casaburi 2003, 113; and Livingstone 2013, 149). Although Ebeling’s copy speaks of the 24th day, it has been suggested that this day should in fact be the 28th (Jeyes 1991–1992, 31 note 38). This is implied by the fact that three extispicy reports (SAA 4 nos. 137; 331; and 332) are dated on the 24th day (Jeyes 1991–1992, 31 note 41). Note also the auspicious nature of the 24th day in KAR 151 (KAL 5 no. 70), r. 53–61 (Heeßel 2012, 232 and 236). This day is read UD.24(sic).KÁM in Casaburi 2003, 113. In the contrast to his earlier publications (Livingstone 1993, 109), Livingstone reads UD.24.KÁM in his new edition of the text (Livingstone 2013, 149). 1018 KAR 151 (KAL 5 no. 70), r. 53–56 (see Heeßel 2012, 230–242). 1019 VAT 10954+, 17’–18’ (Hätinen & Schaudig, KAL [forthcoming]).

184

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

character of the 28th day.1020 Neo-Assyrian manuscripts from Nineveh provide an overview of the actions that were taken both before and after the inspection of the entrails from the sacrificial animals, and on the basis of these manuscripts we can generally reconstruct the procedure.1021 The ritual began before sunset on an auspicious day, when a ritual sacrifice was performed before the goddess Gula. As soon as the stars of the heavens appeared in the visible regions of the sky, a sacrifice was offered to the deities Anu, Enlil, and Ea, who represented the three paths of the sky, i.e. the stars that are visible in these three different areas.1022 After these preparations, when the first star rose,1023 the rooftop was swept, ritual arrangements for Marduk and the personal deities of the client were assembled there, and a sacrifice was made. Towards the end of the night, as soon as the horizon grew red, the ritual continued with sheep offerings, not only to Šamaš and Adad, but also to the wife of Šamaš, Aya, and their vizier, Bunene. During the sunrise, all the deities who participated in the earlier parts of the ritual (Šamaš, Adad, Marduk, Aya, Bunene, and the personal deity of the client) as well as Truth and Justice (in their deified forms Kittu and Mīšaru) were present, and they received their final offerings. The moon god Sîn is not mentioned at all in this general scheme of the extispicy ritual, but it is nevertheless certain that at a certain point offerings accompanied by prayers were made to him: Sîn, like other celestial deities, was called to be present in the sky, and he was petitioned to act as a judge in cases for which a divine verdict was sought. This is apparent from the few preserved ritual texts that mention the moon god among the other deities who were asked to participate in the gathering in which the verdict, i.e. the oracular answer to the question presented to Šamaš and Adad, was decreed.1024 Two invocations from the Old Babylonian period as well as a similar Neo-Assyrian invocation accompanied by a ritual description attests to the participation of a defined set of deities in this gathering: in addition to Šamaš and Adad, the deities Sîn, Nergal, Ištar, Išḫara, and Ĝeštinana/Belet-ṣēri were asked to be present at the divine council.1025 This divine council was therefore comprised of deities who held dif-

1020

See the discussion on p. 122ff. above. BBR 1–20 (Zimmern 1901, 96–110). This structure of this ritual is outlined in Steinkeller 2005, 12–13 note 1 and elaborated in Fincke 2009, 541–547. See also the description in Maul 2013a, 32–54. 1022 Fincke 2009, 543. For the paths of Anu, Enlil, and Ea see Horowitz 2011, 252–256. 1023 For the different restorations of this line see Steinkeller 2005, 12–13 note 1 and Fincke 2009, 543. 1024 P. Steinkeller has recently discussed the location in which this divine assembly took place (Steinkeller 2005, 11–47). He concluded that the divine assembly mentioned here took place in the Netherworld, where Šamaš resides during the night. 1025 See the discussion below. The text 81-2-4, 256 (BBR 5)+K. 9735 adds Ninurta and 1021

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

185

ferent roles, and who also represented different parts of the cosmos through their celestial and chthonic manifestations.1026 Text 81-2-4, 256 (BBR 5)+K. 97351027 contains the only attestation of offerings made explicitly to Sîn – present in a group together with Ninurta, Nergal, Ištar, Išḫara, Nanaya, Ninĝeštinana, and Gula – during the extispicy ritual. 81-2-4, 256 (BBR 5)+K. 9735, I 1’–16’ I 1’ [ ] x mi1028 I 2’ [ ana dA-nim dEn]-líl u dDIŠ giš giš I 3’ [3 BANŠUR.MEŠ GIN-an] šá 1 BANŠUR 48 NINDA mut-qì I 4’ [ZÍZ.ÀM tara-kás 144] ⌈NINDA⌉ mut-qí šá 3 gišBANŠUR.MEŠ I 5’ [(x) x] [NINDA].⌈Ì⌉.DÉ.A LÀL Ì.NUN.NA Ì+GIŠ.BÁRA.TAG. GA1029 I 6’ [ZÚ.LUM].MA še-er-qu gišGEŠTIN.ḪÁD.A ina TE KEŠDA1030 I 7’ [ina GÙB1031] ⌈GIN⌉-an 4 dugNÍG.TA.KUR4 KAŠ.SAG I 8’ [ina ZAG/ina gišBANŠUR]1032 [GI]N-an ma-qi-tum šá BANEŠ KAŠ.SAG GIN-an I 9’ [10 uduSILA41033 t]a-pa-ki-ir uzuZAG uzuME.ḪÉ

the goddesses Nanaya and Gula to this group of deities. 1026 See Maul 2013a, 39. 1027 This particular manuscript containing a part of the extispicy ritual was already edited by H. Zimmern in 1901, but the section containing the instructions for the offerings to the aforementioned deities was omitted from the composite edition (BBR 1–20, 41–53; Zimmern 1901, 98–101) and copy; the section is mentioned only in the addendum to BBR 1–20 (Zimmern 1901, 189). A photograph is available online (CDLI P398284). 1028 The parallel line in BBR 1–20, 41 would offer the restoration [iš-tu kakkab(MUL)

šá-m]a-mi, but the remains of the sign before mi resemble GIŠ more than ma. 1029

In the absence of a better explanation, I assume that Ì+GIŠ.BÁRA.TAG.GA is here a writing of šamnu ḫalṣu, “pressed oil” (usually Ì.GIŠ.BÁRA.GA, cf. AHw, 313 and CAD H, 50–51). The parallel lines in BBR 6, 7 and 4 have the writing BÁRA.GA. 1030 Zimmern reads giškaranu a-na riksi omitting the sign ḪÁD and misreading TE as NA (Zimmern 1901, 98). The structure ina lēt riksi is also attested e.g. in BMS 12, 102: 1-niš ina Ì gišŠUR.MÌN ḪE.ḪE ina TE KEŠDA GAR-an ŠÉŠ-su (Mayer 1993, 322). 1031 Cf. SpTU 3 no. 80//, 11 (Maul 1994, 250). 1032 The use of dugNÍG.TA.KUR4-vessels in namburbi-rituals is mentioned in Maul 1994, 53. It would seem that this vessel was put on the offering table, which would speak for the restoration ina paššūri: four dugNÍG.TA.KUR4-vessels are attested passim in BBR 1– 20, e.g. BBR 1–20, 215–216: 4 dugNÍG.TA.KUR4 KAŠ.SAG šá ina gišBANŠUR k[un-nu] ÍL-ši-ma ana IGI NÍG.NA BAL-qí, “You raise the four kurkurru-vessels that were placed on the table and pour them in front of the incense burner”. On the other hand, the verb kunnu is conventionally used when objects (libation vessels, incense burners, offering tables) are placed on the ground, not on the table (cf. Maul 1994, 53 note 102). 1033 Cf. BBR 1–20, 51: 10 uduSILA4 eb-bu-ti ta-pa-ki-ir, “you tie up 10 pure lambs”.

186

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

I 10’ [uzuKA.NE s]íl-qu tu-šá-áš(i) 3 NÍG.NA šimLI I 11’ [šimERIN/ZÌ.MAD.GÁ]1034 [D]UB-aq KAŠ.SAG BAL-qí I 12’ [ina GI]6? ana d30 dNin-urta dU.GUR I 13’ [dIštar dI]š-ḫa-ra dNa-na-a I 14’ [dN]in-ĝeštin-an-na dGu-la I 15’ [MUL?].MEŠ GIN7 šá dA-nim dEn-líl I 16’ [dEa x (x)] x 48 NINDA mut-qí ZÍZ.ÀM tara-kás [...] ... [... for Anu, En]lil, and Ea [you set up three tables.] As to one table, [you arrange] 48 loaves of sweet bread [made of emmer.] You set up [144] loaves of sweet bread of the three tables [... mir]su (with) syrup, ghee, pressed oil, [dat]es, strewn offering and raisins on the side of the ritual arrangement, [on the left]. [You arran]ge 4 kurkurru-vessels of first-class beer [on the right/on the table]. You set up libations of 30 litres of first-class beer. [Y]ou tie up [10 lambs]. You let the right shoulder, the fat tissue [roasted meat (and) the b]oiled meat be presented. You strew three incense burners with juniper (and) [cedar/roasted flour], you libate first-class beer. [In the nigh]t? you arrange 48 loaves of sweet bread [...] for Sîn, Ninurta, Nergal, [Ištar, I]šḫara, Nanaya, [Ni]nĝeštinana, Gula, [the star]s? similarly to those of Anu, Enlil, [and Ea ...]. The first offering here is made to the unnamed stars in the celestial paths of Anu, Enlil, and Ea: they act as messengers between the deities who were visible in the night sky and the deities who were either permanently, or only temporarily, residing in the Netherworld.1035 Only after this are the divine judges, who will participate in the assembly in which the divine verdict for the case is decreed, given attention. Due to the similarities in the instructions, it can be assumed that, like the stars, these deities are also about to make themselves manifest in the night sky.1036 Each of the deities mentioned here had a well-established astral manifestation, except for Bēlet-ṣēri/Geštinana, who was associated with the Netherworld: Ninurta is present as the star Sirius,1037 Nergal as the planet Ṣalbatānu (Mars),1038 Ištar as the planet Dilbat (Venus),1039 Išḫara as the constellation Zuqaqīpu (Scorpio),1040 Nanaya as the star mulBAL.TÉŠ.A (Corona Boreal-

1034

The parallel passage in BBR 4, 53 mentions cedar (šimERIN) and roasted flour (ZÌ.MAD.GÁ). Maybe one of these substances was also mentioned here, but there is not enough space for both logograms at the beginning of the line. 1035 See Maul 2013a, 40–41. 1036 Fincke 2009, 547 has noted that the offerings to the celestial deities in BBR 1–20 are always laid out before the appearance of the actual stars and planets. 1037 See Streck 1998–2001, 517–518. 1038 See Brown 2000, 55–56. 1039 See Brown 2000, 55. 1040 See Prechel 1996, 147–153.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

187

is),1041 and Gula as the constellation Enzu (Lyra).1042 With few exceptions, these same deities are also invoked in another text from Nineveh that describes the rituals of the diviner: in this fragment (Sm. 802) the gods Šamaš, Adad, Sîn, Nergal, Ištar, Išḫara, and Bēlet-ṣēri are petitioned to be present during the extispicy. Sm. 802, 6’–14’1043 d 6’ UTU EN di-nim dIŠKUR EN b[i-ri] 7’ er-ba dUTU EN di-nim er-ba dIŠKUR EN b[i-ri] 8’ er-ba d30 EN AGA er-ba dU.GUR EN giš[TUKUL] 9’ er-ba dIš-tar be-let ta-ḫa-zi 10’ er-ba dIš-ḫa-ra be-let di-nim ⌈ù⌉ [bi-ri]1044 11’ er-ba dNIN-EDIN šá-as-suk-kat DINGIR.MEŠ GA[L.MEŠ] 12’ na-ram-ti dA-nim er-ba-nim-ma DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ 13’ ina INIM-MU MU ŠU-MU ina mim-ma ma-la DÙ-šú 14’ ⌈ù⌉ ta-mītu a-kar-ra-bu kit-tum lib-ši O Šamaš, lord of judgement! O Adad, lord of ex[tispicy]! Enter here, Šamaš, lord of judgement! Enter here, Adad, lord of ex[tispicy]! Enter here, Sîn, lord of the crown! Enter here, Nergal, lord of the m[ace]! Enter here, Ištar, lady of the battle! Enter here, Išḫara, lady of judgement and [extispicy]! Enter here Bēlet-ṣēri, registrar of the gr[eat] gods, beloved of Anu! Enter here, great gods! In my word, in my prayer, in everything I do and in the oracle query I present, may there be truth! Very close parallels to the wording in these Neo-Assyrian exemplars are found in the Old Babylonian texts YOS 11 no. 231045 and YOS 11 no. 22.1046 In these older texts a similar group of deities – Sîn, Išḫara, Geštinana, Nergal, Ištar, and

1041

See Stol 1998, 147; Drewnowska-Rymarz 2008, 153. According to KAR 142, IV 4–8 BAL.TÉŠ.A belongs to a group of six “palace ladies” (Weidner 1957–1971, 81). 1042 See Frankena 1957–1971, 696. 1043 This fragment has been joined with K. 3654 (BBR 83), K. 7969 (BBR 89) and Sm. 1319. Fragments Sm. 802 and Sm. 1319 are unpublished and they are cited here according to the Geers’ copy (Sm. 802 = Geers J 91). This passage can also be found in Bezold’s Catalogue (Bezold 1896, 1438), and it has been quoted also in Starr 1983, 51– 52 note 81; Steinkeller 2005, 32; and Maul 2013a, 44. 1044 The epithet bēlet bīri for Išḫara is also attested e.g. in the god-list An = Anum I, 201 (Litke 1998, 44 and Prechel 1996, 170–171). 1045 See the edition in Starr 1983, 30–60 and Wilcke 2007, 233–236 as well as the citation in Steinkeller 2005, 29–30. A translation can also be found in Foster 2005, 212–213. 1046 Goetze 1968, 25–29; cited in Steinkeller 2005, 29–30 (collations by W. Farber). mul

188

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Anu, in addition to Šamaš and Adad, the patron gods of extispicy – is asked to be present at the assembly in which the decision over the query is made. These deities hold power over the different areas of human destiny as well as the different cosmic realms, and therefore they are responsible for making the decision in the case brought before them.1047 In the case of the moon god, a slightly different epithet is used in both of the Old Babylonian texts: instead of bēl agê, “lord of the crown”, Sîn is called šar agêm, “king of the crown”.1048 The use of this epithet, which is frequently applied to the moon god in Mesopotamian royal inscriptions, suggests that the moon god represents kingship within this divine assembly.1049 An affiliation with kingship can also be found in the motif employed in the ikrib-prayers to Sîn: at the time of the moonrise the kings gather to show their respect and to bring their offerings to the moon god.1050 The fact that the known descriptions of the extispicy ritual derive from the context of the royal court in Nineveh and portray a ritual customised for the purposes of the king is probably reflected in the affiliation of the moon god with kingship here.1051 Whether or not the moon god was always present and invoked during the extispicy ritual remains unclear, although the fact that moonless nights were inauspicious for extispicy would suggest that prayers to Sîn were an integral part of the ritual at least in the royal court. Whether or not Sîn was also part of the divine assembly in the cases brought forth by ordinary people is unknown. The attestations in the Old and Middle Babylonian extispicy reports, which recorded offerings to different astral deities, indicate that the modifications in the procedure were perhaps caused by the particular conditions of each case, or simply by the visibility of particular celestial objects.1052 If we assume that this was also the case in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, the presence of the moon 1047

See Maul 2013a, 44: “Der große Weltenrichter Schamasch, der Wettergott Adad, der Mond, der über das Königtum entscheidet, der Unterweltsgott Nergal, die Kriegs- und Liebesgöttin Ischtar, Ischara als Orakelgottheit und die göttliche Schreiberin der Unterwelt verkörpern gemeinsam die Kräfte, die das Schicksal dem Menschen gewogen oder feindlich machen können. Das Wohlwollen dieser sieben Götter galt es zu erlangen.” 1048 YOS 11 no. 23, 13: er-ba-am ⌈dEN⌉.ZU šar-ri a-ge-em, “Enter here, Sîn, king of the crown!”; YOS 11 no. 22, 60: An-nu-um a-bi ša-me-e dEN.ZU šar-ri a-ge-em, “Anum, father of the heaven, Sîn, king of the crown”. This epithet is also found in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions instead of bēl agê (see p. 199 below). 1049 As noted in Maul 2013a, 44 (see the quotation above). For the epithet bēl agê see p. 60ff. above. For the moon god’s relationship to kingship see p. 196ff. below. 1050 K. 2751+//, 32’–33’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 1051 The royal context for the ritual texts of bārû is noted in Maul 2013a, 36. 1052 Fincke 2009, 551. Steinkeller 2005, 42 considers the possibility that an individual had his own “guiding” or “lucky” star which would have been selected to participate in a particular extispicy case similar to a personal god. The possibility of choosing a particular celestial deity to take part in the extispicy ritual on the basis of his or her visibility in the sky is considered possible in Maul 2013a, 42.

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

189

god in the divine council could have been affected by the same considerations. The remains of the rubrics in the collection of ikrib-prayers to Sîn point toward an existing set of prayers which included prayers that could be recited on any given night, but also prayers that were performed during specific lunar phases.1053 The preserved rubrics speak of “regular ikrib-prayers to Sîn” and presumably also of “ikrib-prayers to Sîn of the 15th day”.1054 This differentiation also finds a correlation in the prayers’ subject matter: the “regular” ikrib-prayer to Sîn underlines his power over divine decision-making and kingship, whereas the prayer for the 15th day is more concerned with matters of procreation and fertility. Whether or not this variation reflected the conditions of a specific case presented to Sîn cannot be determined on the basis of the present material. Despite the thematic variation in the content of the ikrib-prayers to Sîn, the central motif is his power over divine decision-making: he is the god whose command cannot be changed or transgressed.1055 As a participant in the divine assembly, Sîn is expected to pronounce the verdict in the case that is brought before him. The epithets used to praise Sîn in this context pertain to his role in divine decision-making and to his image as a protector and giver of kingship, but they also underline his genealogical relationship to Enlil. The motif of the beloved and true heir of Enlil is particularly emphasised in the ikrib-prayer that has the rubric “constant ikrib-prayers to Sîn”.1056 The pronounced father-son relationship between Enlil and Sîn in this context is not only a mythological reference: it must be seen as a reference to the power of both these deities over divine decisions and kingship.1057 The aspect of power over divine decisions is reflected also in the ikrib-prayer that was presumably performed on the 15th day of the month, but in this case the moon god is not associated with Enlil, but with the sky god Anu.1058 These themes underline Sîn’s abilities in relation to determining divine decisions and to kingship, thus equating his role in the context of extispicy to his role in celestial divination.

II.6.4. Sîn and Dreams In addition to his nature as a celestial sign-giver and his presence in the divine council that pronounced verdicts in extispicies, Sîn also played a role in the context of dreams. Dreams, as messages from the divine realm either as signs or revelations, comprised a very significant branch of divination in Mesopot1053

K. 2751+// (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). K. 2751+//, 56’ and 78’. 1055 K. 2751+//, 7’; 30’ and 58’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below and the discussion on p. 150ff. above). 1056 K. 2751+//, 23’–56’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 1057 This connotation in the epithets that describe Sîn as Enlil’s son or heir is discussed on p. 291ff. below. 1058 For the equation of Sîn with the god Anu see p. 136ff. above. 1054

190

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

amia.1059 One of the moon god’s characteristics that most likely played a part in his role in this context is his status as the ruler of the night: as the foremost deity present during the night, Sîn is a logical choice to petition in matters concerning sleep and dreams. The fundamental nature of the moon god as a god of light appears to have also been important in this respect, since gods who provide light in the darkness – Gibil, Nusku, Šamaš, and Sîn – are all attested in Mesopotamian dream rituals.1060 The full extent of the moon god’s role in this sphere of divination is not known to us, but we do have some attestations of him as the deity who is approached in dream rituals.1061 Such a ritual (SDR) is known from manuscripts from Sippar, which name Šamaš-šumu-ukīn as the person for whom the ritual was carried out.1062 This ritual involved the recitation of the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 1”, which praises the moon god as a celestial luminary as well as highlights his abilities in divine decision-making. A notable theme of the prayer is the reconciliation between the petitioner and his personal deities, who had become angry with him, causing inauspicious signs to appear.1063 This is clear in the petition to the moon god to grant the petitioner an ominous utterance (egirrû)1064 of goodness and righteousness (dumqi u mīšari), and in the wish that the personal god and goddess of the petitioner may make peace with him after being angry for an extended period of time.1065 Letter SAA 10 no. 298, which was sent to the king by the exorcist Nabû-nāṣir, includes instructions for a ritual that is similar

1059

For dreams and dream rituals in Mesopotamia see especially the studies by A. L. Oppenheim (1956), S. A. L. Butler (1998), and A. Zgoll (2006). See also the overviews of oneiromancy in Maul 2003b, 68–69; Zgoll 2014, 114–118; and Koch 2015, 296–311. 1060 The character of the deities addressed in dream rituals as gods of light (Gibil, Nusku, Šamaš, and Sîn) or gods of magic (Ea and Marduk) is noted in Butler 1998, 135. 1061 The connection of the moon god to dreams was discussed in Tallqvist 1938b, 96 and Tallqvist 1947, 205–206. 1062 Edited as Shamash-shum-ukin Dream Ritual (SDR) in Butler 1998, 379–398. 1063 “Sîn 1”, 19–25 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). The same theme is central in the rituals against unpropitious lunar omens (see the discussion on p. 163ff. above). The role of “Sîn 1” in rituals performed in the event of a lunar eclipse is noted by S. Butler, who maintains that “SDR reveals the uneasy transfer of this incantation from rituals against a lunar eclipse into a dream rite” (Butler 1998, 139). However, the shared themes of divine anger and the message of reconciliation that dreams could provide demonstrate that the presence of the same prayer in these two different contexts was not problematic with regard to the content. 1064 For the correspondence of the term INIM.GAR/egirrû with the Greek kledon, a chance oracular utterance, see Oppenheim 1954–1956, 49–55. 1065 These aspects are also important in the other contexts in which the prayer “Sîn 1” is attested, namely the purification ritual bīt rimki, which was performed in the event of lunar eclipses, and the warding off of unpropitious lunar signs by a namburbi-ritual (see the discussion on p. 167ff. above).

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

191

to the ritual performed for Šamaš-šumu-ukīn.1066 The purpose of the ritual, which took place before the moon on the 16th day of Elūlu, is not specified in the letter, but based on its similarities to SDR, it can be assumed that the intention was likewise to obtain a pleasant dream or a good oracular utterance (egirrû) as a sign of divine benevolence towards the petitioner.1067 Another Neo-Assyrian letter informs us of the importance of lunar phases in the execution of dream rituals. In SAA 10 no. 59 the king is informed by the ummânu Balasî that the 13th day of an unnamed month was propitious for performing dream rituals.1068 On this day of the gibbous moon Sîn wears the “crown of splendour”.1069 Balasî’s instruction does not say if the ritual should be performed in the presence of the moon or whether the moon god would be involved in any way, but he specified that the ritual should take place in the morning.1070 An important feature of the ritual, which Balasî mentioned in his advice, was its association with the opposition of the moon and sun on the 14th day. Unfortunately, damage to the relevant lines prevents us from grasping the full meaning of Balasî’s comment. In spite of this, it appears that the connection between a dream ritual performed on the morning of the 13th day and the propitious opposition of the moon and sun on the 14th day assures the king a good ominous utterance (egirrû).1071 The affinity of the ritual to the middle point of the lunar cycle – a point of time when divine decisions were made by Sîn and Šamaš – must have had importance in respect to propitious signs. The god Zaqīqu,1072 who belonged to the circle of deities around Utu/Šamaš, according to the god-list An = Anum, is identified as a mediator between Sîn and humankind in textual records from both the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods.1073 Zaqīqu is mentioned in the petition to the moon god in the šu’ilaprayer “Sîn 1”, which shows that he was connected to Sîn. Since “Sîn 1” is also

1066

See the commentary on this letter in Parpola 1983, 213–214 (LAS 219). It is noted in Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 118 – with reference to the SDR ritual and the prayer “Sîn 1”– that these dream rituals functioned to ward off bad dreams. This is, however, only a part of their overall purpose, which according to the prayer “Sîn 1” was the reconciliation of the petitioner with his personal deities. 1068 See Parpola 1983, 56–57 (LAS 50) and Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 117. 1069 See the discussion on p. 60ff. above. 1070 The overview of the timing of dream rituals in Butler 1998, 123–124 shows clearly that rituals for undoing evil portents received in dreams were performed early in the morning, immediately after waking up. 1071 The role of the opposition of the moon and the sun in this respect is noted in Parpola 1983, 57 and Koch 2015, 310. For a discussion of the importance of the opposition of the moon and the sun on the 14th day see p. 217ff. below. 1072 For an overview of this deity see Butler 1998, 83–85. Zaqīqu can be found in An = Anum III, 189 (Litke 1998, 137). 1073 See Oppenheim 1956, 233; Butler 1998, 84; and Zgoll 2014, 116. 1067

192

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

attested in contexts other than dream rituals and appears to have always included the line that speaks of Zaqīqu, one can conclude that the connection between this deity and the moon god existed in a broader sense. As Sally Butler has already noted, the way that Zaqīqu is included in the fixed wording of “Sîn 1” suggests that the reconciliation between the petitioner and his personal gods was thought to be indicated by a dream.1074 “Sîn 1”, 21–241075 My god and my goddess, who have been angry with me since numerous days, may they make peace with me in justice and equity! May my path be good, may my road be straight! I have ordered Zaqīqu, the god (var.: gods) of dreams so that he may absolve my sins (for me) during the night! May I learn of my misdeed, may I be cleansed! A more concrete connection between Zaqīqu and Sîn is found in the wording of the dream ritual attested in two manuscripts of the prayer “Sîn 1”: the god Zaqīqu is called našparti Nannāri, a proxy or medium of Nannāru.1076 When the wording of the preceding prayer is taken into consideration, it appears that the dream god Zaqīqu is being sent by the petitioner to the moon god to receive a message.1077 This implies that he is not under Sîn’s command, which further explains why he can be associated with other deities as well.1078 Oneiromancy is first mentioned in the Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions during the reign of Esarhaddon, who refers to dreams in connection with other forms of divination. Despite this, his inscriptions do not contain any sequences that specified the content of divine messages received in dreams.1079 Divine messages received through dreams first take on a significant role in the inscriptions of the kings Assurbanipal and Nabonidus.1080 Among the gods that sent their messages to these Assyrian and Babylonian kings via dreams was the moon god Sîn. In the context of the civil war between Assurbanipal and his brother Šamaš-

1074

Butler 1998, 208. See the edition on p. 452ff. below. 1076 BM 78432, r. 8 and Si. 18, r. 10: Zaqīqu našparti Nannāri (see line 32 in Butler 1998, 390). It is noted in Parpola 1983, 57 that the dream god Zaqīqu as the messenger of Sîn was thought to be particularly active during the full moon, but to my knowledge there is no evidence for such a notion. 1077 See the commentary to these lines on p. 460 below. 1078 In a šu’ila-prayer to Nusku (KAR 58, r. 9–10) Zaqīqu is identified as messenger (mār šipri) of Marduk (see Butler 1998, 84). 1079 See Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 113. 1080 The dream sequences in the inscription of Assurbanipal are discussed in depth in Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 120–127 and Zgoll 2006, 189–215. For the dreams of Nabonidus see Zgoll 2006, 217–231. 1075

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

193

šumu-ukīn, a communication from the gods was said to have been seen by a young man in a dream, written on the “pedestal of Sîn” (kigallu ša Sîn).1081 In variants of this passage, this written message is read out loud by Nabû, the divine scribe, in order to convey the will of the moon god to the dreamer. Assurbanipal Prism A, III 118–1271082 III 118 ina u4-me-šu-ma 1-en lúGURUŠ III 119 ina šat mu-ši ú-tul-ma III 120 i-na-aṭ-ṭa-al MÁŠ.GI6 III 121 um-ma ina UGU ki-gal-li šá d30 šá-ṭir-ma (var.: um-ma dAG ṭup-šar gim-ri [š]i-pir DINGIR-ti-šú ú-šu-uz-ma iš-ta-na-as-sa-a mal-ṭa-tu ki-galli d30)

III 122 ma-a šá it-ti IAN.ŠÁR–DÙ–A LUGAL KUR AN.ŠÁRki III 123 ik-pu-du munusḪUL-tu ip-pu-šú ṣe-lu-ú-tú III 124 mu-u-tu lem-nu a-šar-rak-šu-nu-ti III 125 ina GÍR.AN.BAR ḫa-an-ṭi mi-qit dGíra SU.GU7 III 126 TAG-it dÈr-ra ú-qát-ta-a nap-šat-su-un III 127 an-na-a-te áš-me-e-ma at-kil a-na a-mat d30 (var.: d+AG) EN-ia At that time, a young man was sleeping during the night and saw a dream. It was written on the pedestal of Sîn (var.: Nabû, the scribe of the universe, performed his divine skill and read the inscription on the pedestal of Sîn, saying): “Who(ever) has evil schemes against Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, and starts a fight, I will bestow on them a dire death, I will cut off their life with a quick sword, a burst of flames, hunger, (and) an outbreak of disease!” I heard these (words) and put my trust in the words of Sîn (var.: Nabû), my lord. Here, the mode of communication between Sîn and the dreamer differs from the theophany that is attested in connection with Ištar: the moon god does not himself appear in the dream, but rather gives his message through written words, which according to variants of the text are read out loud by Nabû.1083 Bearing in mind that in Assurbanipal’s inscriptions Sîn has a prominent role in regard to kingship, Sîn’s divine support for Assurbanipal in this dream sequence can be

1081

The noun kigallu refers to the pedestals on which cultic statues were standing (see CAD K, 348–349). 1082 See Borger 1996, 40–41 and 233; now also RINAP 5/I no. 11. 1083 For the comparison between theophany and written messages in the dreams of Assurbanipal see Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 120–127. A. Zgoll has suggested that the divine actors in this dream, Sîn and Nabû, were chosen to represent the Babylonian cities Ur and Borsippa, and thus to serve as a reminder to the rebellious Babylonian not to side with the treacherous brother of Assurbanipal in the conflict (Zgoll 2006, 214). It should also be noted that later in Assurbanipal Prism A the punishments conveyed in the dream are, in fact, said to have come true (Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 123).

194

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

seen as further evidence for the moon god’s power to legitimise kingship.1084 The will of the moon god as revealed in dreams is also an important motif in the inscriptions of Nabonidus.1085 It is in a dream that Sîn and Marduk appear to Nabonidus together and command him to rebuild the moon god’s temple in Ḫarrān so that Sîn could return there after years of absence.1086 On the other hand, in the Ḫarrān Stele the moon god alone appears to Nabonidus in a dream and promises that if he builds the temple Eḫulḫul quickly, he will control all the lands.1087 Perhaps it was in this same dream that Sîn requested the fashioning of a divine statue, to which a sword donated to the moon god by Nabonidus belonged.1088 The rebuilding of Eḫulḫul as a topic of divine communication can also be found in the dream of Nabonidus’ mother Adda-guppi, in which Sîn informs her that her son Nabonidus will build this temple and bring its gods back to their house in Ḫarrān.1089 In the aforementioned cases, the form of the moon god’s manifestation is not specified, but there are instances among Nabonidus’s dreams in which the moon god appears in an explicitly celestial form. This is clear in the passage in the Babylon Stele, which concerns the status of Nabonidus as the legitimate successor of Nebuchadnezzar II and contains a report about a dream within a dream.1090 Nabonidus dreams that Nebuchadnezzar stands in a chariot with his attendant, and demands that Nabonidus inform him about the dream that he had had. Nabonidus proceeds to describe his dream to the king. In it he had seen the “Great Star”, Sîn, and Marduk, high in the firmament, along with the propitious signs that he had sought in this celestial constellation.1091 This sequence is a remarkable combination of celestial portents and dream, allowing divine messages to be conveyed in dreams not only through written and spoken word, but also via celestial omens.1092 Still, the explicitly celestial aspect of the moon god is not

1084

For the moon god’s role in connection with kingship see p. 196ff. below (especially 206ff.). 1085 For overviews of the dream sequences in Nabonidus’ dreams see Oppenheim 1956, 202–205 and Zgoll 2006, 217–231. See also the discussion in Berger 1993, 275–289. 1086 Eḫulḫul Cylinder = Schaudig 2001, 2.12, I 15–20 (see also the citation of this passage on p. 408 below). See also the discussion concerning this passage in Oppenheim 1956, 202–203 and Beaulieu 1989, 108–109. Note that the gods Šamaš and Anunītu, children of Sîn, also order the rebuilding of their temples in a dream (see Oppenheim 1956, 203 as well as Schaudig 2001, 2.12 (Ex. 2), I 67’–69’ and III 36–37). 1087 Schaudig 2001, 3.1, I 10–14 (see also the citation on p. 215 below). 1088 See the discussion on p. 25 above. 1089 Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 5–9. 1090 Schaudig 2001, 3.3a, VI 1’–36’. 1091 See Oppenheim 1956, 203–205 and Beaulieu 1989, 110–113. 1092 A. L. Oppenheim notes that “it is somewhat startling that astronomical phenomena seen in dreams are given as much meaning as those which actually occur in the sky”

II.6. Sîn and Divine Decisions

195

surprising, since all the deities that convey messages to Nabonidus in his dreams are, in fact, celestial deities.1093 The moon as a celestial body seen in a dream can also be found in the report that a person called Šumu-ukīn sent to Nabonidus: he recounts that he had seen a meteor, Venus, Sirius, the moon, and the sun in his dream and prayed to them for the well-being of the king and prince Belšazzar.1094 The importance of dreams in the official texts of Nabonidus is possibly reflected in the propaganda text Verse Account, composed after his reign.1095 Here Nabonidus is depicted as a king who boasts of his wisdom despite his inability to read. According to the text this wisdom had been shown to him by the Syrian moon god Il-Śer. Schaudig 2001, P1, V 8’–13’ V 8’ GUB-zu ina UNKIN ú-šar-ra-ḫu r[a-man-šú] V 9’ en-qé-ek mu-da-a-ka a-ta-mar k[a-ti-im-tú] V 10’ mi-ḫi-iṣ GI.DUB-pu ul i-de a-ta-mar n[i-ṣir-tú] V 11’ ú-šab-ra-an dIl-te-ri kul-lat ú-ta-[ad-da-a] V 12’ U4.SAKAR dA-num d+EN.LÍL.LÁ ik-ṣu-ru A-da-p[à] V 13’ UGU-šú šu-tu-qa-ak kal né-me-q[u] He stood in the assembly and glorified h[imself]: “I am wise (and) knowledgeable, I have seen h[idden things]. The cuneiform writing I do not know, (but) I have seen s[ecret things], Il-Śer has revealed (them) to me, he has sh[owed me] everything! I am above the (series) Uskār-Anu-Enlil, which was compiled by Adapa, in all the wisdom! Although the text does not express it explicitly, it is possible that the divine revelation that had granted the king his wisdom had occurred in a dream.1096 Due to the close relationship of dreams and astrological omens in connection with Nabonidus, noted above, a possible reason for the reference to precisely astrological omens in this passage – expressed by the name “crescent of Anu and Enlil” instead of Enūma Anu Enlil, used perhaps to underline Nabonidus’ supposed ignorance1097 – is the weight that Nabonidus’ inscriptions put on his own accounts of receiving messages from celestial bodies via his dreams. It can be concluded that the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources por(Oppenheim 1956, 205). See also the discussion in Berger 1993, 275–289. 1093 The astral character of the deities in Nabonidus’ dreams is noted in Zgoll 2006, 228. 1094 YOS 1 no. 39 (see Weidner 1921–1923, 297–299; Oppenheim 1956, 205; and Beaulieu 1989, 192). 1095 See the discussion concerning this passage in Beaulieu 1989, 217–218; Machinist & Tadmor 1993, 146–151; and Zgoll 2006, 219. 1096 Zgoll 2006, 219. The verbal form that is used for divine revelation (ušabrân) is typically used for dreams (see e.g. Eḫulḫul Cylinder, I 15 on p. 215 below). 1097 See Machinist & Tadmor 1993, 146–151.

196

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

tray Sîn as a god who, together with the other great gods, holds power over the divine decisions concerning the heavens and the earth. The decisions made by the gods were made manifest in various forms of omens. The sources describe Sîn as a deity active in three different spheres of divination: lunar astrology, extispicy, and dreams. The connecting factor in all of these branches of divination is Sîn’s role as a divine decision-maker, which is reflected in the epithets that describe his abilities and activities. A further point of connection is the concept of kingship. Unlike many other forms of divination, lunar astrological omens are associated with the security of the king and his land, thus making the king dependent on the benevolence of the moon god. This conceptual connection also manifests in the praise of the moon god in the ikrib-prayers addressed to him during the extispicy ritual, and in the dreams of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus, in which Sîn is portrayed as the protector and establisher of kingship.

II.7. Sîn and Kingship The notion of kingship is central to the theological framework surrounding the moon god in Mesopotamia.1098 As the discussion in the previous section shows, the area of Sîn’s “expertise”, in the context of divination, lay in the sphere of royal power. Moreover, the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources describe him as a deity who is able to endow kingship, to protect the king, and to secure his reign. Sîn’s abilities are often described as working in co-operation with those of his son, the sun god Šamaš. In this way, the importance of these two luminaries and forces that keep the cosmic order in rhythm is applied to the context of royal power. At times, Sîn himself was also portrayed as the king of the gods – a phenomenon that related to his role as the tutelary deity of Ur and Ḫarrān, his two main cult cities. II.7.1. Sîn as King According to the Sumero-Babylonian tradition, the moon god Nanna/Sîn was the son of the divine king Enlil, and for this reason he was commonly known as mār rubê, “son of the prince”.1099 Although lugal, “king”, was a common epithet for the moon god in Sumerian contexts,1100 implying his position as the tutelary deity of Ur, descriptions of the moon god as king are not very common in NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources.1101 The main body of the descriptions of Sîn as a king, a lord, or a prince can be compared to the descriptions of the

1098

It should be noted that L. Verderame’s contribution to the concepts of royal power in connection with the moon and time-reckoning (Verderame 2017) became available to me only after the present chapters were written. 1099 For the genealogical relationship between Sîn and Enlil see p. 291ff. below. 1100 See the overview in Hall 1985, 672–675. 1101 An overview of the Akkadian epithets connected to the moon god’s role as a ruler or a king is found in Tallqvist 1938a, 448.

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

197

moon god as the king in earlier Sumerian sources: through this epithet he was presented as the most important god in his cult city. In the god-list An = Anum, two of the names for Sîn are dLugal, “King”, and d Umun, “Lord”.1102 These two names immediately follow the appellations dDumu-nun-na and dDumu-gi7, which describe Sîn as the son of Enlil, the king the of gods. Therefore, it is possible that the names dLugal and dUmun are associated with Sîn’s status as the eldest son of Enlil. Indeed, in an Old Babylonian eršema to Suen, the moon god is said to have received his royal sceptre from his father Enlil.1103 Elsewhere in An = Anum, in Enki/Ea’s household, Sîn is presented under the name dLugal-ki-sur-ra, “King of the Boundary”.1104 An additional name for the moon god that is built around the notion of him as a king – dLugalkalam-ma-ù-tu-ud, “King, Genitor of the Land” – is found in K. 2124, which deviates from the other manuscripts of An = Anum.1105 This name is plausibly linked to the role of the moon god as the tutelary deity of Ur, since the same notion of the moon god as the genitor of the land can be found in a bilingual šu’ilaprayer to him.1106 Furthermore, this prayer contains a concentration of epithets that praise the moon god as a king and a lord – a sign of his role as the leading deity of his home city. This is already expressed in the opening line of the prayer, which praises the moon god as the “ruler of the gods, who alone is sublime in the heaven and the earth”.1107 This theme is further developed in the following lines that focus on the moon god’s sublime position as the ruler of the gods and his royal power. 4 R2 9+//, 5–91108 5 a-a dNanna umun Úriki-ma nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne a-bu dNa-an-nar be-el Ú-ri e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ 6 a-a dNanna umun É-ĝiš-nu11-gal nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne

1102

An = Anum III, 17–18 (see Litke 1998, 118 and Feliu 2006, 235–236). In respect to the name dLugal, note how the the elements dLugal and d30 are equated in the list of Sumerian personal names with their Akkadian translations (5 R 44, II 25: I.dLugal-nesaĝibila | I.d30–a-[šá-red–ap-li]; see Lambert 1957, 12). 1103 BM 13930 (CT 15, pl. 17)//, 18: dMu-ul-líl-le mu-ud-ru u4-sùd-du šu-za ma-ra-ni-indu7, “Mullil has given in your hand the sceptre of the distant days” (Sjöberg 1960, 44– 46). See also Tallqvist 1938b, 97. 1104 See the discussion on p. 249ff. below. 1105 K. 2124 (CT 25, pl. 32), 12’: dLugal-kalam-ma-ù-tu-ud | d30 (cited in Feliu 2006, 236 note 43). For further discussion see p. 231ff. below. 1106 4 R2 9+//, 15–16 (see the citation on p. 232 below). 1107 4 R2 9+//, 1: ù-mu-un nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne an-ki-a dili-ni maḫ-àm / be-lum e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ šá ina AN-e u KI-tim e-diš-ši-šú ṣi-i-ru (see Shibata, HES [forthcoming] and Sjöberg 1960, 166). 1108 Cited according to Shibata, HES (forthcoming). See also Sjöberg 1960, 166 and 169.

198

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

a-bu dNa-an-nar be-el É.MIN e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ 7 a-a dNanna ⌈umun⌉ men dallax-na nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne a-bu dNa-an-nar be-lum a-ge-e šu-pu-ú e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ 8 a-a dNanna na-áĝ-men gal-le-eš šu-du7-a nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne a-bu dNa-an-nar šá šar-ru-tam ra-biš šuk-lu-lu4 e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ 9 ⌈a⌉-⌈a⌉ dNanna túg-túg na-áĝ-egi-na sù-sù nir-ĝál dìm-me-er-e-ne a-bu dNa-an-nar šá ina ti-di-⌈iq⌉ ⌈ru⌉-bu-tú i-šad-di-ḫu e-tel-li DINGIR.MEŠ Father Nanna, lord of Ur, ruler of the gods, father Nanna, lord of Eĝišnugal, ruler of the gods, father Nanna, lord of the splendid crown, ruler of the gods, father Nanna, (Sum.) who superbly perfects the “crown-ship”/(Akk.) who is superbly perfected in kingship, ruler of the gods, father Nanna, who marches along in his garment of princedom, ruler of gods Despite this, Sîn is rarely depicted as a king in the context of Akkadian prayers. In the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 3” he is praised as “king of the world, father of the gods, lord of mankind” (šar kibrāti abi ilānī bēl amelūti).1109 Another example can be found in the context of the ikrib-prayers to him. Here the moon god, who travels across the world, is said to hold power over the lands as the king of the universe – reasonably a reflection of the moon god’s grasp of all the celestial regions during the lunar cycle.1110 Although the lines that follow this praise are only partially preserved, it is clear that they are strongly associated with the notion of kingship: the royal crown (agû) and the throne (kussû) are mentioned. This refers, without doubt, to the moon god as a god who endows royal insignia to the king.1111 The seat of the moon god’s own rule (Sum. ki-tuš nam-en-na; Akk. šubat bēlūtīšu) – where he no longer resides due to the demonic attack against him – is referred to in the lunar eclipse myth of Udug-ḫul, suggesting that this seat is found in the night sky.1112 A prayer that involves benedictions for an unidentified recipient contains a further attestation of Sîn explicitly called by the title šarru, “king”. Here the moon god is the first of a group of four deities to be mentioned, the others being Ninurta, Marduk, and Baba.

1109

“Sîn 3”, 3 (see the edition on p. 464ff. below). K. 2751+//, 25’–27’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 1111 See the discussion on p. 206ff. below. 1112 Udug-ḫul 16, 40 (Geller 2007, 179 and 252; Geller 2016, 510). 1110

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

199

K. 2279+Sm. 675+Sm. 2152, r. 12–151113 d r. 12 30 LUGAL lu-u [na]-ṣir-ka r. 13 mu-šal-lim-ka lu-u [d]MAŠ qar-ra-du r. 14 mu-kil na-piš-ti-ka lu-u dAMAR.UTU r. 15 mu-dan-nin piṭ-ri-ka1114 lu-u dBa-ba6 May Sîn, the king, be your [pro]tector! May your safeguard be Ninurta, the hero! May the one who preserves your life be Marduk! May the one who makes your gut strong be Baba! Each of the four named deities play a role here that is connected to their natures: Baba, as a healing goddess, is responsible for the health of the person; the role of Marduk is to protect the life of the person; and the divine hero Ninurta is beseeched to safeguard the person. The role of the moon god Sîn is not as clearly presented, since he, in general, is not a deity who is concerned with the well-being of humans. In fact, the moon god is presented as a protector only in connection with kingship,1115 which leads us to the assumption that the recipient of these benedictions may have been the Assyrian or Babylonian king himself.1116 The most common epithet describing Sîn as a king is šar agê, “king of the crown”, which is the equivalent of the epithet bēl agê, “lord of the crown”, in some of the Assyrian royal inscriptions.1117 The origin of this epithet remains unclear, but it dates back to at least the Old Babylonian period, as is clear from its

1113

This tablet K. 2279+ has been copied and edited in Sidersky 1920, 565–572. The lines that are discussed here were cited in Livingstone 1999, 376–377, where a new edition of K. 2279+ and its duplicate TIM 9 no. 55 was also announced. A photograph of K. 2279+ is available online (CDLI P394316). 1114 In the earlier edition, this line was read as mu-dan-nin bit ḫup-ka lu-u ilatBa-ú, “May the supporter of the bridal tent be Bau” (Sidersky 1920, 569 and 572). The citation in Livingstone 1999, 376 only gives the translation “May the one who strengthens your father’s house be Baba”. As seen in the photograph of the tablet (CDLI P394316; drawing below) the sign following É is slightly eroded, but it is clearly RI, not ḪUB. Since the text is written syllabically, a syllabic reading for the both signs (É and RI) is called for. Therefore, I suggest that this line refers to the physical and mental well-being of a person, which when disrupted causes the person to have a “shaky belly”. This is how the noun piṭru together with the verb nâšu, “to shake”, is used in medical contexts (see the attestations in CAD P, 450) and also in Ludlul bēl nēmeqi II, 67 (for the latest edition see Oshima 2014, 90–91 and 257). 1115 Cf. the epithet nāṣir agê bēlūtīya in RINAP 3 no. 17, VII 91 (see p. 206ff. below). 1116 This was the original suggestion concerning the identity of the recipient in Sidersky 1920, 565–572. In Livingstone 1999, 376–377 the suggestion is a wealthy agriculturalist. 1117 The epithet bēl agê is discussed on p. 63ff. above.

200

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

syllabic attestations in Old Babylonian extispicy prayers.1118 It is worth noting that the use of šar agê as an epithet for Sîn is almost only attested prior to the rule of the Sargonid dynasty. The epithet bēl agê as a designation for Sîn is used in the inscriptions of Sargon II,1119 Sennacherib,1120 Esarhaddon,1121 and Assurbanipal.1122 It is well-attested also in the inscriptions of the Babylonian king Nabonidus.1123 The king Šalmaneser III,1124 and perhaps also Tukultī-Ninurta II who preceded him,1125 chose, however, to use the epithet šar agê instead. In the case of Assurnaṣirpal II, both epithets are attested.1126 Curiously, after a long gap in time, Sîn-šarru-iškun reintroduces the epithet šar agê in his cylinder inscription.1127 In comparison to the attestations in the inscriptions of earlier kings, this attestation in the cylinder of Sîn-šarru-iškun leaves no doubt about its intended connotation: here the moon god is firmly described as a god, who has the power to endow kingship.1128 Like bēl agê, “lord of the crown”, the epithet šar agê, “king of the crown”, presents the moon god as the divine force holding control over the lunar disc, and by extension as a deity able to endow royal insignia, most notably the crown and the sceptre.1129 The most visible instances in which Sîn is described as a king are found among the Ḫarrān inscriptions of Nabonidus. This clear tendency to let the moon god assume the role of king in the Babylonian pantheon has been interpreted as a clear sign of the special veneration that Nabonidus showed towards the moon god of Ḫarrān, to the detriment of the main Babylonian god Marduk.1130 The moon god was portrayed as šar ilānī, “king of the gods”, especially in the inscriptions of Nabonidus, who applied this epithet to Sîn twenty-two

1118

YOS 11 no. 23, 13; YOS 11 no. 22, 60 (see p. 188 above). TCL 3, 318: EN a-ge-e. 1120 RINAP 3 no. 1023, 8: d30 DINGIR KÙ EN AGA. 1121 RINAP 4 no. 1, II 32: d30 EN AGA. 1122 Assurbanipal Prism A, I 3: d30 EN AGA (Borger 1996, 14 and 208; RINAP 5/I no. 11); K. 8759+, 4: EN A[GA] (see the transliteration on p. 142 above). 1123 Schaudig 2001, 2.1, I 8: dNannari be-lu a-gi-i; Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 6: dNannari EN a-gi-i; Schaudig 2001, 2.7, II 29: EN a-gi-i; Schaudig 2001, 3.3a, X 25’: d30 EN a-gi-i. 1124 RIMA 3, A.0.102.6, 4: d30 MAN a-ge-e; A.0.102.10, 7: d30 MAN a-ge-e; A.0.102.14, 6: ⌈d⌉[Sîn eršu] LUGAL a-ge-e. 1125 The attestation in the inscription of Tukultī-Ninurta II for šar agê is not certain, since the passage is broken (RIMA 2, A.0.100.1, 5: [dSîn šar a-g]e-e). 1126 RIMA 2, A.0.101.20, 5: MAN ⌈a⌉-[ge-e]; A.0.101.17, I 4: EN a-ge-e. 1127 Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder C, 11: d30 LUGAL a-ge-e (Grayson 1972, 161). 1128 The passage exhibits the theme that is present also in Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder A (see the citation on p. 210 below). 1129 This intended meaning in using the epithet bēl agê for Sîn is noted in Reiner 1985, 21. See also the discussion on p. 206ff. below. 1130 See the discussion in Beaulieu 1989, 43–65. 1119

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

201

times in five different inscriptions.1131 Moreover, he also employed the epithets šar ilānī ša šamê u erṣeti, “king of the gods of the heaven and the earth”,1132 and šar šarrī, “king of the kings”.1133 In addition to these epithets depicting Sîn as the divine king, other epithets used by Nabonidus in these inscriptions portray him in the sublime position of bēlu, “lord”. Various epithets that contain bēlu as an element, most of them corresponding to the ones depicting him as a king,1134 are used by Nabonidus in the context of rebuilding the temple Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān or in connection with the moon god in Ur: bēlu rabû, “great lord”1135 bēlu šurbû, “supreme lord”1136 bēl bēlī, “lord of the lords”1137 bēl ilānī, “lord of the gods”1138 bēl ilānī ina šamāmī, “lord of the gods in heaven”1139 bēl ilānī u ištarāti ina šamāmī, “lord of the gods and goddesses in heaven”1140 bēl ilānī u ištarāti āšibūti ša šamê, “lord of the gods and goddesses who live in heaven”1141

1131

Attestations for the epithet šar ilānī (LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ) in the inscriptions of Nabonidus are found in the Elugalĝalgasisa Cylinder (Schaudig 2001, 2.2, I 29); the Sammelinschrift concerning the building of temples in Ḫarrān and Sippar (Schaudig 2001, 2.14, II 38 [Ex. 3]; III 27 and III 34 [Ex. 2]); Ḫarrān Stele (Schaudig 2001, 3.1, I 18 [Ex. 1]; I 29 [Ex. 2]; III 30 [Ex. 2]; III 39 [Ex. 2]); Adda-guppi Stele (Schaudig 2001, 3.2, I 12 [Ex. 1]; I 17 [Ex. 1]; I 39 [Ex. 1]; I 44 [Ex. 1]; II 5 [Ex. 1]; II 11–12 [Ex. 1]; II 21 [Ex. 1]; II 23 [Ex. 1]; II 28 [Ex. 1]; II 34 [Ex. 1]; III 45 [Ex. 1]); and Tariff Stele (Schaudig 2001, 3.4, 2–3; 14). In the form šarru ša ilānī (LUGAL šá DINGIR.MEŠ) this epithet appears in the aforementioned Sammelinschrift (Schaudig 2001, 2.14, I 42 [Ex. 2]) and in the stone bowl dedicated to Sîn of Ḫarrān (Schaudig 2001, 4.2, I 1). 1132 LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ šá AN-e ù KI-tì (see Schaudig 2001, 2.2, II 4; Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 26 [Ex. 1]; II 33 [Ex. 1]; and Schaudig 2001, 3.2, I 33 [Ex. 1]). 1133 LUGAL LUGAL.LUGAL (Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 20 [Ex. 1]). 1134 It should be noted that Sumerian lugal often corresponds with Akkadian bēlu in bilingual texts, indicating that these terms were understood similarly (see CAD B, 192). 1135 EN GAL-ú (Schaudig 2001, 2.5, II 8; 2.1, I 13 and I 19); EN ra-bu-ú (Schaudig 2001, 2.12, I 8). 1136 EN šu-ur-bu-ú (Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 22). 1137 EN EN.EN (Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 20 [Ex. 1]); EN EN (Schaudig 2001, 3.1, III 39 [Ex. 2]). 1138 be-lí DINGIR.MEŠ (Schaudig 2001, 2.2, II 3); [EN DINGIR.M]EŠ (Schaudig 2001, 3.5, I’ 5); EN DINGIR (Schaudig 2001, 4.1, 1). Also the form bēlu ša ilānī is attested (EN šá DINGIR.MEŠ [Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 14 (Ex. 1)]). 1139 EN DINGIR.MEŠ ina šá-ma-mu (Schaudig 2001, 2.14, III 73 [Ex. 2]). 1140 EN.DINGIR.MEŠ ù diš-tarv /i-nav šá-ma-mu (Schaudig 2001, 2.14, I 31’–32’ [Ex. 1]). 1141 EN DINGIR.MEŠ u d+INANNA a-ši-bu-tú ša / AN-e (Schaudig 2001, 3.1, I 5–6 [Ex. 1]).

202

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

bēl ilānī ša šamê u erṣeti, “lord of the gods of heaven and earth”1142 bēl ilānī u ištarāti āšibūti ša šamê u erṣeti, “lord of the gods and goddesses who live in heaven and earth”1143 Thus the moon god Sîn was characterised as the lord of gods both in heaven and on earth, although the celestial quality of his superiority received more attention. To these epithets we can add the ultimate praise from Nabonidus’ Elugalĝalgasisa Cylinder from Ur, which singles Sîn out as the most important deity (or a plural divine character) among all the other gods: “gods of gods” (ilānū ša ilānī).1144 The exaltation of the moon god through these epithets – together with an episode in the propaganda text Verse Account, in which Nabonidus claims that Marduks’s temple in Babylon (Esaĝil) in fact belonged to Sîn1145 – has been a significant factor in support of the hypothesis concerning Nabonidus’ religious reform, namely his replacement of Marduk with Sîn as the main god of the Babylonian pantheon.1146 Still, recent reassessment of the available sources has led a few scholars to question the supposed exaltation of the moon god.1147 Indeed, the fact that the epithets praising Sîn as the highest-ranking god are connected either with Ur or Ḫarrān does raise doubts about the scale of Nabonidus’ devotion to Sîn.1148 The view that underlines the local importance of deities and their depiction in dedicatory inscriptions connected to their temples is supported by the earlier Neo-Assyrian dedicatory inscriptions, written in connection to the

1142

EN DINGIR.MEŠ šá AN-e u KI-tì (Schaudig 2001, 2.2, I 28). EN DINGIR.MEŠ ù diš-tar / a-ši-bu-tú šá AN-e ù KI-tì (Schaudig 2001, 2.14, I 42’– 43’ [Ex. 2]). 1144 Schaudig 2001, 2.2, I 29; II 5: DINGIR.MEŠ šá DINGIR.MEŠ. See also Beaulieu 1989, 62. 1145 Schaudig 2001, P1, V 18’–27’. 1146 It is concluded both in Tadmor 1965, 351–363 and Beaulieu 1989, 43–65 that Nabonidus’ devotion towards the moon god increased during his reign and culminated after his return from Tayma. This evaluation is strongly based on the comparison of Sîn’s and Marduk’s epithets in Nabonidus’ inscriptions deriving from the different phases in his reign. The monotheistic tendencies of Nabonidus’ exaltation of the moon god in relation to the biblical monotheism have been brought forward in Albani 2000, 116–122. 1147 A. Kuhrt has pointed out that Sîn’s venerated status in Nabonidus’ inscriptions may have been a reflection of his important building project in Ḫarrān and that no deliberate religious reform can be postulated on the basis of how Sîn is portrayed in these texts (Kuhrt 1990, 139). The importance of the local pantheon in Babylonian inscriptions has been discussed in Da Riva 2010, 45–61: here Sîn’s status in Nabonidus’ inscriptions is compared to the portrayal of Šamaš in the context of Sippar and Larsa. Doubts about the validity of the claims for intra-Babylonian strife between Nabonidus and the Babylonian clergy are also expressed in Jursa 2007, 74–75. 1148 Due to his family background as the son of Adda-guppi, a devotee of the Ḫarranian moon god, Nabonidus most likely held Sîn in special regard. 1143

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

203

reconstruction of the temples in Ḫarrān. The fact that Sîn had already been called šar ilānī, “king of gods”, by Assurbanipal on the occasion of Emelamana’s renovation shows that the notion of the Ḫarranian moon god as the sublime head of the local pantheon already existed before the time of Nabonidus.1149 For Assurbanipal, like Nabonidus, Sîn is bēlu rabû, “great lord”,1150 and bēlu ašarēdu, “foremost lord”, in the context of Ḫarrān.1151 The moon god of Elumu1152 is also depicted by Assurbanipal with the exultant epithets bēlu rabû, “great lord”,1153 bēlu rēmēnû, “merciful lord”,1154 and etelli ilānī šaqû, “lofty ruler of the gods”.1155 Outside the explicitly local context only one other instance of the moon god being depicted as the leader of the pantheon is known, but also in this case a connection to Ḫarrān is expected: in a petition for help from the moon god against the rebellion instigated by Yau-bi’di of Hamath, Sargon II calls Sîn “king of the gods, lord of the lands”.1156 We can assume that the Ḫarranian moon god is meant here, since the rebellion occurs in the western provinces of Assyria, an area under the influence of Sîn of Ḫarrān. Moreover, this instance attests to the association of Sîn of Ḫarrān with Aššur: similar expressions to those used here to describe the moon god are used for Aššur elsewhere, indicating that Sîn of Ḫarrān was likened to Aššur in the western parts of the Assyrian empire.1157 Also comparable is the exaltation of the moon god in Ur as the “king of heaven and earth” (lugal an-ki-a) and “king of the Enlil(-god)s” (lugal dEnlile-ne) in the inscriptions of the governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi.1158 In addition to these epithets, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi describes the moon god of Ur as piriĝ diĝir-e-ne, “lion of the gods” in connection with the rebuilding of the ziqqurrat enclosure Ete-

1149

This epithet is attested with certainty in only one of the Ḫarrān inscriptions of Assurbanipal for Emelamana (K. 9143, 11’: [ú-ma-’i]-⌈i⌉-⌈ru⌉-šu LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ d D[ILI.ÍM.BABBAR]; see Novotny 2003, 245), but it can be restored to two more inscriptions due to the similarity of the expressions used (K. 2803+, 11 and K. 2813+, 11; see Novotny 2003, 237 and 239). 1150 EN GAL-u (Bu. 89-4-26, 209, r. 19); EN GAL-ú (K. 8759+, r. 4); EN GA[L-ú] (K. 8759+, r. 2); E[N GAL]-⌈ú⌉ (K. 8759+, r. 13); [EN GAL-u] (Sm. 671, 3’); see the editions in Novotny 2003, 224–250. 1151 EN a-šá-re-di (Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 5; see the citation on p. 301). 1152 See the discussion on p. 415ff. below. 1153 EN GAL-u (SAA 12 no. 90, 12 and r. 11). 1154 EN réme-nu-u (SAA 12 no. 90, 3). 1155 e-tel-⌈li⌉ DINGIR.MEŠ šá-qu-ú (SAA 12 no. 90, 20). 1156 d EN.ZU LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ be-el KUR.KUR (Frahm 2013a, 46 line 16). The epithet bēl mātāti is otherwise attested for Sîn in the context of extispicy prayers (K. 2751+/ /, 39’; see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 1157 As noted in Frahm 2013a, 49, cf. Aššur Charter, 21–23 (Saggs 1975, 14–15). For the juxtaposition of the Ḫarranian Sîn and the god Aššur see p. 395ff. below. 1158 See the discussion on p. 343ff. below.

204

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

menniguru.1159 This reference to the moon god as a lion is unique in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources, but there are parallels in earlier Sumerian sources, such as “lord, great lion of the heaven and earth” (en piriĝ gal an-ki),1160 and “great lion of the pure heaven” (piriĝ gal an kù-ga).1161 The lion was used as a metaphor for ferocity and power in Mesopotamia, especially in royal contexts: kings and potent deities were described as lions in Sumerian and Akkadian sources.1162 Therefore the reference to the moon god as “lion of the gods” in Ur can be interpreted both as a reference to the earlier tradition concerning the moon god in the city and as a statement that underlines his power in the context of his cult city, where he is seen as the king of the gods.1163 Outside of Sînbalāssu-iqbi’s inscriptions the elevation of Sîn to the position of the divine king in Ur is suggested by a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to Nanna/Sîn, in which he is praised as “king of kings”. 4 R2 9+//, 351164 ⌈idim⌉ ⌈bára⌉ ⌈íl⌉-⌈la⌉ me-bi mu-LU al nu-di nam-dì[m-me-er(-ra)]-⌈ni⌉ numu-un-da-ab-⌈sè-sè⌉-ga šar šar-ri šá-q[u-u(2) ša parṣīšu mamman lā ir-ri]-šú(?) DINGIR-ti-šú DINGIR la maš-lu (Sum.) the venerable one of the lofty dais, whose me-powers no one can demand, whose divi[ni]ty no one equals (Akk.) lof[ty] king of kings, [whose ordinances no one can deman]d, whose divinity no god equals Outside of the context of Sîn’s cult cities, an example of him in the role of the king is found in a Late Babylonian expository text from Kiš.1165 The purpose of

1159

RIMB, B.6.32.2002, 2. Ibbi-Suen A, 9–10 and 31 (Steible 1991, 286; see also Hall 1985, 142). 1161 TCL 15 no. 30, 5 (Sjöberg 1960, 70–71). For an overview of the Sumerian epithets depicting Nanna/Suen as a lion see Hall 1985, 691. 1162 The use of this animal metaphor in royal and divine context has been discussed in Watanabe 2002, 42–56 and 89–110. Note also the equation of the Sumerian noun piriĝ with Akkadian šarru in lexical lists and commentaries (see CAD Š/2, 77–78). 1163 A further possibility for interpreting this epithet does exist, since piriĝ is attested to have been understood as an equivalent of the Akkadian noun namru, “bright” (see Angin7 dím-ma, 69 in Cooper 1978, 66–67). A similar attestation can be found in the Akkadian translation kakku ša pānūšu namrū for the weapon name d.ĝištukul-saĝ-piriĝ (see Livingstone 1986, 54–55). Therefore, the epithet piriĝ diĝir-e-ne may also have been understood in relation to the moon god’s luminosity. 1164 See Shibata, HES, (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 168 and 171. 1165 OECT 11 nos. 69+70. See Gurney 1989, 26–33; George 1990, 157–159; Livingstone 1990, 68–69; and Frahm 2011, 339. 1160

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

205

the text is to explain cultic festivities in Nippur on the basis of mythological events. The section relating to the second month of the year, Ayyāru, which is centred around the return of Ninurta from battle, refers to the moon god Sîn having been raised to kingship. OECT 11 nos. 69+70, I 17’–19’ I 17’ DIŠ i-na itiGU4 UD.15.KAMv šá IM.ŠÁR.RA GAR-nu ⌈d⌉MAŠ TA KUR-i KUR-ma I 18’ MU d30 ana NAM.LUGAL-ti d+En-nu-gi ana ⌈SUKKAL⌉-tim ÍL-ú d MAŠ IM.ŠÁR.RA GAR-ma ag-giš ana É-šu-me-ša4 KU4-ub I 19’ In the month Ayyāru, 15th day when the IM.ŠÁR.RA(-festival?) is held: Ninurta will arrive from the mountain, and because Sîn has been elevated to kingship (and) Ennugi to the office of the vizier, Ninurta will hold the IM.ŠÁR.RA(-festival?) and furiously enter the temple Ešumeša. A further entry for the 22nd day in the same text includes a further reference to the moon god and his elevation to kingship. OECT 11 nos. 69+70, I 25’–28’ I 25’ DIŠ i-na ⌈iti⌉GU4 UD.22.KAMv šá BÁRA ⌈šá⌉ uruŠÀ–URU ú-šal-muú MU d30 I 26’ ⌈a⌉-na LUGAL-ut u d+⌈En⌉-nu-⌈gi⌉ ana SUKKAL-ti ÍL-ú MU d +EN.ZU I 27’ SU[KKAL].MAḪ dNin-š[ubur ši-pir na?]-gi-ru-ti ⌈ú⌉-še-pi-iš1166 In the month Ayyāru, 22th day when the daises of the Inner City are encircled. That is because Sîn was elevated to kingship and Ennugi to the office of the vizier; because Sîn let the vizier Ninš[ubur] perform the duties of the [he]rald. The most important detail of these entries is their relationship to the lunar cycle: the first reference to the moon god who has been raised to kingship relates to the 15th of Ayyāru, i.e. to the full moon. The second reference dates to the waning half moon on the 22nd of Ayyāru.1167 This is no mere coincidence, but probably reflects the lunar associations of the festivities. The association between Sîn as the king and the full moon is closely related to the notion of the moon god being Enlil during the full moon and the days preceding it.1168 Similar celestial notions

1166

The reading of the line is based on the suggestion given in George 1990, 158. For the 21st and 22nd days of the lunar cycle and their associations see p. 117ff. above. 1168 For the “Theology of the Moon” see the discussion on p. 136ff. above. In my opinion, the lunar associations in the text suggest that indeed the moon god Sîn, not Enlil, is meant here (as opposed to the corruption of the text suggested in George 1990, 158). 1167

206

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

may be at play in this cultic commentary, but the available textual sources do not provide information about such connotations.

II.7.2. Sîn as Giver of Royal Insignia and Protector of Kingship The notion of the moon god – lord of the celestial crown1169 – as a deity with the power to endow kingship, firmly existed in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods.1170 In earlier sources, this idea that the moon god endowed royal insignia on the king was expressed locally in Ur where Rīm-Sîn of Larsa received the crown of kingship from him.1171 The moon god Suen, who is characterised as the son of Enlil, was also the god who gave the royal throne to Išme-Dagan of Isin, and secured the brilliance of his crown into the distant future.1172 This latter act strongly connoted the celestial “crown” of the moon. In the prologue of his law code, Ḫammurapi calls himself the “seed of kingship who was created by Sîn”.1173 In a similar vein, an Old Babylonian bilingual literary composition credits the king’s leadership (Sum. nam-saĝ-kal, Akk. ašarēdūtu) to the moon god Sîn.1174 The moon god’s abilities with respect to kingship are frequently mentioned in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources, most often in the context of royal inscriptions and prayers. Unlike the sun god, with whom the Assyrian king was equated,1175 the moon god did not usually embody the royal persona, but rather acted as the protector and establisher of kingship. A notable exception to this can be found in the mythological account concerning a lunar eclipse in the 16th tablet

1169

See the discussion on p. 60ff. above. An overview of the epithets describing Sîn as a god, who is connected to kingship has already been presented in Combe 1908, 28–30 and Tallqvist 1938a, 447–448. For the attestations in the Sumerian literary sources for the moon god as a giver of the royal insignia see Hall 1985, 630–631. 1171 Rīm-Sîn G, 22: dNanna lugal an-ki-ke4 aga zid maḫ nam-lugal-la šu-du7 / saĝ-za ḫé-niib-gen6-né, “May Nanna, the king of heaven and earth, fit perfectly onto your head the legitimate august headdress of kingship!” (according to the edition in ETCSL 2.6.9.7; see also the edition of this prayer and discussion of its context in Charpin 1986, 295–302). 1172 Išme-Dagan A+V, 72–75: dSuen dumu-saĝ dEn-⌈líl⌉-[lá-ke4] / ĝišgu-za lugal-la me ⌈ur4⌉-[ur4 ...] / barag nam-en-na saĝ-bi-šè [è]-a ⌈ḫé-bí⌉-in-[ĝar] / ud sù-rá-šè aga-⌈ĝu10 dalla⌉ ḫé-bí-in-è, “Suen, the first-born of Enlil, ... for me a royal throne that gathers together the divine powers, established an excellent lordly dais, and made my crown shine brilliantly until distant days” (ETCSL c.2.5.4.01; see also Römer 1965, 43). 1173 CH, I 13–15: NUMUN šar-ru-tim / ša dSuen / ib-ni-ù-šu. This expression also refers to the aspect of Sîn as a god responsible for fertility and procreation (see p. 229ff. below). 1174 BM 90842 (CT 21, pls. 40–42) (Wasserman 1992, 3; see also the translations in Foster 2005, 136 and Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 437). 1175 For the sun as the model for kingship and the occasional equation of the king with the sun god see especially Maul 1999a, 201–214 and Frahm 2013b, 97–120. 1170

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

207

of the series Udug-ḫul, in which the king is compared to the moon god.1176 This case should, however, be interpreted as a reflection of the moon god’s meaning for kingship through lunar omens, an aspect of his that was immensely important for the exercise of kingship, as has already been established.1177 The role of the moon god in relation to the Mesopotamian king is indicated through epithets that describe his power to endow, to establish, and to protect, kingship – all notions undoubtedly connected to the concept of the moon as a crown, to his control of time, and to his power over divine decisions. His status as the eldest son of Enlil, the king of gods, was probably also associated with this aspect.1178 In this respect, a close association of Enlil and his son Sîn can be seen in the section of Tintir which lists the street names in Babylon. The street named after Sîn follows the street named after Enlil and both of these names incorporate the same theme: the establishment of royal power. In contrast to Enlil, Sîn is here explicitly characterised as responsible for establishing the “crown of lordship” (agê bēlūti)1179 as a sign of royal power. Tintir V, 71–721180 71 SILA dEn-líl mu-kin LUGAL-ti-šú SILA KÁ.GAL d[En-l]íl 72 SILA d30 mu-kin AGA be-lu-ti-šú SILA KÁ.GAL d[LU]GAL Street: “Enlil is the Establisher of his Kingship”, the street of the Enlil Gate. Street: “Sîn is the Establisher of his Lordly Crown”, the street of the Gate of the (divine) [K]ing. It should be noted that although the gate that was connected to the street named “Sîn is the Establisher of his Lordly Crown” is not said to belong to Sîn,1181 it is plausible that the moon god was meant by the appellation dLUGAL on the account of the use of this name for Sîn in the god-list An = Anum.1182 The epithet used in the street name “Sîn is the Establisher of his Lordly Crown” in Babylon was taken over by Sennacherib in the naming of Sîn’s gate in Nineveh, which was called Nannāru mukīn agê bēlūtīya, “Nannāru is the Establisher of my

1176

The passage is cited on p. 173 above with further discussion. See the discussion on p. 150ff. above. The importance of the moon god for kingship due to his role in the context of celestial divination has been stressed in Jacobsen 1976, 123–124 and Wee 2014, 53–54. 1178 As the son of Enlil, Sîn is generally associated with divine decisions (see the discussion on p. 291ff. below). 1179 One of the manuscripts (K. 3089+, 72) also has the variant AGA NAM.LUGAL.LAšu, “crown of his kingship” (George 1992, 68). 1180 George 1992, 68–69. See also the commentary on the lines in George 1992, 364. 1181 Sîn is absent also in the list of the names for these gates in Tintir V, 49–56 (George 1992, 66–67). 1182 See p. 197 above. 1177

208

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Lordly Crown”.1183 The variant name Nannāru nāṣir agê bēlūtīya, “Nannāru is the Protector of my Lordly Crown”, is also attested for this gate.1184 According to Sennacherib’s account, Sîn’s gate was one of the three northern gates of the city.1185 The use of the epithets mukīn agê bēlūtīya and nāṣir agê bēlūtīya in the context of the capital city Nineveh underlines the importance of the moon god in the sphere of royal power during this period. Similar epithets pertaining to the moon god’s authority over kingship could already be found in earlier Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, since this role was given to him by Sennacherib’s grandfather, Tiglath-pileser III. By calling Sîn nannāru namru nādin ḫaṭṭi agê mukīn bēlūti, “bright luminary, giver of sceptre (and) crown, establisher of lordship”,1186 Tiglath-pileser III simultaneously praised him as a celestial light and a god able to provide the king with royal power. Later, in the context of Ḫarrān, a corresponding epithet was used by Assurbanipal in his inscription for the temple Eḫulḫul when he calls the moon god [nādi]n ḫaṭṭi kussê p[alê u] agê bēlūt[i], “[give]r of the sceptre, the throne, the d[ynasty and] the crown of lordshi[p]”.1187 The same text also focused on the sceptre and staff as royal insignia related to justice and righteousness: “Give me the just staff, gra[nt me] the sceptre of righteousness!” is Assurbanipal’s plea to Sîn in this dedicatory inscription.1188 The notion of the moon god as a deity endowing kingship is, in fact, especially apparent in connection with Ḫarrān. A prominent example of this was Esarhaddon’s coronation, which took place there while he was en route to Egypt. This event is known to us from letter SAA 10 no. 174, sent to Assurbanipal by the haruspex (bārû) Marduk-šumu-uṣur, who had been in the king’s service already during the reign of Esarhaddon.1189 1183

RINAP 3 no. 18, VII 28’–29’: dNanna-ru mu-kin a-ge-e ⌈be⌉-[lu]-⌈ti⌉-ia / KÁ.GAL 30. For the similarity of the gate names in Babylon and Nineveh see George 1992, 364. 1184 RINAP 3 no. 17, VII 91: dNanna-ru na-ṣir AGA be-lu-ti-ia KÁ.GAL dEN.ZU. 1185 See RINAP 3 no. 17, VII 92–93. The passage naming the northern gates in the inscription RINAP 3 no. 16, VII 55–62 does not include a gate of Sîn, but rather “gate of the orchards”, which bore the name “Igisigsig is the One who Makes Orchards Flourish” – thus the god Igisigsig is named in this connection (RINAP 3 no. 16, VII 59–60: d Igi-sig7-sig7 mu-šam-me-eḫ ṣip-pa-a-te / KÁ.GAL gišKIRI6.MEŠ). See also the overview of these gates in Thompson 1940, 92; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 211–214; and Frahm 1997, 273–274. 1186 RINAP 1 no. 35, I 8: [d30 na-an-na-ru nam-ru] ⌈na⌉-din gišGIDRU AGA mu-⌈kin? be⌉[lu]-⌈ti⌉ (Iran Stele); RINAP 1 no. 37, 5: [d30] na-an-⌈na⌉-ru nam-ru na-din ⌈giš⌉GIDRU a-⌈ge⌉-[e] mu-kin be-⌈lu⌉-ti (Mila Mergi rock inscription). 1187 K. 8759+, 14: [na-di]n gišGIDRU gišGU.ZA B[ALA-e ù] a-ge-e EN-ú-t[i] (see the transliteration on p. 142 above). 1188 K. 8759+, r. 5: id-na uš-pa-ru ki-i-nu gišGIDRU i-šar-ti šu-ú[r-ka ...] (see PongratzLeisten 1995, 551 and 553 and Novotny 2003, 232). 1189 For a commentary on the letter in Parpola 1983, 100–101 (LAS 117). This letter has been discussed on various occasions and for these discussions see especially Onasch d

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

209

SAA 10 no. 174, 10–16 10 ki-i AD-šú ša LUGAL EN-ia a-na kurMu-ṣur il-lik-[u-ni] 11 ina qa-an-ni uruKASKAL É–DINGIR ša gišEREN e-⌈pi⌉-[iš] d 30 ina UGU gišŠIBIR kam-mu-us 2 AGA.MEŠ ina SAG.DU ⌈šak⌉12 [nu] 13 [d]Nusku ina IGI-šú iz-za-az AD-šú ša LUGAL EN-ia e-tar-ba 14 [AGA?] ina SAG.DU is-sa-kan ma-a tal-lak KUR.MEŠ ina ŠÀ-bi ta-kaš-šad 15 [it-ta]-⌈lak⌉ kurMu-ṣur ik-ta-šad re-eḫ-ti ma-ta-a-ti 16 [ša a-na] AN.ŠÁR d30 la kan-šá-a-ni LUGAL EN LUGAL.MEŠ ikaš-šad When the father of the king, my lord, went to Egypt, a temple of cedar was bu[ilt] outside the city of Ḫarrān. Sîn was seated upon a staff, two crowns were placed on (his) head. Nusku stood before him. The father of the king, my lord, entered; he placed [the crown(s)?] on (his) head, (and it was said to him): “You will go and conquer the world with it.” [So he we]nt and conquered Egypt; the king, lord of kings, will conquer the rest of the countries [which] have not submitted to Aššur (and) Sîn. As the letter states, a cedar temple was built for the moon god outside of the city,1190 and the moon god was present there, seated (or literally squatting, kammus) upon a staff. Esarhaddon approached Sîn, who was holding two crowns, and he was then crowned as the conqueror of the world. The implications of this episode have already been noted in various previous studies.1191 It is sufficient here to observe the perception that the Ḫarranian moon god was able to crown the Assyrian king as the conqueror of all lands. This notion must have been

1994, 160–161; Holloway 1995, 293; Uehlinger 1997, 316–318; Nissinen 1998, 123– 124; Theuer 2000, 353–354; Holloway 2002, 408–409; Schaudig 2002, 628–629; and Novotny 2003, 59–65. 1190 J. Lewy has suggested that this cedar temple was in fact the akītu-house of Sîn, since it was located outside of the city (Lewy 1945–1946, 458 note 246). J. Novotny has refuted this, maintaining that this structure was temporary and built only for this occasion, perhaps as a place to house the divine images of Sîn and his family during the rebuilding of the temple Eḫulḫul (Novotny 2003, 60–65). 1191 See especially Holloway 1995, 293; Uehlinger 1997, 316–318; and Schaudig 2002, 628–629. In Radner 2003, 173 another hypothetical reason for this visit to Ḫarrān is suggested: Esarhaddon made a pilgrimage to the main Assyrian sanctuary of the moon god because he was plagued by chronic skin disease. Thus he was seeking help for his condition from Sîn, who was considered to be the source of a variety of skin diseases (for the connection between the moon god and skin diseases in Mesopotamian medical lore see the discussion on p. 281ff. below). This explanation remains, however, hypothetical, since no such motive can be established on the basis of the available textual sources.

210

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

rooted in the concept associating the Mesopotamian moon god with the royal power and royal insignia. Another important feature of this letter, from the perspective of assessing Sîn’s roles, is the juxtaposition of the gods Aššur and Sîn as the deities to whom the conquered lands will submit. As many scholars have observed, the moon god of Ḫarrān appears to have been Aššur’s equal in the western provinces of Assyria.1192 This provides a further explanation for the close association between the Ḫarranian moon god and kingship during the reign of the Sargonid dynasty: as will be seen later in this chapter, Assurbanipal also asserted that it was the moon god Sîn who chose him to be the king of Assyria, so that he could rebuild the temple Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān.1193 Moreover, perhaps in connection with Esarhaddon’s coronation in Ḫarrān and his victory in Egypt, royal images were installed around the image of the Ḫarranian moon god.1194 The subtext for this instalment appears to have been the desire to ensure Sîn’s continuing support for the Assyrian king, made manifest in the continual propitious signs observed each month. The motif of the king’s coronation by Sîn can also be found in the cylinder inscriptions of Sîn-šarru-iškun. In a passage attested in Cylinders A, B, and D, with minor variants, it is said that the moon god crowned Sîn-šarru-iškun with the “crown of lordship” (agê bēlūti). Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder A, 3–51195 3 a-na kun-ni SUḪUŠ KUR 4 šu-te-šur ba-’u-la-ti dal-ḫa-a-ti a-na tu-qu-ni ab-ra-a-ti 5 a-na ke-še-ri a-ge-e be-lu-ti i-pi-ru-uš na-an-nar AN-e d30 So that he would secure the foundation of the land, bring the disturbed population to order, bring order to the mankind (and) so that he would repair, Sîn, the luminary of the heavens, crowned him with the crown of lordship. The corresponding passage in Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder C extends the motif to include not only the “crown of lordship”(agê bēlūti), but also the sceptre of kingship (ḫaṭṭi šarrūti).1196 In this context, the crown and the sceptre given to the

1192

See e.g. Schaudig 2002, 628–629. For the juxtaposition of Aššur and Ḫarranian Sîn see the discussion on p. 395ff. below. 1193 See the discussion on p. 214 below. 1194 As described in SAA 10 no. 13 (see the citation on p. 157 above). 1195 See the edition in Meinhold 2009, 450–451 and 457–458. A similar passage can be found also in the Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder B (Borger 1965, 76–78) and in Sîn-šarruiškun Cylinder D (Schramm 1975–1976, 45–48). 1196 Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder C, 11–12: d30 šàr a-ge-e a-na kun-ni SUḪUŠ KUR šu-[tešur ba-’-ú-la-a-ti a-ge-e EN-u]-ti e-pir-an-[ni] / gišGIDRU LUGAL-u-ti ú-šat-me-eḫ rittu-u-a, “Sîn, king of the crown, crowned m[e with the crown of lordship] (and) placed the sceptre of kingship in my hands so that I would secure the foundation of the land

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

211

king are seen as the prerequisite for the royal aspiration to bring stability to the land and guide the population – both royal tasks that are reflected in the regularity and stability of the moon and sun.1197 The idea that the moon god crowned the king with the royal crown, as it is expressed in the inscriptions of Sîn-šarruiškun, was later used by the Babylonian king Nabonidus in his E’amaškuga Cylinder. Here the goddess Ningal, as the spouse of Sîn and the lady of E’amaškuga in Kissik, acts alongside her husband to endow the king with the crown.1198 Schaudig 2001, 2.6, I 21–23 d EN.ZU ù dNin-gal I 21 I 22 ⌈a⌉-ge-e du!(gi)-úr UD.MEŠ I 23 ⌈i⌉-pi-ri ra-šu-uš-šu (whose) head Sîn and Ningal have covered with an eternal crown Similarly, in the En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder Nabodinus expresses the wish for the continuity of this royal power – symbolised by the royal crown and throne of lordship – and for the propitious signs from the moon god as a communication of his good will towards the king.1199 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, II 34–38 II 34 e-ma ITI liš-tap-pa-a i-da-a-ti du-um-qí-ia II 35 a-ge-e šar-ru-ti a-na da-rí-a-tì lu-ki-in ra-šu-ú-a giš GU.ZA be-lu-ti-ia šu-úr-ši-id a-na aḫ-ra-a-tu UD.MEŠ II 36 II 37 e-ma ITI i-na i-te-ed-du-ši-ka II 38 ṣa-ad-da-ka da-mi-iq-ti gi-na-a lu-ut-tap-la-as Each month may he make manifest signs of my well-being for me, may he firmly fix the crown of kingship for eternity on my head! Establish firmly the throne of my lordship for the days to come! Each month as you renew yourself, may I constantly see your propitious signal! The notion that the moon god gave the king his royal insignia is attested also in the prayers addressed to him. The prayer “Sîn 11”, which is known in the context of a therapeutic procedure to release a man from māmītu, includes a line praising Sîn as a god who gives the sceptre to all the kings.1200 His ability to en(and) br[ing the population in order]” (see Grayson 1972, 161 and 164). In Sîn-šarruiškun Cylinder A it is Nabû, who endows Sîn-šarru-iškun with the sceptre (see ll. 9–11 in Meinhold 2009, 450–451 and 458). 1197 The importance of this aspect of the sun god to the royal ideology is discussed in Maul 1999a, 201–203. 1198 For the cult of Ningal in Kissik see the discussion on p. 367ff. below. 1199 For the moon god as a sign-giver in the context of divination see p. 150ff. above. 1200 “Sîn 11”, 4: [d30] na-din [giš]GIDRU a-na DÙ-šu-nu LUGAL.MEŠ (see the edition on

212

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

dow kingship is also stressed in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to him.1201 4 R2 9+//, 171202 ⌈na⌉-áĝ-bára e-ne mu-sa4-a mudru!(“AN”) zé-èĝ-ĝu10-a u4 sù-ud-⌈da⌉-⌈šè⌉ ⌈nam⌉ ⌈mu⌉-⌈ni⌉-íb!(“DU”)-tar-e-dè na-bu-ú šar-ru-ti na-din ḫaṭ-ṭi šá šim-ti ana u4-me r[u-q]u-ti i-šim-mu (Sum.) he who calls (a king) to kingship, he who gives (him) the sceptre, he decides a good fate for him for all the future (Akk.) he who calls (a king) to kingship, he who gives (him) the sceptre, he who decides a good fate for him for al[l t]he future. As can be seen, the role of the moon god in endowing the king with kingship is here combined with the idea of decreeing a (good) fate for him – a notion that unites Sîn’s power in the context of divine decision-making with the concept of Sîn as a deity who supports royal power.1203 The affiliation of the moon god with the sceptre as a mark of royal power can also be found in the wider context of Babylonian literature, as the speech of Ninsun to the sun god Šamaš in Gilgameš shows. Gilgameš III, 101–1061204 “O Šamaš, will Gilgameš not ... the gods? Will he not share the heavens with you? Will he not share the sceptre with Sîn? Will he not become wise with Ea of the Apsû? Will he not rule the black-headed race with Irnina? [Will he] not dwell in the Land-of-No-Return with Ningišzida?” In light of this deeply embedded notion that the moon god was a deity who endowed the king with royal insignia, his absence in the accounts of the king’s creation is remarkable. In the mythological account concerning the creation of the king, Sîn is not included among the deities who take part in equipping the king with the necessary insignia and powers.1205 Also in the Coronation Hymn of As-

p. 477ff. below). A similar praise should most likely be restored also in KAL 4 no. 40, r.? 17’: [... gi]š!GIDRU! a-na DÙ-šu-n[u x (x)] (read [...] x PA a-na DÙ-šu-n[u ...] in the edition of the text). 1201 The lines 5–9 of this prayer praise the moon god himself as the ruler of the gods (see the citation on p. 197 above). 1202 See Shibata, HES (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 170. 1203 For the power of Sîn over divine decisions see the discussion on p. 150ff. above. The motif of kingship is especially visible in the context of extispicy: one of the ikrib-prayers to Sîn stresses his importance in respect to royal insignia (the crown and the throne; see K.2751+//, 25’–27’ on p. 483ff. below). 1204 George 2003, 580–581. 1205 VS 24 no. 92//, 30’–42’ (Mayer 1987, 55–68 and Jiménez 2013b, 235–254; see also

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

213

surbanipal1206 the moon god is nowhere to be seen despite his depiction elsewhere as the god who created Assurbanipal for kingship. Only in the account concerning the creation of Nabonidus as the king in the E’igikalama Cylinder is the moon god included among the deities who are present at the creation: “Nannāru, son the prince, oversaw his creation”.1207 In comparison to the frequent connections of Sîn to kingship in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions, the moon god is conspicuously absent in the texts left behind by the Neo-Babylonian kings. Apart from Nabonidus’ inscriptions connected to Ḫarrān or Ur, the only references to this aspect of Sîn’s derive from Nebuchadnezzar II’s reports on his building activities in Ur. When he gives an account of rebuilding the temple Ekišnugal in Ur, he calls Sîn bēlu narām šarrūtīya, “the lord, who loves my kingship”.1208 Otherwise the Babylonian kings seem to have thought of Sîn, the tutelary deity of Ur, too insignificant in respect to royal power to deserve a mention in their inscriptions. In addition to the endowment of royal insignia, which was the most frequent motif connecting the moon god to kingship in Mesopotamia, references connecting him to the act of nominating the king are known.1209 The royal epithet nibīt Sîn, “called by Sîn”, is attested in the inscriptions of two Neo-Assyrian kings, and in both of these instances this royal epithet is used in connection with another deity, or deities, of the Assyrian pantheon. Assurnaṣirpal II calls himself “called by Sîn, favourite of Anu, loved one of Adad, who is almighty among the gods”.1210 A similar formulation – “chosen by Aššur, Nabû, and Marduk, called by Sîn, favourite of Anu, beloved of the queen Ištar, goddess of everything” – is later used by Esarhaddon in his Zinçirli Stele.1211 The motif of nomination by the moon god is taken furthest by Assurbanipal, who describes how he was selected for kingship by the gods Aššur and Sîn.1212

the discussions in Cancik-Kirschbaum 1995, 5–20 and Ambos 2013a, 10–11). 1206 SAA 3 no. 11. 1207 Schaudig 2001, 2.5, I 11: dNanna-ri DUMU ru-bé-e ú-ṣa-ab-ba-a nab-nit-su. 1208 1 R 65, II 45 (see the citation on p. 342 below). 1209 See the overview of royal epithets of the form nibīt DN in Seux 1967, 205–207. 1210 RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, I 33: ni-bit d30 mi-gir dA-nim na-mad d10 kaš-kaš DINGIR.MEŠ; see also RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, III 130; A.0.101.17, I 37–38; A.0.101.20, 44–45 and A.0.101.26, 40–41. 1211 RINAP 4 no. 98, r. 21–22: ni-šit AN.ŠÁR dAG u dAMAR.UTU ni-bit d30 mi-gir dAnim na-ra-am šar-ra-ti / dIš-tar i-lat kal gim-ri. 1212 Although the role of the moon god in nominating and creating the Assyrian king is securely attested originally in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal, it is possible that a similar notion can already be found in the inscriptions of his grandfather, Sennacherib. A fragmentary passage in a text concerning the building project in Bavian suggests a far greater role for Sîn and his spouse Ningal in this respect than is otherwise attested Sennacherib’s inscriptions. RINAP 3 no. 153, 23–25: ib-ru-ú-ma kul-lat [...] / ip-pal-su-in-⌈ni⌉ [...] / d30

214

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Assurbanipal Prism A, I 1–71213 I1 a-na-ku IAN.ŠÁR–DÙ–A bi-nu-ut AN.ŠÁR u dNIN.LÍL I2 DUMU LUGAL GAL-ú ša É re-du-u-ti I3 ša AN.ŠÁR u d30 EN AGA ul-tu UD.MEŠ SUD.MEŠ I4 ni-bit MU-šú iz-ku-ru a-na LUGAL-u-ti I5 ù ina ŠÀ AMA-šú ib-nu-šú a-na SIPA-ut KUR AN.ŠÁRki d I6 UTU dIŠKUR u d15 ina EŠ.BAR-šú-nu ke-e-ni I7 iq-bu-ú e-peš LUGAL-u-ti-ia I am Assurbanipal, creation of Aššur and Mullissu, eldest royal son of the Succession Palace, who was called to kingship by Aššur and Sîn, lord of the crown, since the distant past and who they created in the womb of his mother for the shepherd-ship of Assyria; Šamaš, Adad, and Ištar have decreed with the firm decision the exercise of my kingship. The report in the Assurbanipal Prism T focuses on the divinely ordained background for the rebuilding of temples in Ḫarrān at the beginning of Assurbanipal’s reign: these actions took place, because Assurbanipal had been created for kingship and chosen by Sîn long ago to be the one who restored the dilapidated temple Eḫulḫul.1214 Assurbanipal Prism T, II 29–351215 II 29 a-di a-di-ni a-bi la im-ma-al-la-du II 30 um-mì a-lit-ti la ba-na-at ina lìb-bi AMA-šà II 31 a-na e-peš É-ḫúl-ḫúl iz-kur ni-bit MU-ia d 30 šá ib-na-an-ni a-na LUGAL-u-ti II 32 II 33 um-ma IAN.ŠÁR–DÙ–A É.KUR šu-a-tu II 34 ip-p[u-uš-ma] qé-reb-šú ú-šar-man-ni II 35 pa-rak da-ra-a-ti Even before my father was born, my birth-mother had not been created in her mother’s womb, the god Sîn, who created me for kingship, nominated me to build Eḫulḫul, (saying): “Assurbanipal will bu[ild] this temple [and] make me sit therein upon an eternal dais!”.

d

Nin-⌈gal ⌉ [...], “They (the gods) searched all of [...] and [...] they looked [(...)] upon me [...] Sîn (and) Ningal [...]”. A comparison between these remains of three lines and the passages in Assurbanipal’s inscriptions describing a nomination by Sîn is made in Frahm 1997, 216. 1213 Borger 1996, 14–15 and 208. See also Reiner 1985, 17–28. 1214 For the building activities of Assurbanipal in Ḫarrān see p. 396ff. below. 1215 Also in Assurbanipal Prism C, I 71–98 (see Borger 1996, 141–142 and 207; Novotny 2003, 97–99; and RINAP 5/I no. 6) and Assurbanipal Prism I, II 28’–33’ (see Novotny 2014, 50 and RINAP 5/I no. 5). Assurbanipal Prism T is edited as RINAP 5/I no. 10.

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

215

This passage further attests to the conceptions of kingship that were present in the Ḫarranian context during the reign of the Sargonid kings. Not only does Assurbanipal claim that he had been chosen by the moon god to rebuild his temple in Ḫarrān in the distant past, but he also acknowledged that he received the mandate for kingship from the moon god himself, not from other deities. This idea that Assurbanipal had been chosen by Sîn is later echoed in the words of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, who claimed that both the kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal were given power by the moon god.1216 Moreover, in the opening lines of the Eḫulḫul Cylinder, Nabonidus himself claimed to have been chosen to be king of Babylonia by the moon god before his birth. Schaudig 2001, 2.12, I 1–5 (Ex. 11) I1 a-na-ku dNa-bi-um–na-’i-id LUGAL ra-bu-ú LUGAL dan-nu I2 LUGAL kiš-šá-tu4 LUGAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAki LUGAL kib-ra-a-tú er-bet-ti I3 za-ni-in É-saĝ-íl ù É-zi-da I4 ša d+EN.ZU ù dNin-gal i-na ŠÀ um-mi-šu I5 a-na ši-ma-at LUGAL-ú-ti i-ši-mu ši-ma-at-su I am Nabonidus, the great king, the strong king, king of the world, king of Babylon, king of the four corners (of the world), provider of Esaĝil and Ezida, for whom Sîn and Ningal chose the fate of kingship already in his mother’s womb A shorter version of the same revelation in a dream is recorded in the Ḫarrān Stele.1217 This time the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul is directly linked to the mandate for kingship that the moon god had given to Nabonidus, which will allow him to subjugate all the lands to his control. Schaudig 2001, 3.1, I 10–14 (Ex. 1)1218 I 10 ù d30 a-na LUGAL-ú-ti I 11 [i]m-ba-an-ni ina šá-at mu-ši MÁŠ.GI6 ú-šab-ra-an I 12 um-ma É-ḫúl-ḫúl É d30 šá uruKASKAL ḫa-an-ṭiš I 13 e-pu-uš KUR.KUR.MEŠ ka-la-ši-na a-na ŠUII-ka I 14 lu-mál-la

1216

Schaudig 2001, 2.14, II 37–38 (Ex.2): IAN.ŠÁR–ŠEŠ–MU LUGAL KUR Aš-šur u AN.ŠÁR–DÙ–A DUMU-šú / šá d30 LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ kiš-šat KUR.KUR ú-šat-limu-šu-nu-ti-ma, “Esarhaddon, king of Assyria, and Assurbanipal, his son, who Sîn, king of the gods, endowed with the totality of the lands”. 1217 See also the discussion concerning Nabonidus and dreams p. 194ff. above. 1218 This passage is also cited in Beaulieu 1989, 60. I

216

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

[...] and Sîn [ap]pointed me to kingship. He showed me a dream during the night: “Build hastily Eḫulḫul, the temple of Sîn in the city Ḫarrān; I will give all the lands into your hands!” In conclusion, there are three main points in this analysis of the moon god’s importance to the Mesopotamian king, as it was portrayed in the royal inscriptions of the Sargonid kings and the Babylonian king Nabonidus. First, the references to Sîn as the protector and establisher of royal power are connected to his celestial manifestation. This is clear from the frequent use of the appellation or epithet Nannāru in royal inscriptions as well as by the epithet “lord of the crown”, which was typically used in official texts.1219 The notion that the moon was a crown played a role in this respect: it made the moon god capable of endowing this insignia of royal power to the king. Second, the importance of lunar omens should be stressed in respect to kingship: the support of the moon god for the king is expressed through propitious celestial signs, especially the timely reappearance of the moon at the beginning of the month. The role of Sîn as one of the great gods standing at the side of the Assyrian king is clear from the numerous depictions of his crescent moon among the other symbols of deities in Assyrian reliefs.1220 Sîn was also one of deities depicted in the dumāqu-pectoral worn by the king (Fig. 12).1221 This necklace is usually portrayed decorated with the symbols of five great deities of the Neo-Assyrian pantheon: the crown of Aššur, the sun disc of Šamaš, the crescent moon of Sîn, the star-disc of Ištar, and the lightning bolt of Adad.1222 The third main point is that the regularity of the lunar cycle and the renewal of the moon, month after month, were significant concepts in connection with kingship. In this respect, two different phenomena can be observed: the moon alone as the regulator of time and the embodiment of regenerative power, and the moon and the sun together as the two cosmic constants. The concepts attached to the moon alone are reflected in SAA 12 no. 90, in which Assurbanipal donates a recovered village to the moon god of Elumu.1223 In this document, the

1219

For the use of Nannāru as a name and an epithet of Sîn see p. 31ff. above, and for the use of the epithets bēl agê and šar agê see p. 63ff. and 199ff. above. 1220 For the aspect of communication between the king and the deities underlying in these depictions see Magen 1986, 54. 1221 The best depictions of this pectoral can be found on the the two statues of Šalmaneser III (Strommenger 1970, 16–17). See also the depictions of Assurnaṣirpal II from Kalḫu (Börker-Klähn 1982, nos. 136 and 137) and the short discussion in Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 423–424 (the role of the dumāqu-pectoral in the context of royal rituals). 1222 Magen 1986, 54–55. See also the short inscription of Esarhaddon that was written on the divine symbols around the neck of the king, according to its colophon (RINAP 4 no. 43, r. 18’: ša ina UGU DINGIR.MEŠ-ni ša GÚ LUGAL). 1223 For the moon god of Elumu see the discussion on p. 415ff. below.

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

217

king expressed the wish that his dynasty “may renew itself forever”1224 – in this context certainly an allusion to the regenerative power of the moon. In Assurbanipal’s hymn to Nanaya, the notion of Sîn as a deity who maintains order is referred to in the plea to him to “keep his throne in order” (kussêšu taqqin).1225 I consider it very likely that this was, in fact, an allusion to the rhythm and order in the cosmos set by the moon, and consequently to the order that can be brought to the reign of the king by the moon god. Moreover, Sargon II’s dedicatory inscription to Sîn in Dūr-Šarrukīn describes the ability of the moon god to offer stability and longevity of cosmic proportions to the king’s reign: the final wish expressed to Sîn is that he would “let his reign last as long as the heaven and the earth (and) establish his throne in the four corners (of the world)”.1226

Fig. 12: Statue of Šalmaneser III from Assur (Strommenger 1970, Abb. 5)

II.7.3. Sîn, Šamaš, and the King The correct rhythm and order in the cosmos is reflected in the relationship between the moon and sun to the Mesopotamian king. Although both Sîn and Šamaš have their own distinct roles in the royal ideology of Assyria and Babylonia – the king being especially associated with the sun god through his power to 1224

SAA 12 no. 90, r. 3: a-na u4-me da-ru-ti li-te-ed-diš pa-lu-⌈u⌉-[ia? ...]. SAA 3 no. 5, 7: d30 gišGU.ZA-šú taq-qí-in x [x x x]. In his edition A. Livingstone translates this wish as “keep safe his throne”, but the semantic range of the verb taqānu, “to be placid, orderly, secure”, involves being orderly rather than safe (see CAD T, 197– 199). 1226 OIP 38, 130 no. 3 (see the citation on p. 428 below). 1225

218

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

maintain the order in the cosmos1227 – these two deities were important to the the Mesopotamian kings as a pair.1228 The importance of Sîn and Šamaš in this respect is underlined especially by the astrological-astronomical observations that were constantly reported to the royal court. The first appearance of the moon at the beginning of the month was crucial in this respect, but equally important was the opposition of the moon and sun at the mid-point in the lunar cycle. The point of time that was observed was the simultaneous appearance of the two gods in the eastern and western horizons at sunrise.1229 The ideal date for the opposition of the moon and sun was the 14th day, which was portrayed as a positive omen for that day.1230 The positive outcome for the king and his country is exemplified by the following report of Ištar-šumu-ēreš to the king. SAA 8 no. 15 1 DIŠ 30 u 20 šit-qú-lu KUR i-ka-na 2 at-mu-ú ke-e-nu ina KA UN.MEŠ GAR 3 LUGAL KUR gišAŠ.TE SUMUN-bar 4 DIŠ 30 u 20 šu-ta-šu-ú LUGAL KUR uz-nu 5 ú-rap-pa-aš 6 DIŠ UD.14.KAM 30 u 20 a-ḫa-meš IGI.MEŠ 7 KA GI.NA ŠÀ-bi KUR DU10-ab 8 DINGIR.MEŠ KUR URIki 9 a-na da-mì-iq-ti 10 i-ḫa-sa-su r. 1 ḫu-ud lìb-bi ERIM-ni r. 2 lìb-bi LUGAL DU10-ab r. 3 MÁŠ.ANŠE KUR URIki r. 4 ina EDIN par-ga-niš NÁ-iṣ r. 5 ša I15–MU–KAM-eš

1227

See especially the discussion in Maul 1999a, 206. For comparison note e.g. the veneration of the sun and the moon by the king in South Arabia: “Der südarabische Archäolog Hamdâni (10. Jahrh.) beschreibt aber (Iklîl 8. Buch) das alte Bergheiligtum Rijâm »auf dem Gipfel des Berges Itwa, im Lande Hamdân. Ringsherum befinden sich die Stätten, wo die Pilgerscharen sich zu lagern pflegten. Dort ist auch das Königsschloss, und vor dem Tore des Schlosses befindet sich eine Mauer, worin eine Platte mit dem Bild der Sonne und des Neumondes eingefügt ist. Wenn der König aus dem Schlosse hinaustritt, so fällt sein Blick nur auf die erste von beiden (die Sonne). Sobald er sie erblickt, so verneigt er sich vor ihr.«” (Nielsen 1927, 202). 1229 See the discussion on p. 106ff. above. 1230 The principle of the ideal patterns in Mesopotamian astrological thinking is presented in Brown 2000, 146–151. 1228

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

219

If the moon and sun are in balance: the land will become stable; reliable speech will be placed in the mouth of people; the king of the land will make his throne last long. If the moon and sun are in opposition: the king of the land will widen his understanding. If on the 14th day the moon and sun are seen together: reliable speech, the land will become happy. The gods will remember Akkad favorably; joy among the troops; the king will become happy; the cattle of Akkad will lie in the steppe undisturbed. From Ištar-šumu-ēreš. An opposition on the 13th, 15th or the 16th day of the month, on the other hand, was seen as negative.1231 In this case the moon had been either too “slow” or too “fast”, which had led to either too early or too late a date for the opposition.1232 Astrological reports to the Assyrian king mention “bad ways” in the land and plundering by an enemy,1233 the rise and attack by a strong enemy, raging lions and wolves,1234 as well as hostility between kings and a victorious military campaign conducted by an enemy.1235 Thus the problems that faced the king if the monthly order of the cosmos was disturbed encompassed both internal and external disturbances to the land. The king’s personal safety was also threatened by this irregularity.1236 Despite its negative connotations in the context of celestial omens, the 15th day of the lunar cycle as the schematic date for the opposition of the moon and the sun appears to have been considered auspicious for the king in a Late Babylonian hemerological composition.1237 The description of the day’s auspicious nature is accompanied by the instruction (otherwise known from the Prostration Hemerology) to consecrate a crescent emblem to Sîn and a golden

1231

Due to the variation in the lunar cycle, a full moon was possible on each of these days. It is possible that this ideal was based on the division of the month into the 7-day segments that can be seen in omen literature (see Rochberg-Halton 1988, 40). The positive and negative connotations of the days for the opposition are discussed also in Schwemer 2010, 498. 1232 ACh Sin 3, 44: “If the moon is slowed down (uttaḫḫas) in its course ... means it is seen with the sun on the 13th day. If the moon is steady (nēḫ) in its course ... means it is seen with the sun on the 14th day. If the moon sped up (ezi) in its course ... means it is seen with the sun on the 15th day.” (Rochberg-Halton 1988, 39–40; Stol 1992, 255). 1233 SAA 8 no. 360 (opposition on the 13th day). 1234 SAA 8 no. 23 (opposition on the 15th day). 1235 SAA 8 no. 111 (opposition on the 16th day). 1236 SAA 8 no. 111 has an apodosis with the imprisonment of the king in his own palace. 1237 BM 34584+, IV 106–109 (Jiménez 2016, 210 and 213). This description is followed by the entry known otherwise from the Prostration Hemerology (see Livingstone 2013, 164 and Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 167 and 177).

220

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

sun disc to Šamaš, thereby acknowledging their simultaneous presence in the sky during this phase of the month.1238 The interplay between the moon and the sun was not restricted to these particular celestial bodies, but it could also be observed in other astral phenomena as a result of their association with the sun and the moon. According to the astrological commentary Šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu, the entry “If the solar disc stands above and below the moon: the foundations of the throne of the king of the land will be stable, variant: the king of the land will stay in his truth” can also be interpreted as an observation of the planet Saturn together with the moon, since Saturn was associated with the sun.1239 The basic concept of regularity and order that was connected to the moon and the sun is also reflected outside of the astrological-astronomical context. As the importance of the opposition of the moon and the sun is considered, a very important factor is found in the cultic topography of the Middle Assyrian SînŠamaš temple in Assur. There, cellas of the gods were located opposite each other, thereby fixing the moon and the sun permanently in their positions in opposition to each other in the sky.1240 The plan of the temple was later changed, but its nature as a dual temple of the moon and the sun remained the same. It is important to note that the cultic setting for Sîn and Šamaš in a dual temple in Assur was later adopted in both Dūr-Šarrukīn and Nineveh when they became capitals of the empire. Among the Assyrian centres of royal power, it was only in Kalḫu that Sîn and Šamaš did not share a temple. The theme of the moon and sun as joint divine powers supporting the throne of the Assyrian king was introduced in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon and further used by his son Assurbanipal.1241 The stability and regularity of the moon and the sun in connection with the stability of royal power was a recurring theme in both of their inscriptions. The regular appearance of the moon and sun at the beginning and in the middle of the month are given a prominent position in the passage, which describes propitious astrological omens regarding the ascent of Esarhaddon on the Assyrian throne. RINAP 4 no. 57, I 3’–10’1242 d 31 [30 u d]UTU DINGIR.MEŠ maš-šu-te

1238

See Livingstone 2013, 164 and Jiménez & Adalı 2015, 167 and 177. In Jimenéz and Adalı’s edition, the date for the entry is reconstructed as the 15th day, but the majority of the manuscripts for the Prostration Hemerology ascribe it to the 28th day. Of course, this is a point in the month when the moon and the sun meet, thus making it possible that this offering to them was made both during their opposition and their conjuction (see the discussion on p. 122ff. above). 1239 Šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu 1, 64–65 (Koch-Westenholz 1999, 157). 1240 See the discussion on p. 416ff. below. 1241 See Koch-Westenholz 1995, 155–158 and Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 41–44. 1242 See also the earlier edition in Borger 1956, Ass. A. I 31–38.

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

221

32 áš-[šú] de-en kit-te 33 ù mi-šá-ri 34 ana KUR u UN.MEŠ šá-ra-ku 35 ITI-šam-ma ḫar-ra-an kit-te 36 ù mi-šá-ri ṣab-tu-ma 37 UD.[1].KÁM1243 UD.14.KÁM 38 ú-sa-di-ru ta-mar-tú In [order] to give the land and the people verdicts of truth and justice, [Sîn and] Šamaš, the twin gods, took the road of truth and justice monthly. They made appearance regularly on the [1]st and 14th days. Here two important aspects of these deities are depicted: the constant and regular movement of the moon and sun in the sky, and the function of these deities as the divine judges who made decisions concerning the land and the people. Simultaneously, the propitious character of the lunar and solar observations conveys the notion of divine benevolence towards the king.1244 Through the propitious signs that were given by the moon and the sun, Esarhaddon received both a divine mandate to rebuild the Babylonian cult centres and stability and longevity for his reign.1245 The theme of Sîn and Šamaš’ divine support for the king was repeated on other occasions in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, although with different phrasing. An example of this is found in the inscriptions that probably record Esarhaddon’s renovation of the temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Nineveh.1246 Because of the connection between these deities and the temple, it is natural that they are given the prominence in the text. Nevertheless, the view presented here complies with the other attestations of the powers of Sîn and Šamaš in respect to propitious celestial signs and the longevity of the king and his reign. RINAP 4 no. 12, 24–311247 24 a-na šat-ti d30 dUTU EN.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ x [...]

1243

This first day has been left open in both of the editions of this inscription, but it certainly must be seen as a reference to the beginning of the month due to the ideal scheme of the moon and the sun and their interplay at the beginning and the middle of the lunar cycle (see the citations of this passage in Koch-Westenholz 1995, 155; Pongratz-Leisten 1999, 41; Parpola 1997, LXXIV; Brown 2000, 148; and Koch 2015, 194). In his edition Borger suggests that the 13th day should be reconstructed here (Borger 1956, § 12 Ass. A. I 37), but this seems very unlikely due to the negative connotations of that day for the opposition of the moon and the sun. 1244 See the discussion on p. 156ff. above. 1245 RINAP 4 no. 48, r. 59–60 (see also Koch-Westenholz 1995, 156–157 and PongratzLeisten 1999, 43). 1246 For a discussion of this double temple in Nineveh see p. 431ff. below. 1247 See also the previous edition in Borger 1956, § 29 (Nin. H and Nin. I).

222

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

25 26 27 28 29

ia-a-ti AN.ŠÁR–ŠEŠ–SUM.NA LUGAL mi-⌈gi⌉-[ir ...] ina ta-mar-ti e-lat AN-e ù iti⌈BÁRA⌉ [...] it-tu da-mì-iq-tu ša a-rak u4-me x [...] ka-šid lit-tu-ti šu-muḫ pe-er-’i šum-[dul na-an-na-bi ...] li-tap-pa-lu a-ḫa-meš i-na ṣi-it pi-i-[šú-nu la šu-un-né-e lú KÚR.MEŠ-ia?] 30 li-né-ru a-a-bé-e-a lis-ki-pu li-šam-qí-tu ga-re-[e-ia ina li-i-ti ki-šitti ŠUII] 31 [ṣe-er] lúKÚR.MEŠ-ia li-⌈šá⌉?-[zi]-zu-ni-ma e-ma lìb-[bi i-qab-bu-u la-be-el la-áš-pur] Thereupon, may Sîn (and) Šamaš, the great lords, ... [...] me – Esarhaddon, the king, favor[ite ...]; in the appearance at the height of heaven and (in) the month Nisannu, [...] good omen concerning the lengthening of (my) days ... [...]; (my) reaching extreme old age, the abundance of (my) offspring, the incr[ease of my progeny, ...] may they discuss with one another. May they kill [my enemies] by [their immutable] command, may they flatten my enemies, may they cut down [my] foes, (and) allow me to stand [over] my enemies [in victory (and) triumph! May I rule (and) govern] wherever [my] hea[rt wishes!] The concept of time, which is reflected in the wish for the king to reach old age, is closely related to Sîn and Šamaš. These are the two deities who not only made divine decisions concerning the king manifest by means of their appearance in the sky, but they were the two main cosmic forces in control of time. Furthermore, because of their regularity and never-ending circulation across the sky, they represented two cosmic constants, who would continue to rise and set as long as the world itself existed. This aspect of Sîn and Šamaš is apparent in a letter sent to king Esarhaddon by his āšipu Adad-šumu-uṣur, in which the sender blesses the king in numerous ways. As one of these blessings, a wish for the dynasty’s durability is expressed through an analogy to the moon and the sun. SAA 10 no. 197, r. 5–8 r. 5 ki-i šá d[3]0 [u dU]TU ina AN-e r. 6 kun-nu-u-ni LUGAL-ú-[tú] r. 7 šá LUGAL EN-ia ša NUMUN NUM[UN-šú] r. 8 ina DÙ KUR.KUR lu kun-na-[at] As firmly as [Sî]n [and Ša]maš are established in the sky, so firmly may the kings[hip] of the king, my lord, and [his] descenda[nts], be establish[ed] in the whole world! The motif of durability and stability can also be found in Assurbanipal’s inscrip-

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

223

tion for the moon god’s akītu-house in Ḫarrān.1248 In this passage the opposition of the moon and sun is described as the phenomenon that is connected to the stability of the throne and the preservation of the king’s reign. The verb denoting the opposition of the moon and sun is šutātû, which is also used in astrological contexts to indicate the opposition of the two celestial bodies during the full moon.1249 Sm. 671, 111250 [... šá it-t]i dUTU uš-ta-tu-ma ú-šar-šá-du gišGU.ZA BALA-ú ú-kan-nu [... who] stands in opposition [wit]h Šamaš and (through that) establishes firmly the throne (and) preserves the rule Similar themes are found in the prayer to Sîn and Šamaš embedded in a royal war ritual.1251 Here the king, highlighting his attentiveness to the appearances of the moon and the sun, beseeches Sîn and Šamaš to make unpropitious omens pass by, to establish auspicious omens, and to command permanence for his reign.1252 The appeal to Sîn and Šamaš in the context of a war ritual despite their peaceful nature is reminiscent of the apodosis of an liver omen, cited in the Babylon Stele of Nabonidus, that predicts support from the moon and sun for the king’s troops. Schaudig 2001, 3.3a, XI 11’–21’ XI 11’ BE ina IGI gi-ip-ši šá 15 XI 12’ 2 gišTUKUL na-an-du-ru-ti XI 13’ GAR per-níq-qu MU-šú-nu XI 14’ mu-ze-er-ri XI 15’ ir-ta-a-mu XI 16’ ina qaq-qar nu-kúr-ri XI 17’ sú-lum-ma-a GÁL-ši XI 18’ d30 u dUTU i-di(“KI”) ÉRIN.⌈MU⌉ XI 19’ DU.MEŠ-ma lúKÚR KUR-⌈ád⌉ XI 20’ DINGIR.MEŠ ze-nu-ti XI 21’ it-ti LÚ SILIM-mu

1248

For a discussion concerning this akītu-house and the celebration of akītu-festival in Ḫarrān see p. 410ff. below. 1249 See p. 106ff. above. 1250 This inscription is known from a copy found at Nineveh, Sm. 671 (Bauer 1933, pl. 49; Novotny 2003, 249–250). 1251 “Sîn & Šamaš 1” (CBS 1516; see the edition on p. 520ff. below). 1252 CBS 1516, r. 17–25 (see the edition on p. 520ff. below).

224

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

If there are two weapons clasping each other in front of the thickened part, perniqqu is their name: the ones that hate each other will love each other; a treaty of peace will come to be in an enemy land; Sîn and Šamaš will walk on the sides of troops and I will reach my enemy; the angry gods will become reconciled with the people. The security offered to the king by Sîn and Šamaš is reflected in the prophecy of Bayâ to Esarhaddon, which speaks of the deities who were present when the king was born. Here Sîn and Šamaš are the only gods mentioned by name and they are described as standing on the right and left side of the newly-born king.1253 SAA 9 no. 1, II 20’–26’ II 20’ ki-i munusAMA-ka II 21’ tu-šab-šu-ka-ni II 22’ 60 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ is-si-ia II 23’ it-ti-ti-su it-ta-ṣar-u-ka II 24’ d30 ina ZAG-ka dUTU ina 150-ka II 25’ 60 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ ina bat-ti-bat-ti-ka II 26’ i-za-zu MURUB4-ka ir-tak-su When your mother gave birth to you, sixty great gods stood with me (and) protected you. Sîn (was) on your right, Šamaš (was) on your left; sixty great gods were standing around you (and) girded your loins. A similar image of Sîn and Šamaš standing on the right and left sides of the king is attested in a ritual context in one of the incantations performed when the king was invested with his royal insignia as a part of the new year’s festival in Tašrītu.1254 The incantation that was recited to the crown of the king contains, at its end, a wish for Sîn and Šamaš to accompany the king on his right and left side. K. 4624, I 20’–23’1255 I 20’ lugal-e sipa-kalam-ma-ke4 á-zi-da-na [dUtu (...)] I 21’ á-gùb-bu-na dNanna [...] I 22’ ša LUGAL re-é KUR-šú ina im-ni-šú dUTU [li-x-x] I 23’ ina šu-me-li-šú d30 li-[x x]

1253

In Leichty 2007, 191 this passage has been interpreted as evidence of the special veneration of the Ḫarranian moon god by the Sargonid kings. 1254 See Ambos 2013a, 68 and 212–223. 1255 See the edition in Ambos 2013a, 214 (ll. 48–48). A copy of K. 4624 is published in 4 R2 18 and 18* no. 3.

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

225

May Utu/Šamaš [stand/walk?] on the right side (and) may Nanna/Sîn [stand/ walk?] on the left side of the king, the shepherd of the land! The power of Sîn and Šamaš to appoint the king is apparent in Nabonidus’ inscriptions connected to Sippar. Among these inscriptions there are three instances when the moon god and the sun god are depicted as a pair connected to royal power. First, the section dealing with the rebuilding of the temple E’ulmaš in Sippar in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder includes instruction for the future ruler who will rebuild the temple when it becomes dilapidated. This speech by Nabonidus to the unknown future king opens with the line “Whoever you may be whom Sîn and Šamaš have appointed to be a king ...”.1256 Through this line the role of both Sîn and Šamaš, who were present in Sippar as father and son,1257 is stressed in this matter – a notion that is otherwise not very apparent in the available textual sources. The Ebabbar-Ekurra Cylinder reveals that Nabonidus thought that he himself had also been appointed by Sîn and Šamaš: the opening section includes the epithet nibīt Sîn u Šamaš, “the one appointed by Sîn and Šamaš”, for him.1258 The moon and sun god’s support for Nabonidus is also expressed in his other inscription describing the rebuilding of Ebabbar in Sippar. In this context the love Sîn and Šamaš had for Nabonidus’ reign (palû) is stressed, most likely also with the implication that their support gave stability to the king.1259 Lastly, it should be noted that Sîn and Šamaš were also grouped with other deities in respect to their power over kingship. In his cylinder inscription from Nineveh, the king Sîn-šarru-iškun sees Sîn and Šamaš, together with their spouses, as part of the group of deities who chose him for kingship. This is emphasised by Sîn-šarru-iškun’s epithet itût kūn libbi Sîn Ningal Šamaš u Aya, “chosen one of the steadfast heart of Sîn, Ningal, Šamaš, and Aya” in the introductory passage of this text.1260 Moreover, Sîn and Šamaš are grouped together with the weather god Adad by Assurbanipal, who called himself “the one appointed by Sîn, Šamaš (and) Adad” (nibīt Sîn Šamaš Adad) in Assurbanipal Prism E.1261

1256

Schaudig 2001, 2.12, III 43 (Ex. 1): man-nu at-ta šá d30 ù dUTU a-na LUGAL-ú-tu inam-bu-šu-ma. 1257 For the cult of the moon god in Sippar see the discussion on p. 373ff. below. 1258 Schaudig 2001, 2.4, I 5: ma-al-ka it-pe-šu ni-bit d30 u dUTU. See also Seux 1967, 207. 1259 Schaudig 2001, 2.14, I 11–13 (Ex. 4): [i-n]a pa-le-e-a / ki-i-nim šá d30 ù dUTU / i-raam-mu, “during my legitimate reign, which Sîn and Šamaš love”. 1260 Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder C, 3: i-tu-ut kun lìb-bi d30 dNin-gal dUTU u dA-a (Grayson 1972, 161; see also Seux 1967, 121–122). In this text Sîn is said to have endowed Sînšarru-iškun with the royal insignia (see the discussion on p. 206ff. above). 1261 BM 127940+, I 6: ni-bit d30 dUTU dIŠKUR (Millard 1968, 100; now edited as RINAP 5/I no. 2). See also Seux 1967, 207.

226

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

II.7.4. Sîn, Theophoric Personal Names, and Kingship A significant factor in examining the status and meaning of the moon god Sîn during the Neo-Assyrian period is the emergence of royal names that are built around the theophoric element Sîn.1262 This phenomenon has been seen as evidence for the possible origin of the Sargonid dynasty in the western parts of Assyria, specifically in Ḫarrān.1263 Its special character and therefore its importance is shown by the almost complete lack of royal names with the element Sîn among the names of previous Assyrian kings: according to the Assyrian King List, only two kings with Sîn names, Nāṣir-Sîn and Sîn-namir, reigned in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE.1264 During the Middle Assyrian and NeoAssyrian periods the kings’ names were built around the theophoric elements Aššur, Enlil, Ninurta, Adad, or Salmānu. As kings of the gods, Aššur and Enlil were especially important for the king, and the warrior Ninurta also held a central position in Assyrian royal ideology. The use of Adad as a theophoric element may, in turn, be interpreted as a reference to the illustrious Šamšī-Adad I.1265 The connection between the god Salmānu and the king is explained by his being one of the deities in the royal palace according to a Middle Assyrian royal ritual.1266 The moment when a change occurred in the nomenclature of the Assyrian kings can be dated to the reign of Tiglath-pileser III and his son Sargon II, who apparently rose to the throne in middle age. From this point onwards, the Sargonid dynasty showed clear differences in royal nomenclature in comparison to the earlier Neo-Assyrian and also the Middle Assyrian kings.1267 Since we do not have information concerning the nomenclature of the royal household for the times preceding the Sargonid dynasty, it is impossible to know if personal names containing the theophoric element Sîn were common in earlier times. Therefore the fact that Sargon’s brother was named Sîn-aḫu-uṣur (“O Sîn, protect the brother!”) – the first attested person in the Neo-Assyrian royal household to have a theophoric name invoking the moon god – does not necessarily signify a

1262

The importance of this naming practise has been previously mentioned in Mayer 1995, 66–67 and Mayer 1998, 257 note 37, where the emergence of theophoric names with the element Sîn among the sons of Tiglath-pileser III is seen as proof of Sîn’s rise in importance in the royal sphere. Similar conclusions have been presented also in Parpola 2003, 105 note 15 and Parpola 2007, 265 note 38. 1263 See Leichty 2007, 191 and Pongratz-Leisten 2015, 344. 1264 Assyrian King List, kings XLIII–XLIV (Grayson 1980–1983, 106). For an overview of the available information about Sîn-namir see Michel 2011, 522. 1265 Radner 1998, 38. 1266 Radner 1998, 39. 1267 It has been suggested in Frahm 2005, 47–48 that this change in nomenclature coincides with Assyria becoming an empire during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III: according to this view the rulers of the new empire wanted to distance themselves from the earlier kings by choosing names that had not been previously used as royal names.

II.7. Sîn and Kingship

227

special connection between the royal family and the moon god.1268 Similarly, the fact that the name Sîn-per’u-ukīn, “Sîn has established the offspring”, was held by one of the younger children of Esarhaddon – best known from the letters concerning his health – is in itself not sufficient to prove that the Sargonid rulers especially venerated the moon god.1269 It is more important that two reigning kings (Sennacherib and Sîn-šarru-iškun) and an appointed crown prince (Sîn-nādinapli) did not adopt throne names invoking Aššur, but retained their names referring to Sîn. Sennacherib (Sîn-aḫḫē-erība, “Sîn has replaced the brothers”1270) was the first king in Assyria since the early 2nd millennium BCE to have a name with the theophoric element Sîn. His name was also unusual as a royal name, because it exhibits a common name pattern and as such it did not emulate royal names like Salmānu-ašarēd, the name adopted by Šalmaneser V, the uncle of Sennacherib.1271 The name Sîn-šarru-iškun, “Sîn has established the king”,1272 is important for understanding the role of Sîn in two respects. First, a name invoking the moon god was once again considered suitable as a throne name for the Assyrian king. Second, the meaning of the name itself refers to Sîn’s power over kingship – a notion apparent in the epithets that Sîn-šarru-iškun applied for him.1273 We will never know if Esarhaddon’s heir Sîn-nādin-apli, “Sîn is the giver of an heir”, would have kept his name after his coronation, since he died before becoming king.1274 Still, the fact that Esarhaddon’s eldest son was given a name invoking Sîn plausibly reflects his close connection to the moon god, insofar as it is attested in other aspects of his life.1275 A tendency to associate the moon god with kingship – visible in the name Sîn-šarru-iškun – can also be observed in other theophoric personal names. Such personal names are attested from the reign of Tiglath-pileser III until the fall of

1268

The name Sîn-aḫu-uṣur may very well have been purposely chosen for Sargon’s “favourite brother” (aḫu talīmu) who wielded much power as the “grand vizier” (see PNA 3/I, 1128 and May 2017, 491–527). 1269 SAA 10 no. 222 and SAA 10 no. 223. See also the overview in PNA 3/I, 1139–1140. 1270 See PNA 3/I, 1113–1121 and Frahm 2009, 12–22. 1271 Radner 2005, 34. 1272 Overviews of the king Sîn-šarru-iškun can be found in PNA 3/I, 1143–1145 and Schaudig 2011, 522–524. 1273 See the discussion on p. 206ff. above. 1274 For an overview of the life of Sîn-nādin-apli see PNA 3/I, 1138–1139 and Novotny & Singletary 2009, 168–169. The extispicy query pertaining to the appointment of Sîn-nādin-apli as the crown prince is SAA 4 no. 149. For a list of the attested children of Esarhaddon see Parpola 1983, 117–118. 1275 To these connections belong e.g. his coronation in Ḫarrān (see p. 209 above). Natalie May has suggested that Esarhaddon, who was not the eldest son of Sennacherib, had a close personal connection with Ḫarrān and its moon god because the city may have served as a domain of the collateral branches of the royal family (May 2017, 516–521).

228

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the Assyrian empire. It has to be admitted that the chronological setting of these attestations may be coincidental due to the large quantity of material from the time of the Sargonid dynasty and the lack of documents from the early Neo-Assyrian period. Still, the emergence of non-royal personal names that present the moon god as a protector and establisher of kingship appears to have more or less coincided with the emergence of royal names invoking the moon god. The earliest attestation for a personal name in which the moon god is invoked to protect the king dates to the reign of Tiglath-pileser III. During his reign a man by the name Bēl-Ḫarrān-šarru-uṣur, “O Lord of Ḫarrān, protect the king!”, served as an oxherd of the palace in Kalḫu.1276 Thus the moon god of Ḫarrān was explicitly beseeched to offer protection for the king and this name continues to be attested until late in the reign of Assurbanipal in Kalḫu and Nineveh, the residential cities of the Assyrian royal family.1277 An equivalent of this name is Sîn-šarru-uṣur, “O Sîn, protect the king!”, which is widely attested from the reign of Sargon II onward, mostly among the individuals employed by the royal family.1278 This is also the name of the successor and brother of the governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi in Ur.1279 Another variation is found in the name Sîn-šarru-uṣuranni, “O Sîn, protect the king for me!”, which is the name of an official active in Laḫiru during the reign of Assurbanipal.1280 The name Sîn-šarru-ibni, “Sîn has created the king”, is attested for six individuals during the reign of Assurbanipal or later.1281 The statement expressed in this name perceives the moon god as a creator of the king, similar to the notion that Sîn created Assurbanipal for kingship.1282 Perhaps

1276

PNA 1/II, 303–304. ND 2769, r. 2 and r. 6: IEN–KASKAL–MAN–PAB (Saggs 2001, 211–213). Note also the name Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēlu-uṣur, most prominently attested for the palace herald of the kings Šalmaneser IV and Tiglath-pileser III (PNA 1/II, 301). 1277 See PNA 3/I, 304. Seven other individuals with this name are known: a military official from Kalḫu (reign of Sargon II); an information officer from Nineveh (reign of Sennacherib, 694); an individual from Nineveh (reign of Esarhaddon, 671); a major-domo from Nineveh (reign of Esarhaddon or Assurbanipal); horse trainer of the royal court from Nineveh (reign of Assurbanipal, 636*); son of an court official (possibly the reign of Sargon II); an individual named in a list found at Nineveh (details unknown). 1278 The list in PNA 3/I, 1145–1147 includes 18 individuals, who lived in the period of time ranging from Sargon II to Sîn-šarru-iškun. 1279 Sîn-šarru-uṣur followed his brother Sîn-balāssu-iqbi as the governor of Ur, most likely shortly before the outbreak of the civil war between Assurbanipal and Šamaššumu-ukīn (see PNA 3/I, 1145–1146 as well as Frame 1992, 126 and 278). 1280 ABL 459, 4: I.d30–LUGAL–PAB-a-ni (see PNA 3/I, 1147). 1281 PNA 3/I, 1143. Six attested individuals: cook from Nineveh (reign of Assurbanipal; 667); diviner in the court of Nineveh (reign of Assurbanipal); an official or messenger active in Elam (reign of Assurbanipal); cohort commander from Assur (after the reign of Assurbanipal; 626*) eunuch and governor of Kar-[...] (reign of Aššur-etel-ilānī); official responsible for oxen from Nineveh (dating unknown). 1282 See the citation on p. 214 above.

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

229

the name Sē’-šarru, which is attested for an individual living in Dūr-Katlimmu during the reign of Assurbanipal,1283 is an abbreviation of one of the aforementioned name formulae. The moon god as a deity establishing kingship is attested in the name Sîn-šarrūssu-ka’’in, “O Sîn, establish his kingship!”, which belonged to an individual who functioned as the eponym, possibly for the year 628.1284 The meaning of the name Šarru-Sîn, “The king (is) Sîn(?)”, which is attested in Kalḫu during the reign of Sargon II,1285 remains unclear, since it could be a statement of the king being like the moon1286 or an abbreviation of a longer name.

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals The affinity between the moon and concepts regarding creation, fertility, and growth is universal and commonly associated with the menstrual cycle of humans, the ebb and flow of the sea, and the moist dew.1287 Fundamental to this

1283

PNA 3/I, 1106: BATSH 6 no. 64, r. 7: ISe-e’–MAN, an individual from Dūr-Katlimmu (reign of Assurbanipal, 636*). 1284 PNA 3/I, 1145. I.d30–LUGAL-su–GIN (read Sîn-šarrūssu-ka’’in in PNA and Sîn-šarrūssu-ukīn in Reade 1998, 256) functions as the eponym in a single document from Kalḫu. The year 628* is proposed as his eponymy in Reade 1998, 256 1285 PNA 3/II, 1251: CTN 3 no. 101, I 23: ILUGAL–30, a military official active in Kalḫu (reign of Sargon II). 1286 Cf. the description of the king and the moon god in Udug-ḫul 16, 82–84 (see the citation on p. 173 above). 1287 An overview of the religious notions concerning the moon and lunar deities in various cultures can be found in Bram 1987, 83–91. As a particular example, in Hindu mythology the moon god Candra nourishes the vegetation with his light, and in astrology, he rules women and water (Gansten 2009, 648–649). Because of these prevalent, universal notions in mythology and folklore, the possible lunar influence on the human – especially female – body has been a matter of interest also to modern science. The results have been varying. For example, it was concluded in Law 1986, 45–48 that there appears to be a larger concentration of menstruation during the moon’s invisibility, leading to ovulation occurring during the full moon. Another study achieved an opposite result: the full moon was the time when menstruation most frequently occurred, and menstruation fluctuated in a seasonal pattern (Cutler et al. 1987, 959–972). A study conducted among the women belonging to the Dogon tribe in Mali offers perhaps the closest parallel to the living conditions of Mesopotamian women (Strassmann 1997, 123–129). In contrast to the majority of women in industrialised societies, Dogon women spend most of their reproductive years either pregnant or lactating. Furthermore, their living habitats typically have no electrical lighting, a major factor in determining the possible influence of the moon’s luminosity in this respect. In contrast to the aforementioned two other studies, the study conducted among the Dogon showed no indication of any specific lunar timing for menstruation. This correlates with the scientific consensus that, although human physiology is regulated by daily, annual, and seasonal cycles, the lunar cycle does not show any significant effects on human biological processes or human behaviour (Foster &

230

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

idea are the waxing and waning of the moon during its cycle, and its disappearance and rebirth each month: the moon is perceived to be the epitome of growth and renewal in many cultures throughout the globe. Although fecundity is a significant aspect of lunar theologies of various cultures, often other forms of impact on the human body were associated with the moon. The conglomerate of lunar influence is exemplified by the Greek physician Galen, who wrote “the moon makes fruits swell and living beings fat, guards the monthly periods of women, watches the periods of epileptics (...)”.1288 Similar notions can be found in Mesopotamia. The moon god Sîn himself bears the appellation “Fruit”, which stresses his monthly renewal and growth.1289 Undoubtedly in association with notions of growth and renewal, he had the ability to create abundance in the land and give people offspring. In relation to this idea, but also in connection with the celestial appearance of the crescent moon with its horns, he was widely associated with cattle – an aspect that is particularly distinct in his cult city Ur. These matters pertaining to the moon as the source of fecundity will be discussed in the chapters below. Also included here is the association of the moon god with wild animals, although the relationship between them was based on the moon’s appearance and its presence in areas uninhabited by humans. The association of the moon god with epileptic seizures – which also existed in classical antiquity as the quotation from Galen shows – will be treated in the later chapters dedicated to Sîn’s role in relation to diseases.1290 Here, the launching point for mapping the moon god’s role in matters pertaining to fecundity and creation are the depictions of him as a creator and a father.

II.8.1. Sîn as Creator and Father In Assyria and Babylonia, the moon god Sîn was perceived as a creator god and a father of other deities, especially in his cult cities Ur and Ḫarrān.1291 This local theological aspect underlines notions about local authority: as a father figure, the moon god was the paternal authority in his household, which consisted of his wife, his children, and his servants. In Ur, the god Ningublaga was thought to be his son1292 and the goddesses Amarazu and Amaraḫea were his daughters.1293 In Roenneberg 2008, R791–R792). 1288 Galen, IX 903 (cited here according to Stol 1993, 123). 1289 See the discussion on p. 54ff. above. 1290 See p. 270ff. below. 1291 For a short discussion concerning the role of the Sumerian moon god Nanna/Sîn as a father figure in respect to his cult city and its inhabitants see Hall 1985, 886. 1292 See the discussion on p. 317ff. below. 1293 See the discussion on p. 324ff. below.

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

231

Ḫarrān, the god Nusku is attested as the son of the moon god.1294 Still, as will be seen, evidence linked to the local theological framework in Ur portrayed the moon god not only as the local father-figure but also as the source of life for all living beings. In addition to these localised conceptions, Sîn was considered to be the father of the sun god Šamaš and the goddess Ištar in Sumero-Babylonian mythology, and references to these genealogical relationships are widely found in Sumerian, Babylonian, and Assyrian sources since the earliest written documentation.1295 The role of the moon god as the divine father and creator in his southern cult city Ur is prominent in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to him, 4 R2 9+//.1296 The first lines of the prayer praise Sîn as the father (Sum. a-a/Akk. abu) in connection with Ur and his temple there, Ekišnugal, and this is a phenomenon that can be found in other Sumerian cultic compositions linked to Ur.1297 Based on the names of the city and the temple, it is clear that it is the moon god of Ur that is addressed in this prayer. The two main sections in 4 R2 9+// focusing on the theme of creation describe the moon god of Ur as the creator of all living beings, the gods, the land, and the cult places. The first section focuses on the idea that the moon god was the source of life, calling him both a womb that has given birth to the living beings and a merciful father who controls the lives of his children. 4 R2 9+//, 12–131298 12 ama gan niĝin-na mu-LU ši da-ma-al-la ki-tuš maḫ bí-in-⌈ri⌉ ri-i-mu a-lid nap-ḫa-ri šá it-ti šik-na-at na-piš-ti šub-tú KÙ-tim ra-mu-u 13 ⌈a⌉-⌈a⌉ šà-lá sù mar-ra-na mu-LU na-áĝ-ti-la gú ka-naĝ-ĝá šu-šè muun-dab-⌈ba⌉ [a-b]u réme-nu-u ta-a-a-ru šá ba-laṭ nap-ḫar ⌈ma⌉-a-ti qá-tuš-šú tam-ḫu (Sum.) Birth-mother of everything, who occupies an exalted abode among the wide-spread living beings, (Akk.) Womb (or: wild bull1299) (that) gives birth to everything, that occupies a pure abode with all the living beings, 1294

See the discussion on p. 314ff. below. For Sîn’s children see the discussion on 305ff. 1296 See the editions in Shibata, HES (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 166–179. 1297 See e.g. eršema to Sîn, BM 13930 (CT 15, pls. 16–17)//, 2–4 (Sjöberg 1960, 44–47). For the Sumerian epithet a-a, “father”, for Nanna/Sîn see Hall 1985, 625–626. 1298 Shibata, HES (forthcoming); Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 170. 1299 The Sumerian formulation suggests that rēmu, “womb”, is meant here. The Akkadian spelling, however, points toward rīmu, “wild bull”, an animal commonly associated with the moon god (see p. 240). 1295

232

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

(Sum. & Akk.) compassionate, merciful father, who holds the lives of all the land in his hand.

In the following lines, the focus shifts from living beings, humans, and animals to the cosmic and cultic spheres. Here the moon god is depicted as responsible for the creation of the land and its organisation along with the sanctuaries of the various gods. Furthermore, he is praised as the father of both the people and the gods: a clear indication of his authority in the local cultic setting. 4 R2 9+//, 15–161300 15 ⌈ù⌉-[tu-u]d-da ka-naĝ-ĝá ⌈zag⌉ mu-un-šub-ba mu-un-da-ab-sa4-e-dè b[a-nu]-u ma-a-ta mu-šar-⌈ši⌉-du eš-re-e-ti na-bu-ú šu-mì-šú-un 16 ⌈ad⌉? ugu-na dìm-me-er-e-ne na-áĝ-⌈lú⌉-⌈u18⌉-⌈lu⌉ ⌈bára⌉ ri-àm nidba mu-⌈un⌉-⌈gi⌉-⌈eš⌉-⌈àm⌉ a-bu a-lid DINGIR.MEŠ u a-me-li ⌈mu⌉-šar-mu-u šub-tum mukin nin-⌈da⌉-bé-e (Sum.) Gen[it]or of the land, he firmly establishes sanctuaries (and) then gives them names (Akk.) Cr[ea]tor of the land, who firmly establishes the sanctuaries, who calls out their names (Sum.) The biological father of the gods (and) the people, establishing the pedestals he made the food offerings permanent (Akk.) The father, begetter of the gods and the people, the one who settles the abode, the one who permanently establishes the food offerings The conception of the moon god as the creator of the land is also attested in one of his names in a fragmentary god-list from Nineveh: in this list he is called d Lugal-kalam-ma-ù-tu-ud, “King, genitor of the land”.1301 Although it has been claimed that this name does not reflect the prevailing notions in Sumero-Babylonian theology,1302 the similarity of this name to line 15 of the šu’ila-prayer 4 R2 9+// indicates that it may have been directly linked to the local cult in Ur, where the moon god was venerated as a divine creator.1303 Unfortunately, no sources similar to 4 R2 9+// are preserved in connection with the Ḫarranian moon god. Still, the use of the epithet bānû šassūri, “creators? of the womb” in one of Assurbanipal’s inscriptions suggests that Sîn, plaus-

1300

Shibata, HES (forthcoming); Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 170. K. 2124 (CT 25, pl. 32), 12’: dLugal-kalam-ma-ù-tu-ud | d30 (cited in Feliu 2006, 236 note 43). See also Tallqvist 1938a, 354 (“König, Erbauer des Landes”) and Lambert 1987c, 145 (“The king who begat the land”). See also the discussion on p. 197 above. 1302 So according to Lambert 1987c, 145; criticised in Andersson 2012, 101 note 535. 1303 See Sjöberg 1960, 175. 1301

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

233

ibly together with other deities, may have been perceived as a source of fertility.1304 The portrayals of Sîn of Ḫarrān as a father are restricted to the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus. Furthermore, the majority of these references pertain to particular genealogical relationships: Sîn as the father of Nusku, Šamaš, Ištar, and Anunītu. In fact, the inscriptions of Assurbanipal written when the temple Emelamana in Ḫarrān was rebuilt contain the only direct references to the moon god as the “biological father” (abu ālidu) of Nusku.1305 In the inscriptions of Nabonidus, the moon god’s status as the divine father and creator is focused in two ways. First, Sîn is depicted as the father of the sun god Šamaš and the goddesses Ištar and Anunītu. Second, he is said to be the father of all celestial and terrestrial deities. The first notion is highlighted in Nabonidus’ Eḫulḫul Cylinder and in the collection of stele inscriptions that commemorated the rebuilding of the temples Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān, Ebabbar in Larsa and Sippar, and E’ulmaš in Akkad and Sippar. In these texts, the moon god as the “father creator” (abu bānû)1306 and “biological father” (abu ālidu)1307 is present in relation to his children Šamaš, Ištar, and Anunītu. Sîn is also depicted as the creator of Šamaš in the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus.1308 On a few occasions, however, his fatherhood is extended to other gods living in heaven and on the earth. In the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus, Sîn is described as the “father creator” (abu bānû) of every celestial deity. Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 32–35 (Ex. 1) II 32 šá nap-ḫar DINGIR.MEŠ u d15 II 33 ⌈a⌉-⌈ši⌉-⌈bu⌉-ti⌉ šá AN-e i-na-aṣ-ṣa-ru II 34 ⌈ṣi⌉-⌈it⌉ ⌈pi⌉-⌈i⌉-⌈šú⌉ ⌈ú⌉-⌈šal⌉-la⌉-mu qí-bi-ti II 35 ⌈d⌉⌈Nanna⌉-⌈ri⌉ ⌈AD⌉ ⌈ba⌉-⌈ni⌉-⌈šú⌉-un (You,) whose utterance the totality of gods and goddesses living in heaven protect, they carry out the command of Nannāru, father, their creator.

1304

Sm. 671, 9: [...] x ba-nu-u ŠÀ.TÙR mu-rap-pi-šú su-pu-⌈ri⌉, “[...] ... creators? of the womb, the ones? who extend? the sheepfold” (see Bauer 1933, pl. 49 and Novotny 2002, 249). Since the inscription is only partly preserved, the subject of the participle remains unclear: the context suggests that it is the moon god, but the form is plural. Perhaps, in this case, Sîn was named together with other deities. 1305 See e.g. K. 2813+, 21 (Bauer 1933, pl. 29 and Novotny 2003, 241). See also the discussion on p. 314ff. below. 1306 Šamaš and Ištar: Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 39–40 (Ex. 11); Šamaš and Anunītu: Schaudig 2001, 2.12, III 38–55 (Ex. 1). 1307 Šamaš: Schaudig 2001, 2.14, I 26’–27’ (Ex. 1); 2.14, II 17–18 (Ex. 2). Ištar of Akkad: Schaudig 2001, 2.14, III 14–15 (Ex. 2). Anunītu: Schaudig 2001, 2.14, III 34 (Ex. 2); III 70 (Ex. 2). 1308 Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 3–5 (Ex. 1).

234

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

This statement further underlines the celestial connotations of the moon god’s role as a father in Nabonidus’ inscriptions: in addition to being the father of Šamaš and Ištar/Anunītu, he is presented as the father of all the celestial gods. To express Sîn’s authority in this way accords with the preceding passage in the Ḫarrān Stele in which the “Theology of the Moon” associates Sîn with the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil, and therefore ascribes the highest powers in the cosmos to him.1309 Sîn’s role as the father of gods in Ḫarrān is also reflected in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder of Nabonidus in which not only the celestial deities but also the terrestrial ones are counted among his children. Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 30–32 (Ex. 1) II 30 DINGIR.MEŠ a-ši-bu-tu ša AN-e ù KI-tì II 31 li-ik-ta-ra-bu É d+EN.ZU a-bi ba-ni-šu-un May the gods of the heavens and the earth continually bless the house of Sîn, father, their creator! This comment regarding the moon god’s status as the father of all the gods in heaven and earth should most likely be interpreted as a reference to the local theology of the moon god in Ḫarrān, where he enjoyed the highest position in the pantheon. While Sîn is presented as the father of the gods, his wife Ningal took a similar role as the mother of gods. In the context of Ningal’s cult in Ur, in the inscription of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi that celebrates the rebuilding of the well in Ningal’s temple, her status as the mother of the great gods is presented together with her status as a supreme goddess. RIMB, B.6.32.2015, 1–3 1 a-na dNin-gal GAŠAN ṣir-ti 2 šar-rat i-la-a-ti qa-rit-ti (var.: qa-rit-ti AMA1310) 3 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ For Ningal, august lady, queen of the goddesses, the valiant of the great gods (var. the valiant, the mother of the great gods)

The idea that Ningal was the mother of the great gods is also found in her other cult city, Ḫarrān. In an inscription of Assurbanipal that was written for Ningal’s carrying poles she is called ummi ilānī, “mother of gods”.1311 Similarly, Nabonidus called her “mother of the great gods” in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder.

1309

See the discussion on p. 136ff. above. This variant is found in one of the total of eight clay discs (IM 48414). 1311 Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 2: um-mi DINGIR.MEŠ (see p. 301 below). 1310

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

235

Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 37–38 (Ex. 11) d Nin-gal AMA DINGIR GAL.GAL II 37 II 38 i-na ma-ḫar d+EN.ZU na-ra-mi-šu li-iq-ba-a ba-ni-tu4 May Ningal, mother of the great gods speak well (for me) before Sîn, her beloved one! The epithet ummi ilānī rabûti, “mother of the great gods”, is also attested for Ningal elsewhere: a fragmentary bilingual prayer to Ningal includes this as one of her epithets.1312 The celestial connotation of her role as a mother is conveyed by Sargon II’s hymn to Ningal, in which she is characterised as the one who has given birth to the celestial Igigū gods (ālittat Igigī).1313 Outside his two cult cities, references to Sîn as a father are very sparse. One can be found in the epithet “father of the gods” (abi ilānī) that is attested in the šu’ila-prayer “Sîn 3”, in the line that praises the moon god as “king of the world, father of the gods, lord of the [man]kind”.1314 The same epithet is also attested in a Late Babylonian incantation that was recited before the gods of the night.1315 BM 38599, 15–181316 15 ÉN d30 AD DINGIR.MEŠ DU-ak ina ZAG-ia5 d 16 ⌈UTU⌉ ⌈SAG.KAL⌉ DINGIR.M[EŠ] ⌈DU⌉-ak GÙB-ia5 d 17 Iš-tar be-let KUR.KUR DU-ak ina IGI-ia5 d 18 U.GUR kaš-kaš DINGIR.MEŠ DU-ak ina EGIR-ia5 Incantation: Sîn, the father of the gods, is walking to my right! Šamaš, the foremost of the gods, is walking to my left! Ištar, the mistress of the lands, is walking before me! Nergal, the mightiest of the gods, is walking behind me! Both of these instances have substantial celestial connotations, and therefore it is plausible that the use of this epithet refers to the status of the moon among the celestial deities: he is the father of the sun god Šamaš and the Venus goddess Ištar.

1312

K. 4940+K. 5118+K. 6020, 7: [...] ama dìm-me-er gal-gal-e-⌈ne⌉ / [... t]i um-mi DINGIR.MEŠ ra-bu-[ti]. K. 5118 was published in Meek 1913, no. 23, but the joined fragments K. 4940 and K. 6020 remain unpublished. A photograph of the tablet is available online (CDLI P395798). 1313 ND 2480, 5: a-lit-ta-at dÍ-gì-gì (see p. 299 below). 1314 “Sîn 3”, 3. See the edition on p. 464ff. below. 1315 According to the colophon of the Late Babylonian manuscript, the text can be traced back to the sage Lu-Nanna of Ur (BM 38599, r. 17–18; see Schwemer 2015, 220). 1316 Schwemer 2015, 218 and 221.

236

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

II.8.2. Fertility and Growth The moon god’s status as creator and fatherly authority, mainly in connection with his local cults, is complemented by the concepts of fertility, growth, and abundance associated with him.1317 Likewise, these notions are most visible in Ur and Ḫarrān, which affirms the observation that in Mesopotamia local deities are described as fertility deities.1318 This association most likely belongs to the earliest ideas about the moon and the moon god in Mesopotamia, shown by, for example, the depictions of the moon god together with vegetation on Old Akkadian cylinder seals.1319 A further indication of the presence of such theological notions is the strong association between the moon god and cattle, which will be discussed below.1320 In addition to the tendency to give the power of fertility to local deities, the nature of Nanna/Sîn as god of the moon becomes apparent in the references to him in this respect: in Mesopotamia – as it was in many other cultures – the moon was seen as a source of fertility because of its cycle and growth.1321 The celestial element is particularly prominent in his appellation “Fruit” and its association with the first half of the lunar month, i.e. the waxing moon.1322 Similar to this, both the growth of vegetation and the moon as a celestial phenomenon are linked to the verb hanābu, “to grow abundantly”.1323 This is the verb from which Sîn’s epithet muḫtanbu, literally “he who grows abundantly through himself”, is derived.1324 In the single attestation of this epithet in one of the ikrib-prayers to Sîn the celestial connotation is strongly present, and therefore the moon’s abundant growth is juxtaposed with his luminosity.1325 On a few occasions, the moon god is portrayed as the provider of abundance. In the god-list An = Anum, one of Sîn’s names is dMu-ḫé-ĝál-la, “Years of Plenty”.1326 This idea that the moon god brought prosperity can be traced back at least to Šu-Suen F, which praises Nanna/Suen as a god who establishes perman-

1317

Lunar mythology relating to this theme is presented in Tallqvist 1938b, 67–75 and Tallqvist 1947, 272–283. See also the overview of epithets in Tallqvist 1938a, 446–447. 1318 Komoróczy 1976, 81. 1319 Braun-Holzinger 1993, 129. 1320 See Krebernik 1995, 366–367. This association is discussed on p. 240ff. below. 1321 For an overview of such notions in various cultures see Bram 1987, 83–91. 1322 See p. 54ff. above. 1323 CAD Ḫ, 75–76 (“to grow abundantly; to be radiant”); AHw, 319 (“üppig sprießen”). 1324 CAD M/2, 177 lists muḫtanbu as an adjective, and in AHw, 319 the single attestation for it is emended to produce a Gtn participle mu-uḫ-ta-an--bu. Whether such a correction is needed remains unclear since muḫtanbu can be interpreted as a participle of the Gt stem with a reflexive meaning, i.e. a reference to moon’s self-regeneration. 1325 K. 2571+//, 28’: [d30? m]u-uḫ-ta-⌈an⌉-bu šu-pu-ú e-tel-[lu] (see p. 483ff. below). 1326 An = Anum III, 19 (see Litke 1998, 118 and Feliu 2006, 236).

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

237

ent abundance.1327 Two epithets relating to this same idea are found in prayer “Sîn 11”. Here the moon god is praised as nādin ḫegalli u mašrê, “giver of abundance and wealth”, and nādin nuḫši ana nišī rapšāti, “giver of prosperity to the wide-spread people”.1328 In relation to his cult in Ur, the moon god’s ability to command copious vegetation and agricultural abundance is celebrated in 4 R2 9+//, a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to him. 4 R2 9+//, 28–301329 28 ⌈za⌉-e e-ne-èĝ-zu an-na IM-gin7 diri-ga-bi ú-a ka-naĝ-ĝá mu-un-lulu ka-a-tú a-mat-ka e-liš ki-ma šá-a-ri ina né-qel-pi[(-i?) ri]-i-tam u maš-qí-tum ú-da-áš-šá 29 za-e e-ne-èĝ-zu ki-a ì-ma-al ú-šim ba-an-mú-mú ka-a-tú a-mat-ka ina er-ṣe-ti ina šá-ka-ni ur-qí-tum ib-ba-an-ni 30 za-e e-ne-èĝ-zu tùr-ra amaš-da peš-e ši-ma-al mu-un-da-ma-al-la ka-a-tú a-mat-ka tar-ba-ṣu u su-pu-ru ú-šam-ri šik-na-at na-pišti ú-ra-pa-áš (Sum.) You, when your word drifted like the wind in the heaven, it made food and drink abundant in the land (Akk.) Yours, when your word drifts above like the wind, it lets [the pa]sture and the drinking place thrive (Sum.) You, your word settled on the earth, it allowed grass and herb grow abundantly (Akk.) Yours, when your word settles on the earth, greenery will be created (Sum.) You, your word, fattening the cattle pen and sheepfold, amplified the living creatures (Akk.) Yours, your word fattened the cattle pen and sheepfold fat, it makes the living creatures abundant It is likely that a similar idea regarding the moon god as the source of fertility existed in his other cult city Ḫarrān, but, unfortunately, direct references to it do not survive. In the inscription for Sîn’s akītu-house in Ḫarrān, Assurbanipal appears to have praised him (perhaps together with other deities) as “creator of womb”, indicating an association between the moon god and fertility.1330 In this

1327

Šu-Suen F, 8–12 (ETCSL t.2.4.4.6); see also Hall 1985, 789 as well as Feliu 2006, 236 note 41. Note here Nanna/Suen’s role as the provider for his cult city. 1328 “Sîn 11”, 8–9 (see the edition on p. 477ff. below). 1329 See Shibata, HES (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 168 and 170. 1330 Sm. 671, 9: [...] x ba-nu-u ŠÀ.TÙR mu-rap-pi-šú su-pu-⌈ri⌉, “[...] ... creators? of the womb, the ones? who extend? the sheepfold” (see Bauer 1933, pl. 49 and Novotny 2002, 249; see also the notes on p. 233 above).

238

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

case, Sîn’s creative power is also linked to his pastoral aspect, since the same line praises him as “the one who extends the sheepfold” for him.1331 It is possible that further references to the moon god’s ability to bring about prosperity existed in Ḫarrān; it has been suggested that the epithet munaḫḫiš kala dadmē, “who makes all inhabited regions prosperous”, should be reconstructed in one of the fragmentary lines in Assurbanipal’s dedicatory inscription for Eḫulḫul.1332 However, based on the lack of direct parallels, the use of this epithet to describe Sîn remains very uncertain. In addition to the written references, the non-textual materials from the area around Ḫarrān allow us to assume that the association of the moon god with vegetation may have existed on a much wider scale throughout the population. This is suggested by the seal motifs that present the crescent moon together with plants. In one variation, the crescent standard of the moon god is flanked by two trees,1333 and another type shows the anthropomorphic moon god standing inside a crescent moon that floats above vegetation.1334 In the Akkadian prayers to Sîn, the theme of fertility and procreation is prominent: he is celebrated as the source of offspring and giver of children on multiple occasions. Such attestations, which are associated with a variety of contexts, demonstrate that this concept not only existed in connection with his home cities, but was spread across Assyria and Babylonia. The prayer “Sîn 11”, which is only attested in Assur as part of a therapeutic procedure against māmītu, praises the moon god as nādin apli u zēri, “the giver of an heir and offspring”.1335 The same epithet appears to also be attested in another fragmentary ritual text from Assur that contains a prayer to Sîn.1336 In the ikrib-prayer to Sîn that was performed on the 15th day of the month this notion was taken further by ascribing the power to provide childless people with offspring and heirs. K. 2751+//, 63’–66’1337 You let the one who is deprived of a child to have a name, to every single one, who prays to you, you [g]ive a descendant and to the one, who is deprived, you [g]ive an heir, [yo]u call out his name! This same theme is repeated in the prayers “Sîn 3” and “Sîn 14” which were both associated with a therapy that aimed to cure a small child of epileptic dis1331

For this aspect see the discussion on p. 240ff. below. K. 8759+, 15: [ḫ]a?-⌈’i⌉?-[i]ṭ? lìb-bi UN.[MEŠ mu?-na?-ḫiš?] ka-la da-⌈ád⌉-⌈me⌉-[e ...] (see the transliteration on p. 142ff. above). 1333 See Keel 1994, 159–162 and Theuer 2000, 349–350. 1334 See Kühne 1997, 375–382 and Fig. 11, p. 52 above. 1335 “Sîn 11”, 5 (see p. 477ff. below). 1336 KAL 4 no. 40, r.? 18’: [... nādin IB]ILA u [zēri]. 1337 See the edition on p. 483ff. below. The same motif is also attested in the anti-witchcraft ritual IM 148516, 10–12 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). 1332

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

239

eases.1338 In the opening passage to the prayer “Sîn 14”, the moon god is emphatically praised as a deity responsible for the continuation of the family line. “Sîn 14”, 2–41339 O Sîn, you are the one who gives a name! O Sîn, you are the one who loves life! O Sîn, you are the lord of offspring! O Sîn, you are the giver of offspring! O Sîn, you are the giver of offspring to the wide-spread people! In prayer “Sîn 3” we have the opportunity to see Sîn’s powers from both male and female perspectives. What Sîn could give to a man was an heir to continue the family line, emphasising the social aspect of having a child. The female perspective was more focused on the conception and pregnancy itself, or more accurately, the woman’s inability to become pregnant. “Sîn 3”, 10–111340 The one who does not have an heir you endow with an heir; without you the childless woman cannot conceive and become pregnant! In fact, the importance of the moon god for women who experience difficulties becoming pregnant is an important theme in this prayer. Line “Sîn 3”, 7 states that, by Sîn’s command, even a barren woman can successfully deliver a child (ašar attā taqabbû nadītum uštešš[er]). The same notion, with some modifications, is repeated in one of the versions of “Sîn 3”, 14: it is said that Sîn will quickly provide offspring for the woman who is unable to give birth (lā ālittum ar[ḫi]š tušaṣbat). These lines enforce the notion that Sîn provided fertility, as has already been seen in the epithet “creator of the womb” in connection with Ḫarrān. Moreover, they underline Sîn’s ability to aid pregnant woman, not only during labour but also at the very beginning of the pregnancy.1341 Although there is no explicit evidence for this, the possibility that the time of the full moon was associated with human fertility should be considered. Such an association is suggested by a citation in a report sent to the Assyrian royal court: the 15th day is described as beneficial for conception.1342

1338

In Stol 1993, 132 the fact that the moon god is invoked to heal the small child is explained by the power of rejuvenation that he possessed. 1339 See the edition on p. 479ff. below for the variants in the text. 1340 See the edition on p. 464ff. below. 1341 See the overview of Cow of Sîn on p. 241ff. below. 1342 This report and other sources related to the period of conception are briefly discussed in Stol 2000, 91. For the ideal time and place for siring a child see also Volk 2004, 77.

240

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

SAA 8 no. 204, 1–8 1 DIŠ UD.15.KAM 30 u 20 [x x x x x] 2 un-ni-ni-ia li-qa-a [x x x x] bi 3 ina u4-mu šu-a-tu 4 u4-mu a-na dUTU i-kar-rab 5 u4-mu šu-a-tu 6 a-na MUNUS.BI TE-ḫi 7 MUNUS.BI ús-sa-ri 8 ŠE ù KÙ.BABBAR NU È On the 15th day the moon and sun [....] accept my prayers [....]. On this day he will pray a day (long) to Šamaš; on this day he will approach his woman, and his woman will be made pregnant; he will not lose barley and silver. In addition to this, the theme of having offspring is prominent in the ikrib-prayer to Sîn that was performed on the 15th day of the month.1343 The same theme is also found in the prayer to Sîn that was embedded in an anti-witchcraft ritual and that was likely performed during the full moon.1344 Therefore, it is possible that the performance of these prayers at the time of the full moon was linked to praising the moon god as the provider of offspring.

II.8.3. Cattle The last element of Sîn’s association with fertility is his affinity to cattle. In general, in Mesopotamian mythology and iconography, the moon god is associated with cattle and other horned animals.1345 A focal point for this association can be found in Ur, where Nanna/Sîn’s family members had pronounced pastoral qualities. His son, Ningublaga, was a bull god, whose spouse Nin(e)igara, “Lady of the Butter and Cream (House)” shared this pastoral aspect.1346 Likewise, the goddess Ningal as the mother of Ningublaga bears the name dÁb-na-ar-BU1347 and a letter to the Assyrian king sent from Ur spoke of a golden wild bull that was included among Ningal’s cultic paraphernalia.1348 The motif of cattle was vividly employed in Old Babylonian Sumerian hymns to Nanna/Suen that praise both the god and his herds.1349 In these hymns, the moon god was portrayed as the

1343

K. 2751+//, 63’–66’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). IM 148516, 10–12 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). For the performance of rituals on the 15th day of the month see the discussion on p. 106ff. above. 1345 See Tallqvist 1938a, 445; Hall 1985, 615–624; Hall 1986, 153–154; Krebernik 1995, 366–367; and Rochberg 2010, 352–354. 1346 See the discussion on p. 317ff. below. 1347 See p. 317 below. 1348 See p. 339 below. 1349 Nanna A (ETCSL 4.13.01; see also Sjöberg 1960, 13–34) and Nanna F (ETCSL 4.13.06; see also Hall 1986, 152–166). 1344

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

241

provider of milk products for cultic offerings and a celestial shepherd of his herds. Thus, the motif involves both a pastoral element related to breeding of cows and a celestial element, which interpreted the stars as cattle living in the heavenly cattle pen of the moon god.1350 The affinity of the moon god to cattle – more specifically to cows – is prominently portrayed in the short mythological account Cow of Sîn.1351 The myth, embedded within an incantation, tells how the moon god saw the shapely cow Geme-Sîn and fell in love with her. Because of this, he appointed her the head of the cow herd for the other cows and the shepherds to follow, and he pastured her in fields with tender grass. The shepherds were unaware that a wild bull1352 had mounted Geme-Sîn and, after the months of pregnancy, her labour began; she screamed in pain and terrified her shepherds. The moon god in heaven heard her cries and sent two lamassus from heaven to help her in her hour of distress. They anointed her with oil and sprinkled her with water, helping the calf to emerge easily and quickly. The incantation ends with a comparison between Geme-Sîn, who survived her labour with the help of Sîn and his lamassus, and the pregnant woman, who was now experiencing difficulties in labour.1353 Therefore, the mythological motif of Sîn and the cow built a close connection between the moon god, fertility, and childbirth. Sîn provided pasture for his beloved cow, who later became pregnant and received help with her birth pangs from the divine helpers sent by Sîn. In an Old Babylonian variation of this incantation, the divine pair Sîn and Šamaš are depicted grieving over the distress experienced by the woman enduring a difficult labour.1354 Sîn’s grief over the cow’s distress is explained in a Late Babylonian commentary on the birth incantation in question: he grieves because he is bēl lâti ellēti, “the lord of the pure cows”.1355 The connection between the moon god and cattle can also be seen in the way

1350

See Heimpel 1989, 249–252 and Rochberg 2010, 347–359. For further discussion concerning the cattle pen (tarbaṣu) and sheepfold (supūru) see p. 246ff. below. 1351 The most recent edition of this text has been provided by N. Veldhuis (1991). For an earlier score transliteration of the manuscripts see Röllig 1985, 260–272. See also the discussion in Scurlock 1991, 145–147 and Stol 2000, 66–70 and the translations in Farber 1987, 274–277 and Foster 2005, 1007–1008. For the compendium BAM 3 no. 248 (= KAR 196), in which the incantation is attested, see the edition of the text in Ebeling 1923, 65–78 and the recent overview in Couto-Ferreira 2014, 289–315. 1352 It is plausible that this wild bull should be understood as an alter ego of Sîn, who had the epithet būru ekdu in 4 R2 9+//, 10 (see p. 245 below). 1353 See also the discussion concerning the moon god’s aid in matters pertaining to childbirth on p. 288 below. 1354 Van Dijk 1972, 343–345. 1355 11N-T3, 21: aš-šum ÁB-ia la alit-ti áš-šú d30 EN la-a-tum el-le-e-ti, “‘Because of my cow (who is) not able to give birth’ (is said) on the account of Sîn, lord of the pure cows” (see Civil 1974, 21 and Jiménez 2014c [CCP 4.2.A.a].

242

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

bovine motifs are associated with the moon god in the iconography of Mesopotamia and its neighbouring areas.1356 Depictions of bulls accompanied by the crescent moon of Nanna/Sîn are attested from the Early Dynastic period onward. A prominent example is the copper head of a bull with a crescent moon carved on its forehead that was unearthed at Tell al-‘Ubaid near Ur.1357 For later periods, similar examples of bulls bearing the crescent moon are found in the wall paintings of the palace in Mari.1358 Bovine imagery in connection with the moon god is well attested for the Old Babylonian period in general.1359 A good example of the diffusion of the bull motif in association with the moon god is found on Old Babylonian terracotta plaques, which depict two crossed rampant bulls with the crescent moon mounted on a trunk-like pole above them.1360 This theme, which is also attested in the iconography of cylinder seals, can be interpreted as an allusion to the fertility that is associated with the moon god since the bulls are rampant, standing on their hind legs.1361 In the 1st millennium BCE, clear depictions of the bull in connection with the moon god in Mesopotamia grew rarer. Attested examples are found on a Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal, which depicts the head of a bull next to the standard of the moon god,1362 and in stamp seals that appear to depict an animal, possibly a bull, standing below the crescent standard of the moon god.1363 Despite the rarity of bull motifs in connection with Sîn in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian iconography, the association of the moon god with cattle remains strong in his names and epithets during Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian times. As in the earlier periods, this pastoral aspect of the moon god was ultimately built on the celestial nature of the moon.1364 When the order of Sîn’s names in the god-list An = Anum is considered, the two names built with the element “cow” receive celestial connotations: the names dÁb-kár, “Shining Cow”, and dÁb-lu-lu, “The one who makes the cows abundant”, both follow the name Ĝišnugal, “Great Light”, and precede the names that describe the moon as the

1356

Overviews of the use of bovine images in connection with the moon god can be found in Bernett & Keel 1998, 34–40 and Ornan 2001, 1–26. 1357 BM 118015 (Hall & Woolley 1927, pl. VII [nos. 2–4]; see also Spycket 1981, 136– 137 and Ornan 2001, 4–5). 1358 Parrot 1958, 19–22 and pls. V–VI; see also Ornan 2001, 7. 1359 See Colbow 1997, 25–26 and Ornan 2001, 7–14. 1360 Ornan 2001, 10–12. 1361 Ornan 2001, 14. 1362 Keel 1994, 189 (Abb. 17); see also Bernett & Keel 1998, 39 (Abb. 60). 1363 Ornan 2001, 19–21. As noted by Ornan, there is also the possibility that this animal is a horse, but other presentations of such a motif are not known. On the other hand, several Neo-Assyrian penalty clauses impose the payment of a white horse to the moon god if the contract has been broken (see p. 266ff. below). 1364 Noted already in Hall 1985, 616–617.

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

243

crown of heaven.1365 In An = Anu ša amēli these names are further explained as follows: An = Anu ša amēli, 34–351366 34 [dÁb]-kár MIN šá su-pu-ri d 35 [ Áb-lu]-lu MIN šá i-gi-se-e [Ab]kar is ditto(= Sîn) of the sheepfold. [Ablu]lu is ditto(= Sîn) of gifts. The name Abkar is also discussed in the explanatory work i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-kia which associates it with the half moon.1367 The main association here is based on the homophone arḫu as “month”, “cow”, and “half brick”.1368 A further name for Sîn utilising bovine imagery is dIdim-ḫuš, “Furious bison(?)”.1369 In the sequence of names in An = Anum, this name follows the name dMu-ḫé-ĝál-la which denotes the fertility provided by the moon and precedes the names dUnkin and dUnkin-uru16 which refer to Sîn’s power in the divine assembly.1370 Therefore the astral connotation found in the names dÁb-kár and dÁb-lu-lu is not present here. The basic meaning of the name remains ambiguous as well: it may refer to the mythological kusarikku-bison or possibly to the Akkadian noun kabtu, “important; venerable”. This latter option seems unlikely due to the adjective attribute ḫuš, “furious”. On the other hand, the equation idim = kusarikku is attested only in lexical lists.1371 The god Nindara, whose name should perhaps be translated as “Lord of the Cock”, appears to have been associated with Sîn on certain occasions.1372 In the section presenting the moon god’s household, the god-list An = Anum equates Nindara with Sîn.1373 Moreover, the same equation was made in the Late Babylonian commentary on the therapy intended to help a woman experiencing a diffi-

1365

An = Anum III, 6–7: dÁb-kár | MIN / dÁb-lu-lu | MIN (Litke 1998, 117 and Feliu 2006, 233). The translation for dÁb-kár is “der die Kuh rettet(?)” and for dÁb-lu-lu “der die Kühe weidet” in Krebernik 1995, 363. 1366 Litke 1998, 231. See also Feliu 2006, 233. 1367 K. 170+, 2 (see the citation on p. 139 above). 1368 See Livingstone 1986, 45–46 as well as the etymologies for the latter two of these nouns in AHw, 67. 1369 An = Anum III, 20: dIdimdím-ḫuš | MIN(=d30) (Litke 1998, 119; Feliu 2006, 236). The translation proposed in Krebernik 1995, 363 is “feuriger Wisent(?)”. 1370 For these names see p. 236 and p. 150 above respectively. 1371 See CAD K, 584 and Feliu 2006, 236 note 42. 1372 See the overviews in Hall 1985, 752 and Edzard 2000, 338. This equation is noted also in Krebernik 1995, 366. 1373 An = Anum III, 65: dNin-dar-a | d30 (Litke 1998, 124). The same equation is found also in STT 400, 2: [dNin-d]ar-a | d30.

244

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

cult labour and the adjuration that is otherwise known from Udug-ḫul1374 receives an explanation concerning the invoked deity. 11N-T3, 22–231375 22 zi dNin-dar-a sipa udul10-lu-ú hé-pàd : niš dMIN SIPA 23 ú-tul-la-a-tú lu-ú ta-ma-at : dNin-dar-a : d30 d “zi Nin-dar-a sipad udul10-lu-ú ḫé-pàd” (means) “Be adjured by ditto, the shepherd of herdsmen!”. Nindara = Sîn. Here the connection between Nindara and Sîn appears to be built on their shared association with cattle. The link between them may be based on a graphic pun involving udul10(ÁB.LU)-lu and one of the moon god’s names, dÁb-lu-lu. Whether or not similar notions are also to be found in the equations in the godlists remains unknown. In respect to cattle, the moon’s horns are the most important aspect of the celestial phenomenon. The noun qarnu (Sum. si) was used to refer both to the horns of animals and to the horns of the moon and other celestial objects.1376 According to the creation epic Enūma eliš, the horns of the moon were seen in the sky during the first days of the lunar cycle. Marduk’s command to the moon god was: “In the very beginning of the month, as (you) light up above the land, you will shine with horns to mark the calling of the days.”1377 A line in the bilingual lamentation “The Honoured One Who Wanders About” (e-lum di-da-ra) equates the Sumerian expression si mú kù an-na, “radiant growing horn of heaven”, with the Akkadian line “radiant luminary of the heaven” (nannāru ellu ša šamê).1378 This equation reveals the link between moonlight and the moon’s growing horns in this context. The horns of the moon – their size and form – were one of the visual aspects of the moon that were observed for lunar divination, and the 5th tablet of the astrological series EAE is devoted to the subject.1379 The protases in this tablet include omens for cases when the moon’s horns are e.g. pointed (eddā), crooked (kepât), symmetric (kilattān mitḫarā) or resemble a bow (kīma qašti) or a barge (kīma makurri).1380 Horns are present also in the descriptive epithets used in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources. A prominent example of this is found in a bilingual šu’ila-prayer to Sîn, which depicts him as a calf with very thick horns and per1374

Udug-ḫul 5, 59. Civil 1974, 332. See also the latest edition in Jiménez 2014c [CCP 4.2.A.a] and the citation in Gabbay 2016, 161–162. 1376 CAD Q, 134–140. 1377 See Lambert 2013, 98–99 (see also the citation of this passage on p. 93 above). 1378 Cohen 1988, 179–180 and 183. See also p. 35 and p. 148 above. 1379 Verderame 2002b, 110–166; see also the overview of EAE in Koch 2015, 168. 1380 Verderame 2002b, 114–116. 1375

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

245

fect appearance, wearing a lapis lazuli beard. 4 R2 9+//, 10:1381 amar bàn-da si gur4-gur4-ra á-úr šu-du7 ⌈su6⌉ za-gìn-na sù-sù ḫi-li la-la ma-alla-ta bu-ru ek-du šá qar-ni kab-ba-ru šá meš-re-ti ⌈šuk⌉-⌈lu⌉-lu4 ziq-ni uq-ni-i zaq-nu ku-uz-⌈bu⌉ u la-la-a ma-lu-ú (Sum.) Fierce calf of very thick horns, (with) perfected limbs, adorned with a lapis lazuli beard, filled with luxuriance and plenty (Akk.) Fierce calf of very thick horns, of perfected limbs, adorned with a lapis lazuli beard, full of luxuriance and plenty. This line is situated within a longer passage, which initially presents Sîn, lord of the crown, in his power over kingship and then turns its attention to fertility and creation.1382 Already in this line an allusion to fertility is made by referring to luxuriance (Sum. ḫi-li; Akk. kuzbu) and plenty (Sum. la-la; Akk. lalû). In the following lines the moon god is praised as the “Fruit” that creates itself again and again each month1383 as well as the womb that gives birth to all the living beings.1384 Like the moon as the “Fruit”, the depiction of Sîn as a “fierce calf of very thick horns, of perfect limbs” functions on two levels. In the celestial sense, it describes the appearance of the crescent moon with a bovine metaphor. Simultaneously it refers to the aspects of strength, virility, and fertility that are associated with bulls in Mesopotamia.1385 This multivalence can also be seen in varying degrees in other references to the lunar horns. In the context of official inscriptions, the astral meaning of the moon’s horns appears to be dominant, as

1381

See Shibata, HES (forthcoming) and Sjöberg 1960, 167 and 169. The content of 4 R2 9+//, 7–14 is discussed in Jacobsen 1976, 7–9. In this discussion he aptly describes this picture of the moon god as a ruler, who is “responsible for producing fertility and plenty for his subjects”; as a bull that is an “embodiment of power to engender”; as the “Fruit” that is an “embodiment of the power in the orchards to grow, ripen and yield a rich harvest”; as a womb that associates the moon with “the swelling body of a pregnant woman”; and lastly an anthropomorphic father “responsible for his family”. After this, however, he claims that these depictions of the moon god in non-anthropomorphic form – as a bull calf, fruit, and womb – are survivors from the oldest traceable conceptions of deities in Mesopotamia, forms that had already been replaced by the concept of the deities as anthropomorphic individuals. By doing so, he sees these statements as literal statements about the moon god, not as figurative language describing his different qualities. 1383 See the citation of 4 R2 9+//, 11 on p. 54 above. 1384 See the citation of 4 R2 9+//, 12 on p. 231 above. 1385 For the meaning of bull metaphors in Mesopotamian literary sources see the discussion offered by C. Watanabe (2002). 1382

246

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

is shown by the epithets nāši qarnī ṣīrāti, “bearer of lofty horns”, used by BēlḪarrān-bēlu-uṣur1386 and nāš qarnī gašrāti, “bearer of strong horns”, employed by Esarhaddon.1387 The first of these epithets, naši qarnī ṣīrāti, is couched in the description of Sîn as an astral deity: he is praised as the luminary of the heavens and the earth, and as a god who is clad in awesome radiance. In the case of the second epithet, naši qarnī gašrāti, the context is again celestial, but the main focus is on the role of Sîn as a divine decision-maker. In the setting of the ikribprayers, Sîn is praised as bēl qarnī supūri, “lord of horns (and) the sheepfold”.1388 Here, as opposed to the epithets found in royal inscriptions, the association with fertility and agriculture predominates, since the accompanying epithet describes Sîn as muštēšir rīti u mašqīti, “the one who keeps the pasture and the drinking place in order”.1389 Like the moon’s horns, the sheepfold (Akk. supūru; Sum. amaš) together with tarbaṣu (Sum. tùr), “cattle pen”, has both celestial and pastoral connotations.1390 As designations of physical locations, they denote the enclosed areas where sheep and cattle were gathered together. On the other hand, they can have two different celestial meanings. First, the term tarbaṣu, “cattle pen”, is used to designate the circular, enclosed area of the heavens, in which the stars live like cattle.1391 In astrological contexts, it is also a term for the halo around the moon.1392 The term supūru is also attested as a designation of the lunar halo.1393 Therefore, as Lorenzo Verderame has noted, it often is not possible to ascertain which of these meanings were actually at play when the moon god is portrayed in connection with a sheepfold and cattle pen.1394 Both tarbaṣu and supūru are attested in Sîn’s epithets. In addition to the epithet bēl qarnī supūri presented above, he is called bēl tarbaṣi u supūri, “lord of the cattle pen and the sheepfold” in a fragmentary anti-witchcraft ritual.1395 This epithet may be interpreted

1386

RIMA 3, A.0.105.2, 6: d30 dŠEŠ. AN u KI na-ši SI.MEŠ MAḪ.MEŠ šá lit-bu-šú nam-ri-ri. 1387 RINAP 3 no. 153, 7: d30 EN EŠ.BAR na-áš qar-ni gaš-ra-a-ti [...]. 1388 K. 2751+//, 50’ and 68’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). This epithet can be found also in a ritual against witchcraft that contains a prayer to Sîn, IM 148516, 14 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). 1389 K. 2751+//, 50’ and 69’; see also IM 148516, r. 1 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). 1390 See the attestations in CAD S, 396–398 and CAD T, 217–222. 1391 Rochberg 2010, 347–359. See also Reiner & Pingree 1981, 17. 1392 Verderame 2014, 91–104. The tablets 10–12 (together with parts of tablets 8 and 9) of EAE deal with lunar halos (see the overview in Verderame 2002a, 449–450 and Koch 2015, 168–169). 1393 In SAA 8 no. 494, 7–9 supūru as a term for halo is described as meaning a “large cattle pen”, i.e. a large halo (see Verderame 2014, 94–95). 1394 Verderame 2014, 93. 1395 K. 8183, 1’: d30 EN TÙR u su-p[u-ri] (Abusch & Schwemer 2016, no. 8.37).

II.8. Sîn, Creation, Growth, and Animals

247

as reflecting Sîn’s authority over the fertility of sheep and cattle, especially in their role as food for the human population and the gods. A prominent example of this is found in relation to Sîn’s cult in Ur, as the bilingual šu’ila-prayer 4 R2 9+// praises him as the god whose word fattens the cattle pen and the sheepfold.1396 Therefore it is clear that cattle and sheep, who provide sustenance to humanity, thrive with the aid of the city’s tutelary deity. It appears that this power also included the authority to subjugate these animals: the incantation with the incipit Ea bānû nišī u zēri presents Sîn as mukanniš supūrīšina, “the one who subdues their (i.e. people’s) sheepfold”.1397 Lastly, two specific references to milk in prayers to Sîn, and in the ritual offerings made to him, should be noted. First, an anti-ghost therapy preserved in a manuscript from Assur prescribes a libation of milk before the full moon on the morning of the 15th day.1398 The second reference is found in the ikrib-prayer to Sîn, likewise performed on the 15th day of the month.1399 The line, in which the reference is made, is only partly preserved, but it appears to refer to animals – most likely cows – producing milk for the moon god. Since both of these references are associated with the full moon, it is plausible that the white colour of the milk had an affinity to the white radiance of the fully illuminated lunar disc.

II.8.4. Wild Animals Due to Sîn’s nature as a celestial deity, his sphere of influence was not restricted to the urban centres or rural villages, but he was present everywhere, also outside of the areas settled by humans. Like the sun, the moon can be seen from anywhere and he can be sought out even in the midst of the wilderness. This is exemplified by a dream that Gilgameš had in connection with his arrival in the eastern mountains. In this dream, he arrived at the mountains during the night. Seeing lions there he grew afraid and lifted his head towards the heavens, praying to Sîn and another celestial deity, perhaps Ištar.1400 Another example of the moon god’s presence both in the human settlements and in the steppe inhabited by wild animals can be found in the ikrib-prayers to him. Here both humans and

1396

4 R2 9+//, 28–30 (see the citation on p. 237 above). Note also the motif of the sheepfold in the akītu-house inscription of Assurbanipal, Sm. 671, 9: [... x] x ba-nu-u ŠÀ.TÙR mu-rap-pi-šú su-pu-⌈ri⌉, “[...] ... creators? of the womb, the ones? who extend? the sheepfold” (see Bauer 1933, pl. 49 and Novotny 2002, 249). In this case Sîn perhaps belonged to a group of deities (see the note on p. 233 above). 1397 CTMMA 2 no. 32//, 71g’–71h’: [d30 mu-kan-niš] / su-pu-ri-ši-na (Schuster-Brandis 2008, 226 and 233); SpTU 2 no. 22+, II 9: d30 mu-kan-niš su-pu-ru-ši-na (see SchusterBrandis 2008, 251 and 257). 1398 BAM 4 no. 323//, 96–99 (Scurlock 2006, no. 91; see p. 108 above). 1399 K. 2751+//, 70’: [... BABBA]R?.MEŠ na-šu-ka [š]i-iz-bu (see p. 483ff. below). 1400 Gilgameš IX, 8–14 (George 2003, 666–667); the identification of the second deity as remains Ištar is proposed in Maul 2008, 120.

248

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

wild animals living on the steppe (nammaššû ša ṣēri) gather before the moon to rejoice over his appearance in the sky and to revere him. K. 2751+//, 48’–49’1401 The people, the humankind, pray to you, [they] all are convened before you, the animals of the steppe are gathered before you, they are altogether gathered be[fore you]! The reference to the animals of the steppe creates a dichotomy between domesticated animals (cattle and sheep), mentioned elsewhere in connection with Sîn, and the animals living in the wilderness, who also are associated with Sîn. It is possible that both of these animals, the domesticated and the wild, were envisioned as belonging under the rule of the moon god and the sun god. This is suggested by the Offering Bread Hemerology, which informs us of the divine decisions that Sîn and Šamaš made in the last days of Nisannu: the entry for 27th day of Nisannu reveals that verdicts concerning (wild) animals (umāmu) were thought to be decreed on this day.1402 This shows that the power of these two gods was not restricted to matters concerning humankind or the land; they also held power over the lives of the animals. A particular connection appears to exist between Sîn and two kinds of wild horned animals: the gazelle and the ibex. The first of these, the gazelle, appears prominently in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi that instructs the king to make a gazelle offering before the lunar crescent on the 1st day of each month.1403 The theological conceptions behind this practice remain unknown, but an offering of a wild horned animal to the moon god may very well reflect the thin horns of the young lunar crescent as well as the association of Sîn to the animals of the steppe. Sîn’s affiliation with the other horned wild animal, the ibex, is reflected in two of his names attested in the god-list An = Anum: dMen-dàra-an-na and d Men-dàra-diĝir-ra.1404 As already pointed out in connection with the crown of the moon, there is more than one possible interpretation of these two names. The most obvious of these possibilities is to read the Sumerian dàra in its most common meaning, the ibex (Akk. turāḫu). In this sense, the horns of the crescent moon would be seen as horns of an ibex – a metaphor that is similar to the equation of the moon’s horns with the horns of a bull. In this connection, the bountiful depictions of the ibex that represent its horns most prominently (as opposed

1401

See the edition on p. 483ff. below. A similar motif is also found in line 69’ of this collection and in the prayer to Sîn in IM 148516, 13–14 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). 1402 KAR 178//, III 9–10: Sîn u Šamaš dīnī umāmē idinnū. See also p. 119ff. above. 1403 See the discussion on p. 99ff. above. 1404 See the citation of An = Anum III, 9–10 on p. 60 above.

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

249

to the rest of the animal) in South Arabian art should be noted: these depictions have been associated with the South Arabian moon god.1405 The ibex’s qualities that are highlighted in these depictions relate to its movement and its horns1406 and these characteristics are also prominent in depictions of the gazelle. However, outside the two names in the god-list An = Anum, an association between the moon god and the ibex finds only scant textual evidence.1407 To my knowledge, such an association can only be found in one of the names of the moon god’s sanctuaries in SBH no. 24//. Here the moon god is called umun (É-)dàrakù-ga, “lord of the (house of) pure ibex”.1408 The iconographic evidence appears, however, to be more widespread and it corroborates the association found between the divine names and the aforementioned name of a sanctuary. The motif of a wild goat or goat horns in connection with the moon god is already attested on Akkadian cylinder seals, where it accompanies the anthropomorphic moon god.1409 The fact that in some cases only the horns of the animal are depicted emphasises their importance in this context. A related association can be observed in much later sources. A Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal found in one of the queens’ tombs (Tomb I) in Kalḫu shows the tasselled crescent standard of the moon god together with a human figure and a horned caprid.1410 In contrast to the older Akkadian seals, the motif here appears not to have been focused on the animal or its horns; the image instead evokes the pastoral life on the steppe.1411

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments In Mesopotamia the deities were active in assuring that moral order was upheld in society: the gods observed the conduct of the people, and any infringement of the set rules aroused their anger.1412 In the legal context, the gods were invoked to establish the facts of a particular legal case or to establish a contract between 1405

See e.g. Robin 1997, 73, Scigliuzzo 2003, 629–647, and Avanzini 2005, 144–153. The temple of the god Ilmaqah in Marib (ancient Saba in Yemen) is decorated with numerous depictions of the ibex. Traditionally the deity Ilmaqah has been seen as a moon god (see e.g. the overview of the moon god in Nielsen 1927, 213–224). This has, however, been disputed by J. Ryckmans who sees this deity as a masculine form of the sun deity Shams (see Ryckmans 1987, 111). 1406 Avanzini 2005, 144. 1407 A reference to ibex (dàra) in the temple hymn to Ekišnugal is found in Sjöberg 1960, 123 (line 3), but in the later edition of the text this reading was rejected (The Temple Hymns, 103; see Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, no. 8 and ETCSL 4.80.1). 1408 SBH no. 24//, 12 (see the citation on p. 333ff. below). See also George 1993, no. 146. 1409 Collon 1995, 373–374. 1410 IM 109007b (Hussein 2016, 64 and pl. 14b). 1411 A profound investigation of the association of caprids with the moon god in Mesopotamian iconography is not possible within the boundaries of the present study, and it must remain as a topic that will hopefully be covered in later research. 1412 See the discussion in van der Toorn 1985, 40–55.

250

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

two parties. Therefore the oath taken by gods and the curse that was the result of perjury were closely associated.1413 Like all the other major Assyro-Babylonian deities, the moon god Sîn played his part in the context of legal procedures, and evidence detailing his role has been found – especially for the earlier Old Babylonian period. As legal documentation from several cities (especially Ur and Sippar) shows, oaths were sworn in the name of either Sîn or Nanna during this period.1414 In Sippar, the crescent standard of Sîn (šurinnu) is attested to have been used along with the emblem of the sun god Šamaš in legal processes.1415 A striking depiction of an oath swearing in the temple Ekišnugal in Ur is found in an Old Babylonian petition to Nanna to judge the case of a person who considered himself to have been treated unjustly: here the petitioner details the oaths that had been sworn by his wrongdoer in various locations within the temple area and before a variety of deities belonging to the moon god’s household.1416 In these cases deriving from the Old Babylonian period, the moon god acts in his role as a local deity who possesses judiciary power in a city where he was venerated either as the tutelary deity of the city (Ur) or as a family member of the city’s main deity (Sippar). The same situation is also seen in later Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources, which underline the judiciary aspect of Sîn in connection with his local cults. As we will see, the majority of available references are related to his northern cult city, Ḫarrān. The moon god of Ḫarrān acted as the divine guarantor of border contracts throughout the area surrounding the city, he meted out punishments for breaching oaths and contracts, and his temple functioned as the receiver of fines that were paid either in money, horses or people. In Babylonia, the situation is much less clear. Despite his widespread role in curse formulae as the god who could afflict a person with leprosy, Sîn is only rarely attested as a god, by whom oaths are sworn. This most likely reflects the unevenly preserved sources rather than actual practice, especially in Ur where Sîn must also have had a significant legislative status.

II.9.1. Oaths and Contracts The moon god of Ḫarrān, as far as the available material allows us to judge, appears to have played a key role as a divine guarantor of contracts in the area around the city. Although this has on occasion been taken to be the principal 1413

Van der Toorn 1985, 45. See the overview of attested deities in Dombardi 1996, 140–141. 1415 Myers 2002, 107–108. 1416 UET 6/2 no. 402, 16–27: “In the gardens opposite of Ekišnugal he swore: ‘I will not wrong you!’, at the great gate below the weapon that you love he swore, (in) the middle of the great court opposite of Ekišnugal, opposite of Ningal of É-GA-DI, before Ninšubur, emblem? of the great court, before Alamuš, before Nanna-igidu and Nanna-adaḫ he swore to me: ‘I will not wrong you or your sons!’” (see the edition in Charpin 1986, 326–327). 1414

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

251

function of the Ḫarranian moon god,1417 it is better seen as a reflection of his role as the head of the local pantheon rather than as connected to his celestial characteristics. Already one of the earliest references to him and his temple is associated with making a contract,1418 and he is attested among the group of Mitannian deities in the treaty between Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza.1419 This latter attestation suggests that the moon god of Ḫarrān was significant in this respect in the Hurrian tradition.1420 Considering this background, it is not surprising to find stone stelae acting as boundary stones that depict his crescent standard.1421 The function of the stelae with crescent moon standard as markers of boundaries is explicit in the case of the two stelae of Adad-nērārī III that were erected to mark border contracts between Zakur of Ḫamat and Ataršumki of Arpad (Antakya Stele),1422 and between Ušpilulume of Kummuḫites and Qalparuda of Gurgumites (Pazarcik Stele).1423 The second of these also bears an inscription of Šalmaneser IV that confirms the continuation of the contract after the reign of Adad-nērārī III.1424 Sîn of Ḫarrān is prominent in these stelae both visually and textually. In the contract between Zakur and Ataršumki, an oath is sworn by Sîn of Ḫarrān together with the gods Aššur, Adad, Bēr, Assyrian Enlil, and Assyrian Mullissu, who as a group are designated the “great gods of Assyria”.1425 The penalty clauses listed in the inscriptions on these stelae likewise invoke Sîn of Ḫarrān, and even juxtapose him with the god Aššur.1426 Visually, the presence of the Ḫarranian moon god is underlined even further since both of them depict his crescent moon standard. The Antakya Stele is more revealing in this respect because it bears a relief that depicts two men flanking the tasselled crescent moon standard.1427 This image most likely connoted two different actions: the venera1417

See Seidl 2000, 90–96. ARM 26/1 no. 24, 10–12 (Dossin 1939, 986); see also the citation on p. 385 below. 1419 CTH 51–52 (see the translation in Beckman 1996, nos. 6a and 6b). 1420 Wilhelm 1982, 75. The association of the moon god to oath-giving in the Hurrian and Hittite tradition is also discussed in Laroche 1955, 316–317. 1421 For and overview of all the stelae depicting the crescent standard of Sîn see Keel 1994, 138–147. 1422 RIMA 3, A.0.104.2. See also Donbaz 1990, 5–24. 1423 RIMA 3, A.0.104.3. See also Donbaz 1990, 5–24. 1424 RIMA 3, A.0.105.1. 1425 RIMA 3, A.0.104.2, 11–13: MU Aš-šur dIŠKUR u dBe-er dBAD aš-šu-ru-ú / d [ NIN.LÍ]L aš-šur-tú MU d30 a-šib uruKASKAL-ni DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ [šá K]UR Aš-šur, “By Aššur, Adad and Bēr, Assyrian Enlil, Assyrian [Mullis]su, by Sîn who lives in Ḫarrān, great gods of Assyria”. 1426 See the discussion on p. 395 below. 1427 See Donbaz 1990, Figs. 3–5; Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 167; and Keel 1994, 141 (no. 7). It is presumed in Siddall 2013, 175 that the two men depicted on the Antakya Stele are Adad-nērārī III and his turtānu Šamšī-ilu, but according to Kohlmeyer 1992, 98, this can be ruled out. 1418

252

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

tion of the moon god by these men, who lift their hands in greeting/supplication before the crescent standard, and the act of swearing an oath before the moon god.1428 In the Pazarcik Stele the crescent standard is depicted alone and without tassels, but it must have had the same function as the crescent standard in the Antakya Stele.1429 Similar motifs of two individuals flanking the crescent standard of Sîn are found on stamp and cylinder seals, and it also is evident that in these cases the motif pertains to the role of the moon god in legal contexts.1430

Fig. 13: A Neo-Assyrian cylinder seal with the crescent standard of Sîn (Keel 1994, no. 16) Since the stelae of Adad-nērārī III prove that the Ḫarranian moon god, as the head of the local pantheon, was active as the divine guarantor of border contracts, attention must be drawn to a similar function of the moon god in Babylonian context. A comparable role is hinted at by Sin’s appellation Lugalkisura, “King of the Boundary”, in the god-list An = Anum.1431 The context does not provide much information concerning this name, but it is apparent from An = Anum that under this name Sîn was a part of Enki/Ea’s household together with his spouse dIg-an-na-kéš-da.1432 The association between Sîn and this divine 1428

This aspect is stressed in Kohlmeyer 1992, 98; Keel 1994, 146–147; and Seidl 2000, 91. For the use of divine emblems in the swearing of oaths in Neo-Assyrian context see the overview in Faist 2015, 68–70. See also the similar motif on the stele found in Göktaçköyü (Fig. 8, p. 45 above). 1429 See Donbaz 1990, Figs. 7–8; Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 166; and Keel 1994, 139–140 (no. 3). For a differing viewpoint, S. Holloway has argued that these stelae with the crescent moon standard were a fusion of traditional royal stele iconography and non-anthropomorphic depictions of the moon god (Holloway 1995, 294–295 and Holloway 2002, 401–403). Therefore, according to him, they would have conveyed a message of pro-Assyrian propaganda in the western parts of the empire. 1430 Keel 1994, 160–161 (see e.g. nos. 16 and 17) and Seidl 2000, 92–94. 1431 An = Anum II, 295: dLugal-ki-sur-ra | d30 (Litke 1998, 102). Ninurta is also referred to by this name, but in this case, the connotation appears to be to a specific town named Kisurra, thus the translation “Lord of Kisurra” in Lambert 1987d, 147. 1432 K. Tallqvist has given a celestial explanation for this name: according to him, it refers

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

253

name is also supported by a Late Babylonian commentary, which explains that Lugalkisura is Sîn.1433 It is also significant that this divine name appeared as the theophoric element in the name I.dLugalkisura-nādin-aḫḫē that belonged to the Late Babylonian scribe who owned the commentary tablet Si. 276.1434 In this case, it is possible that this name should be understood as a variant of the more common personal name Sîn-nādin-aḫḫē that belonged to a descendant of the Nippurian scribal family Šū-Sîn/Lú-Dumu-nun-na.1435 Since the noun kisurrû (Sum. kisura) has the meaning “boundary” or “territory”,1436 it is possible that this name refers to the moon god’s role in establishing borders. Still, as previously discussed, the sources do not offer any insights into the aspects associated with Lugalkisura, and therefore currently it is impossible to identify any possible other meanings for this name. Despite the aforementioned association of the moon god with the swearing of oaths in Neo-Assyrian iconography, textual evidence does not offer many attestations of oaths sworn by him. An oft-cited example is found in the treaty of Aššur-nērārī V with Mati’-ilu, in which Sîn and his spouse Ningal/Nikkal are invoked alongside the other great gods of the Assyrian pantheon.1437 No geographical identification for Sîn is given, but there is a strong association with the western provinces of Assyria since the curse formula that follows invoked Sîn of Ḫarrān, and other western deities are named in the oath formula.1438 Esarhaddon’s succession treaty contains a detail that is perhaps significant: here Sîn is invoked without a geographical specification at the same time as Šamaš, Adad, and Marduk, and only later in the oath formula do we find an invocation to all the gods of Ḫarrān.1439 The first reference can be interpreted as an indication of to the “boundary of the lunar cycle”, which in his opinion was the phase when the moon reached its full form and begins to wane (Tallqvist 1938b, 100: “Lugal-kisurra merkitsee ‘rajan ruhtinas’ ja viittaa luullakseni kuun kierroksen ja kasvamisen huippu- eli rajakohtaan, josta lähtien se alakuuna lähenee näkymättömyyttään.” The same explanation is also given in Tallqvist 1947, 235–236). Such an interpretation is, however, not supported by Mesopotamian sources pertaining to kisurrû/kisura, which do not contain references to celestial phenomena (see the attestations in CAD K, 433–434). 1433 BM 41623, 7’ (edited in Jiménez 2015a [CCP 3.7.2.K]). 1434 See Frahm 2011, 237. The handcopy of the tablet is published as BAM 4 no. 401. 1435 This has been suggested by E. Jiménez (personal communication). 1436 See CAD K, 433–434. 1437 SAA 2 no. 2, VI 8: d30 dNin-gal KI.MIN(= tùm-ma-tú-nu), “By Sîn and Ningal ditto(= you are sworn)!”. 1438 The curse formula here involves leprosy as the punishment meted out by the moon god (see the discussion on p. 255ff. below). 1439 SAA 2 no. 6, 27: d30 dŠá-maš dIŠKUR dAMAR.UTU MIN(= ti-tam-ma-a), “By Sîn, Šamaš, Adad and Marduk ditto(= swear each individually)!”; 36: DINGIR.MEŠ DÙ-šunu šá uruKASKAL MIN(=ti-tam-ma-a), “By all the gods of Ḫarrān ditto(= swear each individually)!”.

254

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the moon god’s position among the great gods, who were all venerated in the religious centre of the empire (Assur) as well as in the capital city at that time (Nineveh). Only later is Sîn of Ḫarrān, a local deity, explicitly mentioned in a list that encompasses all the major cultic centres within Assyria. In contrast to the Ḫarranian moon god, the moon god of Ur is poorly attested in Babylonian oaths from this period. Sîn appears as a local deity only in two Neo-Babylonian documents from Ur, and in both of these documents he is invoked together with his son, the sun god Šamaš.1440 Sîn acts as the personal god of an individual, and therefore the divine guarantor, in only a single Neo-Babylonian promissory oath. The document in question derives from Babylon, and the moon god is invoked in his status as the personal god of the slave, who swears to deliver a turban to a member of the Egibi family.1441

II.9.2. Sîn and Forms of Punishment In Mesopotamia, breaking an oath sworn by the gods was bound to have devastating consequences, since the gods were expected to punish the perjurer. One possible punishment was the illness māmītu which was the result of perjury committed either by the afflicted individual himself or by a member of his family.1442 In the texts that detail the process of healing from māmītu, the long lists of possible oaths that need to be undone to allow the afflicted individual to recuperate understandably also included oaths that had been sworn by the moon god. Importantly, two different conceptions of Sîn are revealed in a list of this type in Šurpu III. The first pertains to his role in relation to time, demonstrated by his inclusion in the group of important days in the month, the night, and the sun god Šamaš.1443 Later we find Sîn and his wife Ningal listed with the other great divine couples of the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon.1444 The disease māmītu was, however, only one of a large variety of repercussions that resulted from acting against the contract that had been made before a divine guarantor, or an oath that had been sworn by gods; several different curses and punishments are detailed in Assyrian and Babylonian sources. Curse formulae derived from a wide range of texts, from private contracts to royal inscriptions, present detailed curse motifs that name deities as the authorities who punished any person who broke their oaths.1445 Curse formulae present an important source for establishing 1440

Sandowicz 2012, 52 (BM 114028+ and UET 4 no. 102). As already noted, this is most likely caused by a bias in the available sources. 1441 BM 31076, 6–7: ISi-lim–dEN / ina d30 DINGIR-šú it-te-me, “Silim-Bēl has sworn by Sîn, his god” (Sandowicz 2012, 181–182). See also Sandowicz 2012, 54–55. 1442 An overview of the disease māmītu is given in Maul 2004, 79–95. 1443 Šurpu III, 104 (Reiner 1958, 22). 1444 Šurpu III, 154 (Reiner 1958, 23). 1445 For an overview of the content and context of curses in Mesopotamia see especially Sommerfeld 1993, 447–463. The use of curses in Neo- and Late Babylonian private doc-

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

255

the theological framework in which the deities were active since it was common for particular deities to be associated with specific curses – providing support for the assumption that these curses reflect a well-established system of theology.1446 In the case of Sîn, the most prominent curse involves him imposing the skin disease saḫaršubbû, “leprosy”, as the punishment for acting against the conditions protected by the curse. However, leprosy is not the only punishment associated with Sîn; a few others also emerge from the available sources. In addition to the more general curse of blotting out a person’s future offspring, motifs related to Sîn’s authority in the sphere of divination and jurisdiction are attested. It should be noted that in the following discussion I have made a distinction between curses and penalty clauses, although their use is similar: both curses and penalty clauses are found in private documents to define the repercussions of failing to meet the conditions of the contract. The main difference is the agency of the deity or deities named: in curse formulae the deity is the agent imposing the punishment, and in penalty clauses he/she is the receiver of a monetary fine or a dedication of people/animals. Therefore, the first section, which is focused on curses, involves the actions performed by Sîn himself, and the following chapter, which deals with penalty clauses, outlines the penalties that were paid to his temple. A further distinction is the conspicuous status of the moon god as the tutelary deity of a particular city – in most cases Ḫarrān – both in curse formulae and in penalty clauses, which therefore underline the actions related to the local cult. The local character is notably related either to the legal context of the city or the cult of the local temples. Contrary to such curses or penalty clauses, the ability of the moon god to impose the skin disease šaḫaršubbû can be seen as an extension of his celestial nature because it is not attached to any particular geographical place, but is widely attested both in Assyria and Babylonia.

II.9.2.1. Curse Formulae The most prominent motif found in the curses that name the moon god is punishment by the skin disease saḫaršubbû, commonly translated as leprosy.1447 As shown by Kazuko Watanabe, this motif is widely attested from the Kassite era onward, and it continued to be used in Neo-Assyrian treaties as well as in Neo-

uments is treated in Sandowicz 2012, 109–141. 1446 The association of particular deities to particular curses (e.g. the weather god Adad imposes punishments involving climatic disasters) is noted in Hillers 1964, 17; see also Sommerfeld 1993, 452. 1447 An overview of this curse formula has been presented in Watanabe 1984, 99–119. The text BM 113927 that was listed “unpublished” in Watanabe’s list is now available as Tarasewicz 2018, no. 2. Furthermore, the attestation in BM 130827 = ŠŠU 3, r. 5–7 (Paulus 2014, 741) can now be added to the list. For this curse formula in general see also the recent discussion in Kitz 2014, 218–223. For other references to leprosy in connection with the moon god see the discussion on p. 281ff. below.

256

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Babylonian contracts.1448 Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of attestations for this formula name Sîn as the divine agent who afflicts the cursed person with leprosy, it should be noted that he was not the only deity associated with this curse: attestations from Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources show that this role was also at times taken by Ištar and Šamaš perhaps due to their genealogical relationship to Sîn.1449 Moreover, a Middle Babylonian variant of this curse formula adds the disease aganutillû to leprosy,1450 but no NeoBabylonian attestations for this variant are preserved.1451 The origins of the moon god’s association with the divine punishment of leprosy may be rooted in the Old Babylonian period since a prayer to Sîn deriving from Ur speaks of leprosy (epqu) as one of the consequences of breaking an oath to Sîn and Šamaš.1452 It is also very likely that the “heavy punishment” and “severe punishment” of the moon god that are listed among the curses in the epilogue of the Codex Ḫammurapi refer to leprosy, because the relative clause defining these two specifies that they will not disappear from the body of the transgressor.1453 The curse that names Sîn in the Codex Ḫammurapi is repeated almost verbatim ap-

1448

Watanabe 1984, 99–119. For an overview of the curses used in kudurru-inscriptions see Paulus 2014, 262–269. 1449 For Ištar of Arbela as the divine agent in Neo-Assyrian curse formulae see Watanabe 1984, nos. 26–27. A Neo-Babylonian example of Ištar’s role can be found in Weisberg 2003, no. 37 (line 20). The formula in a Kassite kudurru shows that Anunītu was also perceived as capable of inflicting a person with leprosy (U 10, I’ 15’–17’ in Paulus 2014, 775). This demonstrates that this aspect of Ištar most likely is not merely a Neo-Assyrian variant as has been suggested (Watanabe 1984, 106), but was more widespread than previously assumed. For the triad Sîn, Ištar, and Šamaš see Watanabe 1984, no. 17 (= MZŠ I 1, r. IV 6–10 in Paulus 2014, 668–669). Note also that in addition to Sîn, Šamaš, Ištar, and Anunītu, the pair Anu and Enlil is also attested in this capacity in a curse formula dating to the Isin II period (U 40, IV 11–17 in Paulus 2014, 847). 1450 See Watanabe 1984, 105. The passages in question are edited as MŠ 1, VI 41–VII 1 (Paulus 2014, 376–377) and MAI I 1, V 12–VI 26 (Paulus 2014, 434–435). In the latter formula Sîn and Ningal appear only as part of a large group of deities (numbering 49 in total), who collectively punish the wrongdoer. MŠ 1, VI 41–VII 1 is the only attestation of Sîn imposing the punishment of both aganutillû and saḫaršubbû by himself. 1451 CAD A/1, 144 lists RT 36 no. 24, 11 (Scheil 1914, 189) together with TCL 12 no. 13, 11 as attestations for a curse naming Sîn as the cause of aganutillû, but the later copy of the tablet in Durand 1982, pl. 86 (no. 144) suggests that the divine name should be read d En-líl not dEN.ZU (as copied in TCL 12 no. 13, 11). 1452 UET 6/2 no. 402, 36–38: ta-mi dNanna ù dUtu / e-ep-qá-am i-ma-al-la / i-la-pi-in ù IBILA ú-la e-ra-aš-ši, “The perjurer of Nanna and Utu/Šamaš will be full of leprosy, he will become poor and he will not have an heir!” (see the edition in Charpin 1986, 327). The possibility that this is the earliest reference to leprosy as a punishment dealt by the moon god is noted in Krebernik 1995, 367. 1453 CH, L 47–51. The full passage is cited in Watanabe 1984, 100.

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

257

proximately a thousand years later in the treaty between Šamšī-Adad V and Marduk-zākir-šumi I (SAA 2 no. 1) along with curses naming the other great deities of the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon.1454 SAA 2 no. 1, r. 10–12 r. 10 [d30 EN AN-e šá] še-ret-su ina DINGIR.MEŠ šu-pa-a[t] r. 11 [x x x x šer-t]a ra-bi-ta šá ina SU-šú la KÚR-ru [li-mid-su-ma] r. 12 [UD.MEŠ ITI.MEŠ MU.MEŠ pa]-le-e-šú i-na ta-né-ḫi ⌈ù⌉ [dim-mati li-šaq-ti] [May Sîn, lord of heaven whose] punishment is famo[us] among the gods, [inflict] upon him [the grave sin and1455] severe [punish]ment that cannot be removed from his body; [may he make the days, the months (and) the years of] his [re]ign end in sighing and [moaning]. The precise nature of the punishment inflicted by the moon god is made clearer by the formulae that name the disease saḫaršubbû together with the epithet “great punishment”, like the one attested in a kudurru-inscription from Ur dating to the Kassite or Isin II period. UET 1 no. 165, II 23–271456 d II 23 30 EN ⌈AGA⌉ II 24 a-bi DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ SAḪAR.ŠUB.BA-⌈a⌉ II 25 šèr-ta-šu GAL-ta li-ša-áš-ši-⌈šu⌉-⌈ma⌉ II 26 GIN7 ANŠE.EDIN.NA i-na ka-[mat URU-šu] II 27 li-ir-tap-pu-ud May Sîn, lord of the crown, father of the great gods,1457 make him bear leprosy, his great punishment and may he keep roaming outsi[de of his city] like an onager!

1454

The similarities are pointed out in Borger 1965, 168–169. The relationship between SAA 2 no. 1 and the curses containing a punishment by leprosy was observed in Watanabe 1984, 117 note 9. Closely related formulae in Kassite or Isin II kudurru-inscriptions have also been found. These speak of a “severe punishment” without actually naming leprosy: MŠ 3, ⑧ IV 15–19 (šēret lā piṭri; Paulus 2014, 396); MNA 4, IV 12–23 (annašu kabta šēressu rabīta; Paulus 2014, 556–557); MŠZ 1, II 8–10 (šēressu rabīta; Paulus 2014, 577). 1455 The reconstruction [arna kabta u šērt]a rabīta is not included in SAA 2 no. 1, r. 11, but due to the parallelism between this line and CH, L 47–48 such a reconstruction is very plausible. 1456 See the edition in Paulus 2014, 800 (U 19). This text is Watanabe 1984, no. 14. 1457 Note this description of the moon god as a father figure in the context of his cult city (for further discussion see p. 230ff. above).

258

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

This example, from the end of the 2nd millennium BCE, incorporates all the primary components of the leprosy curse that are found in the later Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian attestations of this curse: the punishment inflicted by the moon god is leprosy (saḫaršubbû) that forces the cursed person to be exiled from his home city and live in the uninhabited areas of the steppe.1458 The leper’s social ostracism is further reflected in some of the Assyrian variants of the leprosy curse that add lines pertaining to the social exclusion of the cursed person: he will not be able to approach the gods or the king. The effects of the disease involve not only the exclusion of the leper from his social group but also his inability to approach any royal or divine authorities.1459 An example of this can be found in the succession treaty of Esarhaddon (SAA 2 no. 6).1460 SAA 2 no. 6, 419–4211461 d 419 30 na-an-nar AN-e u KI-tim ina SAḪAR.ŠUB-bu 420 li-ḫal-lip-ku-nu ina IGI DINGIR.MEŠ u LUGAL e-rab-ku-nu a-a iq-bi 421 ki-i sír-ri-me MAŠ.DÀ (ina) EDIN ru-up-da May Sîn, luminary of the heaven and the earth, clothe you in leprosy; may he not allow you to enter before the gods and the king! Roam (on) the steppe like an onager and a gazelle! A similar formula with a slightly different wording is also found in the treaty of Sîn-šarru-iškun with his Babylonian allies (SAA 2 no. 11). Whereas the curse in SAA 2 no. 6 speaks of the moon god forbidding access to the gods or the king, here the intention is to destroy the person’s station in the temple or the palace. SAA 2 no. 11, r. 10’–14’1462 r. 10’ d30 dNANNA A[N-e u KI-tim] r. 11’ [SAḪAR].ŠUB-bu ki-ma na-aḫ-lap-ti lu-u-ḫal-lip-šú-[nu] r. 12’ ma-za-sa-šu-nu TAv ŠÀ É.KUR É.GAL lu-ḫal-liq [ø] r. 13’ NUMUN.MEŠ-šú-nu ṣa-lam-(a)-ni-šú-nu ina IZI i-kar-ru-r[u] r. 14’ di-pa-ra-šú-nu i-na A.MEŠ ú-bal-⌈lu⌉-[ú] May Sîn, luminary of the hea[ven and the earth] clothe the[m] in [lep]rosy as in a cloak, may he destroy their stations from the temple and palace! Their offspring (and) their images will be throw[n] into the fire (and) their torches will be extinguish[ed] with water.

1458

See the overview in Watanabe 1984, 102–104. See the discussion in Watanabe 1984, 112–113. 1460 See also SAA 2 no. 9, r. 11’–12’. 1461 Watanabe 1984, no. 24, see also Lauinger 2012, 99. 1462 Watanabe 1984, no. 25. 1459

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

259

As shown by these examples, the epithet that accompanies the moon god in the leprosy curse formula in Neo-Assyrian or Neo-Babylonian sources is typically nannār šamê u erṣeti, “luminary of the heaven and the earth”, presenting him in his celestial aspect.1463 Babylonian sources of this period do not include any geographical specifications for the moon god that signify him as the patron deity of his home city, Ur.1464 Similarly, in the Assyrian context, only a single attestation names Sîn as the one residing in Ḫarrān.1465 Perhaps, in this case, the fact that the treaty was made between Aššur-nērārī V and Mati’-ilu, the Aramean king of Arpad, influenced the identification of the moon god as Ḫarranian. Also related to the moon god of Ḫarrān is the curse formula in Assurbanipal’s inscription for Sîn’s akītu-house in the city. However, due to the fragmentary condition of this text it remains uncertain whether leprosy was included in this curse or not.1466 The conspicuous lack of references to Sîn’s cult cities in leprosy curse formulae, in combination with the description of him as a celestial luminary, suggests that the ability to impose such an illness was associated with the moon god as a supra-regional celestial deity. The leprosy curse was by no means the only curse associated with the moon god: other motifs appear both in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian curses. One group can be defined through the actions that are taken by Sîn’s family members either in collaboration with him or alone. Thus Assurbanipal’s inscription for the wooden carrying poles of Ningal/Nikkal in Ḫarrān names both Sîn and his wife as the deities who impose divine punishment. Bu. 89-4-26, 209, r. 19–21 d 30 EN GAL-u ga-nun-šú lu-šag-lid-su-ma ⌈an⌉ ⌈kal⌉ ⌈ti⌉ li-ir-pur. 19 ud1467

1463

See the overview in Watanabe 1984, 102 with the addition of ŠŠU 3, r. 5–7 (Paulus 2014, 741). 1464 A direct connection to Ur via an epithet in the leprosy curse is attested only in the Kassite kudurru from Larsa that presents Sîn as “lord of Ekišnugal” (KuE 1, III 38: d30 EN É-ĝiš-nu-gal; see Paulus 2014, 344). 1465 Watanabe 1984, no. 23 = SAA 2 no. 2, IV 4: d30 EN GAL-u a-šib uruKASKAL, “Sîn, great lord, who dwells in Ḫarrān”. 1466 Sm. 671, r. 3’–4’: [d30 EN GAL-u ...] li-ir-pu-da ka-m[a-ti] / [... x] x NU u4-mu saan-tak la ba-laṭ-su l[iq-bi], “[May Sîn, great lord, ...] may (they) roam in the open c[ountry, ...] ... may he constantly [command] his death!” (see Bauer 1933, pl. 49 and Novotny 2003, 250). 1467 Based on the use of the verbal form lirpud this formula, it has been seen as a variant of the leprosy curse, and the reading AN.AŠ!.A!.AN-u li-ir-pu-ud for the latter half of the line r. 19 is suggested in Watanabe 1984, 113–114; see also citations of kamâti lirpud in CAD K, 123 and CAD R, 148. However, the accuracy of the copies of the tablet (Craig 1897, no. 2 and Meek 1918, 169) has been confirmed in Novotny 2003, 236, where the

260

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

d r. 20 NIN.GAL GAŠAN GAL-tú ṣi-mit-ti gišni-ri-šú lip-ṭur-ma r. 21 liš-bi-ra gišab-šá-an-šú May Sîn, great lord, make his chamber terrifying to him and may he run ...! May Nikkal, great lady, untie his yoke team and break his harness.

Another type of curse formulae belonging to this group present Sîn’s family members as intermediaries between the moon god and humanity.1468 As the result of these curses, either Ningal/Nikkal or Nusku would fail to perform their usual task of interceding with Sîn for the benefit of the petitioner; instead they would weaken his case before the moon god. The goddess Ningal/Nikkal also appears in the reconstruction of Esarhaddon’s accession treaty, SAA 2 no. 4, but no parallels with definite attestations for such a formula exist.1469 Therefore the deity in question may also have been the son of the Ḫarranian moon god, Nusku. Indeed, curse formulae associating Nusku with this form of divine penalty are found in inscriptions of Assurbanipal written for his temple in Ḫarrān.1470 The theme of losing the benevolence of Sîn’s family members is expanded to include the displeasure of the moon god himself in the curse formula in the Antakya Stele of Adad-nērārī III. Here the punishment for altering or taking away the stele marking the border is that Aššur, Adad, Bēr, and Sîn of Ḫarrān would cease to listen to the prayers of the person guilty of these offences.1471 RIMA 3, A.0.104.2, 17–19 17 [Aš-šur] dIŠKUR u dBe-er d30 a-šib uruKASKAL DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ šá KUR AŠ 18 [šá ina] NA.RÚ.A an-né-e MU-šú-nu zak-ru 19 [i]k-ri-bi-šú ul i-šá-mu-ú [Aššur], Adad, Bēr, Sîn who lives in Ḫarrān, the great gods of Assyria, [whose] names are given in this stele, will not hear his [p]rayers. A further motif involving displeasure on the part of the gods and its effects is linked to Sîn’s power in the context of divination, and it is attested in two instances both of which are connected to Assurbanipal. The better-preserved ex-

signs are read dLAMMA TI li-ir-pu-ud. 1468 For this role see especially the discussion concerning Ningal on p. 296ff. below. 1469 SAA 2 no. 4, r. 24’–25’: [dNIN.GAL x x x x x x]-bi ina ma-ḫar d30 [ḫa-’i-ri-šá] / [abbu-su a-a iṣ-bat a-mat]-su li-lam-mìn [x x x], “[May Nikkal ...] worsen his case [and not intercede for him] in the presence of Sîn [her husband]. No commentary for the lines in question is provided either in either SAA 2 or the earlier edition of the text (Parpola 1987b, 170–174) 1470 K. 2803+, r. 9’ (Novotny 2003, 239); K. 2822+, r. 16’ (Novotny 2003, 244); K. 9143, r. 8’ (Novotny 2003, 245); Sm. 530+, r. 12 (Novotny 2003, 248). 1471 For the pairing of Adad and Bēr see Schwemer 2001, 208.

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

261

ample is found in the text that records Assurbanipal’s donation of a village to the moon god of Elumu.1472 In this instance, the curse was focused both on the moon god’s luminous character and on lunar omens. Although a large part of the lines is missing, it is clear that the person who disputed the ownership of the donated lands or destroyed the stele on which the text was written would fall into Sîn’s disfavour: the moon god would sent him only inauspicious portents. The phrase that referred to the darkened face of the moon god suggests that the passage most likely referred specifically to lunar eclipses. SAA 12 no. 90 (K. 2564), r. 11–131473 d r. 11 30 EN GAL-u mu-nam-⌈mir⌉ uk-[li ...] r. 12 ek-le-tú pa-ni-šú pa-ni-šú li-kil-ma [...] r. 13 ù GISKIM-šú li-lam-mìn-ma li-[...] May Sîn, great lord, illuminator of dark[ness ...], may the darkness of his face be dark1474 and [...] and may he make his portents evil and ... [...] A related motif is also found in Assurbanipal’s inscription for Sîn’s temple in Ḫarrān, but unfortunately, this attestation also is only partly preserved. It is clear, however, that the curse deals with portents that the moon god will cause to be inauspicious.1475 In both of these instances the use of a curse involving lunar omens demonstrates that both of them – one in Elumu and one in Ḫarrān – were aimed at any future and/or foreign rulers, who might act against the will of Assurbanipal, the king of Assyria.1476 A group of Assyrian and Babylonian curses show that Sîn’s function in legal contexts was a significant aspect of his divine persona in the local theological framework of his cult city and the surrounding area. The curses that fall into this group share a similar outcome which is expressed in two different ways: if a person acts against the contract that has been made, the moon god will oppose him in court, or the moon god will not support his legal case. It is important to note that Sîn does not act alone in any of the attested cases, but is always presented alongside (at least) the sun god Šamaš. The first of these formulations, the moon god acting as the opponent in court, is attested in two Neo-Assyrian contracts.1477 Both of them derive from the western provinces, Ḫuzirīna and Carchemish. The document from Ḫuzirīna names the triad Sîn, Ningal/Nikkal, and Adad, thus 1472

For the moon god of Elumu and this inscription see the discussion on p. 415ff. below. A copy of the text can be found in Bauer 1933, pl. 21. 1474 In SAA 12 no. 90, r. 12: “make his face ever darker and [...]”. 1475 K. 8759+, r. 13: ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉ ⌈EN⌉ [GAL]-⌈ú⌉ GISKIM.MEŠ ḪUL-šú [...]. 1476 For lunar omens and their association with kingship see p. 156ff. above. 1477 For an overview of this kind of a curse as the penalty for breaching a contract and the deities that are attested in connection with it see Radner 1997b, 126–128 and Faist 2012, 205–206. The deities that are most often named in this formula are Aššur and Šamaš. 1473

262

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

reflecting the status of the prevalent deities in that area. SU 51/44, 11–r. 21478 11 man-nu ša ⌈ina⌉ ⌈ur⌉-kiš 12 i-ba-⌈la⌉-kàt-u-ni r. 1 ⌈d⌉30 dNIN. dIŠKUR r. 2 lu-u EN di-ni-šú Whoever in the future contravenes, may Sîn, Nik1479 (and) Adad be his opponents. A similar clause has also been attested in connection with the village Elumu, located in the vicinity of Carchemish. The fragmentary penalty clause in BM 116230 names Sîn, Šamaš, and (perhaps) a third deity as the gods who oppose the person.1480 Also, in this case, the local cult most likely played a role, and the veneration of the moon god in Elumu is supported by Assurbanipal’s aforementioned donation to the moon god residing there.1481 The motif of Sîn’s abandonment of a person in a legal context is likewise found in the area of Ḫarrān in two border contracts recorded in the inscriptions of Adad-nērārī III1482 and Šalmaneser IV,1483 mentioned above. Both of these stelae refer to a group of five deities (Aššur, Marduk, Adad, Sîn, and Šamaš) as those who will not support the cursed person in his court case. The stele of Šalmaneser IV offers a more elaborate formula that adds to this abandonment, in the legal context, an unwillingness on the part of these gods to hear the prayers addressed to them and the destruction of the land. RIMA 3, A.0.105.1, 13–20 13 man-nu šá TA ŠU-at IUš-pi-lu-lu-me 14 DUMU.MEŠ-šú DUMU.DUMU.MEŠ-šú e-ki-mu 15 Aš-šur dAMAR.UTU dIŠKUR d30 dUTU 16 a-na di-ni-šú lu la i-za-zu 17 pi-ti up-ni-šú la i-ša-me-u-šú 18 KUR-su ki-i SIG4 lu-šá-⌈bi⌉?-⌈ru⌉? ur-ru-uḫ 19 mim-ma ina UGU MAN la i-ma-lik 1478

See the copy of the tablet and the edition in Finkelstein 1957, 139–143. This divine name is read as Bēlit in Finkelstein 1957, 142. Since Ḫuzirīna was located in the vicinity of Ḫarrān, it is likely that the goddess Nikkal was intended by this name (this is also the assumption in Radner 1997b, 128). 1480 BM 116230, 44–45: d30 [dx x d]Šá-maš lu[(-u) E]N / de-n[i-šú] (see the edition in Postgate 1974, 361). 1481 SAA 12 no. 90 (see the discussion on p. 415ff. below). 1482 RIMA 3, A.0.104.3, 19–23 (see also p. 250 above). 1483 RIMA 3, A.0.105.1, 13–20. 1479

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

263

20 ik-kib Aš-šur DINGIR-ia d30 a-šib uruKASKAL Whoever takes it away from the possession of Ušpilulume, his sons, his grandsons: may Aššur, Marduk, Adad, Sîn (and) Šamaš not stand (by him) in his lawsuit; may they not heed his prayers; may they quickly smash his country like a brick! May he no longer give advice to the king! Taboo of Aššur, my god, Sîn who lives in Ḫarrān. Although both of these stelae name a group of deities, the role of the Ḫarranian moon god is particularly highlighted in the stele of Adad-nērārī III: its depiction of Sîn’s crescent moon standard most likely served as a visual reference to the swearing of an oath before this very standard.1484 Moreover, the inscription on both of these stelae ends with the line “Taboo of Aššur, my god, Sîn who lives in Ḫarrān”.1485 This can only have meant that to act against this established contract was an affront both to Aššur, the highest god in the Assyrian pantheon, and to Sîn, who played a very significant role in the local cult of the region where these stelae were erected. This juxtaposition of Aššur with Sîn reflects Sîn’s status in the western provinces.1486 As opposed to the localised importance of the moon god in the area of Ḫarrān, Sîn’s position among the most important gods of the Assyrian pantheon is reflected in a document from Nineveh, which recorded the donation of property a father to his daughter. Here the curse formula names Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš, Bēl, and Nabû as “the gods of the king” (ilānū ša šarri), who will call to account the person who dares to collect the king’s tax from the new owner of the property.1487 In addition to these Assyrian attestations which all relate to the moon god of Ḫarrān, one single Neo-Babylonian document containing a similar curse formula exists. In this case, Sîn and the sun god Šamaš are presented side by side, as the gods who, in court, will deny their support for the person who has breached the contract.1488 Weisberg 2003, no. 37, 19 d 30 u dUTU ina di-in-ni-šú a-a iz-zi-zu May Sîn and Šamaš not be present in his lawsuit!

1484

See the discussion on p. 250ff. above. For the meaning of ikkibu (Sum. níĝ-gig) see the overview in Geller 2012, 394–395. 1486 See the discussion on p. 395ff. below. 1487 SAA 14 no. 155, 18–r. 5: man-nu ša ina ur-kiš / ina ma-te-ma bi-lat LUGAL [TAv] IGI munusBa-al-te–ia-a-ba-te / na-⌈šu⌉-u-ni / Aš-šur d30 dŠá-maš EN dPA / DINGIR.MEŠ šá MAN ina ŠUII-šú / lu-ba-’u-ú, “Whoever in the future, at any time, wants to collect the king’s tax [from] Balti-yabatu – may Aššur, Sîn, Šamaš, Bēl (and) Nabû, gods of the king, call him to account!” 1488 See Sandowicz 2012, 126. 1485

264

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

The document in question records the granting of the status of free citizens to a woman and her sons, and it has an elaborate curse formula that names several deities, either alone or in pairs.1489 Since Sîn and Šamaš are paired, it is possible that their status as divine judges is associated with this formula. Finally, there is a group of fragmentary Neo-Assyrian curse formulae that name Sîn. In the first case, the topic of the curse is known, but the presence of the moon god in it cannot be indisputably confirmed: a document recording the donation of a son to the god Ninurta in Kalḫu, and the moon god most likely appears along with Aššur, [Šamaš], Bēl, [Nergal], Ninurta, and Gula.1490 According to its curse, this group of deities would blot out the name and offspring of whoever took the donated individual away from Ninurta. The additional texts offer only the name of the moon god in a curse formula, but the details concerning the curse’s outcome remain unknown. In the treaty of Zakûtu (SAA 2 no. 8) both Sîn and Šamaš likely appear as a part of a group consisting of Aššur and some other celestial deities, but the curse itself has been obscured by damage to the tablet.1491 Likewise, Assurbanipal’s treaty with the Qedar tribe (SAA 2 no. 10) contains a curse that names Sîn among the other the great gods of the Assyrian pantheon, but the rest of the curse formula has not survived.1492

II.9.2.2. Penalty Clauses In the penalty clauses of Neo-Assyrian conveyance documents and contracts, three different formulae relating to Sîn can be found. The two most distinct formulae involve the dedication of an eldest son to the moon god of an unspecified city, or the dedication of white horses to Ḫarranian Sîn.1493 In the third type of penalty clause, a quantity of silver and gold is prescribed be paid to Sîn. The naming of the moon god Sîn – either with or without a geographical specification – in these penalty clauses has been seen as a proof for the specific role of the moon god, together with his wife Ningal/Nikkal, as deities who guarantee oaths and contracts.1494 The majority of the attestations are indeed related to Ḫarrān, or to places in its vicinity, suggesting that the function of the moon god in

1489

Interestingly, the same document names the goddess Ištar as the one who imposes the punishment of leprosy, usually associated with Sîn (see p. 255 above). 1490 SAA 12 no. 93, r. 6–8: Aš-šur ⌈d⌉[30 dUTU] EN [dU.GUR] / dMAŠ [dG]u-la M[U]-šú [NUMUN-šú] / [ina KUR–Aš-šur]ki lu-ḫal-li-qu, “May Aššur, [Sîn, Šamaš], Bēl, [Nergal] Ninurta and Gula make his name and [his seed] disappear [from the land of Assyria]. 1491 SAA 2 no. 8, 25–27. See also the commentary on these lines in Parpola 1987b, 170. 1492 SAA 2 no. 10, r. 8’–10’. 1493 It should be noted that these penalties, along with the large quantities of gold and silver paid as fines to deities, are understood as “nicht-realweltliche Strafen”, i.e. not realistic penalties, in Faist 2012, 208. Thus they had only a formal meaning, and were carried out only in part or not at all in the legal practice. 1494 So e.g. Theuer 2000, 357.

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

265

legal contexts can be tied to the local cult. Therefore, it should be stressed that these aspects rather reflect the status of Sîn as the leading deity in the cult at Ḫarrān than his persona as the moon god. The first type of these penalties, the dedication of a first-born son to the moon god in the case of breach of contract, is found in four documents from Kalḫu (CTN 2 no. 17), Nineveh (SAA 6 nos. 101–102) and Assur (VAT 21000), and they can be respectively dated to the reigns of Adad-nērarī III, Sennacherib and Sîn-šarru-iškun.1495 All of them concern the “burning” of the first-born son for Sîn together with the “burning” of the eldest daughter for the goddess Bēletṣēri. One of the two documents from Nineveh can be used here as an example of the formula. SAA 6 no. 102, r. 5–11 r. 7 IBILA-šú a-na d30 GÍBIL DUMU.MUNUS-su r. 8 GAL-te TAv 2 BÁN MÚD ERIN a-na Be-let–dEDIN r. 9 i-šar-rap He shall “burn” his first-born son for Sîn, he shall “burn” his eldest daughter together with two seahs of cedar resin for Bēlet-ṣēri. Although the verbs that are used (qalû and šarāpu) in this clause denote burning, it has been established that they refer to the dedication of the children to the named deities.1496 Another opinion has been expressed by Edward Lipiński, who sees this formula as proof of sacrificial killing in honour of the moon god, further asserting that human sacrifice was practised in Ḫarrān until the Middle Ages.1497 Therefore, for him, this penalty clause is directly linked to the local moon cult in Ḫarrān. This literal reading of the formula by Lipiński is, however, weak in light of the philological proof provided by parallel Neo-Assyrian penalty clauses and the fact that there is no evidence for cultic human sacrifice in Assyria.1498 Moreover, a particular connection with Ḫarrān cannot be established

1495

This penalty clause in general is discussed in Radner 1997a, 211–217 and Faist 2012, 206–207; the formulae involving the dedication of a child to the god Adad are treated in Schwemer 2001, 606–607. 1496 In Deller 1965, 385 and Radner 1997a, 211–212 the act of burning is understood as the burning of aromatic substances at the time of the dedication. This is accepted in Mayer & Sallaberger 2003, 99 and in Faist 2012, 206. A differing view is expressed by D. Schwemer, who rather understands this as a transferred meaning deriving from the analogy between the act of transferral and burning sacrificial materials (Schwemer 2001, 606–607 note 4900). In Menzel 1981, 29 the act is understood as symbolic. 1497 Lipiński 1994, 185. In Lipiński 1988, 155–157 the connection of these penalties with the child sacrifice in Canaan is stressed. This view is adopted in Theuer 2000, 357. 1498 The substitute king who protects the actual king’s life by taking the inauspicious consequences of an eclipse upon himself being an exception in the matter.

266

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

without doubt, since in each of these attestations the moon god is presented without a reference to this cult city: it is thus plausible that the local moon gods of Kalḫu, Nineveh, and Assur were intended to receive the dedicated servants.1499 Still, it is possible that this penalty formula originated in the region around Ḫarrān: all the deities to whom similar dedications were made (Adad, Sîn, Bēlet-ṣēri) were venerated in that area.1500 The reason for the pairing of Sîn with the Netherworld goddess Bēlet-ṣēri instead of his wife Ningal/Nikkal cannot be explained because such a pairing is not attested in any other source.1501 The second type of penalty clause involving a donation to the moon god dealt with horses. The donation of an equid to a god in the case of breach of contract is common in Neo-Assyrian documents. Such a penalty is attested 70 times in connection with the god Aššur, 28 times in connection with Nergal, and seven times in connection with Sîn.1502 It is significant that both Aššur and Sîn are named as recipients of white horses (ANŠE.KUR.RA BABBAR/sisû paṣi’u) while Nergal receives ḫarbakkannu-horses. In one example, CTN 2 no. 17, the penalty for breaching the contract involved both the donation of equids to Aššur and Nergal and the dedication of the eldest son and daughter to Sîn and Bēletṣēri. All seven examples of a penalty requiring a horse donation to the moon god specifically name Sîn of Ḫarrān.1503 In two documents, SAA 6 no. 140 and SAA 14 no. 146, the moon god appears alone. SAA 6 no. 140, 9’–11’ 9’ 10 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR 5 MA.NA KÙ.GI 4 [ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ] 10’ BABBAR.MEŠ a-na d30 a-šib uru[KASKAL] 11’ ⌈i⌉-dan He shall pay ten minas of silver, five minas of gold (and) four white [horses] to Sîn who lives in [Ḫarrān]. SAA 14 no. 146, r. 1’–12’ r. 1’ 2 ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ BABBAR.MEŠ [ina GÌRII d30] r. 2’ a-š[ib] uruKASKAL i-rak-kas He shall tie two white horses [at the feet of Sîn] who li[ves] in Ḫarrān. In three of the cases, Sîn’s wife Ningal/Nikkal is included in the formula as the

1499

For the cult of the moon god in these Assyrian cities see p. 416ff. below. Faist 2012, 206–207. 1501 See Radner 1997a, 214–215. 1502 Radner 1997a, 306–311. See also Menzel 1981, 61–62 and Faist 2012, 207. 1503 See the list in Menzel 1981, T 195 and Radner 1997a, 308–311. 1500

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

267

recipient of a donation of silver and gold (SAA 6 no. 98; SAA 14 no. 193 and SAA 14 no. 344). SAA 6 no. 98, r. 1–4 r. 1 ⌈2⌉ [M]A.NA KÙ.BABBAR 2 ⌈MA⌉.[NA KÙ.GI] r. 2 ina bur-ki dNIN.GAL GAR-an r. 3 4 ANŠE.KUR.RA.MEŠ BABBAR.MEŠ ina KI.TA d 30 a-šib uruKASKAL i-rak-kas r. 4 He shall place two minas of silver and two mi[nas of gold] in the lap of Nikkal, he shall tie four white horses at the feet of Sîn who lives in Ḫarrān. In a single conveyance document from Assur, the moon god of Ḫarrān is paired with Adad of Guzāna, who is slated to receive the monetary fine instead of Nikkal.1504 StAT 2 no. 53, 19–r. 3 19 10 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR LUḪ-ú 1 M[A.NA] 20 KÙ.GI sak-ru ina bur-ki d10 š[a] r. 1 a-šib i[na uruG]u-za-ni i-šá-kan r. 2 4 ANŠE.KUR.RA BABBAR.MEŠ-te ina GÌRII d[30] r. 3 a-šib uruKASKAL i-rak-kas He shall place ten minas of purified silver (and) one m[ina] of refined gold in the lap of Adad w[ho] lives i[n G]uzāna, he shall tie four white horses at the feet of [Sîn] who lives in Ḫarrān. The obvious explanation – and the only one that we have on the basis of the material – for the pairing of Adad of Guzāna with Sîn of Ḫarrān is the geographical closeness of the two places: they are both located in northern reaches of the Euphrates, along the tributaries Ḫabur and Baliḫ, respectively.1505 The last example of this penalty formula, in SAA 6 no. 334, appears to differ from the others by prescribing a donation of ḫarbakkannu-horses to Sîn.1506 Still, we cannot be certain of the reading since only the end of the line has been preserved and there are no parallels for this formula in the available documentation. Also unusual in this example is the identification of the god Aššur and the god1504

For the weather god of Guzāna (Tell Ḥalaf) see Schwemer 2001, 612–618. Note also e.g. the naming of Aššur, Sîn of Ḫarrān, and Adad in the treaty between Aššur-nērārī V and Mati’-ilu of Arpad (SAA 2 no. 2, IV 1–16). 1506 SAA 6 no. 334, r. 15: [4 anšeḪUR-ba-kan-ni ina GÌRII d30 šá uruK]ASKAL ú-še-rab. The reconstruction of the line is based on the use of the verbal form ušērab that is attested in formulae involving the donation of ḫarbakkannu-horses to Nergal (see the overview in Radner 1997a, 310–311). Also in Radner 1997a, 311 this case is thought to concern ḫarbakkannu-horses. 1505

268

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

dess Ištar as the other beneficiaries of the penalty. If one seeks an explanation for this triad, it most likely involves the association of Sîn with Aššur during the reigns of the Sargonid kings. The juxtaposition of Sîn and Aššur is a prevailing feature in the penalty formulae of horse donation in general; only these two deities are attested as the recipients of white horses. Therefore, these formulae can be seen as further evidence for the association between Sîn of Ḫarrān and the god Aššur.1507 Furthermore, these white horses must have been intended to pull the carriage of the Ḫarranian moon god at the akītu-festival in the city.1508 The third attested penalty clause associated with the moon god is found in Neo-Assyrian documents which prescribe a payment of silver and gold to Sîn in cases where the contract was contravened or breached. In the half of these attestations (three documents out of a total of six), the moon god who will receive the monetary fine is specified as Sîn of Ḫarrān (SAA 14 no. 213; VAT 8901 and VAT 5394). SAA 14 no. 213, 17’–18’ 17’ 20 MA.NA [KÙ.BABBAR x MA.NA] 18’ KÙ.GI a-na d30 a-šib uruKAS[KAL SUM-an] [He shall give] twenty minas of [silver (and) x minas] of gold to Sîn who lives in Ḫar[rān]. VAT 8901, 13–161509 13 10 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR LUḪ-i 14 5 MA.NA KÙ.GI [s]ak-rù 15 a-na d30 a-šib uruKASKAL 16 SUM-an He shall give ten minas of pure silver (and) five minas of [r]efined gold to Sîn who lives in Ḫarrān. In both of these cases, the onomastic details in the contract point toward the area of Ḫarrān. In SAA 14 no. 213, Sē’-immē is one of the owners of the people sold and Sē’-yatê is the purchaser.1510 In VAT 8901 the owner of the slave woman being sold has a name with the Aramaic moon god as a theophoric element (Šērnūrī).1511 More well-established conclusions can be made concerning the docu1507

See the discussion on p. 395ff. below. For the use of carriages of deities in the akītu-festival see Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 193–195. See also the overview of the use of horses in cultic contexts in Weszeli 2004, 477–478. For the the moon god’s akītu in Ḫarrān see p. 410 below. 1509 Edited as Deller, Fales & Jakob-Rost 1995, no. 124. 1510 For both of these names and individuals see PNA 3/I, 1101. For the western form for Sē’/Sī’ for Sîn see the discussion on p. 30ff. above. 1511 This connection is noted already in Deller, Fales & Jakob-Rost 1995, 113. 1508

II.9. Sîn, Oaths, Curses, and Punishments

269

ment VAT 5394 that records the sale of a slave woman: here the owner of the slave is unambiguously described as “Ḫarranian”.1512 Therefore, it is not surprising that the penalty clause prescribes a significant sum of silver and gold to be paid to Sîn of Ḫarrān if the contract is ever contravened. VAT 5394 (VS 1 no. 90), 15–161513 15 10 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR 1 MA.NA 16 KÙ.GI d30 uruKASKAL SUM-an He shall give ten minas of silver (and) one mina of gold to Sîn of Ḫarrān. In a very significant exception among the available sources, one document refers to Sîn of Dūr-Šarrukīn instead of the Ḫarranian moon god. This is the only direct reference to the moon god of Dūr-Šarrukīn preserved: in all other references he is merely called Sîn, which has led some Assyriologists to maintain that the moon god in Dūr-Šarrukīn was actually the moon god of Ḫarrān.1514 In this penalty clause, Sîn is the receiver of the monetary fine whereas the god Nergal – who is not associated with any cult city – receives the ḫarbakkannu-horses. SAA 14 no. 220, r. 2–5 r. 2 10 MA.NA KÙ.BABBAR LUḪ-ú r. 3 1 MA.NA KÙ.GI sak-ru ina bur-ki d30 r. 4 a-šib uruBÀD–IMAN–GIN GAR-an 4 anšeḫar-bak-kan-ni r. 5 KI.TA dMAŠ.MAŠ ú-še-rab He shall place ten minas of pure silver (and) one mina of refined gold in the lap of Sîn who lives in Dūr-Šarrukīn, he shall bring four ḫarbakkannu-horses to the feet of Nergal. The final two documents (SU 51/36 and SAA 14 no. 241) containing a penalty clause specifying the payment of silver and gold to the moon god do not reveal any specific information concerning his abode. Still, it is plausible that at least one of them was associated with Sîn of Ḫarrān. This is a conveyance document from Ḫuzirīna, which includes a payment of ten minas of gold to Sîn as a penalty for contravening the contract. SU 51/36, 5–61515 r. 5 10 MA.NA KÙ.GI a-na d⌈30⌉ r. 6 SUM-an

1512

VAT 5394 (VS 1 no. 90), 2: uruKASKAL-a-a. Edited as Kohler & Ungnad 1913, no. 214. 1514 So Uehlinger 1997, 316 (see also the discussion on p. 426ff. below). 1515 See the copy of the tablet and the edition in Finkelstein 1957, 138–141. 1513

270

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

He shall give ten minas of gold to Sîn. Since Ḫuzirīna was located very close to Ḫarrān and its local cult appears to have been connected to the moon god’s cult in there, it is very feasible that the Ḫarranian moon god was meant in this case.1516 Whether document SAA 14 no. 241, with its penalty clause of silver and gold to be paid to Sîn of undisclosed origin, should be associated with Ḫarrān or not remains unclear, but it should be noted that the witnesses bear personal names with the theophoric elements Daddi, Nusku, and Sîn – a possible hint at a connection to the region of Ḫarran.1517

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing The conceptions of illness and healing were part and parcel of the theological framework in which the Mesopotamian deities existed. Gods and goddesses were seen as sources of illness either directly or indirectly: they could either inflict an illness upon a person or allow demonic forces and human sorcerers to attack an individual.1518 The incentive for this can be found in transgressions that were committed by the individual unknowingly or deliberately.1519 The entries in the diagnostic handbook Sa-gig illustrate the endeavour to identify the deity responsible for the sufferer’s symptoms by naming him or her in the phrase “hand of DN” – a step in the process of healing needed to communicate with the source of the illness.1520 These diagnoses were based on an elaborate system of theological knowledge that is, to a considerable extent, inaccessible to us. Certain primary concepts, however, can be identified, although the reason why a particular illness was connected to a particular deity often remains opaque. This is also true in the case of the moon god, who is mainly associated with epileptic symptoms and skin diseases – specifically leprosy, saḫaršubbû – in the AssyroBabylonian medical literature. As is shown by the way leprosy is considered a divine punishment imposed by Sîn in Assyrian and Babylonian curse formulae, human transgressions and divine anger were very significant in this respect.1521 Likewise, the moon god’s anger was viewed as the source of epileptic symp-

1516

See the discussion on p. 392ff. below. SAA 14 no. 241, 7’–8’: [X M]A.NA KÙ.BABBAR 1 MA.NA / [KÙ.GI ina bur-ki] d 30 i-šak-kan, “He shall place [x m]inas of silver (and) 1 mina of [gold in the lap] of Sîn.” The witnesses bear names with the theophoric elements Daddi, Nusku, and Sîn (for the name Daddi as one of the names of the weather god see Schwemer 2001, 81–82). 1518 For overviews of the causes of illness and conceptions of illness and healing in Mesopotamia see Stol 1991–1992, 44–47 and Maul 2004, 79–95. 1519 See van der Toorn 1985, 67–72. 1520 For “hands of deities” and Mesopotamia diagnostics see especially Avalos 1995, 128– 139; Heeßel 2000, 47–60; and Heeßel 2007, 120–130. 1521 See the overview of curse formulae involving leprosy on p. 255ff. above. 1517

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

271

toms.1522 The similarities between conceptions of epilepsy and leprosy inspired Marten Stol to suggest that these two diseases should perhaps be considered as two different manifestations of the same affliction: the one occurring externally on the patient’s skin and the other internally in the form of the epileptic fits.1523 Moreover, Stol hypothesised that the moon’s influence can be seen in these two diseases in two different ways.1524 Thus, a proposed aetiology for skin diseases is exposure to the light of the moon, especially during the phase when its luminous powers are greatest, i.e. during the full moon. On the other hand, according to this hypothesis, epilepsy was associated with the absence of the moon when demonic forces were able to attack humans and cause epilepsy in the darkness of moonless nights. Still, since no direct elucidation of the moon god’s association with these two diseases is known from Assyrian or Babylonian sources, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed. Setting aside the disadvantage of not truly understanding why the moon god was associated specifically with epilepsy and leprosy, the relevant materials concerning these associations are discussed in the following section. As will be seen, two prevailing features in the symptoms caused by the moon god can be distinguished. First, involuntary movement in the form of shaking and trembling is a common feature of epileptic symptoms and fever induced by the “hand of Sîn”. Second, in the case of skin diseases, the colour red marks the involvement of the moon god. Furthermore, it will be shown that Sîn is only rarely portrayed as a healing god in his epithets or by other means. The few instances that a healing role for Sîn is underlined are connected either to aid in childbirth or to healing a patient suffering from māmītu, epilepsy, or skin diseases.

II.10.1. Epilepsy and Fever Akkadian terminology recognises two different names for illnesses that we would recognise as being epileptic.1525 The first of them, bennu, appears both in medical literature and in other sources such as legal contracts. The second name, in Akkadian miqit šamê, “what has fallen from heaven” (written logographically AN.TA.ŠUB.BA), is attested as a scholarly term for epilepsy. Only the first term is directly associated with the moon god in Mesopotamian medical lore: the de-

1522

See the citation of STT 95+, I 35–41 on p. 275 below. Stol 1993, 147: “Thinking in more sophisticated terms, one might say that epilepsy and leprosy (or any other severe skin disease) can be considered as internal and external manifestations of the same affliction.” Note how epilepsy (bennu) and leprosy (epqu) are juxtaposed as punishments that are ordained by Enlil and that affect the whole land in astral omens (see Reiner & Pingree 1981, 48 [Text VI, 1’]; see also Stol 1993, 129). 1524 Stol 1993, 130. The argument of Stol is also based on the existing connection between the moon deities and epilepsy and leprosy in Egypt and the Graeco-Roman world (see Stol 1993, 123–130). 1525 For an overview see Stol 1993, 5–9. 1523

272

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

mon Bennu as the source of epileptic symptoms is identified as the “deputy of Sîn”.1526 The symptoms listed in BAM 3 no. 202// in connection with the preparation of therapeutic poultices include the patient constantly shaking and making a variety of noises. According to the diagnosis, these symptoms are caused by Bennu, who is further described as a demon (dALAD/šēdu) and a deputy of the moon god (šanê Sîn). BAM 3 no. 202//, r. 5’–7’1527 r. 5’ ⌈DIŠ⌉ [N]A ina KI.NÁ-šú Ḫ[ULUḪ.ḪU]LUḪ-ut GIN7 KA ÙZ GÙsi r. 6’ i-ram-mu-um ⌈i⌉-par-ru-ud ma-gal DU11.DU11-ub r. 7’ ŠU be-en-ni d[A]LAD šá-né-e d30 If a [m]an s[hakes all the t]ime in his bed, shouts like a goat, [roars], is frightened, (and) talks much: the hand of Bennu, [d]emon, deputy of Sîn. The same notion is found in Šammu šikinšu which describes the appearance of medicinal plants and their uses. Here a plant that remains nameless is said to be beneficial for use against Bennu. Like BAM 3 no. 202//, the entry specifies Bennu to be a demon and a deputy of Sîn.1528 STT 93, 40’–41’1529 40’ Ú GAR-šú GIN7 úŠAKIR PA.MEŠ-šú ⌈TUR⌉.MEŠ SA5 Ú BI [x x x] ši? ud MU.[NI] 41’ ana be-ni A.RÁ šá-nim d30 SIG1530 ḪÁD.A [S]ÚD ina Ì+GIŠ.MEŠ ŠÉŠ.MEŠ The plant (that has) the appearance of šakirû, its leaves are small, it is red: this plant, its name is [...]; it is good against Bennu, demon, deputy of Sîn. You dry (it and) [po]und it, use (it) in oil (for) anointing. Marten Stol explained that the reason a demon was a “deputy” of a god was that

1526

On the other hand, bennu is also associated with Marduk’s planet Jupiter (Šulpae’a) (see Stol 1993, 14–16 and the commentary VAT 9427, r. 24–26 in Hätinen 2020, 136– 150). 1527 //BAM 3 no. 311, 51’–52’. Cited in Dunham 1985, 253; see also Stol 1993, 6. 1528 A similar, albeit fragmentary, entry involving a plant that is good against Bennu, the deputy of Sîn is found in BAM 4 no. 379, II 51’: ú[t]a?-x [Ú x x dALAD šá-né-e] ⌈d⌉30 SIG5 SÚD ina Ì.GIŠ ŠÉŠ-[su], “Plant ... [: plant (of) ... demon, deputy] of Sîn; you pound it and use (it) in oil to anoint [him].” (see Stadhouders 2011, 35 and Stadhouders 2012, 16). 1529 See Stadhouders 2011, 9 and Stadhouders 2012, 3. 1530 The parallel expressions in the other parts of Šammu šikinšu show that this SIG must stand for SIG5, “to be good” (see passim in Stadhouders 2011, 6–34).

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

273

although demonic beings were perceived as belonging to the realm of divine forces, they lacked the power to function on their own and were acting upon the instruction of higher deities.1531 Consequently, the demon Bennu was thought to be following Sîn’s orders when he caused a person to suffer from epileptic seizures. The moon god’s power over Bennu becomes apparent also in its opposite sense: according to the prayer “Sîn 14”, the moon god who able to heal a person suffering from epilepsy by removing Bennu from that person.1532 The connection between Bennu and Sîn must also be the principle behind three related entries in the physiognomic handbook Alandimmû that present them side by side.1533 Perhaps one reason for the association of Bennu with the moon god was the periodic nature of the disease: chronic epileptic seizures caused by Bennu appeared in intervals, and therefore it is possible that they were associated with the disappearance and reappearance of the moon.1534 This may be the meaning of the incipit “My? bennu has been renewed” in a catalogue of texts and their authors found at Nineveh.1535 The other form of epilepsy, AN.TA.ŠUB.BA/miqit šamê, is not presented as a demonic force under Sîn’s command. Nevertheless, this form of the disease and the moon god were associated. This is exemplified by an entry in the diagnostic handbook, which gives the diagnosis AN.TA.ŠUB.BA for a set of epileptic symptoms, further identifying it as the “hand of Sîn”.1536 Another entry shows that the moon god was thought to cause this illness even in cases of changing symptoms. Sa-gig 27, 111537 DIŠ ŠU.dINNIN ana AN.TA.ŠUB.BA GUR-šú ŠU d30 : ŠU d15

1531

Stol 1991–1992, 46 and Stol 1993, 6. In addition to Bennu being a šēdu (dALAD), his divine nature is exemplified by the use of the determinative for divine beings to write his name in Sa-gig 15, 23’: DIŠ KI.MIN-ma ŠUII-šú u [GÌRII-šú ...] ú-ḫar-ra-as ŠU dBe-ennu šá-né d30 GAM, “If ditto and his hands [and his feet ...] he scratches: the hand of Bennu, deputy of Sîn; he will die.” (see Heeßel 2000, 151 and 157). 1532 “Sîn 14”, 9: “(O Sîn), may Bennu that has seized him not approach him; (O Sîn,) drive it away from his body!” (see the edition on p. 479ff. below). 1533 Alandimmû III, 86–88: DIŠ EN : RI : ḪU LÚ BI be-en-nu x [...] / DIŠ UR : IB ŠU.BI.AŠ.[ÀM] / DIŠ GÁN : UD LÚ BI šá d30 i-ma-[...], “If the sign EN, RI (or) ḪU (is drawn on his forehead): that man, bennu [...]. If the sign UR (or) IB (is drawn on his forehead): ditto. If the sign GÁN (or) UD (is drawn on his forehead): that man, (that) of Sîn [...] ” (Böck 2000, 94–95). 1534 As suggested in Stol 1993, 7. 1535 Sm. 669, 7’: ú-te-ed-di-iš be-en-ni : TI.LA [...] (see Lambert 1962, 64–65 with the translation “Epilepsy was renewed”). 1536 Sa-gig 10, 6: AN.TA.ŠUB.BA ŠU d30 (Labat 1951, 80–81). 1537 Heeßel 2000, 309 and 313. See also Stol 1993, 84.

274

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

If the “Hand of the Goddess” changes into AN.TA.ŠUB.BA-epilepsy: the hand of Sîn : the hand of Ištar. Aside from the diagnoses of epileptic symptoms caused by Bennu or AN.TA.ŠUB.BA, the moon god himself is presented as their source by the expression “hand of Sîn”. One of the best examples for this can be found in the text STT 89 which ends with a paragraph listing symptoms that were thought to have been caused by the moon god.1538 These include changes in body temperature and involuntary movements of the eyes, jaw, and whole body. STT 89, 205–2121539 205 [DIŠ G]IG SU-šu ⌈i⌉-mim SED DIB-su KÚR.KÚR ŠU d30 206 [DIŠ] IGIII-šú ma-aḫ-ḫa ŠU d30 207 ⌈DIŠ⌉ IGIII-šú it-te-[n]eq-lep-pa-a ŠU d30 208 ⌈DIŠ⌉ IGI-šú šá GÙB gá[p]-ṣa-at u i-sa-šú nu-uš ŠU d30 209 ⌈DIŠ⌉ ⌈SAG⌉.KI-su šá GÙB GU7-šú-ma u it-te-néq-lép-pu ŠU d30 210 [DIŠ LUḪ.LU]Ḫ-⌈ut⌉ LÙ.LÙ ŠU d30 211 [DIŠ ṣ]e-e-ti ana NITA u MUNUS 1-ma 212 [DIŠ I]R NU ⌈TUKU⌉ ŠU 30 AL.TI šá-niš ana GAL u TUR ŠU-ma [If] the body of [the s]ick man becomes hot (and) cold, his seizure changes: the hand of Sîn. [If] his eyes are suffused: the hand of Sîn. If his eyes drift: the hand of Sîn.1540 If his left eye squints1541 and his jaw is in motion: the hand of Sîn. If his left temple hurts and he feels dizzy all the time1542: the hand of Sîn.

1538

According to M. Stol, this manuscript represents a diagnostic tradition that was older than the diagnostic handbook compiled by Esaĝil-kīn-apli (Stol 1991–1992, 43-44 and Stol 1993, 91). See also similar entries concerning epileptic symptoms and the “hand of Sîn” in the Middle Assyrian text VAT 10235 (KAR 211), I’ 21’–22’ (Heeßel 2010, 173 and 175). This manuscript from Assur suggests that the older tradition of diagnostic texts was kept alive there after the compilation of the new canonical version (see the discussion in Heeßel 2010, 157–159). For the textual history of the diagnostic handbook see also Wee 2015, 247–287. 1539 See the edition in Stol 1993, 98. 1540 For the meaning of the verb neqelpû in this context see Fincke 2000, 146. See also Sa-gig 33, 4: “[Wenn] sein [Ge]sicht und seine Augen geschwollen sind, die Sehkraft schwer und unstetig?(DIRI) ist: ašû ist ihr Name.” (Heeßel 2000, 359). 1541 For the verb gabāṣu with the meaning “to squint (convulsively)”, see the discussion in Fincke 2000, 104–107. 1542 For the meaning “to feel dizzy” for neqelpû see Sa-gig 22, 19: “Wenn ihm immer wieder schwindlig wird([DI]RI.MEŠ-pú), seine Eingeweide geschwollen sind, seine Au-

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

275

[If he shak]es [all the time] and is constantly confused: the hand of Sîn. [If ... caused by h]eat: it is the same for a man and a woman. [If ...] he is not [swe]ating: the hand of Sîn, he will recover. Secondly: it is the same for the old and the young. As is demonstrated by the instructions for a leather bag that was used to treat a person suffering from similar symptoms, shaking – among other symptoms – was considered to be a sign of the moon god’s wrath. To aid recovery, the patient wore the leather bag containing the materia medica around his neck, and Sîn needed to be appeased by means of a penitential prayer.1543 STT 95+295, I 35–411544 I 35 DIŠ NA ina KI.NÁ ḪULUḪ-ut UZU.MEŠ-šú ⌈ú⌉?- x x x [ki-mil-ti] I 36 [d]30 UGU-šú GÁL-ši a-na BÚR-ri úNU.LUḪ ⌈an⌉-⌈ki⌉-nu-⌈te⌉ I 37 ESIR.ḪÁD?.⌈A⌉ gišMÁ?.GUR8 IM PIŠ10 ÍD SUḪUŠ gišš[ú-š]i šá UGU ba-x-ti I 38 ina KUŠ DÙ.DÙ ina GÚ-šú GAR me5-eli lat-ku ana d30 A BAL-qí I 39 UR5.GIN7 [D]UG4.GA ⌈ÉN⌉ ú x x mir ud1545 ag-gu ŠÀ-ka ⌈li⌉-nu-ḫa I 40 ka-bat-ta-ka lip-pa-áš-ra DUG4.GA-ma ina GÚ-šú GAR-ma ŠE.GA ana ki-mil-ti d30 BÚR-ri úDILI na4ZÁLAG úLÁ SUḪUŠ giššú-ši ina KUŠ If a man shakes in his bed and his flesh [..., the wrath] of Sîn is upon him. In order to undo (it), you wrap nuḫurtu-plant, ankinūte-plant, dried? pitch from a barge?, clay from a riverbank, liquorice root from the top of ... in a leather bag, you place it on his neck; a proved poultice. You libate water to Sîn, you speak thus: “(Incantation:) ... may your angry heart quiet down for me, may your mind relent for me!” You say (this) and place (the poultice) on his neck, and it will be favourable. I 41

For undoing the wrath of Sîn: the “lone plant”, zalāqu-stone, ašqulālu-plant, liquorice root in a leather bag.

genränder geschwollen sind, die Schultern? seiner Füße geschwollen sind und Blut aus seinem linken Nasenloch läuft: Hand eines Eides, er wird sterben.” (Heeßel 2000, 259). See also the similar entry in Sa-gig 4, 24: “If his left temple hurts and he feels dizzy all the time(DIRI.MEŠ-pú): the 5th day; the hand of Sîn [....]” (Labat 1951, 34–35). 1543 Cf. the prayers intended to appease the angered hearts of the deities (diĝir-šà-dab-ba) that have been edited by W. G. Lambert (1974) and M. Jaques (2015). 1544 See Scurlock 2014, 653 and 659. 1545 The first part of the incipit is read ÉN ú-⌈šá!⌉-[an-nu] ⌈na!⌉-mir-tú in Scurlock 2014, 653. This is unlikely due to the space available for the restored signs and also due to the otherwise unattested formulation ušannû namirtu (see the attestations in CAD N/1, 229).

276

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

The symptoms associated with the moon god appear to have been perceived in the same way regardless of the age of the patient. This is demonstrated by a diagnosis of “hand of Sîn” for constant shaking and confusion in a case in which the patient was a small child. An example of such a case can be found among the entries in Sa-gig which are parallel to STT 89, 205: the patient is described as shaking, and being confused and frightened.1546 Sa-gig 40, 47–481547 47 DIŠ lúTUR ig-da-na-al-lut LÙ.LÙ-aḫ u MUD.MUD ŠU d30 u d15 48 DIŠ lúTUR ma-la GU7 i-ḫa-ḫu KI.MIN iṣ-ṣa-na-aḫ ŠUII-šú u GÌRIIšú it-te-ṣi-la-šú qí-bít KA ana d30 TUKU-ši If a small child shakes all the time, is constantly confused and frightened: the hand of Sîn and Ištar. If a small child vomits everything that he eats, ditto, he has constant diarrhoea, his hands and feet are paralysed: he will obtain? a prayer to Sîn.1548 Exceptionally, the latter entry contains no diagnosis-based identity of the disease, rather it states only that the moon god should be addressed. Although this statement is terse and no more information is given, it clearly implies that Sîn was perceived to have been connected to the symptoms and one prayed to him as a part of their treatment. Moreover, for reasons that must remain unexplained, Sîn and his daughter Ištar were typically partnered together in cases of illness in young children. This is evident in the entries in the diagnostic handbook that speak of the “hand of Sîn and Ištar” as well as of the “sceptre of Sîn and Ištar”. Sa-gig 40, 55–571549 55 DIŠ lúTUR i-šá-as-si i-gal-lut LÙ.LÙ-aḫ ib-ta-nak-ki u MUD.MUDud ṣer-ḫiš ma-la NAG ut-ta-nar-ra ŠU d30 u d15 56 DIŠ lúTUR ŠUII-šú u GÌRII-šú it-ta-na-an-pa-ḫa IGIII-šú uz-za-naqap gišGIDRU d30 u d15

1546

Note also the “blow of Sîn” (nikiptu Sîn) causing symptoms in the stomach/intestines of a child in Sa-gig 40, 42 (Labat 1951, 222–223). 1547 See Labat 1951, 222–223. A similar entry is also found earlier in the same text, Sagig 40, 35: DIŠ lúTUR ig-da-na-al-lut u LÙ.LÙ ŠU d30 AL.TI, “If a small child shakes all the time and is constantly confused: the hand of Sîn, he will recover.” (Labat 1951, 220–221). See also Stol 1993, 37. 1548 The logographic spelling TUKU-ši is understood as Š-stem form of bašû in Labat 1951, 222–223, but according to MZL no. 827 this reading should be avoided. The citation of the passage in CAD Q, 247 is qibīt pî ana Sîn ibašši, “There will be a prayer to Sîn”, which overlooks the sign TUKU that is clear in the copy of the tablet (BM 92690; Labat 1951, pl. LIX). The exact meaning of this expression remains unclear. 1549 See Labat 1951, 224–225 and Stol 1993, 37.

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

277

DIŠ lúTUR um-ma-šú mit-ḫar-ma tu-kul-ti qin-na-ti-šú u GEŠTUGIIšú ka-ṣa-a gišGIDRU DUMU šip-ri šá d30 If a small child screams, shakes, is confused, cries all the time and is constantly frightened, he throws up everything that he drinks while shouting1550: the hand of Sîn and Ištar. If the hands and the feet of a small child are constantly swollen (and) he protrudes his eyes all the time: the sceptre of Sîn and Ištar. If the fever of a small child is the same but the tukultu of his buttock1551 and his ears are cold: the sceptre of Sîn’s messenger.

57

The last entry in this passage adds a new actor to Sîn’s sphere of influence in this context. The diagnosis “sceptre of Sîn’s messenger” alone remains elusive, but its meaning becomes clear through other entries in the diagnostic handbook. A parallel entry which features the diagnosis “hand of Lamaštu”1552 provides a clue to the identity of the messenger. This information is confirmed by the entries in Sa-gig 19/20 that name Lamaštu as the “messenger of Sîn” (mār šipri ša Sîn).1553 Why was the demoness Lamaštu associated with the moon god through this designation?1554 Significantly, in Sa-gig 19/20 the night with its three watches is the temporal frame for the attacks of fever(?) caused by Lamaštu, who is specified as acting on the command of the moon god. For this reason, the nocturnal element in these attacks may have been affiliated with the moon god. Such an explanation, however, does not necessarily apply to the entry that names the “sceptre of Sîn’s messenger” as the source of an infant’s fever, since no temporal specification is given. Therefore, the logic behind Lamaštu’s status as Sîn’s messenger cannot be completely understood. As shown by the entries just cited, the “sceptre of Sîn” (ḫaṭṭu ša Sîn) was used in a similar fashion as the “hand of Sîn” in connection with epileptic symptoms.1555 The exact meaning of this expression remains unclear, but its use in

1550

For the reading ṣer-ḫiš, “while shouting”, instead of ṣer-tú, “nipple; teat”, see AHw, 1091 and Stol 1993, 37. 1551 See Heeßel 2000, 242–243 for tukultu in this context. The meaning of this expression remains unclear, but the parallel entry in Sa-gig 19/20, 45’ speaks of the right side of the buttocks. 1552 Sa-gig 19/20, 45’ (Heeßel 2000, 229 and 236). 1553 Sa-gig 19/20, 112’–113’: “[Wenn es ihn während der ersten Nachtwache packt:] Hand der Lamaštu, der Botin des Sîn : Wenn es ihn während der mittleren Nachwache packt: Hand der Lamaštu, der Botin der Sîn. / [Wenn es ihn während der letzten Nachtwache packt:] Hand der Lamaštu, der Botin des Sîn.” (Heeßel 2000, 239). 1554 This association remains overlooked in the discussions concerning Lamaštu in Farber 1980–1983, 439–446; Wiggermann apud Stol 2000, 217–249; Farber 2007, 137–145; and Farber 2014, 1–6. 1555 For “sceptre of DN” in Mesopotamian diagnostics see the brief overview in Heeßel

278

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

diagnostic texts shows that it was something that was “wielded against” a person by gods, as opposed to a demon who “seized” a person.1556 Moreover, the “sceptre of Sîn” was clearly an expression for a specific set of symptoms, as shown by its use in a description of an epileptic illness caused by a ghost (eṭemmu) in BAM 4 no. 385//. BAM 4 no. 385//, I 15’–17’1557 I 15’ [DIŠ GIG] LÚ GIN7 gišGIDRU ša dEN.ZU GAR-šum-ma G[ÌR-šú ikap-pap] I 16’ [u i-t]ar-ra-aṣ i-ra-am-mu-um u ru-’u-[tú] I 17’ [ina KA-šú] DU-ak GIDIM mur-tap-pi-du ina EDIN [DAB-su] [If an illness] is set upon a man like the sceptre of Sîn and [he bends his] l[eg and st]reches (it) out, he roars, and saliva runs [out from his mouth]: a roving ghost [has seized him] in the steppe. In addition to the epileptic symptoms that include shaking, the diagnostic handbook associates Sîn with fever and the trembling that appears to be induced by fever.1558 The 16th tablet of the diagnostic handbook specifies fever that is not accompanied by sweating is caused by the “hand of Sîn”.1559 In particular, changes in body temperature during the day, and trembling, are thought to be caused by the moon god.

2000, 55–56. This expression is attested in the Sa-gig 27, 32–36 (Heeßel 2000, 300 and 302). Contrary to the accepted interpretation, both Reynolds & Kinnier Wilson 2004, 600 and Kinnier Wilson & Reynolds 2007, 97 maintain that the “sceptre” (or “staff”) was, in fact, an instrument of healing. Moreover, it is suggested that it may have been “a crutch provided for the patient’s (paralysed) leg”. The connection to Sîn is given the explanation that this crutch may have had a crescent shaped attachment to allow it fit the patient’s armpit. It should be noted, however, that Kinnier Wilson and Reynolds do not take into consideration any occurrences of the phrase “sceptre of DN” in the diagnostic texts (see e.g. Sa-gig 40, 56–57 cited above): these attestations clearly show that the designation is parallel to “hand of DN” as presented by Heeßel. 1556 However, one attestation in Sa-gig 27, 34 lacks a verbal form (LÚ GIN7 gišGIDRU šá d 30 GÌRII-šú; see Heeßel 2000, 300 and 302 and Stol 1993, 80). 1557 See also the duplicate in BAM 5 no. 471, II 21’–22’. An edition of these texts is found in Scurlock 2006, no. 224. This passage is also attested in Sa-gig 27, 35–36 (Heeßel 2000, 300 and 302). An alternative translation is provided in Kinnier Wilson & Reynolds 2007, 90. 1558 These are listed as symptoms associated with “hand of Sîn” in Stol 1993, 130. 1559 Sa-gig 16, 56’: DIŠ UD.5.KÁM UD.10.KÁM GIG-ma KÚM u IR NU TUKU ŠU d30 GAM, “If he is ill five days, ten days, he is hot but does not sweat: the hand of Sîn, he will die.” (Heeßel 2000, 177 and 183). See also Sa-gig 19/20, 11’ (Heeßel 2000, 227 and 235).

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

279

Sa-gig 17, 90–941560 90 DIŠ ina šèr-ti KÚM-em ina li-lá-a-ti SED u i-ra-’u-ub ŠU d30 91 DIŠ ina šèr-ti KÚM-em ina li-lá-a-ti SED ina ⌈GI6⌉ ma-šil ù-’ DUG4.GA 92 ŠEŠ-šú ma-a-a-ta-nu KI-šú KEŠDA 93 DIŠ ina šèr-ti KÚM-ma ina li-lá-a-ti SED ŠU d30 94 DIŠ ina šèr-ti KÚM-ma ŠUII-šú u GÌRII-šú i-ra-’u-ú-ba ŠU d30 If he is hot in the morning, cold in the evening, and he trembles: the hand of Sîn. If he is hot in the morning, cold in the evening, at midnight he says “Ow!”: his dying brother is bound to him. If he is hot in the morning but cold in the evening: the hand of Sîn. If he is hot in the morning and his hands and feet tremble: the hand of Sîn. Still, the changes do not necessarily need to happen strictly at these points of time: the changing character of fever and the patient’s “seizure” are diagnosed as Sîn’s doing elsewhere in the diagnostic handbook1561 as well as in the earlier tradition.1562 Contrary to the diagnoses given for adults, a lack of fever combined with trembling in small children is caused by Sîn according to the diagnostic handbook. Sa-gig 40, 120–1221563 120 DIŠ lúTUR KÚM NU TUKU IGIII-šú bal-ṣa GÌRII-šú i-ra-’u-ba ŠU d 30 TIN 121 DIŠ lúTUR KÚM NU TUKU u i-ra-’u-ub ŠU d30 122 DIŠ lúTUR KÚM NU TUKU ra-’i-i-bu DAB.DAB-su ŠU d30 If a small child does not have a fever, his eyes protrude, his feet tremble: the hand of Sîn, he will recover. If a small child does not have a fever, but he is trembling: the hand of Sîn. If a small child does not have a fever, trembling constantly seizes him: the hand of Sîn. Sîn’s association with trembling, both in adults and children, enforces the notion that he was associated with involuntary body movements like epileptic shaking, feverish trembling, as well as trembling that is not accompanied by fever.

1560

Heeßel 2000, 204 and 210. Sa-gig 18, 1 (Heeßel 2000, 218 and 220); Sa-gig 19/20, 9’; 12’–13’ (Heeßel 2000, 227 and 235). 1562 STT 89, 205 (see the citation on p. 274 above). See also VAT 10235 (KAR 211), I’ 10’–12’ (Heeßel 2010, 171–175). 1563 See Labat 1951, 230–231. 1561

280

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

The available sources show that in addition to being the cause of epileptic symptoms, Sîn played a role in healing patients suffering from this disease. In fact, one of the Akkadian prayers to him (“Sîn 14”) focuses emphatically on his power to help a patient suffering from epilepsy.1564 In addition to this, a few descriptions of therapeutic procedures against epilepsy that took place either before the moon, or involved the moon’s invisibility, underline Sîn’s role in the conceptions surrounding this disease. The description in STT 89 is badly preserved, but it is clear that at the very least the medicine should be prepared in the presence of the moon.1565 Better preserved is a Late Babylonian text (BM 47509+) that describes a procedure for healing a patient suffering from AN.TA.ŠUB.BA-epilepsy.1566 This instruction deals with the fashioning of an amulet that consists of two bronze crescent moons, one larger and one smaller, with a Sumerian incantation inscribed on them and three strings of stones. The instruction specifies that the complete amulet is to be hung around the neck of the patient.1567 In the accompanying ritual, which took place on the roof in the presence of the moon, prayers “Sîn 14” and “Sîn 15”, which praise Sîn as a healing god, are recited.1568 The use of crescent-shaped amulets to ward off the forces causing epilepsy underlines the moon god’s role as a source of epileptic diseases: because he had caused the illness, he was also able to heal it. In this respect, it should be noted that similar customs using the form of the crescent moon as an amulet against epilepsy, a disease of the moon, are attested in classical antiquity and even in modern day Italy.1569 Another text that describes a therapy against epilepsy (in this case for a baby suffering from AN.TA.ŠUB.BAepilepsy) does not specify that the procedure takes place before the moon. Still, the recitation of the prayer “Sîn 14” makes clear that Sîn was the deity who was addressed while a leather bag containing materia medica was prepared and hung on the baby’s neck.1570 The aforementioned attestations show that therapeutic procedures that took place before the moon were significant in the treatment of epilepsy. In addition, the lunar invisibility was also significant in this respect.1571 As suggested by STT

1564

See the discussion on p. 286ff. below. STT 89, 159–166 (see the edition in Stol 1993, 95). Unfortunately, it remains unclear whether the complete treatment of the patient should take place in the presence of the moon or not since even the preserved passages are, to a large extent, unclear; see, however, lines 164 (ina IGI d30) and 165 (ina ⌈IGI⌉ d30 ḪE.ḪE). 1566 Edited in Schuster-Brandis 2008, 265–269 (Text 7). 1567 BM 47509+, 7’–21’ (Schuster-Brandis 2008, 267–268). See also the citation of the passage concerning the crescent moons (ll. 7’–10’) on p. 40 above. 1568 BM 47509+, r. 1–22 (Schuster-Brandis 2008, 267–269). 1569 Stol 1993, 126. 1570 See Farber 1989, 116–121. For “Sîn 14” see p. 479ff. below. 1571 See the overview in Stol 1993, 115–117. 1565

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

281

300, the 28th day of Abu appears to have been especially significant in this regard since it is defined as beneficial for rooting out AN.TA.ŠUB.BA, Bennu, Lugalgira,1572 the “hand of god” and the “hand of ghost”.1573 This is likely to have been the result of ghosts being, for their part, responsible for causing epileptic seizures.1574 Moreover, the absence of the moon plays a prominent role in the instructions given in the 29th tablet of the diagnostic handbook. This tablet details therapies against epileptic symptoms in persons of different ages from infancy to adulthood.1575 The most notable feature of these therapies is the use of botanical or mineral substances that are associated with the moon’s invisibility.1576 The three-year-old patient should be anointed with šakirû-plant that has been plucked on the 30th day of the month (i.e. during the moon’s invisibility) and “ashes of an eclipse” are used for anointing the seven-year-old patient.1577 If the patient is ten years old, the instruction is to treat him “on the day a [lunar?] eclipse [takes place?]” and he should be facing the moon.1578 The next three instructions in the text do not mention Sîn, but he becomes relevant again at the age of 30 years: the treatment, in this case, requires the patient to cross the river seven times while the moon and the sun are not visible.1579 Therefore the absence of both main celestial luminaries appears to have been essential for the therapy.

II.10.2. Skin Diseases Another principal group of illnesses associated with Sîn were afflictions of the skin. The main one of these is what is generally called leprosy in Assyriological literature (Sum. saḫar-šub-ba; Akk. saḫaršubbû; epqu and garābu).1580 The case

1572

For the identity of Lugal-gìr-ra as Lugal-ùr-ra see Stol 1993, 16–19. STT 300, 15: UD.28.KÁM AN.[T]A.⌈ŠUB⌉.⌈BA⌉ be-en-nu d[Lu]gal-gìr-ra ŠU.DINGIR.RA ŠU.GI[DI]M.MA ZI-ḫi, “28th day (is for) rooting out AN.[T]A.ŠUB.BA-epilepsy, bennu-epilepsy, Lugalgira, “hand of god”, “hand of ghost” (pace Casaburi 2002– 2005, 66–67; see Stol 1993, 115). 1574 See Stol 1993, 115 and Scurlock 2005–2006, 133. 1575 Heeßel 2000, 318–327. 1576 For a brief overview see Reiner 1995, 134–135. 1577 Sa-gig 29, 5: úŠAKIRA šá ina UD.⌈30⌉.KÁM ZI; 6: DÈ AN.TA.LÙ (Heeßel 2000, 318). For a differing interpretation of these lines see Kinnier Wilson 2007, 62–66. 1578 Sa-gig 29, 8–9: u4-um AN.MI ⌈d⌉[30? GAR?-nu?] / mi-iḫ-⌈rit⌉ ⌈d⌉30 ŠUB-šú, “on the day a [lunar?] eclipse [takes place?] you lay him down opposite to Sîn” (see Heeßel 2000, 319 and 324). 1579 Sa-gig 29, 19: ina UD.10.KÁM tu-še-ṣa-šum-ma 30 u 20 NU IGI x [... KA]L?-šú 7-šú u 7-šú ÍD ib-bir-ma [NU GUR-šú], “on the 10th day you let him go out and (when) Sîn and Šamaš are not seen [...] he crosses over the river seven times and seven times in his [streng]th? and [it will not return to him]” (see Heeßel 2000, 320 and 324). 1580 See the overviews in Kinnier Wilson 1966, 47–58 and Stol 1987–1988, 22–31; the skin lesions associated with garābu, epqu and saḫaršubbû are discussed in Scurlock & Andersen 2005, 231–233. For the purposes of the present discussion, these three are all 1573

282

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

of leprosy is notable for its conspicuous nature as a divine punishment or a result of divine anger.1581 The most telling sign of this is the widespread use of the curse formula that features leprosy as a divine punishment for breaching an established contract.1582 As already pointed out, the association between the divine punishment of leprosy and the moon god appears to date back at least to the Old Babylonian period.1583 The idea that the moon god’s anger was the cause of leprosy is also made clear in sources other than curses: such a suggestion is found in an entry in the teratomantic omen series Šumma izbu, according to which leprosy was predicted by the scaly skin of the abnormal newborn. Šumma izbu 17, 54’1584 BE iz-bu ki-ma SUḪURku6 ù [MUŠ qú-lip-tam] ḫa-li-ip uz-za-at dEN.ZU LÚ ep-qa D[IR] If an anomaly is covered in scales like a carp or a snake – the anger of Sîn: a man will be fu[ll] of leprosy. Despite the firmly established connection between the moon god and leprosy, the reason for this association remains unclear.1585 Moreover, it should be noted that Sîn was not the only deity able to impose a punishment of leprosy; his children Ištar, Anunītu, and Šamaš also shared this ability.1586 In addition to or in connection with leprosy, a further aspect of skin disease is associated with Sîn in the Mesopotamian diagnostic tradition: skin symptoms that are red, more specifically red pustules or boils (bubu’tu sāmtu).1587 This is

broadly understood as “leprosy” despite the difficulties in identifying their exact nature. 1581 Leprosy is discussed as an example of a disease specifically associated with divine anger and human transgression in van der Toorn 1985, 72–75. In the lexical list Malku IV, 62–65 dropsy (etillû) and leprosy (saḫaršubbû) are listed directly before and after the noun arnu, “transgression; guilt” (Hrůša 2010, 96–97). 1582 See the discussion on p. 255ff. above. 1583 UET 6/2 no. 402, 36–38 names epqu as the punishment for breaking an oath by Sîn and Šamaš (Charpin 1986, 327; see also the citation on p. 256 above). 1584 de Zorzi 2014, 754. See also the commentary SpTU 2 no. 38, 21–22 in de Zorzi 2014, 747 and Jiménez 2015b (CCP 3.6.3.B). 1585 In van der Toorn 1985, 73 the whiteness of skin is put forth as the concept behind Sîn’s association with leprosy. Such a principle would, however, oppose the apparent connection between red skin pustules/boils/lesions and Sîn as it is attested in diagnostic texts. One aspect that may have been significant in this respect is the association of the moon god with the wilderness: the person afflicted with leprosy (as a punishment by Sîn) was destined to leave his city, and like the wild animals, roam the steppe (see overview of the curse formulae concerning saḫaršubbû on p. 255ff. above). 1586 See the discussion on p. 255ff. above. 1587 As noted in Stol 1993, 128 and Heeßel 2004, 109. It seems plausible that the identification of the bird nannāru as the bird of Sîn is based on its red-speckled appearance – a

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

283

shown by the several attestations identifying such symptoms as the “hand of Sîn” (qāt Sîn). As the entries show, the red pustules could cover either the entire body of the patient1588 or only his face.1589 The section in the 33rd tablet of the diagnostic handbook Sa-gig, which gives a list of particular symptoms and the particular deities those symptoms are associated with, makes the general statement “red boils = hand of Sîn”.1590 This generalised association was also significant in the diagnosis of leprosy: a medical text from Emar specifically suggests that a variant of leprosy (SAḪAR.ŠUB.BA/epqēnu) with green-yellow and red skin lesions was considered to have been caused by the “hand of Sîn”.1591 The attestation from Emar also opposes the notion that leprosy was considered to be incurable: the entries in this text describe the treatments for various kinds of leprosy and end with the statement that the patient will recover.1592 A treatment for garābu is also known from a collection of therapies for skin diseases, BAM 6 no. 580.1593 The existence of a white spot, further identified as garābu, on the body of the patient requires a procedure of burning various materials and then throwing the burned remains into the river. Although offerings or prayers to the moon god are not mentioned, the fact that the patient is supposed to swear by Sîn (nīš Sîn tazakkar) suggests that he was involved in the procedure.

notion similar to the identification of red boils/pustules as a symptom caused by the moon god (K. 4001+ [CT 40, pl. 49], 41: na-an-na-ru MUŠEN d30 SU-šú SA5 u BABBAR ḪE.ḪE, “nannāru, Sîn’s bird, whose body is speckled with red and white”; see CAD N/1, 261). 1588 Sa-gig 3, 91–92: [DIŠ ištu SAG.D]U-šú EN GÌRII-šú UD.BU.BU.UL SA5 SA5 u SUšú BABBAR KI MUNUS ina KI.NÁ KUR ŠU d30, “[If] he is full of red boils [from] his [he]ad to his feet and his body is white: he was caught with a woman in the bed; the hand of Sîn.” (Labat 1951, 28–29; see the copy of the tablet MLC 2639 in Goetze 1948, 305– 308). See also Sa-gig 18, 22 (Labat 1951, 170–171; see the citation on p. 284 below) and BAM 6 no. 584, II’ 25’–26’. 1589 Sa-gig 9, 47: DIŠ IGI.MEŠ-šú UD.BU.[BU.UL] SA5 SA5.MEŠ ŠU d30 TIN, “If his face is full of red boils: the hand of Sîn; he will recover.” (Labat 1951, 74–75 and pl. XIV; also quoted in Heeßel 2004, 109). 1590 Sa-gig 33, 114: Ù.BU.B[U.U]L [S]A5 ŠU d30 (Heeßel 2000, 358 and 363). 1591 KI.MIN SAḪAR.ŠUB.BA SIG7 SA5 ŠU d30 ana ZI-šú ni-il NAM.LÚ.U19.LU UD.7.KÁM ŠÉ[Š-su-ma TI-uṭ], “Ditto (if) the leprosy is yellow-green (and) red: the hand of Sîn; in order to remove it you should anoi[nt him] with human semen for seven days [and he will recover].” (l. 60 in Tsukimoto 1999, 193 and 197; the tablet in question belongs to a private collection in Japan). The following entry informs that the red, white and black variant is caused by the personal god of the patient (l. 61). 1592 See ll. 41–84 in Tsukimoto 1999, 192–197. 1593 This text contains also the mythological passage of the moon god observing the suffering of the diseased person (BAM 6 no. 580, II’ 1’–28’; see p. 289 below) as well as a fragmentary instruction for a therapy that is to be performed during the invisibility of the moon (BAM 6 no. 580, V’ 5’; see p. 123).

284

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

BAM 6 no. 580, V’ 17’–20’1594 V’ 17’ BE-ma ina SU NA pi-in-du-ú BABBAR ša ga-ra-bu i-qab-bu-š[u ...] V 18’ udupu-ḫa-du BABBAR KÙ 7 NINDA ZÍZ.ÀM 2 SÌLA zìmaṣ-ḫa-ta ša N[ITA i-ṭé-nu] V 19’ 1 SÌLA MUN ŠIM.MEŠ DÙ-šú-nu gišḫu-pe-e ṣar-ba-te ina UGU abri te-ṣe-en U[ZU uduSILA4 an-ni-i] V 20’ ta-ka-su-ma MU d30 MU-ár u[duSISKUR ta-na-qi tuš?-ken KEŠDA DU8-ma GÍBIL ana ÍD ŠUB-di] If a white spot that is called garābu is [found] in the body of a man [(...)] a white pure lamb, 7 loaves of emmer bread, 2 qû of roasted flour [ground by a] m[an], 1 qû of salt, all the aromatics, wood shavings of poplar you pile up upon a brush pile, you bind the fl[esh of this lamb] and you swear by Sîn. [You sacrifice a] l[amb, prostrate yourself?, undo the ritual arrangement and then throw the burnt ritual material into the river.] Aside from leprosy and skin diseases involving red boils, another aspect of symptoms that manifest in the skin of the patient is associated with Sîn: black colouration over parts of the body. This is attested in the entry of the diagnostic handbook that describes the black colouration on the left arm combined with its uncontrollable movement as the symptoms of the patient suffering from the “stroke of Sîn” (miḫiṣ Sîn).1595 Sa-gig 15, 10’1596 DIŠ KI.MIN-ma Á-šú šá 150 GI6-át i-ṭa-mu [SÌG-i]ṣ d30 u uš-te-zeb [GAM] If ditto and his left arm is black, it moves uncontrollably: [the strok]e of Sîn and he will be rescued, [he will die]. The colour black in connection with the moon god is also relevant in ailments related to sexual matters. Sa-gig 18, 22:1597 [DIŠ ... SU-šú] ⌈GI6⌉ KI MUNUS ina KI.NÁ ka-šid ŠU 30 TIN

1594

This passage is duplicated by YBC 7127, 1’–7’ (Beckman & Foster 1988, no. 11; collated from photographs kindly provided by M. Frazer and E. Jiménez) and KAL 4 no. 41, 1–8. A similar, but not identical, ritual instruction is found in KAR 25, III 13’–20’ (a manuscript containing the prayer “Sîn 9”; see the edition on p. 474ff. below). 1595 As noted above, the uncontrollable movements of the body (both epileptic shaking and feverish trembling) appear to be associated with Sîn (see p. 271ff. above). 1596 See Heeßel 2000, 151 and 156. 1597 See Heeßel 2000, 219 and 221.

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

285

[If ... his body] is black: he was seized with a woman in bed; the hand of Sîn; he will recover. It is worth noting that a Middle Assyrian diagnostic text includes an entry that associates a body covered with boils with being seized with a woman in bed; the diagnosis is the “hand of Sîn”.1598 Related also are the two entries in the diagnostic handbook that deal with a patient “stricken” either in the loins or the testicles: these cases are diagnosed as caused by both the demon Šulak and Sîn.1599

II.10.3. Blindness A further category of diseases associated with the moon god consists of ailments affecting the afflicted person’s vision.1600 Importantly, the disease with the name Sîn-lurmā was not caused by Sîn, but its name contains a reference to the moon as a celestial luminary. The description of Sîn-lurmā in the diagnostic series concerning eye diseases shows that it most likely applied to both night-blindness and day-blindness.1601 BAM 6 no. 516, II 30–31’ II 30’ DIŠ NA UD DÙ.A.BI NU IGI.DU8 GI6 DÙ.A.BI IGI.D[U8] d30-luur-ma-a II 31’ DIŠ NA UD DÙ.A.BI IGI.DU8 GI6 DÙ.A.BI NU IGI.DU8 d30-lu-urma-a If a man does not see anything during the day, (but) during the night he se[es] everything: Sîn-lurmā. If a man sees everything during the day, (but) during the night he sees nothing: Sîn-lurmā.

1598

VAT 10235 (KAR 211), I’ 19’–20’: [DIŠ TA] SAG.DU-šú EN GÌRII-šú Ù.BU.BU.UL [x] šá ma-⌈li⌉ u [zumuršu peṣi/ṣalim] / KI MUNUS ina KI.NÁ ka-⌈šid⌉ ŠU dE[N.ZU], “[If] he is covered with ... boils from head to feet and [his body is white/black]: he was seized with a woman in bed; the hand of S[în].” (see Heeßel 2010, 173 and 175). 1599 Sa-gig 12, 128 = TDP 108/17: “[If] he is stricken in his [lo]ins: hand of Šulak; he has approached his sister (sexually); hand of Sîn; it will be prolonged and he will die” (Labat 1951, 108–109; see also Heeßel 2000, 58); Sa-gig 15, 41’: “Wenn dito und er an seinem Becken geschlagen ist : an seinem Hoden: Hand des Sîn, er wird lange dauern und er wird sterben.” (Heeßel 2000, 158). The first of these entries clearly involves sexual transgressions because it specifies that incest has led to the condition. 1600 This nature of this disease associated with the moon god and the available sources are discussed in Stol 1986, 295–299 and Fincke 2000, 200–202. 1601 An older form of the disease name is sí-nu-ri is attested in Akkadians texts from Boğazköy (see Fincke 2000, 201).

286

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Although these two definitions of Sîn-lurmā oppose each other, the inclusion of the moon god in the name of the disease must be related to the light the moon casts during the night. A person suffering from day-blindness may have been thought to yearn for the moonlit night, and person afflicted with night-blindness can be assumed to benefit from the moonlight.1602

II.10.4. The Role of Sîn in Healing In general, Sîn’s role as a god who offers help to ill people is not widespread in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources.1603 In fact, depictions of the moon god in this capacity are almost exclusively found in relation to the illnesses that were theologically connected to him: as the source of a disease, Sîn was also the deity able to promote the process of healing after his anger had been appeased. As already shown, the therapeutic measures against epilepsy in particular were an area of healing in which his presence is apparent. In the case of skin diseases, a similar number of sources have not been preserved, but it is clear that Sîn was approached when leprosy was treated.1604 Another context, in which the moon god offered his aid, was childbirth, as the myth Cow of Sîn demonstrates.1605 Sîn’s favourable disposition towards the pregnant woman could also help her avoid childbirth during an unfavourable month.1606 Human procreation and fertility were also areas where the moon god supported people.1607 A high concentration of epithets describing Sîn in the context of healing is found in the prayer “Sîn 11”, which describes an unnamed illness that the moon god must root out. Remarkably, the only manuscript containing this prayer is not concerned with epilepsy or leprosy; it contains a therapy for healing a person suffering from māmītu.1608 In the prayer “Sîn 11” the moon god is praised in various ways as a god who takes an interest in the suffering of humans and mercifully allows them to be healed. Sîn’s merciful abilities are praised in line couplets, which are followed by the themes of prosperity, divine decision-making, and celestial luminosity – motifs that are more commonly found in prayers to Sîn. The first couplet simultaneously focuses on the regenerative powers of the moon, Sîn’s love for renewal, and his mercy, by which the person in need will receive help.

1602

See the discussion concerning the etymology of the name in Fincke 2000, 201–202. See the overview of the relevant epithets in Tallqvist 1938a, 447. 1604 See the discussion on p. 283ff. above. 1605 See p. 241ff. above. 1606 The procedure in VAT 8004// aims at avoiding childbirth in Nisannu through the help of Sîn and Šamaš (see the edition on p. 507ff. below). 1607 See p. 236ff. above. 1608 See the transliteration and translation of “Sîn 11” on p. 477ff. below. For an overview of māmītu see Maul 2004, 79–95. 1603

II.10. Sîn, Illness, and Healing

287

“Sîn 11”, 6–7 d ⌈30⌉ ⌈i⌉-⌈de⌉-⌈šu⌉-u ša bu-⌈ul⌉-lu-ṭu i-ra-mu 6 d 30 DINGIR réme-nu-⌈u⌉ ⌈šá⌉ ⌈na⌉-⌈ás⌉-⌈ḫur⌉-šú DU10.GA 7 O Sîn, the one who continually renews himself, the one who loves to revive! O Sîn, the merciful god whose attention is good! The second couplet a few lines later stresses Sîn’s ability to free the afflicted person of his illness and to give him a healthy life: this is expressed through the epithets nāsiḫ murṣi, qā’iš balāṭi, nāsiḫ zīri, and šākin šulme. “Sîn 11”, 10–11 d 30 na-si-ḫi GIG NÍG.BA TI.LA 10 d 30 ZI ḪUL.GIG GAR-nu šùl-me 11 O Sîn, the one who roots out the sickness, the one who endows health! O Sîn, the one who roots out hate, the one who equips with wellness! This same theme of removing the illness that afflicts the patient forms the basis of the plea to Sîn at the end of the prayer. “Sîn 11”, 16–17 d 30 ZI GIG šá ina SU-ia5 DÙ-u 16 d 30 ZI GIG TI.LA NÍG.BA 17 18 DINGIR-ut-ka GAL-tú qur-di-ka lu-IGI 19 ina GIG an-ne-e šu-zi-ba-ni-ma la ÚŠ 20 la-ḫa-bíl a-na UZU a-sak-ki ⌈lu⌉ la ŠID-nu 21 ZI GIG ša SU-ia5 TI.LA qi-⌈šá⌉ O Sîn, root out the illness that has been created in my body! O Sîn, root out illness, equip with life! May I see your great divinity, your heroic powers! Save me from this illness so that I will not die, so that I will not be treated unjustly, so that I will not be reckoned as belonging to the asakku-demon! Root this illness out of my body, equip with life! The only other prayers that emphatically depict Sîn allowing patients to be healed are “Sîn 14” and “Sîn 15”, which are found in therapies for epileptic diseases.1609 “Sîn 14” asks him to drive away the Bennu-demon and to protect the patient against it.1610 The prayer “Sîn 15” uses phraseology similar to the lines in

1609

See the editions on p. 479ff. below (“Sîn 14”) and Schuster-Brandis 2008, 265–269 (“Sîn 15”). Both of these prayers are found as a part of the therapy in BM 47509+. 1610 “Sîn 14”, 9: “(O Sîn), may Bennu that has seized him not approach him; (O Sîn,)

288

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

“Sîn 11” above: the moon god is begged to root the illness out of the body of the patient.1611 Moreover, the line that precedes this plea declares the moon god to be “the one who roots illness out of all the people” (nāsiḫ murṣi ša nišī kalāma).1612 The other major motifs representing Sîn as aiding suffering humans are found in two mythological stories, one related to childbirth and the other to skin diseases. These two myths are united by their depiction of Sîn as a celestial deity, who is residing in the sky when he witnesses the complications or illnesses that earthly creatures must endure. The best-known example of this is the widely attested mythological story of a cow in birth pangs, Cow of Sîn.1613 The cries of this cow that metaphorically depicts the woman in labour reach the moon god Sîn in heaven.1614 BAM 3 no. 248, III 20–241615 III 20 UD.MEŠ-ša ina qu-ut-ti-i ár-ḫi-šá ina ga-ma-ri III 21 ÁB ig-ta-lit ú-ga-al-lit III 22 re-é-a-šá ap-pa-šu qá-di-is-su ka-par-ru ka-li-šú-nu sap-⌈du⌉-šú III 23 ana ik-kil-li-šá ana ri-gim ḫa-li-šá ne-pal-saḫ dNanna-ru III 24 d30 ina AN-e iš-tam-me ri-gim-šá iš-ši qa-as-su šá-ma-me Her days being about to be finished, her months becoming complete, the cow trembled and caused fear. Her herdsman was bowed down, all of the young shepherds were mourning over her. At her cries, at the noise of her birth pangs, Nannāru was fallen (in despair)1616, Sîn in heaven listened to her voice and lifted his hand to the heavens. The incantation continues with a description of how two lamassus descend from heaven to aid the cow. This most likely occurs on Sîn’s command, although this is not explicitly expressed in the text. It should also be noted that the sadness of the moon god connotes the darkening of the moon according to a medical com-

drive it away from his body!” (see p. 479ff. below). 1611 “Sîn 15”, 4: [...] x x u-suḫ GIG šá SU-MU, “[...] ... root the illness out of my body” (see Schuster-Brandis 2008, 268). 1612 “Sîn 15”, 3: [d3]0 na-si-iḫ [G]IG šá UN.MEŠ DÙ.A.BI at-ta, “[O S]în, you are the one who roots [i]llness out of all the people!” (see Schuster-Brandis 2008, 268). 1613 See the overview on p. 241 above. 1614 In an Old Babylonian variant of this motif in VS 17 no. 34 both Sîn and Šamaš hear the cries of the cow (van Dijk 1972, 343–345). The cries of the woman giving birth reaching the heaven is a motif attested already in the Sumerian birth incantations (see e.g. UM 29-15-367, 10–11 in van Dijk 1975, 55). 1615 See the transliterations in Röllig 1985, 262–263 and Veldhuis 1991, 61–62. See Veldhuis 1991, 8–9 for a different understanding of the structure in the lines III 21–22. 1616 This expression undoubtedly refers to a lunar eclipse. For the metaphorical expressions of the mourning moon god in relation to lunar eclipses see p. 167ff. above.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

289

mentary on the therapeutic measures taken for a difficult childbirth.1617 A mythological passage depicting Sîn as a god who notices human suffering can also be found in an incantation against illnesses with visible symptoms on the patient’s body (simmu).1618 In this case, as opposed to hearing the wailing of a woman in labour, Sîn sees the person who thrashes about on his or her bed due to the fever caused by the illness. After this has caught Sîn’s attention, he speaks to the Enlil, Ea, and Bēlet-ilī.1619 CTN 4 no. 116//, r. 10’–15’1620 r. 10’ [GURUŠ na-di i-dam]-mu-um KI.SIKIL ⌈na⌉-da-at it-tap-pa-a[ṣ] r. 11’ [i-mur-š]u ⌈d+EN⌉.⌈ZU⌉ ⌈e⌉-da-n[u-uš-šú] r. 12’ [dEn-líl dÉ]-⌈a⌉ u DINGIR.MAḪ ul-te-eḫ-sí-su ina UGU-š[u] r. 13’ [dEN.ZU pa-a-š]u [D]Ù-uš-ma i-qab-b[i] r. 14’ [ana dEn-líl dÉ-a u] ⌈DINGIR⌉.MAḪ i-[za-k]ar : niš-ku-un-⌈ma⌉ i-na ma-a-ti sim-mi r. 15’ [TA a-me-lu-ti ni-i]b-na-a mu-ta [b]a-lá-ṭa ni-ir-ku-sa it-ti-š[ú] [The young man is lying there, he mo]ans; the young woman is lying there, she thrash[es] about. Sîn [saw h]im in [his] lonelin[ess], [Enlil, E]a, and Bēlet-ilī became worried about hi[m]. [Sîn op]ened hi[s mouth] and spok[e], he s[ai]d [to Enlil, Ea and] Bēlet-ilī: “We have indeed established simmus in the land! [After we cr]eated [the mankind], we bound death (and) [l]ife to i[t]!” These two motifs – both reflecting the established theological association of Sîn with pregnancy and skin afflictions – show that the moon god was thought to have been interested in the life of the people when he was visible in the night sky: he either saw or heard the suffering below.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn For the final part of this section that focuses on the theologies of the moon god in Assyria and Babylonia, the following chapters will present the deities that were associated with Sîn during the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. The family and household structures are an especially important element in local

1617

See the discussion on p. 170 above. The Akkadian term simmu is often translated as “wound” (so in AHw, 1045; in CAD S, 276–278: “carbuncle, skin eruption; general term for a disease”). The definition offered by Marten Stol is that simmu is a designation for “a disease with immediately visible symptoms” (Stol 1993, 11; see also Stol 1991–1992, 63) and this is followed here. 1619 This must be a reference to the creation of man followed by the creation of the means to restrict the number of people in Atraḫasīs. 1620 Duplicated by BAM 6 no. 580, II 1’–28’; see the edition in Geller 2000, 336–339. 1618

290

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

theologies, but they also have significance in the supra-regional mythologies that reflect the genealogical relationships of the deities.1621 As a result of the intermingling of different traditions, contradictory concepts are occasionally found in the sources from these periods. This is exemplified by the three separate traditions connected to Sîn’s son. In Ur, the heir of the moon god was Ningublaga, a deity associated with cattle, whereas in Ḫarrān, the son of Sîn was Nusku, a god of light. In addition, the sun god Šamaš was thought to be the first-born son of the moon god – a tradition that was found throughout Babylonia and Assyria. Likewise, although Ištar was generally portrayed as Sîn’s daughter, the moon god had two other daughters in Ur, namely the goddesses Amarazu and Amaraḫea. The one notion that did not change was the moon god’s marriage with Ningal, the goddess who stood at his side in Sumero-Babylonian tradition as well as in the traditions of northern Mesopotamia and North Syria. The following chapters will discuss the most important deities in Sîn’s family and household through their relationship to him. We will begin with the parents of Nanna/Sîn and proceed to his wife, children, and vizier. It should be noted that it is not the purpose to include every member of the moon god’s household attested in the god-list An = Anum in this discussion: only the deities that have a relationship with Sîn in sources other than lexical lists are discussed here. This means that the lesser deities in Sîn’s household – the guards, the balaĝ-gods, and the shepherd – must go unremarked.1622 As for the other deities – the divine couple Nindara and Nanše together with their servants – their character in the moon god’s household is not sufficiently explicated in available sources, and therefore they will not be discussed in the following chapters.1623 An overview of the household of the moon god as it is presented in the god-list An = Anum is given in the tables 14–16 (p. 327–329).1624

1621

For the different cult places of Sîn in Assyria and Babylonia during the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods see the discussion on p. 330ff. below. For an insight into the relationship between cult practice, myth, and the various deities housed in a single temple see Meinhold 2013, 325–334. 1622 An overview of these deities can be found in Krebernik 1995, 365–366. See also the overview of courtiers in divine households in Renger 1972–1975, 435–437. The balaĝdeities (GU4.BALAĜ) have recently been discussed in Gabbay 2014a, 103–114 as well as in Heimpel apud Franklin 2015, 584–589 and 628–629. 1623 The god Nindara(a), who is equated with Sîn in An = Anum III, 65 is briefly discussed on p. 243 above. For an overview of his wife Nanše, a goddess affiliated with birds, see Heimpel 1998, 152–160. Of the deities associated with them in the moon god’s household the goddess Nin-MAR.KI deserves a special mention since her inclusion in the list is plausibly due to her affiliation with cattle (see Sallaberger 2001, 463–468). 1624 These tables are based on the edition of the text in Litke 1998, 116–128 and Feliu 2006, 232–238. Improvements to the readings of the names are based on Krebernik 1995, 363–366 and Heimpel apud Franklin 2015, 628–629. The names of Nin-MAR.KI’s

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

291

II.11.1. Enlil and Ninlil According to the prevailing Sumero-Babylonian tradition, the moon god Sîn was the first-born son of the deities Enlil and Ninlil.1625 The most explicit testimony of this is the Nippurian myth Enlil and Ninlil which recounts how Nanna/Sîn and his brothers Nergal/Meslamtae’a, Ninazu, and Enbilulu came into being.1626 In the story, the god Enlil takes the goddess Ninlil forcibly as she is bathing in the river, planting the seed of Sîn-Dilimbabbar in her womb. As a consequence of this rape, the gods banish him, and he leaves the city. As he is making his way towards the Netherworld, the pregnant goddess Ninlil follows him, asking the gate-keeper, the man of the River of the Netherworld, and the man of the ferry if they have seen Enlil. In the guise of these three men, Enlil again has sex with Ninlil, promising that the first seed, the seed for the moon god, will rise into the heavens, and the three younger deities who are the results of the later sexual acts will go down to the Netherworld, presumably as a substitute for Enlil himself, Ninlil, and the first-born Sîn-Dilimbabbar.1627 The genealogical relationship between Enlil and Nanna in the myth Enlil and Ninlil is based on a concept that can be traced back to the earliest texts treating mythological themes: among the Early Dynastic texts from Tell Abu Ṣalābīḫ, one attestation clearly names the gods Enlil and Ninlil as the parents of the moon god Nanna.1628 Since this attestation shows that Enlil was considered the moon god’s father already during the Early Dynastic period, the suggestion that the emergence of their mythological relationship should be dated to the Ur III period – more specifically to the reign of Ur-Namma – loses any credibility.1629

and Ga’u’s children are left out of this table. For these names see Litke 1998, 125–128; Krebernik 1995, 365–366 as well as SpTU 3 no. 107+, 64–76 and 80–87. 1625 See Hall 1985, 726–728. 1626 Enlil and Ninlil has been edited by H. Behrens (1978). See also the translation in Cooper 1980, 184–188 and the edition available online in ETCSL 1.2.1. Its celestial connotations, namely in explaining how the moon as a celestial object came to be, are discussed in Cooley 2013, 111–113. Although this myth is known from manuscripts that are mostly Old Babylonian, the existence of a bilingual Neo-Babylonian manuscript for the text reveals that it was transmitted still in the 1st millennium BCE (see Behrens 1978, 8 [Ms C: 80-11-12, 484]). It has also been suggested that also the manuscript D (N 2234) in Behrens’ edition is, in fact, Neo-Babylonian, not Old Babylonian (Cooper 1980, 176). 1627 For this interpretation see Afanasieva 1980, 165–166. In Cooper 1980, 179 the three deities are understood as a substitute for only Enlil. 1628 IAS no. 114, I 14–16: UDNanna ama a UDKIŠ-NUN UDNin-líl, “Nanna – (his) parents Enlil and Ninlil” (Krebernik 1995, 364 and Krebernik 1998, 322 note 806). This attestation is left unnoticed in Klein 2001, 290. 1629 The emergence of the mythological relationship between Enlil and Nanna/Suen during the reign of Ur-Namma, replacing the older tradition of the moon god as a son of An, the sky god, is proposed in Klein 2001, 279–301.

292

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Still, the possibility that this father-son relationship of Nanna/Suen and Enlil was perhaps emphasised by the rulers of the Ur III dynasty, in order to strengthen the bond between Nippur and Ur, seems likely.1630 The sky god An/ Anu, who is connected with the moon god by the geographical proximity of Uruk to Ur and the celestial nature of these both gods, is also portrayed as the father of the moon god in Sumerian literary sources.1631 It should, however, be noted that both Anu and Enlil appear as his fathers in an Old Babylonian adabcomposition to Nanna.1632 Despite the references to Anu being the father of the moon god, Sîn is most often described as the first-born son of Enlil in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources. This certainly applies to the broader Sumero-Babylonian tradition, including the local cult in Ur, but the situation in the local cult in Ḫarrān remains less clear due to the lack of material. Still, it should be noted that the epithet mār rubê, “son of the prince”, given to Sîn of Ḫarrān in an inscription of Assurbanipal, hints at the possibility that the moon god of Ḫarrān was also thought to be Enlil’s son.1633 The suggestion that the sky god Anu was considered the father of Sîn in Ḫarrān can now be rejected, since the one supposed attestation of this genealogical relationship in the Eḫulḫul inscription of Assurbanipal is, in reality, a reference to the “Theology of the Moon”, which associates the moon god with the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil during the first half of the lunar cycle.1634 Sîn’s status as the son of the king of the gods is underlined in some of his names and epithets that are found in textual sources from the 1st millennium BCE. Although there is a spatial separation between the names of the moon god Sîn and his father Enlil in the god-list An = Anum,1635 the status of Sîn as the son (of Enlil) is established in two of his appellations: dDumu-nun-na, “Son of the

1630

The cult of Nanna was introduced to Nippur during the reign of Šulgi (see the discussion on p. 368ff. below). 1631 The epithet “son of An/heaven” (dumu an-na) is used in Nanna K (VS 2 no. 68), r. 26 (Sjöberg 1960, 80–82; see also ETCSL 4.13.11). See also Tallqvist 1938a, 119. 1632 Nanna H (see the editions in Sjöberg 1960, 35–43 and ETCSL 4.13.08). Note also the existence of a similar phenomenon for the two other principal celestial luminaries, Šamaš and Ištar: they are depicted as having both Anu and Sîn as their fathers (see p. 305ff. below). 1633 Sm. 671, 18: [... dNi]n-gal ḫi-rat DUMU NUN-e dN[anna-ri], “[... Ni]ngal, spouse of the son of the prince, N[annāru]” (see Bauer 1933, Pl. 49 and Novotny 2003, 249). Enlil in the role of Sîn’s father is in keeping with the supposed Sumerian origin of the Ḫarranian cult of the moon god (see p. 387ff. below). 1634 The sky god Anu as the father of Sîn in Ḫarrān (on the basis of K. 8759+, 11) is noted in Groß 2014, 149. See, however, the new reading of this line on p. 142 above. 1635 The fact that Sîn is separated from Enlil in An =Anum and its Old Babylonian precursor is presented in Klein 2001, 291 note 61 as possible evidence for an earlier tradition, in which An was the moon god’s father.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

293

Prince” and dDumu-gi7, “Noble Son”.1636 A similar epithet for the moon god is well-attested in Sumerian literary sources: “princely son” (dumu nun).1637 The appellation “Son of the Prince” is even found as a theophoric element in the name of Lú-Dumu-nun-na, an ancestor of a famous Nippurian scribal family.1638 The Sumerian epithet and appellation “Son of the Prince” for Sîn finds its Akkadian counterpart in the aforementioned epithet mār rubê.1639 This epithet is most notably found in a god-list fragment that lists deities belonging to Enlil’s household: the moon god, named Egi and Sîn, receives the further designation mār rubê, “son of the prince”.1640 It is, therefore, clear that the epithet describes Sîn as Enlil’s son. The source that offers perhaps the most abundant references to the father-son relationship of Enlil and Sîn within a single text is one the ikrib-prayers to Sîn.1641 This prayer contains a direct reference to Enlil as Sîn’s father, in addition to other epithets that reflect this relationship. Sîn is not only called the “heir of Enlil” (apil Enlil),1642 but also the “true heir” (aplu kunnû),1643 the “beloved son” (māru rāmu),1644 and the “[splen]did one of E[kur]” ([šūp]û ša E[kur]).1645 In the šu’ila-prayers to Sîn, the epithets šūpû ša Ekur, “splendid one of Ekur”,1646 and aplu ašarēdu, “supreme heir”,1647 are used to address the moon god. Even if the god Enlil himself is not mentioned in these sources, the epithets clearly present Sîn as his first-born son. Bilingual incantations, especially in the series Udugḫul, bring forth Sîn and Enlil’s genealogical relationship: the eclipsing moon god

1636

An = Anum III, 15–16 (see Litke 1998, 118 and Feliu 2006, 235); see also Krebernik 1995, 363 and Tallqvist 1938a, 444. 1637 See Sjöberg 1960, 142 and Hall 1985, 646–647. 1638 See the overviews of Lú-Dumu-nun-na in George 2009, 135 and 145 and Frahm 2011, 302. Some of the colophons containing his name designate him as “Sumerian”, see e.g. the medical commentary 11N-T3 in Civil 1974, 331–336. This name is considered to be a Sumerian translation of the Akkadian name Awīl-Sîn. 1639 See e.g. the attestations in Nabonidus’ inscriptions (Schaudig 2001, 2.5, I 11: dNannari DUMU ru-bé-e ú-ṣab-ba-a nab-ni-it-su, “Nannāru, the son of the prince, supervised his creation”; Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 2: DUMU ru-bé-e gi-is-ki-im-ma-šu ú-kal-li-im adna-a-tì, “the son of the prince showed his sign to the whole world”). 1640 K. 1451 (CT 25, pl. 49), r. 6: dE4-gi7 | d30 DUMU ru-[bé-e], “Egi = Sîn, son of the prince”. The colophon of the tablet states that it was copied from an original from Babylon. Note that this appellation is parallel to dDumu-gi7 in An = Anum III, 16 – only the element dumu is replaced with e4. 1641 See ll. 23’–56’ in the edition of K. 2751+// on p. 483ff. below. 1642 K. 2751+ //, 24’. 1643 K. 2751+ //, 37’. 1644 K. 2751+ //, 37’. 1645 K. 2751+ //, 24’. See also the incompletely preserved reference to Ekur in line 43’. 1646 “Sîn 1”, 14 (see the edition on p. 452ff. below). 1647 “Sîn 14”, 1 (see the edition on p. 479ff. below).

294

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

is called the “son of the prince” (dumu nun-na/mār rubê) in the lunar eclipse myth included in the series. Udug-ḫul 16, 581648 dumu nun-na u4-sakar dSuen-na an-na su-mu-ug-ga-bi gig-ga mar ru-bé-e na-an-na-ri d30 šá ina AN-e mar-ṣi-iš i’-ad-ru son of the prince, luminary Sîn, who is being cruelly darkened in the heaven Elsewhere in the series Sîn is portrayed as the “first-born son of Enlil”, and he is presented among the other members of Enlil’s family (Ninlil, Ninurta, and Nusku).1649 A similar formulation can be found in an adjuration in a manuscript of ḫul-ba-zi-zi incantations: also here the moon god is portrayed as the first son of Enlil (dumu-saĝ dEn-líl-lá/māru rēštû ša dEnlil) while his celestial luminosity and power over divine decisions are also described.1650 Similar to these attestations in prayers, Sîn is often referred to as the son of Enlil in Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions. A peculiar formulation referring to this father-son relationship can be found in the cylinder inscription of Sargon II, in which the epithet bin Daragal, “son of Daragal”, is used to describe him. Sg Zyl, 571651 i-na itiṢi-i-taš ITI bi-in dDàra-gal KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim ṣa-ad-di d NANNA AN-e KI-tim qar-rad DINGIR.MEŠ dEN.ZU In the month of the sunrise,1652 the month of the son of Daragal, the maker of decisions, the revealer of signals, luminary of the heavens (and) the earth, the hero of the gods, Sîn This unique epithet finds an explanation in dDàra-gal, one of Enlil’s names in the god-list An = Anum.1653 In a similar vein, a citation of the menology Iqqur īpuš is

1648

Geller 2007, 180 and 253 as well as Geller 2016, 515. Udug-ḫul 5, 118: zi dSuen-na dumu-saĝ dEn-líl-lá-ke4 ḫé-pà, “Be adjured by Sîn, the first-born son of Enlil!” (see Geller 2007, 123 and 211 as well as Geller 2016, 199). 1650 LKA 77//, II 35–36: zi dSuen-n[a | niš d30] / dumu-sa[ĝ dEn-líl-lá | ma-ri-reš-ti-i šá d En-líl] (see Ebeling 1953b, 366–367; the whole section concerning Sîn is LKA 77//, II 35–47). A copy of the duplicate K. 2725 is published in Meek 1920, 125–126, but new unpublished joins to the tablet have been since made. An edition of the ḫul-ba-zi-zi incantations has been announced by Irving Finkel. 1651 Fuchs 1994, 41 and 294. 1652 The month Ṣītaš is equated with the month Simānu (see CAD Ṣ, 215). 1653 An = Anum I, 163: dDàra-gal | MIN(=Enlil) (see Litke 1998, 39 and Feliu 2006, 244). Cf. the names dMen-dàra-an-na and dMen-dàra-dingir-ra for Sîn in An = Anum (see the discussion on p. 60ff. above). Note also the names of Ea built around the element dàra in An = Anum II, 143–147 (Litke 1998, 84). The similarity between the names of Enlil and 1649

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

295

included in the description of Assurbanipal’s campaign against Elam: the campaign is described as having begun “in Simānu, the month of Sîn, lord of the decisions, first and foremost son of Enlil (māru rēštû ašārēdu ša Enlil)”.1654 This is clearly a reference to Iqqur īpuš in which Simānu, the third month of the year, is associated with Sîn, “the first-born son of Enlil” (Simānu ša Sîn māri rēštî ša Enlil).1655 Sîn’s status as the son of Enlil appears to have been significant in the context of menologies since a second tradition, which names Nisannu, the first month of the Babylonian year, as the month of Sîn, also uses the same epithet.1656 And again, the same epithet, mārû rēštû ša Enlil, is also used in the explanatory text i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a, in the section concerning the meaning of the logogram UD.NÁ.ÀM and the renewal of the moon.1657 It is possible to find a connecting factor between the aforementioned depictions of Sîn as Enlil’s son despite their different contexts: most of them are connected to the moon god in his aspect as a divine decision-maker. In the ikribprayer that forcefully highlights Sîn’s status as the foremost son of Enlil, he is expected to act as a judge and give a verdict in the extispicy case. In the šu’ila “Sîn 1”, the use of the epithet šūpû ša Ekur is in the context of a divine assembly, in which the other great gods ask the moon god and he provides an answer that is later made manifest either in celestial signs or in a dream. Likewise, Sîn’s ability to make decisions as the son of Enlil is plausibly the reason for naming him the first-born son of Enlil in the explanation for his disappearance and renewal in i-NAM-giš-ḫur-an-ki-a. Celestial divination is also the context for the lunar eclipse myth in the 16th tablet of Udug-ḫul: the moon is here described as a celestial sign-giver that is darkened by demons. In the royal inscriptions of Sargon II and Assurbanipal, the epithets pāris purussê and bēl purussê, “maker of decisions” and “lord of decisions”, are used in connection with Sîn as the son of Enlil, thereby associating their genealogical relationship with divine decision-making. The description of the moon god as mār rubê, “son of the prince”, in the En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder of Nabonidus is likewise connected to the divine will that Sîn makes manifest through a lunar eclipse. Moreover,

Ea appears to have caused the false identification of Dàra-gal as Ea in Cohen 2015, 413. 1654 Assurbanipal Prism A, IV 110–111; Prism F, III 33–34: ina itiSIG4 ITI dSîn EN EŠ.BAR DUMU reš-tu-u a-šá-re-du šá dEn-líl (Borger 1996, 45 and 237; see also RINAP 5/I nos. 11 and 9, respectively). 1655 Labat 1965, 196 (§ 105, 3). 1656 Nisannu is identified as Sîn’s month in the Astrolabe B (KAV 218; see the edition in Reiner & Pingree 1981, 81). The Sumerian part of the section describing Nisannu ends with the lines [it]i dNanna dumu-saĝ / dEn-líl-lá-ke4 (I 5–6), and the following Akkadian part ends with the lines ITI dEN.ZU / DUMU reš-ti-i šá d+En-líl (I 10–11). The month list attested in Astrolabe B can also be found in EAE 51, Text X 24–35 (Reiner & Pingree 1981, 62) with the same formulations. 1657 K. 2164+, r. 14’ (see the citation on p. 123 above).

296

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Sîn’s appearance as Enlil’s first-born son in the ḫul-ba-zi-zi incantation is also connected to his power over divine decisions: lines that appear later in the adjuration highlight the unchangeability of his word.1658 This shared theme of divine decision-making in the references to Sîn as the son of Enlil suggests that his abilities in this respect should perhaps be seen as a reflection of Enlil’s own powers in divine decision-making.1659

II.11.2. Ningal According to Sumerian tradition, which also spread to northern Mesopotamia and Syria, the goddess Ningal was the moon god’s spouse.1660 As the city goddess of Ur, Ningal was closely connected to that city: in an inscription of AmarSuen she is presented as the “mother of Ur” along with her husband Nanna, the “lord of Ur”.1661 Still, despite the fundamental connection between Nanna, Ningal, and Ur, the divine couple was also venerated in other cities in Mesopotamia. Due to her status as the wife of Nanna/Sîn, Ningal was housed either in a temple of her own or in a sanctuary inside the moon god’s temple. In Ur, the temple of Ningal was called Agrun-kù, “Pure Bed-chamber”,1662 and in Ḫarrān her sanctuary was called É-ĝi6-pàr.1663 Exceptionally, Ningal’s sanctuary formed a prominent part of the temple complex of Sîn and Šamaš in Dūr-Šarrukīn.1664 No similar situation is attested in either Assur or in any other cities housing the cult of the moon god, where Ningal, as expected, is included among the deities of Sîn’s household.1665 This was also the case in Nippur, as the Nippur Compendium, which positions Ningal in Sîn’s household demonstrates.1666 The situation in the cities Uruk and Sippar, where the moon god was also worshipped during the 1st 1658

LKA 77//, II 41–42: ka-ta-è-da nu-kàm-me-da / ṣ[i-it pi-i-šu] l[a] ut-tak-ka-[ru], “his utterance cannot be altered” (Ebeling 1953b, 367). 1659 For an overview of the city Nippur as a place of decision-making, with the god Enlil as the supreme deity in charge of divine decisions, see Lieberman 1992, 127–136 and Sallaberger 1997, 147–168. 1660 See the overview of the goddess Ningal in Hall 1985, 730–731 and especially in Zgoll 2000, 352–356. For a study of the cult of Ningal in Ur during the Old Babylonian period see Richter 2004, 433–441. For the Hittite and Hurrian sources concerning Ningal/Nikkal see Imparati 2000, 356–357. The moon god yrḫ and his spouse nkl in Ugarit have been studied in Theuer 2000, 5–296. 1661 RIME 3/2, E3/2.1.3.10, 18–21: dNanna / lugal-uri5ki-ma-ke4 / dNin-gal / ama-uri5ki-make4. The epithet “mother” is used mainly for city-goddesses in the Sumerian tradition (see Westenholz 2013, 58). 1662 See the discussion on p. 349ff. below. 1663 See the discussion on p. 403ff. below. 1664 For the special attention given to Ningal by Sargon II, see p. 297ff. below. See also the discussion concerning the Sîn-Šamaš temple in Dūr-Šarrukīn on p. 426ff. below. 1665 See the discussion on p. 416ff. below. 1666 See the discussion on p. 368ff. below.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

297

millennium BCE, is somewhat unclear. According to the Eana archive, there are no traces of a cult of Ningal in Neo-Babylonian Uruk.1667 In Sippar, the northern Babylonian cult city of the sun god, Ningal enjoyed a cult along side Sîn during the Old Babylonian period, but she is absent in the later Kassite, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian sources.1668 Ningal’s background as a goddess in the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon is hazy. Mythological sources providing information about her genealogy are scarce: only a couple of possible references to her mother are known from Sumerian literature.1669 Based on these few references, Ningal’s mother was possibly Nin-gi-kù-ga, who otherwise appears as Enki’s spouse in the god-list An = Anum and its Old Babylonian precursor.1670 Simultaneously, Nin-gi-kù-ga is one of the names of Ningal herself.1671 The mythological background of the relationship between Nanna/Sîn and Ningal is also clouded by the lack of sources: only a brief reference to the courting of Ningal by Sîn is made in a fragmentary Old Babylonian myth concerning the adolescence of the gods Sîn and Išum.1672 Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources depict the goddess Ningal mainly as the spouse of Sîn and the mother of their children, Šamaš and Ištar.1673 As in the earlier Sumerian tradition, Ningal’s role during this period was that of a compassionate mother and a supportive spouse.1674 This conforms to the general notion of Mesopotamian goddesses as merciful and compassionate intermediaries between humankind and stern male deities.1675 However, the reverse situation is also attested: in a fragmentary eršaḫuĝa-prayer, the pacification of Ningal’s mind is sought with her son, Utu/Šamaš, acting as the mediator.1676 Only a very few prayers, hymns, or dedicatory inscriptions to Ningal alone are known to us, which stresses her marginal role in the wider religious context of Assyria and 1667

See the list of the deities found in the archive in Beaulieu 2003, 369–371. For the situation in Old Babylonian Uruk, see the discussion in Richter 2004, 316–318: although the moon god Nanna/Sîn was venerated in Uruk at least from the Ur III period onward, only one possible reference to a cult of Ningal in a year name alludes to her cult in Uruk. 1668 See the diachronic overview of the Sippar pantheon in Myers 2002, 379. 1669 See e.g. the love dialogue between Nanna and Ningal (TuM NF 4, 7 ii 7–iii 6) in Westenholz 1989, 550–552 (ll. 88 and 98). 1670 An = Anum II, 178 (see Litke 1998, 88) and TCL 15 no. 10, 87. 1671 An = Anum III, 28 (see Litke 1998, 120). This is also the name given to Ištar in connection with Ur in the syncretistic hymn KAR 109+ (see the citation on p. 80 above). 1672 See BM 87521 (CT 15, pls. 5–6), II 5–9 in Römer 1966, 138–139. 1673 An overview of Ningal’s epithets can be found in Tallqvist 1938a, 403–404. 1674 Ningal’s passivity is noted in Westenholz 2013, 49. 1675 According to J. G. Westenholz, this aspect for the Mesopotamian goddesses should be seen as a development caused by the same traumatic events that generated the lamentations over the destroyed Sumerian cities and the notion of the city goddess as a grieving mother, mater dolorosa (Westenholz 2013, 134). 1676 VS 24 no. 31 (see the edition in Maul 1991, 70–72).

298

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Babylonia during the 1st millennium BCE, in contrast to her local importance in Ur and Ḫarrān. The few sources that are preserved imply that Ningal – and therefore by extension Sîn, since Ningal’s main significance was as the wife of Sîn – received special veneration during the reign of Sargon II who is connected to the goddess on two special occasions. First, a dedicatory inscription for the temple of Ningal in Dūr-Šarrukīn, the newly built capital city, was written on the threshold of this temple. OIP 38, 133 no. 71677 1 ka-bi[t]-ti be-le-e-ti ⌈šá⌉-qu-tu dNin-ga[l] 2 a-na IMAN–GIN MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR Aš+š[u]rki ŠAKKAN6 KÁ.DINGIR.RAki 3 MAN KUR E[M]E.GI7 ù URIk[i] ba-nu-⌈ú⌉ ku-mi-i-ki 4 i-na ma-ḫar d30 ḫa-’i-ri na-ra-[mi-k]a ab-bu-su 5 a-mat MUNUS.S[IG5]-šú ti-iz-⌈ka⌉-ri [šá du-u]n-ni BALA-šú 6 ba-laṭ na-piš-ti UD.MEŠ GÍD.MEŠ li-š[i-i]m ši-ma-tuš 7 li-pu-šú a-na ar-kat u4-me li-be-lu ⌈kal⌉ da-ad-me O hono[ur]ed one among the mistresses, exalted Ninga[l]! Intercede before Sîn, yo[ur] belo[ved] husband for Sargon, king of the world, king of Ass[y]ria, governor of Babylon, king of Su[m]er and Akkad, builder of your chamber! Speak a word of kin[dness] on behalf of him [concerning the soli]dness of his reign! May he de[c]ree good health and long days as his fate! May his descendants rule the inhabited world to the end of days! According to this inscription, Ningal’s two chief characteristics are her supreme position among the other female deities – designated as “mistresses” (Akk. bēltu) – and her ability to intercede with her husband Sîn in favour of the Assyrian king. It also reflects her importance in the topography of the temple complex in Dūr-Šarrukīn.1678 In this temple complex, in which the moon god Sîn and his son Šamaš were the main deities, Ningal had her own sanctuary with a separate courtyard in front of its entrance. No similar examples are known from other Assyrian temples, and it demonstrates that her status was comparable to that of Sîn and Šamaš. The topographical evidence is supported by the references to the building of the temples in Dūr-Šarrukīn in Sargon II’s other inscriptions: Ningal is the only goddess mentioned by name among the male deities who were also housed in the complex.1679 The fact, be it coincidental or not, that the only attes-

1677

Fuchs 1994, 281 and 369–370. See also Jacobsen apud Loud 1936, 133. For the temple complex of Sîn, Šamaš, and Ningal in Dūr-Šarrukīn see p. 426ff. below. 1679 See e.g. the inscription on the bull colossi, Sg Stier, 57–59: pa-rak-ki ra-áš-bu-ti / ša ki-ma ki-ṣir ge-né-e šur-šu-du a-na dÉ-a / dSîn dNin-gal dŠamaš dNabû dAdad dNinurta e1678

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

299

ted Akkadian hymn to Ningal names Sargon II further suggests that he held her in very high esteem.1680 This short hymn is written on a tablet found in Kalḫu, and it praises Ningal as the supreme goddess, the mother of the Igigū-gods, and an adviser of the gods. ND 2480, 1–r. 51681 1 šit-ra-aḫ-tu dNin-gal e-tel-lu-tu lu na-a’-d[i] 2 kab-ta-at a-na DINGIR.MEŠ a-na dIŠ.TAR.MEŠ šu-tú-rat!1682 d 3 Nin-gal šar-ra-tu e-tel-lu-tu lu na-a’-di 4 kab-ta-at a-na DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈a⌉-na dIŠ.TAR.MEŠ šu-tú-ra[t] 5 a-lit-ta-at dÍ-gì-gì mu-ḫa-i-ṭa-at šá-ma-m[i] 6 ma-li-kàt a-na DINGIR.MEŠ ša-’i-lat te-ne-še-ti 7 x at e-tel-let šur-ru-ḫa-at ṣi-rat 8 x ⌈ti⌉? šá-ma-mi da-a’-ma-a-ti i-ba-ri zu-x-ru1683 9 [ ] x x muš-te-še-rat ba-’u-l[a-ti] 10 [ ] x ILUGAL–GI.NA ru-bu-u ⌈dan⌉-⌈nu⌉ [(x)] r. 1 x [x] x x tak ba a bi qa ma sag me i-le-’[i]1684 r. 2 li-i[n]-ṣi ma-al lìb-bi li-pu-uš qab-lu r. 3 ma-[a]l-ki ša kib-rat á[r]-bi-ti li-pu-uš x [(x)] r. 4 i-⌈piš⌉ pi-šu li-iš-mu-ma li-ši-qu GÌRI[I!?-šú?]1685

pu-šá, “I built awe-inspiring sanctuaries that are as firmly established as the mountain rock for Ea, Sîn, Ningal, Šamaš, Nabû, Adad, (and) Ninurta” (Fuchs 1994, 68 and 305). See also the index of god names in Fuchs 1994, 472–475. 1680 As suggested in Saggs 2000, 906–907. 1681 Edited in Saggs 2000, 905–912. 1682 In Saggs 2000, 907 the end of line 2 is read dIŠ.TAR.MEŠ šu-ut AN-⌈e⌉, “goddesses of heaven”. Likewise, he suggests that the end of line 4 involved the earth (transliteration: dIŠ.TAR.MEŠ šu-ut ...; translation: “goddesses of the lower world”). I deem the reading šu-tú-rat – allowed by the copy – more likely for the both lines. This would create a structure, in which the stative form at the beginning of the line is mirrored by another stative at the end of the line. 1683 Transliterated ZALAG?[a]t šá-ma-mi da-a’-ma-a-ti i-ba-ri zu-x-ru in Saggs 2000, 907. According to the copy, there are traces of two signs visible at the beginning of the line. The second of these signs could be ti (as also Saggs notes), but that remains unclear. The first signs should probably be a logogram because a participle is expected here, but on the other hand, the rest of the text is written syllabically apart from DINGIR.MEŠ, d IŠ.TAR.MEŠ and the name of Sargon II. 1684 No transliteration is given for this line in Saggs 2000, 908, but the various possibilities for reading the signs are discussed (Saggs 2000, 909). 1685 The verb at the end of the line is read li-ši?-qu?-šu?-m[a] in Saggs 2000, 908. Since the signs li, ši and qu are very clear in the copy, I suggest reading the wedges that Saggs transliterated as šú and ma as GÌRI[I] with probably the 3. sg. possessive suffix -šu appended to the end. This would provide more sense to the content of the line, the main

300

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

r. 5 e-nu-ma an-na-a za-ma-ru dNin-gal šar-ra-t[u] (empty) [l]u na-a’-di la a-ni-ḫi r. 6 Splendid Ningal, may the lordship be praised! She is honoured to the gods, to the goddesses she is supreme! Ningal, queen, may the lordship be praised! She is honoured to the gods, to the goddesses she [is] supreme! She is the one who gave birth to the Igigū-gods, she is the one who surveys the heavens! She is adviser to the gods, she is the one who asks questions (for) the humankind,1686 she is ..., she is sovereign, she is magnificent, she is noble, ... of the dark skies, she inspects ... [ ] ... she is the one who guides the population! [ ] ... Sargon, the strong prince, ... he is abl[e]. May he attain wishes, may he do battle, may he ... the kings of the four corners of the world! May they hear what he says and kiss [his?] fee[t?!] When this hymn (is sung), queen Ningal is indeed praised without ceasing! Despite the lines that are only partly preserved or remain unclear, the underlying concepts in this hymn are transparent: here Ningal, who otherwise takes only a passive role, is elevated to the position of an active, supreme goddess. Not only is she the mother of the Igigū-gods, but she has a role as an adviser to the gods and as an advocate for humankind. She certainly appears to have a celestial aspect, but it remains unknown if this involved being a celestial luminary herself. The idea of military prowess, found in the closing lines of this hymn, is otherwise not connected to Ningal – the entire idea is very different from the motherly quality normally applied to her – and this anomaly must be connected not only to her husband Sîn’s close connection to kingship,1687 but also to her status as a supreme goddess in this context. For this reason, she is depicted as a powerful supporter of the Assyrian king.1688 The veneration of Ningal is naturally highlighted in the northern cult city of theme being the victory of Sargon II over the other kings. “Kissing the feet” as a gesture of submission is well attested in the Assyrian royal inscriptions (see CAD N/2, 58). 1686 šā’ilat was understood differently by Saggs, who translates the end of the line as “she is concerned for the mankind”. This would, however, require the combination šulma šâlu, “to ask after someone’s health; to be concerned about someone; to pay attention to someone” (see CAD Š/1, 279). 1687 For the moon god’s importance in relation to kingship, see p. 196ff. above. 1688 The importance of goddesses in the political sphere and in relation to royal power is noted in Scurlock 2009, 66.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

301

the moon god, Ḫarrān, where Sîn and Ningal/Nikkal, together with their son Nusku, were the main tutelary deities. For this reason, they are ubiquitous in personal names, letter formulae, and the few references to the cult in the city.1689 Ḫarrān is also the context for the only other preserved Neo-Assyrian dedicatory inscription to Ningal/Nikkal. The text that is known to us only from a copy that was kept in Nineveh was written on the wooden carrying poles (gištallu) that were dedicated to the goddess by Assurbanipal in connection with the rebuilding of the temples in Ḫarrān. Most notably, it contains the only known reference to the sanctuary of Ningal/Nikkal in Ḫarrān by its name, É-ĝi6-pàr.1690 Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 1–111691 1 [a-na dN]in-gal DU10-bát TI i-lat ta-na-d[a-ti] um-mi DINGIR.MEŠ qa-rit-[ti] 2 [(empty)] 3 [ri-i]m-tum da-mì-iq-tum šá bu-un-ni na[m-rat?]1692 4 [šá G]IN7 u4-me it-tan-bi-ṭu zi-m[u-šá] 5 ⌈ḫi⌉-[rat] dNanna-ri EN a-šá-re-di šu-pu-u ZÁLAG AN-e né-su-ut[i] 6 a-lid-da-at dUTU-ši ZÁLAG kib-ra-a-ti šá šip-ṭu u EŠ.BAR gúmmu-ru ŠÚ ur [x] 7 ṣa-bi-ta-at ab-bu-ti a-na na-an-⌈nar⌉ DINGIR.MEŠ na-ra-mì-i-šá d [30] 8 ma-⌈li⌉-kàt GALGA qa-ba-at SIG5-tim a-na dUTU bu-uk-ri-[šá] 9 mu-dam-mì-qat a-mat un-nu-né mu-ad-d[a]-⌈a⌉-[t]a LUGAL pa-liḫi-i-šá 10 ru-ba-a-⌈tu⌉ réme-ni-tum ma-ḫi-rat tés-li-ti a-ši-bat É-ĝi6-pàr 11 šá ⌈qé⌉-reb uruḪar-ra-na GAŠAN GAL-ti GAŠAN-šú [To N]ingal, the one who makes life sweet, goddess of glory, valiant mother of gods, kind [wild c]ow who is br[ight?] (in) appearance, [who]se feat[ures] are shining [li]ke the day, spo[us]e of Nannāru, the foremost lord, the splen-

1689

See the discussion on p. 384ff. below. For Ningal’s sanctuary in Ḫarrān, see the discussion on p. 403ff. below. 1691 See the new transliteration of this inscription in Novotny 2003, 233–236. A copy of the tablet was published in Craig 1897, Pl. 1–2 and also in Meek 1918, 167–175. Other editions of the tablet are found in Streck 1916, 286–293 (no. 13) and Luckenbill 1927, 386–387 (§§ 1007–1009). The text is also mentioned in Bauer 1933, 42–43. 1692 Transliterated bu-un-ni na[m-ru] in Novotny 2003, 234 and listed so also in Tallqvist 1938a, 403. The attestations for this formulation in CAD B, 320–321 and AHw, 138 show, however, that a plural adjective is required for bunnū in the meaning “face”. Since, according to the copy, there is not enough space for na[m-ru-tim] at the end of the line, I suggest a formulation with a feminine stative form and “Akkusativ des Zustandes” (GAG § 147): ša bunnī na[mrat], literally “who is bright relating to the face”. Since no photograph of the tablet is available, this suggestion remains tentative. 1690

302

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

did one, the light of the distan[t] heavens, the one who gave birth to Šamaš, the light of the universe, whose verdict and decision are final ... [...], the one who intercedes with the luminary of the gods, her beloved [Sîn], the one who advises, the one who speaks well to Šamaš, [her] first-born son, the one who makes the words of a petition acceptable, the one who appoi[nt]s the king who worships her, the merciful princess, the one who receives prayers, the one who lives in Eĝipar in the midst of Ḫarrān, the great lady, his mistress Ningal/Nikkal’s qualities in this inscription are similar to the those attested for her elsewhere. First and foremost she is a wife and a mother, and in a manner that is typical of Mesopotamian goddesses, she acts as an adviser to her husband and her son, while simultaneously acting as a merciful intermediary between them and humankind.1693 Importantly, with respect to ideas about royal power, this inscription goes further than the hymn of Sargon II to her: here she is presented as able to endow kingship herself. This power was of course closely associated with her husband, Sîn of Ḫarrān, during the reign of the Sargonid dynasty, as exemplified by the coronation of Esarhaddon in Ḫarrān on his way to Egypt.1694 Ningal’s roles as a spouse-advisor and as a mother goddess are both associated with her residence, the bed-chamber (Sum. agrun, Akk. kummu or agarunnu).1695 As is obvious, the bed-chamber generally was the place where the gods rested.1696 In the case of the moon god Nanna/Sîn, especially in the Sumerian literary tradition, the bed-chamber was the particular domain of his wife, Ningal. According to a Sumerian hymn to Utu, the heavenly bed-chamber (agrun an-na) was the place were Ningal gave birth to the sun god,1697 and in the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur the bed-chamber is presented as a place of refreshment for Ningal.1698 The longevity and transmission of theological ideas over centuries are illustrated by Ningal’s epithets pertaining to the bed-chamber. In one of the Šulgi hymns, Ningal’s epithet is “lady of the bedchamber” (nin agrun-na),1699 and this same epithet can be found later in the 1st

1693

It should be noted that in the inscriptions of Nabonidus Ningal/Nikkal’s characteristics are limited to only this: she is depicted solely as the wife of Sîn and the mother of Šamaš and Ištar. 1694 See the citation of SAA 10 no. 174 on p. 209ff. above. For a further discussion of the moon god and kingship, see p. 196ff. above. 1695 See Caplice 1973, 299–305 and Charpin 1986, 212–213. 1696 A celestial deity’s rest in his bed-chamber is best exemplified by the sun god Šamaš’ sojourn in his chamber, where he is greeted by his wife during the night (see Heimpel 1986, 128–129). 1697 NBC 7915, 9 (see the edition in Kutscher 1976, 305–309). 1698 Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, 477 (Michalowski 1989, 66–67). 1699 Šulgi X, 139 (Klein 1981, 144–145, see also the newer edition in ETCSL 2.4.2.24).

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

303

millennium BCE, in the fourth tablet of the series Udug-ḫul, in which the moon god and the members of his household are presented. Udug-ḫul 4, 94’1700 zi dNin-gal nin agrun-na-ke4 [ḫé-pà] niš dMIN be-let a-ga-ru-un-ni [lu ta-ma-ta] [Be adjured] by Ningal, lady of the bed-chamber! As the “lady of the exalted bed-chamber” (nin agrun maḫ), Ningal is also found in a ḫul-ba-zi-zi incantation attested in manuscripts from Nineveh and Assur.1701 “Lady of the exalted bed-chamber” appears to also be one of Ningal’s epithets in the fragmentary eršaḫuĝa-prayer addressed to her.1702 Ningal’s bed-chamber, her sanctuary, was an actual part of the topography of the temple complex Ekišnugal. First, in Old Babylonian sources, the sanctuary of Ningal, that was located in the giparu, was called Agrun-kù, “Pure Bed-chamber”.1703 This sanctuary that was later transferred to the ziqqurrat enclosure does not, however, bear this name or any other in the Neo-Babylonian sources.1704 A similar name is known to us from this period: Agrun-maḫ, “Exalted Bed-chamber” (also transliterated É-nun-maḫ).1705 This name corresponds to the epithet “lady of the exalted bed-chamber” that Ningal bears in the aforementioned bilingual texts. The building called Agrunmaḫ was located northeast of the Edublamaḫ and giparu of Nabonidus, in the same place that a storehouse called Ĝá-nun-maḫ, “Exalted Storehouse”, had been located during an earlier period.1706 It is clear that it was remodelled during the renovation work commissioned by Nebuchadnezzar II: 1700

See Geller 2007, 113 and 205 and Geller 2016, 150. In his edition of the text, Geller notes that a similar line is found in LKA 77//, V 45–46. These lines do not, however, concern Ningal, but Nin(e)igara, the spouse of Ningublaga (see p. 317ff. below). 1701 LKA 77//, II 51–52: nin-agrun-maḫ dirig [x (x)] (see Ebeling 1953b, 367–368). Only a few traces of the Akkadian part of the line are preserved. 1702 VS 24 no. 31, 3’: [gašan É.NU]N-maḫ-àm [...] / [be]-let É.MIN [...] (Maul 1991, 71). 1703 See p. 349ff. below. See also the references in George 1993, no. 345. 1704 In RIMB, B.6.32.2014, 7 the only name given to Ningal’s house is ĝi6-pàr. 1705 The transliteration É-nun-maḫ, “House of the Exalted Prince”, is used in George 1993, no. 916, but based on the attestations in bilingual texts, it is plausible that É.NUN should have the reading agrun. 1706 For Ĝá-nun-maḫ, see George 1993, no. 303. The “Exalted Storehouse” appears to have belonged to the cultic sphere of Ningal, since most of the provisions recorded in the documents found there were destined for her temple for regular offerings and festivals (see Figulla 1953a, 88–122; Figulla 1953b, 171–192; and Charpin 1986, 207–208). Perhaps the name Agrun-maḫ was a reinterpretation of the earlier name Ĝá-nun-maḫ: at least in the Middle Assyrian text VAT 10035 (KAR 91) deriving from Assur, the spelling agrunx(ĜÁ.NUN) appears to be used as a variant for agrun(É.NUN). For this variation see the line 14’ and its commentary in Maul 2013b, 24 and 30.

304

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

the archaeological evidence points to a conversion of a former storehouse into a sanctuary with a place for a cult image.1707 The only written reference to Agrunmaḫ’s purpose can be found in a brick inscription of Nabonidus, who restored the building during his 16th or 17th regnal year.1708 Schaudig 2001, 1.6.a d NÀ–na-’i-id LUGAL ŠÁR 1 2 LUGAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAki 3 ša Agrun-maḫ1709 É ḫi-il-ṣi 4 qé-reb É-ĝiš-nu-ĝál 5 a-na dNin-gal GAŠAN-šu i-pú-šu Nabonidus, king of the world, king of Babylon, who built Agrunmaḫ, the house for (oil) pressing, in Ekišnugal for Ningal, his lady. According to records from Neo- and Late Babylonian Uruk, bīt ḫilṣi was the place in which oil was prepared and pharmaceutical substances were distributed.1710 A similar function for Ningal’s bīt ḫilṣi in Ur must be assumed. The existence of this institution in connection with Ningal reveals that she had tasks in the sphere of healing – a trait shared by all the major Babylonian goddesses during the Neo-Babylonian period.1711 Lastly, the goddess Ningal is given the appellation Ninmena, “Lady of the Crown”, in two Babylonian sources. First, this is Ningal’s epithet in the inscription of the governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi that was written on clay nails found in her temple.1712 The opening lines of this inscription are: “For Ningal, queen of Ekišnugal, Ninmena, beloved of Ur”. This creates a strong connection between Ningal as Ninmena and her home city. The second attestation of Ninmena as a name for Ningal is also connected to Ur: Ninmena is used as Ningal’s name in LKU 43, an Akkadian composition that describes the destruction of the city.1713 In this case she is presented side by side with her husband, who is called Nam-

1707

See Woolley 1962, 23ff. and Pl. 66, and Heinrich 1982, 325–326. C. J. Gadd saw in this change an attempt by Nebuchadnezzar II to introduce a new cultic order with the divine cult image open for all the people to see (Gadd 1929, 231) and his view was also accepted in Woolley 1962, 24–25. 1708 Beaulieu 1989, 37–38 and 42. 1709 This name is read É-nun-maḫ in Schaudig’s edition. 1710 See Joannès 2006, 75–81. The available evidence demonstrates that the bīt ḫilṣi received shipments of not only aromatic substances for oil pressing but also of legumes, wool, and sesame. Moreover, the bīt ḫilṣi had its own pharmaceutical garden. 1711 Westenholz 2013, 120. 1712 RIMB, B.6.32.2014 (see the citation on p. 350 below). 1713 LKU 43, 11 (see the citation on p. 76 above).

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

305

raṣīt.1714 The theological implications of the name Ninmena remain vague because there are several possible interpretations. First, if the name is taken literally, it can be seen as a reference to the power Ningal wielded over the royal insignia.1715 Second, since Ninmena is one of the names of Bēlet-ilī, it could be a reference to Ningal as a mother goddess.1716 In addition to these options, it is possible to interpret the name Ninmena for Ningal as a reference to the names of the moon god that include the element “crown” and to him as bēl agê, “lord of the crown”.1717 Three different levels of interpretation therefore emerge: Ningal as a goddess with power over royal insignia; as a mother goddess, and as the wife of the moon god Sîn.

II.11.3. Šamaš The father-son relationship between the moon god and the sun god is ubiquitous in Sumerian and Akkadian sources from the 2nd and 1st millenniums BCE.1718 This notion is expressed through epithets that bear on the genealogical status of Šamaš as the son of Sîn and Ningal, and it is also present in the concepts of the moon’s seniority and size in comparison to the sun. According to the cultic commentary from Assur, KAR 307, the size of the moon’s disc is 60 double hours whereas the sun’s size is merely 40 double hours.1719 The notion that the moon was larger than the sun is also reflected in the pairs of names for Sîn and Šamaš in the god-list An = Anum. Whereas the moon god bears the names dMá-gu-laan-na, “Great Boat of Heaven”, and dGiš-nu11-gal, “Great Light”,1720 the sun god is named dMá-bàn-da-an-na, “Small Boat of Heaven”, and dGiš-nu11, “Light”.1721 Likewise, Sîn and Šamaš’ relative positions within the genealogical hierarchy is revealed in the way Šamaš, as Sîn’s son, is said to carry out the command of his father in the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus.1722

1714

LKU 43, 10 (see the citation on p. 76 above). This is the view expressed in Zgoll 2000, 354. See also Krebernik 1997, 506. 1716 An = Anum II, 21: d⌈Nin⌉-men(mi)-na | MIN be-let me-a-am-mi (see Litke 1998, 68). See also Krebernik 1997, 506. 1717 See the discussion on p. 60ff. above. 1718 See the overview of the family of the sun god Utu/Šamaš in Tallqvist 1938a, 454–455 and Krebernik 2011, 602–603. 1719 KAR 307, r. 4: 40 DANNA NÍGIN-rat dUTU 60 DANNA NÍGIN-rat d30. See the editions in Livingstone 1986, 82–83 and SAA 3 no. 39, r. 4. 1720 An = Anum III, 14: dMá-gu-la-an-na; III, 4: dGiš-nu11-gal (see Litke 1998, 117–118 and Feliu 2006, 235). For the moon god as a celestial light and as a boat, see p. 78ff. and 45ff. above. 1721 An = Anum III, 106: dMá-bàn-da-an-na; III, 102: dGiš-nu11 (see Litke 1998, 128–129 and Feliu 2006, 239 [lines III, 100 and III, 96]). 1722 Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 5 (Ex. 1): mu-šal-lim qí-bit dNanna-ri AD ⌈ba-ni-šú⌉, “he who carries out the command of his father, Nannāru”. 1715

306

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Epithets that directly refer to the genealogical relationship between Nanna/ Sîn and Utu/Šamaš are frequently attested in various literary sources from the Ur III period onward.1723 In Sumerian literary sources especially the mother-son relationship of Utu and Ningal, the moon god’s wife, is often found. In mythology, Ningal is described giving birth to Utu in her bed-chamber,1724 and the sun god is also frequently called “son of Ningal” (dumu dNin-gal-la).1725 King Sîn-iddinam’s letter to the sun god Utu – in a copy found in the library of Assurbanipal – also clearly describes the sun god Utu as Ningal’s son, and not as the son of Nanna/Sîn.1726 This notion is very much present also in later Sumerian lamentations such as the bilingual eršaḫuĝa to Utu/Šamaš, in which he is characterised as the son of Ningal.1727 The Akkadian epithets alluding to the genealogical relationship between the moon god and the sun god tend to refer to Šamaš as the son of Sîn, or of both Sîn and Ningal.1728 These epithets, which are not only found in the prayers addressed to Šamaš himself, or to his father Sîn, but other sources such as royal inscriptions call Šamaš the first-born son (bukru),1729 the offspring (littu1730 and ṣīt libbi1731), or the heir (aplu)1732 of the moon god. It is worth noting that in his role as Šamaš’s father, the moon god’s name is not infrequently given as Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt.1733 A prominent example of this is the opening line of the Akkadian šu’ila-prayer “Šamaš 1” which includes the epithet apil Namraṣīt, “heir of Namraṣīt”, for Šamaš. A bilingual prayer that is attested in manuscripts from Boghazköy, Sultantepe (Ḫuzirīna), and Nineveh contains lines that name both the father and the mother of the sun god: Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt and

1723

For the references to the Sumerian sources see especially Hall 1985, 740–742. According to NBC 7915, 9 Ningal gave birth to Utu in the heavenly bed-chamber (agrun an-na; see Kutscher 1976, 305–309). 1725 E.g. Šulgi B, 193: igi dUtu dumu dNin-gal-la-ka-šè, “before Utu, son of Ningal” (see the editions in Castellino 1972, 50–51 and ETCSL 2.4.2.02). See also the discussion on the role of Ningal as the mother of gods on p. 296ff. above. 1726 For editions of this letter see Hallo 1982, 95–109 and Borger 1991, 58–81. The epithet dumu dNin-gal for Utu is present in the lines 6 and 9 of the letter. 1727 See Maul 1988, n14–n16, 4. 1728 See Tallqvist 1938a, 454. 1729 See e.g. “Sîn 1”, 10: šūturat ṣētka kīma Šamaš bukrīka, “your light is supreme like Šamaš, [your] first-born son”. See the edition below on p. 452ff. 1730 See e.g. “Šamaš 78”, 7: littu ṣīrtu ša bēli Namraṣīt, “exalted offspring of lord Namraṣīt”. See edition in Schollmeyer 1912, 96–100 and the translation in Falkenstein & von Soden 1953, 321–323. For Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt see p. 71ff. above. 1731 See e.g. Schaudig 2001, 2.12, III 12: ṣi-it ŠÀ-bi ša d+EN.ZU ù dNin-gal, “offspring of Sîn and Ningal”. 1732 See e.g. “Šamaš 1”, 1: šurbû gitmālu apil Namraṣīt. “Supreme, perfect one, heir of Namraṣīt!”. For an edition see Mayer 1976, 503–509; for up-to-date bibliographical information see also Frechette 2012, 271. 1733 See the discussion of this appellation of the moon god on p. 71ff. above. 1724

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

307

Ningal.1734 STT 197, 9–111735 9 a-ri-a kù-ga-a-ta im-⌈dili⌉-bábbar 10 ri-ḫu-u-tú el-le-tú šá be-⌈el⌉ Nam-⌈ra⌉-[ṣ]i-it 11 dumu ⌈ù⌉-tu-ud-da ama dNin-gal-ke4 : ma-ru i-lit-⌈ti⌉ ⌈d⌉Nin-gal Pure progeny of Lord Namraṣīt Son born by mother Ningal (Akk. son born by Ningal) A second tradition concerning the sun gods’s genealogical background presents Utu/Šamaš as the son of the sky god Anu.1736 This concept is found in the lines attested in the context of a namburbi-ritual, which states that Šamaš’ utterance is “sublime like (the one of) Anu, your father”.1737 This did not, however, rule out the father-son relationship between Sîn and Šamaš, as can be seen in a bilingual incantation that was used to ensure a safe childbirth: here the sun god is depicted as the son of both Anu and Sîn. BA 10 no. 1, 1–61738 1 ÉN dUtu dumu-an-na-k[e4 ] d UTU DUMU dA-nim e-t[el(-) ] 2 d Utu ibila zálag an-ki-bi-[da-ke4] 3 d UTU ap-lu muš-na-mir [šamê u erṣeti] 4 5 peš-bànda-zi dSuen-na dNi[n-gal-la-le4] 6 lìb-líb-bi šá d30 u dNi[n-gal] Incantation: Utu/Šamaš, son of An/Anu, lord [(of?) ...]! Utu/Šamaš, the heir who illuminates the heaven [and] the earth [...], the descendant of Sîn and Ni[ngal]! The simultaneous presence of Anu and Sîn as fathers of the sun god Utu/Šamaš in these lines suggests that they refer to three generations of deities: Anu is the grandfather, Sîn and Ningal are the parents, and Utu/Šamaš is their son. There1734

See the edition of this prayer in Cooper 1972, 65–81. Cooper 1972, 70. The manuscript from Ḫuzirīna is cited here since it is the best preserved. The manuscripts from Nineveh (K. 9235+; 4 R 23 no. 3+ and 4 R 13 no. 2+) offer some variants, such as the spelling den-dili-ím-babbar-ra for “lord Namraṣīt” and the addition of the epithet “mother” (ummu) for Ningal also in the Akkadian line. 1736 See Tallqvist 1938a, 454 and Krebernik 2011, 602. 1737 Maul 1994, 307 (ll. 30’–31’): kīma dAnim abīka / qibītka ṣīrat. The prayer in question is the šu’ila prayer “Šamaš 7” (Mayer 1976, 411). 1738 See the edition in Borger 1985, 14–18. 1735

308

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

fore, these lines also provide evidence for the tradition in which the moon god was not the son of Enlil but that of the sky god An/Anu. Moreover, this passage parallels the notion that both Anu and Sîn were the fathers of Inanna/Ištar.1739 For this reason, one can argue that in this strand of tradition the sky god was the progenitor of the principal heavenly bodies: the moon, the sun and the planet Venus. The genealogical relationship between Sîn and Šamaš becomes more prominent in Nabonidus’ inscriptions concerning his building activities in Ḫarrān (temple of Sîn) and Sippar (temples of Šamaš and Anunītu).1740 In these inscriptions, the moon god is portrayed as the “biological father” (abu ālidu) of the sun god and Venus on several occasions. This triad of the moon, the sun, and the planet Venus is also found in the iconography of Nabonidus, in which these three deities are present in the form of their symbols.1741 Their celestial nature is highlighted by the wording of the Eḫulḫul Cylinder which builds a connection between the luminosity of the moon god and his children Šamaš and Ištar, who are regarded as the “offspring of his luminous body”. Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 40–41 (Ex. 1) d UTU ù dIš-tar ṣi-it ŠÀ-šú na-am-ra II 40 II 41 a-na d+EN.ZU a-bi ba-ni-šu-nu li-iq-bu-ú SIG5-tì May Šamaš and Ištar, the offspring of his luminous body, speak well on behalf of me to their father who created them. The juxtaposition of Šamaš and Ištar as two children of Sîn, as found in the inscriptions of Nabonidus, and the iconography on his stelae corresponds to the juxtaposition of these two deities in earlier Assyro-Babylonian tradition, in which Šamaš and Ištar were portrayed as twins.1742 This notion is present in the šu’ila-prayer “Ištar 1” in which the goddess Ištar is referred to as Šamaš’ twin sister (tū’amtu).1743 Likewise, in one of the incantations belonging to the ritual Muššu’u, Šamaš and Ištar are presented as twins, māšu and māštu.1744 Through

1739

See the discussion on p. 309ff. below. Schaudig 2001, 2.12 (Eḫulḫul Cylinder) and 2.14 (“Zylinder und Tafel, Stelenabschriften”). 1741 See the depiction of the triad Sîn, Šamaš, and Ištar in the relief of Nabonidus’ Ḫarrān Stele H2.B (Fig. 5, p. 41 above). 1742 See the overview of epithets in Tallqvist 1938a, 332–333 and 454–455. 1743 “Ištar 1”, 4: tū’amti ṭarri šūpê qurādi dŠamaš, twin sister of the bearded one, the splendid warrior Šamaš” (see Zgoll 2003, 192 and p. 310 below). For further attestations see CAD T, 443. 1744 For an attestation of Šamaš and Ištar as the twin gods Māšu and Māštu, see Muššu’u IV, 13 (Böck 2007, 152 and 170). The character of the twin gods Māšu and Māštu as the children of Sîn was noted already in Combe 1908, 18–19. 1740

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

309

the syncretism of Ištar and Nanaya, Nanaya is also at times described as the twin sister of Šamaš.1745 It has been argued that at least by the time of Nabonidus the gods Šamaš and Nusku, as sons of Sîn, were equated with each other in the Ḫarranian context.1746 Such an equation is certainly possible not only because both were thought to be sons of the moon god, but also because of their shared nature as gods of light: the sun god brought daylight to the world, and Nusku was the lamp that illuminated the dark hours of the night. Further proof that Šamaš was perceived as having a status similar to that of Nusku in Ḫarrān is found in the reference to him as Ningal/Nikkal’s son in the inscription of Assurbanipal that was written on Ningal/Nikkal’s wooden carrying poles.1747 It is worth noting that the sun god Šamaš is virtually non-existent in the available textual record concerning the cults in Ḫarrān. Nevertheless, there are some indications that suggest that he was also present in this northern cult city of the moon god, although not necessarily in the capacity of the first-born son.1748

II.11.4. Ištar According to the common Sumero-Babylonian tradition, Sîn’s daughter was the goddess Ištar, whose celestial form was the planet Venus.1749 The roots of this genealogical relationship can already be found in the Early Dynastic period in a reference to the goddess Inanna emerging from within the moon god Nanna.1750 Although Ištar was also thought to be the daughter of the sky god Anu,1751 the prevailing tradition in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources identifies her as Sîn’s daughter. In the first line of the myth Ištar’s Descent to the Netherworld, Ištar’s epithet is mārat Sîn, “daughter of Sîn”;1752 this epithet is also re1745

See p. 312 below. Schaudig 2002, 633–634. See also the discussion on p. 316 below. 1747 See the citation on Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 1–11 on p. 301 above. 1748 See the discussion on p. 391 below. 1749 For short discussions of this relationship see Wilcke 1976–1980, 80, Beaulieu 2003, 111, and Meinhold 2009, 220–221. See also Tallqvist 1938a, 332 where Enlil is listed as her father. 1750 IAS no. 388, IV’ 3: (Inanna) šà dNanna-ta è (Krebernik 1998, 322 note 807). 1751 This tradition is considered to have originated in Uruk, where both Anu and Ištar were venerated (see Edzard 1965, 82). Attestations of Ištar as a daughter of Anu can be found e.g. in “Ištar 31”, 7 (Zgoll 2003, 100). 1752 Ištar’s Descent to the Netherworld, 1–3: a-na ⌈KUR⌉.NU.GI4.A qaq-qa-ri l[a ta-a-ri] / d+INNIN DUMU.MUNUS d30 ú-zu-un-šá [iš-kun] / iš-kun-ma DUMU.MUNUS d30 úzu-u[n-šá], “To the Netherworld, the land of n[o return], Ištar, daughter of Sîn, set her mind. Indeed, the daughter of Sîn set her mind” (see ll. 1–3 in the edition in Lapinkivi 2010, 15 and 29). It should be noted that in this myth the god Papsukkal is depicted as a son of Sîn (see ll. 81–84 in Lapinkivi 2010, 11 and 31): this is a genealogical relationship that is otherwise not attested (see Wiggermann 2001, 493). 1746

310

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

peated in the context of prayers.1753 Moreover, under the name Mārat-Sîn, Ištar is found as a resident of the moon god’s house in Nippur.1754 The epithets bukrat Sîn, “first-born daughter of Sîn”, ilitti Ningal, “born by Ningal”, and tū’amti Šamaš, “twin sister of Šamaš”, are found in turn in the šu’ila-prayer “Ištar 1” in two lines that identify her entire core family (father Sîn, mother Ningal and brother Šamaš).1755 This genealogical relationship and Ištar’s celestial nature are highlighted in the šu’ila-prayer “Ištar 2” in which she is not only described as Sîn’s daughter but she is also likened to him by the use of the epithet nannārat šamê u erṣeti, “luminary of heaven and earth”.1756 In the šu’ila “Ištar 23”, before the wish that Sîn may make her name pure, she is praised with the expression “you are luminary!” (nannarāti).1757 In this case, the connection between Ištar and Sîn is present on two levels: the explicit reference to Sîn at the end of the line is accompanied by the use of the element dnanna to write the stative nannarāti.1758 Through the association of the Bow Star (qaštu) with Ištar, the reference in the annals of Assurbanipal to the month Abu belonging to “the Bow Star, the valiant daughter of Sîn” serves as a further reminder of the genealogical relationship between the moon god and Ištar.1759 It has been argued that the goddess Ištar as the daughter of Sîn in the NeoAssyrian sources should to be identified with the local cult in Ḫarrān.1760 Such an

1753

Note e.g. the Late Babylonian syncretistic prayer to Ištar (BM 65454+) which opens with the appellation dMārat-dSîn (see the edition in Lambert 2003–2004, 21–27). 1754 See the discussion on p. 368ff. below. 1755 “Ištar 1”, 3–4: dInninni bukrat dSîn ilitti dNingal / tū’amti ṭarri šūpê qurādi dŠamaš, “Inninni, first-born daughter of Sîn, born by Ningal, twin sister of the bearded one, the splendid warrior Šamaš!” (see Zgoll 2003, 192. The epithet bukrat Sîn is also found in the prayer “Ištar 6”, but this prayer is unfortunately known only from its catch-line (see Mayer 1976, 389 and Zgoll 2003, 213). For Šamaš and Ištar as twins, see p. 308 above. 1756 “Ištar 2”, 5: at-ti-ma na-an-na-rat AN-e u KI-tim ma-rat d30 qa-rit-ti, “You, you are the luminary of heaven and earth, the valiant daughter of Sîn”; 105: dIr-ni-ni ma-rat d30 qa-rit-ti ma-ḫi-ri NU TUKU, “Irnini, valiant daughter of Sîn, has no rivals”. For an edition of the prayer see Zgoll 2003, 41–54. 1757 “Ištar 23”, 3: dnanna-ra-ti el-lu MU-ki d30 lil-lil, “You are luminary! The pure, your name may Sîn make pure!” (see Farber 1977, 70–71 and Zgoll 2003, 156). 1758 The use of this writing is also noted in Zgoll 2003, 167. 1759 Streck 1916, 72–73, ll. IX 9–10: ina itiNE ITI mulBAN /ma-rat d30 qa-rit-tu, “In the month Abu, month of the Bow Star, the valiant daughter of Sîn”. For an overview of the Bow Star, see Krebernik 2006, 157. 1760 The identification of Ištar with the city of Ḫarrān in Neo-Assyrian sources is propounded by J. Scurlock in her recent publications. In Scurlock & Andersen 2005, 523 the following is said about Ištar’s abilities to cause diseases: “Ištar of Ḫarran was the daughter of the moon-god Sîn and the twin sister of the sun-god Šamaš with whom she cooperated in causing fevers and variously colored skin lesions.” In Scurlock 2009, 67–68, the syncretism between Nanaya and Ištar is first noted and the influence of the local cults on

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

311

identification is, however, not supported by the available Neo-Assyrian or NeoBabylonian evidence. Still, it should be pointed out that Ištar was certainly venerated in Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe), located in the vicinity of Ḫarrān, and the daughter of Sîn is prominent in the later Graeco-Roman and Islamic sources.1761 The Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources that attest to the goddess Ištar as the daughter of Sîn are not explicitly connected to any local manifestation of either of the two deities, but rather appear to reflect a supra-regional tradition. The only possible indication of a relationship between Ištar and specifically Sîn of Ḫarrān is the composition Psalm in Praise of Uruk.1762 The opening section of this hymn declares love for the various cities that apparently house a sanctuary of a goddess who should be identified as Ištar, or perhaps more likely as the syncretistic goddess Ištar-Nanaya.1763 After the various Babylonian cities with their patron deities are mentioned, the Assyrian cities Nineveh, Arbela, Kalḫu, and Ḫarrān are listed along with the deities Mullissu (who is connected to both Nineveh and Arbela), Ninurta, and Sîn, respectively. The line concerning Ḫarrān, which also ends this section of the text, is translated by Alasdair Livingstone as “Ditto; I love Harran, along with Sîn!”.1764 Whether this line expresses any actual relationship between the goddess and the moon god of Ḫarrān or if it merely gives a list of the main cult centres in Assyria remains unclear.1765 Therefore, connecting the goddess Ištar strictly to the Ḫarranian moon god should be avoided.

the genealogical background of Ištar is described: “Not only was Uruk still obsessed with the return of the original statue of their goddess several centuries on but, having been syncretized with Ištar of Ḫarrān by the Sargonids, then aligned with Anahita by Artaxerxes, then promoted to moon goddess in the Hellenistic era, Nannaya became a superstar goddess whose cult stretched all the way from Ḫarrān across Elamaeus into Central Asia. [...] Ištar-goddesses are usually the daughter of the city god of the city with which they are associated, which makes for a great deal of confusion when, as happens, two or more of them are syncretized. So, for example, Ištar of Uruk is daughter of the skygod Anu, Ištar of Ḫarrān is the daughter of the moon god Sîn, and Ištar of Nippur is daughter of Enlil.” 1761 See the discussion on p. 391ff. below. 1762 SAA 3 no. 9 (K. 1354). See also the earlier edition by A. R. George (1987). 1763 As noted in George 1987, 38. 1764 SAA 3 no. 9, 17: KI.MIN ÁG uruKASKAL a-⌈di⌉ ⌈d30⌉. The translation suggested by A. R. George leaves the reading of the logogram ÁG open, but based on the possibility that the opening line of the first section and the second section had a parallel structure, he considers the imperative form rāmī likely (George 1987, 34). 1765 The view expressed in George 1987, 37 is that the temples listed in this hymn merely represent the main Assyrian cult centres, not the cult cities of the goddess Ištar/Nanaya.

312

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

II.11.4.1. Nanaya Nanaya, the goddess of erotic love from Uruk, was also considered to be a daughter of the moon god during the Neo-Assyrian period.1766 This idea differs from the prevailing tradition in which Nanaya was the daughter of the sky god Anu or the goddess Ištar.1767 The moon god Sîn as Nanaya’s father appears to exist only in Neo-Assyrian sources – a plausible indication of the syncretism between Ištar and Nanaya. Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon is the hymn to Nanaya that immediately in its opening line identifies her as “very competent daughter of Sîn, favourite/twin sister of Šamaš”.1768 This line, therefore, doubly identifies Nanaya – much like the goddess Ištar – as both the daughter of Sîn1769 and (twin) sister of Šamaš.1770 A similar reference to Nanaya as both the daughter of Sîn and the sister of Šamaš is also made in the fragmentary hymn K. 9480 that calls the goddess “da[ughter] of august Sîn, favourite sister of Šamaš, light of the great heavens”.1771 Moreover, the Nanaya Hymn of Sargon II addresses her as the moon god’s daughter with the line “Calm down, daughter of Sîn, settle in your abode!”.1772 The hymn praising Arbela includes the goddess Nanaya, “daughter of Sîn”, amongst the inhabitants of the city.1773 In the Sumero-Babylonian god-lists, Nanaya is typically linked to the goddess Inanna/Ištar.1774 One exceptional tablet from Nineveh, which according to its colophon was copied from an original from Babylon, includes Nanaya in a group of deities that belong to the household of Enlil. Here Nanaya is the last of the deities mentioned, and she is listed after Sîn, who bears the name dE4-gi. K. 1451 (CT 25, Pl. 49), r. 6–7 d E4-gi7 | d30 DUMU ru-[be-e] r. 6

1766

For an overview of the goddess Nanaya see Stol 1998, 146–151 as well as the monograph by O. Drewnowska-Rymarz (2008). For a discussion of Nanaya’a cult in Old Babylonian Uruk see Richter 2004, 303–307, and for her cult there during the NeoBabylonian period see Beaulieu 2003, 182–216. 1767 See Tallqvist 1938a, 385 and Drewnowska-Rymarz 2008, 30. In Uruk, Nanaya was considered a daughter of the sky god Anu (see the overview in Beaulieu 2003, 182–183). 1768 K. 3933, 2 (Ms A): ma-rat dSin te-li-tú a-ḫat dŠá-m[aš t]a-lim-tú / LKA 37, 2 (Ms C) ma-rat dSin te-li-tu a-ḫat dUTU maš-ši-tu (see the edition in Reiner 1974, 221–236). For a discussion of the hymns to Nanaya, see Drewnowska-Rymarz 2008, 111–116. 1769 The epithet mārat Sîn telītu finds a parallel in the Boǧazköy manuscript for Great Prayer to Ištar, 5 (Reiner & Güterbock 1967, 258). 1770 For the deities Šamaš and Ištar as twins, see p. 308 above. 1771 K. 9480, 3: bi-[in-ti] d30 ti-iš-qa-ri ta-li-mat dŠá-maš nu-úr AN-e GAL.MEŠ (see Macmillan 1906, no. 22 and Drewnowska-Rymarz 2008, 115). 1772 SAA 3 no. 4, r. 17’: nu-ḫi ma-rat d30 ri-mì-i šub-tuk-ki. 1773 SAA 3 no. 8, 20: d15 ina lìb-bi uš-bat dNa-na-a DUMU.MUNUS d30 x [x x ]. 1774 See the references in Stol 1998, 146–147.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

313

Nin-zíl-zíl | dNa-na-a DUMU.MUNUS [x x (x)] | šá man-za-as-su šá-qu-u be-let tak-né-⌈e⌉-[ti x x] Egi = Sîn, son of the pri[nce]. Ninzilzil = Nanaya, daughter of [...], whose station is high, lady of loving car[e ...].

r. 7

d

Based on this source, it is possible that the moon god was considered the father of Nanaya within Enlil’s household.1775 In addition to the references to the mythological relationship between Sîn and Nanaya in the Neo-Assyrian literary sources, there are some indications that these two deities may also have been connected in a cultic context. In the city of the moon god, Ur, Nanaya was venerated as Ištar’s daughter at least during the Old Babylonian period.1776 Her role in the city appears to have been modest, but on the other hand, she had her own sanctuary called É-itu-da, “House of the Month”.1777 Whether she continued to also be venerated in Ur in the 1st millennium BCE remains unclear. However, a possible connection between Sîn and Nanaya during this period can be found in Borsippa, where Nanaya was venerated as Nabû’s wife. The details of the moon god’s veneration there are not known to us, but we do know that Sîn and Ningal accompanied Nanaya as she travelled to Babylon.1778

II.11.4.2. Anunītu In addition to Nanaya, the goddess Anunītu – another Ištar-figure in Mesopotamia – is also attested as a daughter of the moon god.1779 In her case, however, references to their genealogical relationship are much more restricted: they occur only in connection with Nabonidus’ building work in E’ulmaš, the temple of Anunītu in Sippar.1780 A peculiar aspect of these references in the Eḫulḫul Cylin-

1775

The identification of Nanaya as Sîn’s daughter in this context has also been noted in Drewnowska-Rymarz 2008, 29. 1776 See Charpin 1986, 254 and 410; Richter 2004, 470–471; and Drewnowska-Rymarz 2008, 54. 1777 George 1993, no. 540. 1778 See BM 32516//BM 41239, 1–9 (George 2000, 289–299) and Waerzeggers 2010, 31. See also the discussion concerning the moon god’s cult in Borsippa on p. 383ff. below. 1779 For an overview of Anunītu see Gödecken 1973, 141–163 and Meinhold 2009, 176– 179. Anunītu appears to have been presented as a goddess who embodies the martial aspect of Ištar. Although her main cult city was Akkad, her cult also existed in other Mesopotamian cities, including Ur during the Ur III era. 1780 E.g. Schaudig 2001, 2.14, III 33–34 (Ex. 2): dA-nu-ni-tu4 GAŠAN GAL-tu4 GAŠANia a-ši-bat É-ul-maš / ina qí-bit d30 LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ AD a-li-di-šú, “Anunītu, great mistress, my lady, who dwells in E’ulmaš, by the command of Sîn, king of the gods, the father who begot her”.

314

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

der is the equation of Sîn and Enlil as fathers of Anunītu.1781 Both are mentioned twice as the goddess’ fathers, but using different epithets: whereas Enlil is merely a father (abu),1782 Sîn bears the epithet “biological father” (abu ālidu).1783 Structurally, Enlil is Anunītu’s father at the beginning of this section, and by the end of the inscription, this role is taken over by Sîn. The wish expressed by Nabonidus that Anunītu will act as a mediator between the king and her father, the moon god. Schaudig 2001, 2.12, III 41–45 (Ex. 11) III 41 at-ta dA-nu-ni-tum GAŠAN ra-bi-ti III 42 a-na É šu-a-ti ḫa-di-iš i-na e-re-bi-ka III 43 ép-še-tu-ú-a SIG5.MEŠ ḫa-di-iš na-ap-li-si-ma III 44 ár-ḫi-šam-ma i-na dUTU.È ù dUTU.ŠÚ.A III 45 a-na d+EN.ZU a-bi a-li-di-ka šu-uq-ri-ba SIG5-tì You, Anunītu, great lady, as you joyfully enter this temple, look joyfully at my good deeds and present monthly at the sunrise and sunset a petition for my favour to Sîn, the father who begot you! Sîn’s association with Enlil in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder is not unprecedented since, by the time of the Sargonid dynasty at the latest, the moon god began to be associated with the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil in the so-called “Theology of the Moon”.1784 Therefore, it is plausible that these concepts are also reflected in the juxtaposition of Enlil and Sîn as the fathers of Anunītu. In addition, because Anunītu is an additional Ištar-figure, Sîn’s genealogical relationship with Ištar must have been significant for him to be named as Anunītu’s father.

II.11.5. Nusku In Sumero-Babylonian tradition, the god Nusku was a member of Enlil’s household: he was not only his vizier but also his son.1785 In the god-list An = Anum, Nusku is listed as Enlil’s grand vizier,1786 and the epithets used in prayers portray

1781 1782

This was noted already in Ebeling 1932, 111. Schaudig 2001, 2.12, III 24 and III 35 (Ex. 11): mu-šal-li-ma-at qí-bi-it d+En-líl a-bi-

šu. 1783

Schaudig 2001, 2.12, III 45 and III 55 (Ex. 11). For this association see the discussion on p. 136ff. above. 1785 For an overview of the god Nusku see Streck 2001, 629–633. See also the list of Nusku’s epithets in Tallqvist 1938a, 432–434. The name Nusku instead of Nuska is adopted here in accordance with the evidence presented in Streck 2001, 630. 1786 An = Anum I, 252: dNusku sukkal-maḫ | dEn-líl-lá-ke4 (Litke 1998, 50). See also K. 1451 (CT 25, pl. 49), r. 4–5, in which Nusku and Sadarnuna are included in a list of deities belonging to the household of Enlil. Also the moon god, with the name dE4-gi7, “Noble son”, is present in this list (see the discussion on p. 291ff. above). 1784

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

315

him either as the son of Enlil1787 or refer to his important role in Enlil’s temple.1788 Probably through his association with the fire god Gira, Nusku is also presented as the son of the sky god Anu.1789 In Assur, Nusku was worshipped in Aššur’s temple – a situation that reflects the position Nusku held in the cult of Enlil, who in Assyria was associated with the supreme god Aššur from the 2nd millennium BCE onwards.1790 In Ḫarrān, however, Nusku was the son and the vizier of the moon god, thus playing the same double role that he had in Enlil’s household in Nippur.1791 Furthermore, as in Nippur, Nusku was married to the goddess Sadarnuna also in Ḫarrān.1792 Although the evidence for the veneration of Nusku in Ḫarrān is abundant, ranging from personal names and introductory formulae of letters to the royal inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus, the number of direct references to the father-son relationship between Sîn and Nusku is scarce: this relationship can be established mainly on the basis of the inscriptions of Assurbanipal that were written for Emelamana, the temple of Nusku in Ḫarrān.1793 The text in which such references are best preserved is inscription K. 2813+; in this inscription, the moon god is referred to as the “biological father” of Nusku (abu ālidu).1794

1787

Maqlû I, 123: tam-šil a-bi bu-kur dEn-líl, “effigy of the father, first-born son of Enlil” (Meier 1937, 11; Abusch 2016, 45 and 291). 1788 See e.g. the incipit of “Nusku 6”: ÉN dNusku IBILA É-kur ša te-ret DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ, “Nusku, heir of Ekur, (the house) of the decrees of the great gods!” Mayer 1976, 486–488). 1789 See Streck 2001, 630. In Maqlû I, 122–124 (Meier 1937, 11; Abusch 2016, 45 and 291) Nusku is presented in connection with all three major cosmic deities, Anu, Enlil, and Ea. 1790 See the overview in Menzel 1981, 80. Especially noteworthy is the attestation of Nusku in Götteradressbuch, 1–18: he is found in the side wing, to the left of bīt ḫilāni in the Aššur temple (Meinhold 2009, 430 and 440). The presence of Nusku in Aššur’s temple is noted also in Tallqvist 1932, 24. For the association of Aššur with Enlil see Tallqvist 1932, 9–14; Lambert 1983, 82–86 and Mayer 1995, 62. The parallelism of Nusku as the son of Aššur and Sîn of Ḫarrān – both being thus represented as Enlil-figures – is briefly discussed also in Schaudig 2002, 633 and 637. 1791 The local aspects of the moon god’s cult in Ḫarrān are discussed on p. 387ff. below. For a description of Nusku as the vizier of the moon god see e.g. the inscription for Anzû-birds of Eḫulḫul, K. 8759+, r. 7: dNusku SUKKAL ṣi-⌈i⌉-ru mu-ma-’i-ir É-ḫúl-ḫ[úl ...], “Nusku, sublime vizier, who governs Eḫulḫ[ul ...]” (see Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 552– 553 and Novotny 2003, 232). 1792 For an overview of the goddess Sadarnuna see Cohen & Krebernik 2007, 481–483. 1793 For Emelamana in Ḫarrān see the discussion on p. 404ff. below. 1794 K. 2813+, r. 7: dDILI.ÍM.BABBAR a-bi a-li-di-ka, “Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt, the father (who) begot you” (see Bauer 1933, pl. 30 and Novotny 2003, 239–241). This epithet occurs also in the other Emelamana inscriptions of Assurbanipal, see e.g. K. 2803+, r. 9’

316

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

We can assume that similarly to the prevailing Sumero-Babylonian tradition, in Ḫarrān Nusku was considered to be a god of fire, a lamp that illuminates the darkness of the night. The view that Nusku would have been worshipped as a god of the lunar crescent there, based on the association between him and the 30th day in mythological explanatory texts, is not confirmed by the sources.1795 The main argument against such an identification is the fact that Nusku acts as mār šelāšē, “son of the 30th day”, in the context of Enlil’s household, not Sîn’s. For this reason, Nusku’s association with the 30th day of the month emphasises his role as a god of light, who brings light to the moonless nights at the end of the month, rather than his relationship with the moon god.1796 No concrete information is available for determining whether Nusku was recognised as one of the children of the moon god by Nabonidus. Contrary to the inscriptions of Assurbanipal, the inscriptions of Nabonidus never refer to Nusku as a son of Sîn, although he certainly was presented as one of the major deities of Ḫarrān.1797 The lines in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder that name Nusku separately from Šamaš and Ištar, the principal children of Sîn, speaks against Nusku’s identification as a son of Sîn: here he is described only as the vizier of the moon god.1798 Moreover, one can claim that the light god Nusku was, at least to some extent, associated with the sun god Šamaš in the Ḫarrān inscriptions of Nabonidus.1799 This association is based on a line in the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus, which lists the deities Šamaš, Ištar, Adad, and Nergal as gods who have carried out the command of the moon god. In this list, Šamaš’ name is followed by a relative clause stating that he is also known by the name Nusku.1800 Therefore, the sentence appears to combine two distinct theological traditions, a Babylonian one (Šamaš as the son of Sîn) and the Ḫarranian one (Nusku as the son of Sîn).1801 As previ(Novotny 2003, 239 and Bauer 1933, 36 [Rs. 12]). 1795 Parpola 1983, 101. Parpola’s view is based on AO 6471, III 13–14: dA-bar-ra-laḫ5 dumu ud-30-kám u4-ná-àm / dNusku mār še-la-še-e bu-um-bu-li, “Abaralaḫ (Nusku), son of the 30th day, the day of the invisibility of the moon” (see Livingstone 1986, 200–201). The same identification can be found also in An = Anum I, 145 (Litke 1998, 36) in connection with Enlil’s divine household in Nippur. 1796 See Streck 2001, 631 with reference to Thureau-Dangin 1919, 152. 1797 See e.g. Eḫulḫul Cylinder of Nabonidus and the episode in which the king recounts how he “took the hands” of Sîn, Ningal, Nusku and Sadarnuna, and led them away from Babylon to Ḫarrān (Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 16–19 [Ex. 11]). 1798 Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 42 (Ex. 1): dNusku SUKKAL ṣi-i-ri su-pe-e-a li-iš-me-e-ma / li-iṣ-ba-at a-bu-tu, “May Nusku, the sublime vizier hear my prayers and intercede (for me)!”. 1799 For this suggestion see Schaudig 2002, 633–634. 1800 Schaudig 2001, 3.1, III 41–42 (Ex. 2): dUTU šá ni-bu-šú / dNusku, “Šamaš whose name (also) is Nusku”. 1801 In this sense, the syncretism of Šamaš with Nusku can be compared to the divine image of the moon god created by Nabonidus, because it also combined the two traditions

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

317

ously noted, it is likely that the possible syncretism of Šamaš and Nusku was based on their qualities as luminaries, the one illuminating the day and the other the night.1802

II.11.6. Ningublaga and Nin(e)igara In the cultic context of Ur the son of Nanna/Sîn was Ningublaga.1803 Due to his local character, Ningublaga is not as widely attested as the moon god’s son as Šamaš was, who held that status in the prevalent tradition of the 1st millennium BCE. The cult of Ningublaga originated in Ki’abrig and then spread into Ur.1804 References to him in Ur are already found in the sources of the Presargonic period, and his cult continued to be well-attested in the later Ur III and Old Babylonian periods.1805 Ningublaga appears to have also belonged to the household of the moon god in Nippur1806 and Larsa1807 during the Old Babylonian period. The presence of Ningublaga in Babylonian cities during later periods remains unclear due to the lack of sources,1808 but one attestation proves that he was still venerated in the moon god’s household in Hellenistic Uruk.1809 Ningublaga plays a prominent role among the deities belonging to the moon god’s household in the god-list An = Anum: he is listed directly after Ningal who, as Ningublaga’s mother, bears the name dÁb-na-ar-BU.1810 He is not explicitly referred to as the son of the moon god, but his genealogical relationship is clear from other sources. In the hymn to Ningublaga’s temple in Ki’abrig, for

(Schaudig 2002, 634; for the image of the moon god see also p. 24ff. above). 1802 See the discussion on p. 309 above. 1803 For overviews of Ningublaga and his cult see Tallqvist 1938a, 321; Hall 1985, 737– 740; Krebernik 1995, 365; Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000b, 374–376; and Richter 2004, 441–444. Note that in early Assyriological publications his name was transliterated Ninḫarru or Ḫarra (see e.g. Tallqvist 1938a, 321). The reading Ningublaga for dNinEZEN×GU4 is established in Diri VII, 59 (see Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000b, 374). 1804 The temple of Ningublaga in Ki’abrig was called Ĝá-bur-ra, “House of bur-jars” (George 1993, no. 294). This name was also adopted for his sanctuary in Ur (George 1993, no. 295). For an overview of Ki’abrig see Edzard 1976–1980, 586. 1805 See Hall 1985, 737–740 and Richter 2004, 441–444. Charpin 1986, 222 maintains that the cult of Ningublaga had perhaps permanently moved to Ur after the destruction that followed the downfall of the Ur III dynasty. See also Michalowski 1989, 90–91. 1806 Richter 2004, 148–150. 1807 Renger 1967, 147. 1808 A temple of Ningublaga with no ceremonial name is mentioned in the list of female deities deriving from Nabû-ša-ḫarê-temple in Babylon (79.B.1./20, 7 in Cavigneaux 1981, 138). The location of this temple remains, unfortunately, unknown. 1809 AO 6451, 41 (Linssen 2004, 175 and 179; see also the discussion on p. 371ff. below). 1810 SpTU 3 no. 107+, 27: [dÁb-na-ar]-BU | ama dNin-gublaga-ke4 / [ dNin-gub]laga | ŠU (as opposed to ama d⌈En⌉-⌈zu⌉-[na]-⌈ke4⌉ for line III 30 in Litke 1998, 120).

318

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

example, he is already called the son of Nanna.1811 Since the earliest times, Ningublaga was affiliated with herds and cattle. This is shown by his praise in Sumerian literary sources1812 and the ban on serving beef to Ningublaga in Sîn’s temple in Uruk,1813 as well as by the five names given to him in the god-list An = Anum which for the most part were constructed with the element gu4, “ox”.1814 Outside the context of An = Anum, the name dLugalgudgaz, “King Butcher”, for Ningublaga is found in a Late Babylonian tablet that provided meanings for divine names.1815 S 3, 6–8 6 [dNin-g]ublaga EN šá i-sin-ni-šú [ 7 [dLugal-g]ud-gaz al-pi x [ ] 8 [GU]4 mulGU4.AN.NA ki-⌈i⌉ [qabû]1817 [Ning]ublaga means “the lord whose festival is [...]. [Lugalg]udgaz means “ox [...]. [Bul]l is the Bull of Heaven, as [it is said].

]1816

Because the text is not completely preserved, it is impossible to read the full explanation, but the association of Ningublaga and Lugalgudgaz with oxen – both as real animals and in the constellation “Bull of Heaven” – is firmly established. A further celestial aspect is found in Ningublaga’s manifestation in the constella-

1811

The Temple Hymns, 155: dNin-gublagax(EZEN) dumu dNanna-a-ke4 (see Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, no. 11 and ETCSL 4.80.1). 1812 See Hall 1985, 739–740. For example, in the adab-song to Ningublaga, he is said to organise the oxen in the temple of Suen (SLTNi 85, 25; edited in Römer 2001, 35–54). 1813 AO 6451, 41: ina É d30 UZU GU4 a-na dNin-gublaga ul i-qar-ru-ub, “In the temple of Sîn beef will not be served to Ningublaga” (Linssen 2004, 175 and 179). 1814 The names in An = Anum III, 31–35 are dNin-[(x)]-DUB; dSÚN-si; dLugalbáḫar(GU4); dLugal-gudgaz and dḪár(GU4) (see Krebernik 1995, 365 and Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000b, 374). 1815 The tablet in question, S 3, was published as Gordon 1952, no. 110, and it has been most notably discussed in Livingstone 1986, 64–66. In Livingstone’s edition, which is based on the copy by C. Gordon, the identity of the deity in question remains unknown. After a collation of the tablet, W. G. Lambert prepared a new copy and an edition of the text that allowed the deity to be identified as Ningublaga (Lambert 1989, 215–221). 1816 In Lambert 1989, 217 the end of this line [la-lu-ú?] (“the lord whose festival is [joy]”) is restored on the basis of the older writing (EZEN×LA) for the element gublaga(EZEN×GU4). It is clear that the interpretative method here involves breaking the name and the signs into their components, and, for this reason, a noun corresponding to GU4 is expected. 1817 The line is read [al-pi] mulGU4.AN.NA ki-[i DUG4.GA-ú] in Livingstone 1986, 64 and [x] x mulGUD.AN.NA ki-⌈i⌉ [iqbû/qabû] in Lambert 1989, 217.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

319

tion “Little Twins”, in which the other twin is Alamuš, Sîn’s vizier.1818 The pairing of Ningublaga with Alamuš is not restricted to the astral context since they also appear together in curse formulae, litanies, and as actors in rituals. In fact, attestations of the Ningublaga-Alamuš pairing form the majority of references to Ningublaga in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources.1819 In addition to these brief references, longer descriptions of Ningublaga’s qualities as a deity are almost non-existent. An exception is found in the adjurations by Ningublaga and his wife Nin(e)igara found in the ḫul-ba-zi-zi incantations. These adjurations, which are preserved in Neo-Assyrian manuscripts from Assur and Nineveh, enforce Ningublaga’s status as the son of Nanna/Sîn and the close affiliation he and his wife had with the cult in Ur. LKA 77//, V 8–461820 V8 zi dNin-gublaga V9 en dumu-saĝ d Nanna V 10 V 11 peš-tur-zi V 12 kìri-zal maḫ V 13 Úriki-ke4 V 14 u18-lu V 15 šúr-dù V 16 gaba nu-gi4 [ V 17 É-ĝiš-nu-ĝál-[la-ke4 V 18 maš-maš a[n-ki]-a V 19 [ ] V 20 [ V 21 si-⌈sá⌉ [ V 22 ur5-⌈ša4⌉ V 23 za-pa-áĝ V 24 gal-gal-la V 25 ĝi6-ĝi6-ga V 26 dalḫamun V 27 šeĝx(IM.A.AN) 1818

| niš ⌈d⌉N[in]-⌈gublaga⌉ | EN D[UMU rēštû] | šá d[30] | lìb-lìb-[(bi) muttalli] | ṣi-[ri] | š[á? Ú]-⌈ri⌉ | [me-ḫe]-⌈e⌉ | š[á šamriš il]-la-ku | ina ]⌈É⌉-ĝiš-nu-ĝál |] la im-maḫ-ḫa-ru | maš-maš AN-e u KI-tim | muš-te-šir | (x) l]i-šá-nu | mit-ḫ]ur-ti | r[a]-mi-im | rig-me GAL.MEŠ | (empty) | mu-uk-kil | a-šam-šu-tú | mu-šá-az-nin

MUL.APIN I, i 6: DIŠ mulMAŠ.TAB.BA.TUR.TUR dAlamuš ù dNin-gublaga (Hunger & Pingree 1989, 19). See also the discussion on p. 324ff. below. 1819 For the attestations of Ningublaga together with Alamuš see p. 323ff. below. 1820 This part of LKA 77 is duplicated by K. 7605, 1’–5’; K. 7606, IV 5’–14’ (published in Meek 1920, 151–152, photographs also available in CDLI P373821 and P373822 respectively) and KAR 48,2: 6’–16’. An edition of the text is found in Ebeling 1953b, 374– 375; see also the short description of this incantation in Meissner 1930–1931, 110–111. Note that this attestation of Ningublaga and Nin(e)igara is absent in Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000b, 374–376 and Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000a, 348.

320

V 28 V 29 V 30 V 31 V 32 V 33

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

šeĝx-šeĝx an-na-ta è-dè ĝiškim-ti maḫ lú Úriki-ke4 AN-úsan gal an-ki-ke4 ḫé-pàd

| šá-a-ri | u zu-un-nu ina AN-e | ḫa-a-i-ṭu ur-ti | ṣir-ti šá Ú-ri | na-qí-di GAL-i | šá AN-e u KI-tim

V 34 zi níta-dam-a-ni | niš ḫi-ir-ti-šú d 1821 Nin-ì-gá[ra](“SA-[NI]”) | dMIN V 35 V 36 munus-zi | sin-niš-tú kit-tú | šá ina Eri-dù10 V 37 Eriduki-ga V 38 mí-zi-dè-eš | ki-niš kun-n[a-t]ú | ṭup-šar-ra-tú V 39 ⌈du11⌉-ga V 40 dub-sa[r]-maḫ | ṣir-tum ! V 41 nin-erìm (copy: gu7)-[m]a | be-let i-⌈šit⌉-ti V 42 ⌈má⌉-gur8 dSuen-na-k[e4] | ma-ak-ku-ri šá d⌈30⌉ V 43 munus-agrig | [ab-rak-k]a-tú | s[a-niq]-tú V 44 šu-dim4-ma V 45 nin-agrun-kù-ga | be-l[et] ⌈a⌉-⌈ga⌉-ru-nu V 46 ḫé-pàd | KÙ lu-ú (ta-ma-tam) Be adjured by Ningublaga, lord, the eldest son of Sîn, the august noble offspring of Ur, storm that moves furiously, the one who cannot be confronted in Ekišnugal, the incantation priest of the heaven and the earth, the one who sets right [confl]icting [la]nguages, the one who roars with great noise, the one who darkens the dust storm, the one who lets wind and rain come down from heaven, (Sum.) the exalted mainstay of the people of Ur/(Akk.) the watcher of the noble command of Ur, (Sum.) the great evening of the heaven and the earth/(Akk.) the great shepherd of the heaven and the earth! Be adjured by his spouse, Nin(e)iga[ra], true woman, cherished in Eridu, the august scribe, the lady of the treasury, (Sum.) the barge of Sîn1822/(Akk.) the storehouse of Sîn, the obedient housekeeper, the lady of the pure bedchamber! The genealogical relationship between the moon god and Ningublaga is confirmed here by the epithet “eldest son of Nanna/Sîn” (dumu-saĝ dNanna/māru rēštû ša dSîn), and his close connection to Ur and the temple Ekišnugal is also

1821

The name of Nin(e)igara is also written without the element é in An = Anum III, 36 (see Litke 1998, 121 and Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000a, 348). 1822 In Ebeling 1953b, 376 the Sumerian line is considered erroneous. For the moon as a barge see the discussion on p. 45ff. above.

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

321

underlined by the epithets “the august princely offspring of Ur” and “the one who cannot be confronted in Ekišnugal”. The text also reveals an aspect of Ningublaga as an “incantation priest of the heaven and the earth” which is combined with demonic attributes – Ningublaga is a furious storm and has other characteristics of a demonic wind – that are connected to deities who assume such a role.1823 It is remarkable that this description of him as an exorcist is, in its fundamental parts, parallel to a section in the Sumerian hymn to Ĝá-bur-ra, the temple of Ningublaga in Ki’abrig, in which Ningublaga of Ki’abrig is depicted as an exorcist, as well as a god who sets conflicting tongues in order, and as a god related to meteorological phenomena.1824 These parallels demonstrate that theological notions similar to the ones attached to Ningublaga in his cult in Ki’abrig were still current during the Neo-Assyrian period. The apotropaic character of Ningublaga is also found in a short reference to him in the bīt mēseri ritual: here he carries the goat that was used to dispel evil forces from the house.1825 It is likely that Ningublaga in his apotropaic aspect also appears in the fourth tablet of the Udug-ḫul, in which the deities in the moon god’s household are listed with their attributes. Although the deity following Alamuš in this passage, according to the manuscript, is Nin-asilal, it has to be assumed that he is actually Ningublaga,1826 and his protective character is here expressed by the epithet “unsubmissive weapon/weapon bearer”.1827 The adjuration by Nin-(é-)ì-gára, “Lady of the Butter and Cream (House)”, that is present in LKA 77// is even more unique than the one by Ningublaga. Although she and her cult are well-represented in earlier administrative and literary sources,1828 in the sources of the 1st millennium BCE, she remains extremely elusive. In the god-list An = Anum Nin(e)igara is present as Ningublaga’s wife, and 1823

For the tendency to depict a deity who takes the role of an exorcist as a demonic wind see Jiménez 2013a, 29–139. 1824 The Temple Hymns, 153–154: maš-maš eme-ḫa-mun dungu an-na bí-DU / ud an-na gù mur ak ud-dè ki šu ra-ra šúm-mu, “The incantation priest of opposed languages who puts clouds in the sky, the storm which roars in the sky, as the sunlight giving ... to the earth” (see Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, no. 11 and ETCSL 4.80.1). 1825 Bīt mēseri, II 119: mašḫulduppâ šá pānū-šú lem-nu na-ši dNin-gublaga (see Meier 1941–1944, 146–147). For the goat máš-ḫul-dúb-ba, see Cavigneaux 1995, 53–67. 1826 In Geller 2007, 113 and in Geller 2016, 151 the identity of Nin-asilal is left without comment, but it is noted in Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000b, 375 that the manuscript SpTU 3 no. 64, III 7–8 appears to have the writing dNin-EZEN×A.LÁ for Ningublaga. Thus is perhaps reflects the older sign form used to write Ningublaga’s name (NinEZEN×LÁ instead of Nin-EZEN×GU4). The affiliation to Alamuš, who is often paired with Ningublaga, supports this interpretation. 1827 Udug-ḫul 4, 96’: gištukul nu-še-g[a] / na-[áš kak-ki] la ma-gi-ri (see Geller 2007, 113 and Geller 2016, 151). 1828 For overviews of Nin(e)igara see Hall 1985, 746 and Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000a, 348.

322

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

she shares his affiliation to cattle on the basis of her connection with dairy products.1829 The epithets used to describe her in the adjuration in LKA 77// also depict her as Ningublaga’s wife. She is explicitly called his spouse (ḫīrtu), and, like Ningal, she is associated with the realm of the goddesses, the bed-chamber.1830 According to the further epithets employed in LKA 77//, Nin(e)igara had administrative tasks in the household of Nanna/Sîn: she is the “lady of the treasury” (nin-èrim/bēlet išitti) and the “obedient housekeeper” (munus-agrig šudim4-ma/abarakkatu saniqtu). These epithets conform with her image in the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, in which it is said that as a result of the destruction by the enemy, Nine’igara, “exalted housekeeper” (agrigmaḫ) abandoned the treasury (èrim).1831

II.11.7. Alamuš Like Ningublaga, the god Alamuš belonged to the household of Nanna/Sîn in Ur.1832 The worship of Alamuš as a minor deity in this city appears to go back to a very early period since the personal name Ur-dAlamuš can be found in an archaic text from this site.1833 His local character and close affiliation to Ur is underlined by his wife’s name: Nin-Urima, “Lady of Ur”.1834 Alamuš’ position in the moon god’s household is that of his vizier (Sum. sukkal, Akk. sukkallu), as exemplified by the entry in the god-list An = Anum.1835 The role of Alamuš as the vizier of Sîn is also reflected in his epithets. For example, in the fourth tablet of

1829

An = Anum III, 36 (see Litke 1998, 121). This similarity in the epithets of Nin(e)igara and Ningal is noted in Charpin 1986, 221. 1831 Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, 409 (Michalowski 1989, 62–63). See also Hall 1985, 746. It has recently been suggested that this passage describes the destruction of the divine image of Nine’igara in her sanctuary, which was a “treasury” for storing dairy products (Dahl 2011, 55–65). According to this suggestion, the actual physical appearance of Nine’igara’s cult image in Ur is depicted by the destroyed objects: she was probably seated on a stool or a throne, had the horns of a cow, was holding emblems in the form of cattle and sheep, and some of the parts of the image would have been in the form of vegetation. 1832 An overview of the Akkadian sources mentioning Alamuš (dLÀL) can be found in Tallqvist 1938a, 347. Alamuš has also been recently discussed in Simons 2016, 8–10. 1833 UET 2 Supp. 14, o. I 1 (Hall 1985, 745–746). 1834 An = Anum III, 38: dNin-Úriki (Litke 1998, 122). According to Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2001, 511 and Richter 2004, 447, this goddess is found in the sources of the Ur III period, but after that, her attestations almost completely vanish. 1835 An = Anum III, 37: dAlamuš | sukkal dEn-zu-ke4. The entry in manuscript YBC 2401, V 13 writes the name with a gloss: d.a-⌈la⌉-⌈muš⌉LÁL (Litke 1998, 121). The entry of Alamuš follows the entry naming Ningublaga, the son of Sîn in Ur. Moreover, Alamuš had a vizier of his own, Uru-gal (An = Anum III, 40: dUru16ú-ru-gal | sukkal dAlamuš-ke4 (Litke 1998, 122). 1830

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

323

Udug-ḫul he bears the epithet “grand vizier” (sukkal maḫ/sukkallu ṣīru) of Sîn.1836 His activity as a messenger between humans and the moon god is exhibited in the ikrib-prayers to Sîn, in which he is asked to communicate the case to Sîn.1837 In the temple Ekišnugal in Ur, at least in earlier times, Alamuš appears to have been associated especially with the courtyard: in a Sumerian hymn to the moon god Nanna, Alamuš has the epithet “lord of the courtyard”1838 and in an Old Babylonian petition to the moon god, he is mentioned among the deities whose place was in the courtyard.1839 In the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, Alamuš, who throws down his sceptre, appears after the line describing the absence of judicial verdicts in Dublamaḫ.1840 These attestations led Mark G. Hall to associate Alamuš primarily with justice.1841 Another aspect of Alamuš, suggested by Hall and based on sources from the Ur III period, is an affinity with vegetation and animals. This may be the reason why Alamuš, together his vizier Urugal and Nine’igara, Ningublaga’s wife, were among the deities who received offerings in the temple of Ningublaga, who was associated with cattle.1842 The connection between Alamuš and Ningublaga remains apparent in later sources, in which these two deities appear as a pair.1843 Thus, Alamuš and Ningublaga are presented together in the curse formula in the Middle Babylonian kudurru of Marduk-apla-iddina I.1844 They also appear together amongst the

Udug-ḫul 4, 95’: dÁlamuš(INNIN.LÀL) sukkal maḫ dSuen-n[a] / dMIN suk-kal-lu4 ṣii-ru šá [d30] (see Geller 2007, 113 and Geller 2016, 151). Despite the evidence referred to in MZL no. 170, the identification of the spelling dINNIN.LÀL with Alamuš appears to be still doubted in Geller’s edition. 1837 K. 2751+//, 19’ and 53’ (see the edition on p. 483ff. below). 1838 UM 29-15-570, r. 24: ù-mu-un-kisal-lá kìri-zal dAlamuš-ra, “to the lord of the courtyard, noble Alamuš” (see Sjöberg 1977, 8–13 and ETCSL 4.13.15 [Nanna O]). 1839 UET 6/2 no. 402, 24 (see the citation on p. 250 above as well as the edition in Charpin 1986, 326–327). 1840 Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, 438–440 (Michalowski 1989, 64–65). 1841 Hall 1985, 745–746. 1842 For an overview of the offerings see Richter 2004, 443–448. 1843 See Cavigneaux & Krebernik 2000b, 375. In Geller 2016, 151 the god Ningublaga (referred to as dNIN.EZEN×GUD) is understood as the spouse of Alamuš (referred to as d INNIN.LÀL and apparently taken to be a female deity) – a misunderstanding that prompted the short overview of Alamuš in Simons 2016, 8–10. 1844 MDP 6 38, IV 4: dAlamuš dNin-gublaga dTišpak dKA.DI, “Alamuš, Ningublaga, Tišpak, Ištaran”. A new edition of the text is found in Paulus 2014, 430–440. As noted in Simons 2016, 9, the name that is written dLÀL is read Kabta by Paulus, but the logogram must stand for Alamuš (for the reading of the logogram LÀL see MZL no. 170). Furthermore, F. Simons suggests that since Alamuš and Ningublaga are surrounded by chthonic deities in this context, they too may have been associated with the Netherworld. 1836

324

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

gods who are begged for absolution in Šurpu.1845 In KAR 132, which describes the akītu-festival of Anu in Uruk, Alamuš and Ningublaga belong to the same group of deities as Sîn, Šulpae’a, Ninurta, Mīšaru, and Nusku, in the procession of Anu’s statue to the akītu-house outside the city.1846 Since we know that Ningublaga was worshipped in the temple of Sîn in Uruk, it plausible that Alamuš also belonged to this household.1847 Unfortunately, these brief references do not provide any information about the character of Alamuš in these contexts. Elsewhere, however, a significant detail concerning Alamuš and Ningublaga is revealed by the astronomical compendium MUL.APIN: Alamuš and Ningublaga are identified with the constellation “Little Twins” that sits in Enlil’s path.1848 Ningublaga had further astral connotations, as the Late Babylonian expository text associating him with the constellation “Bull of Heaven” explains,1849 but in the case of Alamuš, no such associations are known. No explanation is provided by the Mesopotamian sources for why Alamuš and Ningublaga are partnered together in curse formulae, litanies, and in the astral sphere, but the close connection between these deities certainly extends at least as far back as the 3rd millennium BCE, when Alamuš was venerated in Ningublaga’s temple. One suggested reason for presenting them as a pair is that they both were sons of the moon god in Ur.1850 However, no explicit evidence that Alamuš was considered a son of Nanna/Sîn is available, and therefore the matter remains uncertain.

II.11.8. Amarazu and Amaraḫea In the tradition of Babylonian god-lists, the goddesses dAma-ra-a-zu and dAmara-ḫé-è-a were identified as Sîn’s daughters. In the Weidner God-list, these two goddesses are paired together directly after the gods Alamuš and Ningublaga,1851 and in An = Anum, they are further identified as daughters of Sîn.1852 References 1845

Šurpu VIII, 25 (see Reiner 1958, 40 and Borger 2000, 79). KAR 132, I 9–11; II 1–2 and III 12 (see the edition in Linssen 2004, 201–208, where the identity of dINNIN.LÀL/dMÙŠ.LÀL as Alamuš is not recognised). The text is also translated in Cohen 1993, 434–435, where the identity of neither Alamuš nor Ningublaga is acknowledged. 1847 For the cult of the moon god in Uruk see p. 371ff. below; see also p. 317 above. 1848 MUL.APIN I, i 6: DIŠ mulMAŠ.TAB.BA.TUR.TUR dAlamuš ù dNin-gublaga (Hunger & Pingree 1989, 19). 1849 See p. 318 above. 1850 “Darin könnte sich eine Tradition manifestieren, nach der beide Söhne des Mondgottes waren. So ergäbe sich auch ein symmetrisches Bild hinsichtlich der zwei in An = Anum nach Ningublag und Alammuš angeführten Töchter des Mondgottes, dAmar-ra(a)zu und dA-mar-ra-ḫé-è-a [...]” (Krebernik 1995, 365). This possibility seems plausible on the basis of the Weidner God-list, in which Alamuš and Ningublaga appear to form a pair parallel to the daughters of Sîn (see Weidner 1924–1925, 10 and Richter 2004, 455). 1851 Weidner God-list, I 15–16 (Weidner 1924–1925, 10). 1852 An = Anum III, 41–43: dAmar-ra-a-zu | ŠU / dAmar-ra-ḫé-è-a | ŠU / 2 dumu-munus 1846

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

325

to Amarazu and Amarḫaea in other sources are very scarce, and there is no evidence of their cult in Ur even in the 3rd and 2nd millenniums BCE.1853 However, a few attestations from the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods reveal that Amarazu enjoyed a cult in Nippur.1854 In the 1st millennium BCE, there is no evidence providing information about Amarazu’s or Amaraḫea’s cult. These two goddesses are, however, attested as members of the moon god’s household in the fourth tablet of the series Udug-ḫul. Udug-ḫul 4, 98’–99’1855 98’ zi dAmar-ra-è-a dumu-munus dSue[n-na ḫé-pà] niš dMIN ma-rat d30 lu ta-[ma-ta] 99’ zi dAmar-ra-a-zu šùd agrun-n[a ḫé-pà] [ni]š d[MIN ka-ri-bat] a-ga-[ru-un-ni lu ta-ma-ta] [Be adjured] by Amaraea, daughter of Sîn! [Be adjured] by Amarazu, the blesser o[f] the bed-chamber! In these lines, the goddess Amaraḫea (here written Amaraea) is straightforwardly portrayed as a daughter of Sîn, but by her association with the bed-chamber, the goddess Amarazu is linked to the goddess Ningal.1856

II.11.9. Bēlet-ilī The final deity, whose relationship to the moon god is discussed here, is the mother goddess Bēlet-ilī.1857 The main reason to add her to the group of deities in Sîn’s household is her conspicuous role in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi, where she is consistently paired with Sîn. An example of the way, in which Sîn and Bēlet-ilī are presented side by side throughout text, can be found in the entry for the 13th day of the intercalary Elūlu, in which offerings to the divine pairs Šamaš–Bēlet-mātāti and Sîn–Bēlet-ilī are prescribed.1858 The reason for pairing the moon god with Bēlet-ilī in this context is not explained within the text or elsewhere: although Inbu bēl arḫi was a result of combining prognoses from other hemerological works – mainly Iqqur īpuš, Prostration Hemerology and

d

En-zu-ke4 (Litke 1998, 122). In the precursor of An = Anum, the name Ama-ra-ḫé-è-a is replaced by the variant Ama-ra-ḫá-áĝ-e (see Hall 1985, 744; Krebernik 1995, 365 and Richter 2004, 451–455). 1853 See Hall 1985, 744–745. 1854 See Richter 2004, 100–101 and Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 313. 1855 See Geller 2007, 113 and 205 as well as Geller 2016, 151. 1856 For Ningal’s connection to bed-chamber see p. 302ff. above. 1857 For an overview of the mother goddess in Mesopotamia, see Krebernik 1997, 502– 516. 1858 K. 4231, II 8–12 (Livingstone 2013, 214; see the citation on p. 67 above).

326

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Babylonian Almanac1859 – no similar formulations are otherwise found in the hemerological tradition. Furthermore, the pattern of lunar phases in the text does not elucidate the function of this divine pair since Bēlet-ilī accompanies Sîn almost every time he is mentioned in Inbu bēl arḫi.1860 There are several possible ways to interpret this connection between Sîn and Bēlet-ilī. First, the association of the moon with the mother goddess can be seen as a reference to the moon god’s aspect as a god of fertility.1861 A further possibility is syncretism between the mother goddess and Ningal in her role as the mother of the celestial deities in particular.1862 Another link between Sîn and Bēlet-ilī, which plausibly also played a role in their pairing in Inbu bēl arḫi, is found in the 12th tablet of the series Udug-ḫul. Here, Bēlet-ilī’s epithet explicitly describes her as the moon god’s sister – a notion that is apparent in the Sumerian line despite the use of two different Akkadian equivalents (rubātu, “princess”,1863 and aḫat r[abītu], “e[lder] sister”) of the Sumerian nin-gal, “elder sister”.1864 Udug-ḫul 12, 441865 Nin-maḫ nin-gal dSuen-n[a] ama-gal Kèški-ke4 d Be-let-ì-lí ru-ba-tum (var.: a-ḫat r[a-bi-tum]1866) šá d30 um-mi GAL-ti šá Ke-eš (Sum.) Ninmaḫ, elder sister of Sîn, great mother of Keš (Akk.) Bēlet-ilī, princess (var.: e[lder] sister) of Sîn, great mother of Keš

d

Thus the main factor connecting Sîn to the mother goddess appears to have been a genealogical one: Sîn was one of Belēt-ilī’s brothers together with the gods Enlil, Ea/Enki, and Adad.1867 Unfortunately, no further information concerning this sibling relationship survives.

1859

See Jiménez 2016, 201–204. See the overview of the days connected to Sîn in Tables 6–13 on p. 129ff. above as well as the discussion on p. 98ff. above. 1861 For a discussion concerning the moon god’s influence on fertility see p. 229ff. above. 1862 See the discussion on p. 296ff. above. 1863 Note that this epithet for Bēlet-ilī was used especially in the context of anti-witchcraft rituals in the formula ina qibīt Ea Šamaš Marduk u rubāti Bēlet-ilī (see the list of attestations in Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 195). 1864 The Sumerian epithet nin-gal may have been equated with the name Ningal, therefore underlining the possible association between the goddesses Ninmaḫ/Bēlet-ilī and Ningal. 1865 Geller 2007, 159 and 237; see also Geller 2016, 408. 1866 MMA 86.11.379B+, 44: dNin-maḫ nin-gal dSuen-n[a ama-gal Kèški] / dBe-let-DINGIR.MEŠ a-ḫat r[a-bi-tu4 šá dSîn um-mi GAL-ti šá Ki-i-ši], “O Bēlet-ilī, elder sister of Sîn, [great mother of Keš!] (see Geller 2005, 143 and 148). 1867 Krebernik 1997, 507. 1860

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

327

Deity

Name

Lines in An = Anum

Sîn

d

Nanna Suen d MIN-30 d Ĝiš-nu11-gal d BU.NIR d Áb-kára d Áb-lu-lu d Men-šu-du7 d Men-dàra-an-na d Men-dàra-diĝir-ra d Men-zalag-búr d Gi16-sa-an-na d Gi16-sa-a d Má-gu-la-an-na d Dumu-nun-na d Dumu-gi7 d Lugal d Umun d Mu-ḫé-ĝál-la d Idim-ḫuš d Unkin d Unkin-uru16

III, 1–26

d

U4-sakar Má d Má-gur8

III, 23–25

Namraṣīt

d

III, 26

Ningal (wife of Sîn)

d

III, 27–29

d

Nannāru

d

Dili-ím-babbar

Nin-gal Nin-gi-kù-ga d Áb-na-ar-BU d

Table 14: Overview of An = Anum III, 1–29

328

II. Theologies of the Moon God in Assyria and Babylonia

Deity

Name

Lines in An = Anum

Ningublaga (son of Sîn)

d

Nin-gublaga Nin-báḫar d SÚN-si d Lugal-báḫar d Lugal-gud-gaz d Ḫár

III, 30–35

Nin(e)igara (wife of Ningublaga)

d

III, 36

Alamuš (vizier of Sîn)

d

III, 37

Nin-Uri (wife of Alamuš)

d

III, 38

Kaka (vizier of Ningal)

d

III, 39

Urugal (vizier of Alamuš)

d

III, 40

Amarazu & Amaraḫea (daughters of Sîn)

d

III, 41–43

4 guards (diĝir-gub-ba) of Sîn

d

d

Nin-ì-gara Alamuš Nin-Úriki MEkà-kà.ME Uru16-gal Amar-ra-a-zu Amar-ra-ḫé-è-a

d

Nin-kù-nun-na Ninnu-tab-ba d Níĝ-ga-ba d Il-la-bu-un-du

III, 44–48

d

8 balaĝ-gods (gu4-balaĝ) of dḪI.A.MU-an-na (var. dŠà-an-ba) III, 49–57 d Úriki-kìri-zal Sîn d Amar-dSuen d Nanna-ušum-maḫ(-mu) (var. [dNanna-BA]LAĜ-maḫ) d U4-me-an-na d U4-kìri-zal-an-na d U4-é-zi-an-na d An(-na)-ḫi-li-ba Table 15: Overview of An = Anum III, 30–57

II.11. The Family and Household of Sîn

Deity

Name

Lines in An = Anum

overseer of Sîn’s seal

d

Nanna-balaĝ-an-ki

III, 58

2 guards (diĝir-gub-ba) of Ningal

d

Nin-da-gal-zu Nin-da-maḫ-di

III, 59–61

2 balaĝ-gods (gu4-balaĝ) of Ningublaga

d.ĝiš

Nindara (Sîn)

d

Tukul-diĝir-ra Á-maḫ-tuku

III, 62–64

d

Nin-dar-a

III, 65

Ninmetenten (maid of Sîn)

d

Nin-me-te-en-te-en

III, 66

Nanše

d

Nanše (var.: ENGUR)

III, 67

d

d.na-zi

Nazi

d

Na-zi

III, 68

Enšalulua (great housekeeper of Nanše)

d

En-šà-lu-lu-a

III, 69

Nin-MAR.KI

d

Nin-MAR.KI

III, 70

13 (or 10) children of Nin-MAR.KI

III, 71–84

balaĝ-god (gu4-balaĝ) of Nin-MAR.KI

d

Nin-dAnzumušen

III, 85

Ga’u (shepherd of Sîn)

d

Ga-a(-a)-ú Laḫar(la)

III, 86–87

d

8 children of Ga’u

III, 88–96

Table 16: Overview of An = Anum III, 58–96

329

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria The cult of the Sumero-Babylonian moon god Sîn was spread across the Mesopotamian cultural area. In the south, the focal point of his cult was the city of Ur, where the moon god was most likely venerated as early as in pre-historic period. Moreover, his sphere of influence included not only the city area of Ur itself, but also a variety of locations surrounding it. Sîn’s other main cult centre, perhaps also since the pre-historic past, was Ḫarrān, located at the opposite end of the geographical area under the cultural influence of Mesopotamia. This northern city was the focal point for the cult of the moon god in the area that corresponds to modern northern Syria and southern Turkey, on the upper reaches of the Euphrates, along the river Baliḫ. Naturally, Ur and Ḫarrān were not the only places where the moon god was venerated. In Babylonia, Sîn had a place in the cultic life of the cities of Nippur, Uruk, Sippar, Larsa, Babylon, and Borsippa. In Assyria, a temple for the moon god can be found not only in the city of Assur but also in the capital cities of the Neo-Assyrian period: Kalḫu, Dūr-Šarrukīn, and Nineveh. Although the existence of a sanctuary or a temple of the moon god in each of these Babylonian and Assyrian cities during the 1st millennium BCE can be established, the lack of documentation from the temple administration often leaves us without information concerning their daily cultic practises. This also explains why in most of the cases here the existence of these cult places is treated from the viewpoint of the building activities of certain rulers or kings, and not the temple administration. Despite the lack of information concerning daily worship or details about the structure of temple households, it is still possible to distinguish certain aspects that are specific to the Babylonian and Assyrian temples of the moon god. The main difference can be seen in the distribution of Sîn’s temples in Babylonia and Assyria. In the Babylonian cities, excluding Ur and the town of Kissik that was located in the vicinity of Ur, the presence of the moon god appears to be connected to the relationship between Sîn and the primary deity of each city’s pantheon. Thus, while in Nippur, Sîn was venerated as Enlil’s son, in Uruk, he was present as the father of Ištar. Even in Babylon, where there was an independent temple to the moon god bearing the same name as the temple in Ur, evidence suggesting Sîn’s presence in connection with the cult of his daughter Ištar is found. The mythological genealogical relationships between the deities undoubtedly also played a role in the moon god’s temples in Assyria, but the underlying structure of the cult appears to differ from its Babylonian equivalent. This is illustrated by the fact that Sîn and Šamaš, the moon and the sun, shared a temple in Assur, Dūr-Šarrukīn, and Nineveh. Moreover, excluding Ḫarrān and its vicinity, attestations for the moon god’s cult in Assyria are focused on the capital cities, which underlines his role in the official religion of the state.

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

331

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area The city of Ur belonged to the moon god since time immemorial: as far back as its history can be traced, the moon god Nanna/Suen was the city’s patron god.1868 This connection pervades the different branches of textual sources. Therefore, the line “I am a man from Ur of Sîn!” is found in a Kultmittelbeschwörung to alkali from Neo-Assyrian Assur.1869 Similarly, a passage in a love spell from Assur relates to the cult cities of Sîn, Šamaš, and Ištar: “Just as bitumen clung to a boat, just as Sîn took over Ur, as Šamaš took over Larsa, as Ištar took over Ekur, I have taken hold of you and will not let you go!”1870 One of the first attestations (ca. 2500 BCE) of the connection between the moon god Nanna and his city can be found in the zà-mì hymns of Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ.1871 However, Ur was not the moon god’s only cult city, since Pre-Sargonic dedicatory inscriptions reveal that the moon god also enjoyed a cult in several other Sumerian cities such as Tutub and Girsu. During the Sargonic period (2334–2112 BCE) the number of the moon god’s cult cities seems to have declined however, and the cult of the moon god Nanna became more and more concentrated within Ur, where Sargon installed his daughter Enḫeduana as the en-priestess of the moon god.1872 Ur’s apex was reached as the Neo-Sumerian Ur III dynasty rose to power, and because of the wealth and political power of the regime, the cult of the patron deity of the city, Nanna, also flourished.1873 This can be seen in both the archeological record of the temple complex as well as in the numerous dedicatory inscriptions that were left behind by the rulers of the Ur III dynasty. Prior to this, no ziqqurrat, only terraced temple buildings, existed in Ur, but now an imposing three-tiered ziqqurrat was built by Ur-Namma.1874 The pantheon and cultic calendar of this period can be reconstructed with the help of the documentation concerning offerings.1875 For the Old Babylonian period information can be gleaned from administrative sources and letters, and also from the royal inscriptions that were written in connection with the extensive rebuilding of the temple complex and the city after the fall of the Ur III dynasty.1876 Following the Old Babylonian

1868

For an overview of the cult of the moon god in Ur in the earlier periods (Pre-Sargonic, Sargonic, Ur III, Isin-Larsa, and Old Babylonian) see especially Hall 1985, 93–371; Charpin 1986, 231–302; and Richter 2004, 410–506. A useful overview of the archeological remains at Ur has been recently presented by H. Crawford (2015). 1869 KAR 43, 24 // KAR 63, 22: DUMU Úriki šá d30 a-na-ku (see Ebeling 1931a, 16–20). 1870 KAR 69, r. 11–14 (Biggs 1967, 77). 1871 Biggs 1974, 47 ll. 35–36: úri šim-kur / lugal dNanna zà-me. 1872 Hall 1985, 93–112. 1873 See Hall 1985, 127–143. 1874 See Woolley 1939, 24–39 and 98–121 and Crawford 2015, 84. 1875 For discussions concerning the cult and pantheon in Ur during this period see Hall 1985, 256–350; Sallaberger 1993, 69–80 and 159–208 as well as Richter 2004, 413–416. 1876 The majority of this documentation is concentrated on the Isin-Larsa period. For an

332

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

period, written sources in Ur disappear, and is not until the reign of the Kassite king Kurigalzu, who rebuilt the temple complex, that light is shed on Ekišnugal.1877 One of the results of these building activities was the relocation of the Ningal temple from the giparu to the ziqqurrat enclosure.1878 Towards the end of the Kassite dynasty the sources concerning the temple at Ur grow sporadic: there is some archaeological evidence for building activity, but textual references are extremely scarce. For the era that started with the Isin II dynasty and continued until Sîn-balāssu-iqbi was the governor of the city, only little evidence for building activities and royal donations to temples is known; the whole era is characterized by its lack of documentation.1879 In contrast to the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods, the cultic practices at Ekišnugal during the Neo- and Late Babylonian periods are virtually unknown to us due to the lack of administrative texts: no temple archive similar to the ones connected to Eana in Uruk or Ebabbar in Sippar has been found in Ur, and the moon god’s temple is only sporadically referred to in private documents deriving from the Persian period.1880 Because the main sources concerning the temple Ekišnugal in this period are inscriptions reporting building activities at the site, the discussion in this chapter is largely concentrated on this aspect, and not on the cultic reality in the main temple of the Sumero-Babylonian moon god.

overview of the materials and the political history connected to the temple and the city see van de Mieroop 1992, 45–71; for the cult of the moon god and other deities in Ur see Richter 2004, 416–506. An overview of the architecture of Old Babylonian temple complex Ekišnugal is given in van de Mieroop 1992, 38–43. 1877 See Brinkman 1969, 327–328 and van de Mieroop 1992, 69–70. The disruption in written sources is reflected in the archaeological evidence, which shows discontinuity, decline, and disintegration despite the continued habitation in the area (Wright 1981, 330–334). This decline, which was temporarily stopped during the Kassite reign, continued during the post-Kassite era when another low point in the history of Ur was reached (around 900 BCE). 1878 For an overview of the archeological remains from the Kassite period see Crawford 2015, 113–118. 1879 See Brinkman 1965, 241–242 and Brinkman 1969, 333–335. 1880 See the overviews of the archives of Ur in Pedersén 1998, 201–204 and Jursa 2005, 133–137. Remains of a temple archive – a few fragmentary tablets from the Persian period mentioned in Woolley 1962, 49 – are referred to in Pedersén 1998, 201, but he further notes that these texts do not appear in any text publications. The Neo-Babylonian Records from the Hall Collection recently published by R. Tarasewicz include only a few fragmentary references to the Ekišnugal temple (Tarasewicz 2018, no. 46 [BM 113966+, 3’]), tithes of Sîn from dates (Tarasewicz 2018, nos. 19 and 20; reign of Darius), and the property of Sîn (Tarasewicz 2018, no. 62 [BM 114151, 1’]).

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

333

III.1.1. The Temple Complex Ekišnugal The temple of the moon god in Ur was named Ekišnugal.1881 This name was first attested in a fragment of diorite stele of Utuḫeĝal that was found in the Ningal temple at Ur,1882 but it is possible that the name was also given in the Stele of Vultures of Eanatum of Lagaš.1883 That the name Ekišnugal was used for the temple during the Sargonic period at the latest is also suggested by the Sumerian temple hymn to Ekišnugal in the collection said to have been composed by Enḫeduana, Sargon’s daughter.1884 This principal sanctuary of the moon god Nanna/ Sîn in southern Mesopotamia was the embodiment of the Sumero-Babylonian moon god’s cult to the extent that sanctuaries with the same name also existed in Nippur and Babylon, undoubtedly signifying a cultic contact with the city of Ur.1885 In the sections in Sumerian litanies that name temples/sanctuaries, the status of Ekišnugal as the foremost abode of the moon god is emphasised by listing it before any of his other sanctuaries. For example, in the balaĝ-composition “The Honoured One of Heaven” (an-na e-lum-e), the temple name Ekišnugal opens the litany of different sanctuaries of the moon god. SBH no. 24, 3–14 // VS 17 no. 57, 2–14 // K. 18725+Sm. 1361, 2’–13’1886 3 a-a dNanna umun An-[šár] umun dDili-ím-[babbar] 4 umun dNanna d umun Uríki-[ma] 5 a-a Nanna umun É-kiš-nu-ĝál 6 umun dNanna umun É-ní-te-en-du10 7 a-a dNanna 8 umun dNanna umun É-dim-an-na1887 9 a-a dNanna umun É-dim-gal-an-na umun iti6-kù-ga1888 10 umun dNanna

1881

George 1993, no. 653. The name of this temple was written either É-kiš-nu-ĝál or Éĝiš-nu11-gal. For the sake of convenience, the spelling Ekišnugal is used here in general. For the meaning of this name see p. 79ff. above. 1882 UET 1 no. 30, II 4 (see Steible 1991, 329–330 [Utuḫegal 6]). 1883 RIME 1, E1.9.3.1, xxi 17–xxii 6. This section speaks of Sîn’s (dEN.ZU) dwelling in Ur, which makes it likely that the temple name was included here. 1884 The Temple Hymns, 101–118 (see Sjöberg & Bergmann 1969, no. 8 and ETCSL 4.80.1; also edited in Sjöberg 1960, 123–131). 1885 For Nippur see p. 368ff. below, and for Babylon see p. 378ff. below. 1886 SBH no. 24 is edited in Cohen 1988, 210–211 and 216–217 (ll. a+73–84). VS 17 no. 57, 2–14 (Cohen 1988, 219) and K. 18725+Sm. 1361, 2’–13’ (unpubl.; CDLI P403847) duplicate this litany (see Black 1987, 41 no. 9 and Borger 1990, 22). Earlier editions of only SBH no. 24 can be found in Perry 1907, no. 8 and Combe 1908, no. 5. 1887 VS 17 no. 57, 7: umun É-⌈dim⌉-ma-a[n-na] (see Cohen 1988, 219). 1888 VS 17 no. 57, 9: umun É-ta-é-kù-ga x (see Cohen 1988, 219).

334

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

11 a-a dNanna umun É-dub-lá-maḫ-a1889 d 12 umun Nanna umun dàra-kù-ga1890 13 a-a dNanna dumu-saĝ d+En-líl-lá d dumu-nun É-kur-ra1891 14 umun Nanna Father Nanna, lord An[šar],1892 lord Nanna, lord Dili[mbabbar], father Nanna, lord of Ur, lord Nanna, lord of Ekišnugal, father Nanna, lord of Enitendu, lord Nanna, lord of Edimana, father Nanna, lord of Edimgalana, lord Nanna, lord of (the House of) Pure Moonlight, father Nanna, lord of Edublamaḫ, lord Nanna, lord of (the House of) Pure Ibex, father Nanna, first-born son of Enlil, lord Nanna, princely son of Ekur This litany’s connection to the city of Ur is evident by the epithet “lord of Ur” that directly precedes the list of temple names (line 5). In addition, the epithet “father” refers to the role of Nanna/Sîn in the local cult of Ur.1893 The temple of the moon god, Ekišnugal, appears as the first temple in the litany, followed by the sanctuaries Enitendu, Edimana, Edimgalana, (E)itikuga, Edublamaḫ and (E)darakuga. It is plausible that all the sanctuaries named in this litany existed in Ur, since both Ekišnugal and Edublamaḫ – temple names tightly connected to the cult of the moon god specifically in Ur – are mentioned. If this is the case, the litany in SBH no. 24// reveals the names of the different sanctuaries of the moon god, some of which do not appear in other textual sources, in his home

1889

VS 17 no. 57, 8: umun É-dub-saĝ?-l[á?]-⌈maḫ⌉-[a?] (Cohen 1988, 219: umun-é-DUBSAG?-[x]-a-(x)). The reading given by Cohen is found also in George 1993, no. 206. The temple name present in this line has been taken to be É-di-ku5-maḫ on the basis of SBH no. 24, 11 (see Perry 1907, no. 8, Combe 1908, no. 5, and Cohen 1988, 211). In this form it is listed also in George 1993, no. 154. Because the corresponding line is preserved in the unpublished fragment from Nineveh (K. 18725+, 10’: umun ⌈É⌉-dub-lá-maḫ-a), it is clear that this line refers to the sanctuary É-dub-lá-maḫ in Ur (SBH no. 24, 11: a-a d Nanna umun ⌈É⌉-[du]b-lá!-maḫ-a). Therefore the name É-di-ku5-maḫ for a sanctuary of the moon god should now be discarded. 1890 VS 17 no. 57, 12: umun É-dàra-kù-ga (see Cohen 1988, 219). 1891 SBH no. 24, 14: ⌈dumu⌉-nun kur-ra (see Cohen 1988, 211). VS 17 no. 57, 14 and K. 18725+, 13’ read dumu-nun É-kur-ra (see Cohen 1988, 219 and CDLI P403847). 1892 For this name, “the totality of heavens”, for the moon god see p. 148ff. above. 1893 The depictions of the moon god as a father figure are, to a large extent, associated with his role as the pater familias in his cult city (see the discussion on p. 230ff. above).

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

335

city. On the other hand, the existence of the temples Enitendu in Babylon and Edimana in Borsippa is attested, raising questions about whether the litany should be seen as a list of the moon god’s temples and sanctuaries in the city of Ur, throughout Babylonia, or in Babylon itself.1894 The fact that Enitendu is attested in direct connection to Ekiškugal and Ur in some of the litanies in Sumerian lamentations does, however, suggest that there was indeed a sanctuary of the moon god called by this name in Ur itself, but this cannot be confirmed.1895 The temples Edimgalana, (E)itikuga, and (E)darakuga are not found in any other textual sources and therefore cannot be identified as names of particular temples or sanctuaries of Nanna/Sîn. Still, they coherently reflect some of the theological notions connected to the Mesopotamian moon god. É-dim-galan-na, “House, Great Mooring Pole of the Heavens”, is a variation of the temple name É-dim-an-na, “House, Mooring Pole of the Heavens”,1896 which must be understood in astral terms although the exact meaning eludes us. (É-)iti6-kù-ga, “(House of) the Pure Moonlight”,1897 connotes the celestial luminosity that is the essence of the moon god.1898 The temple name (É-)dàra-kù-ga, “(House of) Pure Ibex”,1899 on the other hand, can be associated with the divine names Men-dàraan-na, “Crown, Ibex of the Heavens”, and Men-dàra-dingir-ra, “Crown, Ibex of the Gods”, that are found in the god-list An = Anum and that stand in connection with the moon’s celestial appearance as well as his affinity to the wilderness.1900 The Ekišnugal temple in Ur was unearthed during the extensive excavations at the site by Leonard Woolley: it is a complex that housed not only the sanctuaries of the moon god Nanna/Sîn, but also the dwellings of other deities belonging to his household (see Fig. 15, p. 366). In general, the name Ekišnugal is used to denote the whole of this enclosed temenos area. For example, the Baby-

1894

A. R. George originally suggested that this litany does not concern the temples of the moon god in Ur, but rather in Babylon (George 1992, 308). According to him, this is implied by the presence of the temple name Edimana, Sîn’ temple in Borsippa, directly after the names Ekišnugal and Enitendu, the sanctuaries of the moon god in Babylon. Later, in George 1993, no. 159, he connects the attestation of the temple Edimana in this litany to the city of Ur. The connection of Edimana to Ur is suggested by the appearance of this temple name in the lexical list Kagal from Boghazköy, where it directly follows the temple name Edublamaḫ (MSL 13, 152: l. I 20). For Enitendu of Sîn in Babylon see p. 378ff. below, and for Edimana of Sîn in Borsippa see the p. 383ff. below. 1895 u4-dam ki àm-ús, 197 (Cohen 1988, 149); mu-tin nu-nuz dím-ma, c+376 (Cohen 1988, 242) and e-lum gu4-sún, c+250 (Cohen 1988, 311). 1896 For Edimgalana as a name of other sanctuaries or temples in Mesopotamia see George 1993, nos. 161–165. 1897 See George 1993, no. 538. 1898 See the discussion on p. 78ff. above. 1899 George 1993, no. 146. 1900 See the discussion on p. 60ff. and p. 247ff. above.

336

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

lonian king Nebuchadnezzar II often recounts how he rebuilt the Ekišnugal of Sîn in Ur, which must be seen as a reference to the renovation of the whole group of buildings.1901 Still, this name must also stand for the main sanctuary of Sîn that was located within the complex.1902 However, attempts to find its location there have not yielded reliable results. The search for the main sanctuary of Nanna/Sîn is complicated by the fact that the temenos area appears not to have housed a structure that would be suitable in size and grandeur as the temple of the main deity of the city during any of its developmental stages.1903 The absence of archeological remains for such a “Tieftempel” for the moon god has led to the conclusion that in all the attested periods, the main sanctuary of the moon god was located at the top of the ziqqurrat.1904 Such a temple may have been complemented by several smaller sanctuaries, located on the different levels of the ziqqurrat and each with specific cultic functions: in order to reach the topmost level, one would have entered a series of such structures.1905 On the other hand, Leonard Woolley and Dominique Charpin both concluded that the sanctuary of the moon god may have been located in the northwest side of the ziqqurrat during the Ur III and Old Babylonian periods.1906 The Neo-Babylonian layer on the northwest side of the ziqqurrat is badly damaged, but traces of double walls and a double gate can be identified.1907 These remains appear to correspond to the structures on the southeastern side of the ziqqurrat, thus making the area around

1901

For the building activities of Nebuchadnezzar II see the discussion on p. 340ff. below. That Ekišnugal was a specific part inside the larger temple complex in Ur is exemplified by the text UET 6/2 no. 402, which clearly sees it as a topographical focal point: the “great courtyard” (kisal-maḫ) is described to be located “opposite to Ekišnugal” (UET 6/2 no. 402, 21: ŠÀ KISAL.MAḪ me-eḫ-re-et É-kiš-nu-ĝál; see Charpin 1986, 326– 327). This use of the temple name to designate a specific part of the general temple complex is noted in Charpin 1986, 336. 1903 See Heinrich 1982, 298, who further judged that the main temple of the moon god stood on top of the ziqqurrat and that it was not necessary for a corresponding temple to have existed on the ground level. See also Hall 1985, 313. 1904 Heinrich 1982, 298. 1905 Thus the ziqqurrat would have to be understood as a temple in itself with the smaller cellas typical of the temples on the ground level scattered across the ziqqurrat’s platforms (see Allinger-Csollich 2013, 10–17). Evidence for such a sanctuary atop the first level of the ziqqurrat in Ur was found by Woolley (Allinger-Csollich 2013, 12). 1906 Woolley’s conclusion was drawn on the existence of kitchen facilities and a wall niche at the site (Woolley 1939, 31 and Pl. 68). Charpin also based his suggestion on the kitchen facilities necessary for a temple, but he supplemented the archeological information with the description of Ekišnugal’s topography in UET 6/2 no. 402 (Charpin 1986, 325–340). 1907 Woolley first thought that it had been an open space, extending from the ziqqurrat to the wall of the ziqqurrat platform, but further investigation revealed remains of the walls and the gate (Woolley 1939, 70–71 and Pl. 75). 1902

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

337

the ziqqurrat a symmetric whole. On the basis of this proposed symmetry, it is possible that the southeastern side of the ziqqurrat was the domain of the goddess Ningal – her temple being located in the south-eastern side of the ziqqurrat during this period1908 – and that the northwestern side belonged to Sîn.1909 Unfortunately, there is no archeological information that can confirm this hypothesis. For the Neo-Babylonian period, Leonard Woolley proposed the existence of the “Nannar Shrine” or “Sanctuary of Nannar” in the northern side of the ziqqurrat, opposite the building that he called the “Boat Shrine”.1910 This building, however, shows no signs typical of sacral buildings, and it, therefore, must have served some other purpose, such storage for cultic equipment.1911 As already discussed, the history of the city and the temple Ekišnugal are shrouded by the lack of both textual and archeological sources following the reign of the Kassite dynasty.1912 The long period of darkness was brought to an end by the renaissance of the city under the control of the pro-Assyrian dynasty of governors, most notably Ningal-iddin and his son Sîn-balāssu-iqbi.1913 Around the middle of the 7th century BCE, a supposed short-lived economic boom enabled Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, who was the successor of his father Ningal-iddin as the governor of Ur, to carry out extensive renovation work in the temple area. As the governor of Ur he had sufficient local power to execute – apparently under his own command – the most extensive renovation programme in the area for hundreds of years.1914 Traces of his work are found in the material remains at the site

1908

For further discussion concerning the Ningal temple see p. 349ff. below. This division of the ziqqurrat area already for the Ur III period is suggested in Hall 1985, 316–317. In earlier periods the temple of Ningal was located in connection with the Eĝipar that also was situated in the southeastern side, but outside the ziqqurrat enclosure. 1910 See Woolley 1925, 362 and Woolley 1939, 69–70 and Pl. 75. This identification was made on the basis of the fact that the Neo-Babylonian evidence for the temple of Sîn in the northwest side of the ziqqurrat was practically non-existent, and this “Sanctuary of Nannar” originated in the Neo-Babylonian period. Therefore, Woolley assumed that the new sanctuary had replaced the older one. For the “Boat Shrine”, located opposite the “Sanctuary of Nannar”, see the discussion on p. 46 above. 1911 Heinrich 1982, 298–299. 1912 See Brinkman 1965, 241–242 and Brinkman 1969, 333–335. 1913 For a brief description of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi see PNA 3/I, 1129–1130. See also Brinkman 1965, 248–253 and Dietrich 1970, 38–39, as well as Frame 1992, 98–101 and 125– 126. Sîn-balāssu-iqbi was the son of the governor Ningal-iddin, and the brother of Sîntabni-uṣur and Sîn-šarru-uṣur, both of whom succeeded him as governors of Ur. There are no attestations of his governorship earlier than 658 BCE, but it is possible that he was appointed the successor of Ningal-iddin as early as during the reign of Esarhaddon (680– 669 BCE). 1914 The fact that Sîn-balāssu-iqbi was able to carry out such a building programme under his own name indicates the lack of centralised rule in Babylonia for this period (see 1909

338

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

and also in the several inscriptions (mostly written in Sumerian) that he issued on the occasion of this building work.1915 Despite the fact that some of the inscriptions reveal that the work was done “in order to ensure the good health of Assurbanipal, mighty king (and) the king of the world”,1916 Sîn-balāssu-iqbi generally presented himself as the patron of the Ekišnugal temple.1917 He rebuilt several different sections of the temenos area, and his inscriptions record his work on the ziqqurrat and its enclosure,1918 the Edublamaḫ temple,1919 and the temple of Ningal.1920 One of his inscriptions also contains a copy of a Sumerian inscription of Amar-Suen that had been found while searching for Ekišnugal’s groundplan.1921 These references also reveal the main difference between the inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi and the next builder, Nebuchadnezzar II: whereas Nebuchadnezzar II spoke of rebuilding Ekišnugal as a temple complex, Sîn-balāssuiqbi’s inscriptions were dedications composed for individual locations within the temple complex at Ur. It is difficult to ascertain why Ur experienced prosperity at exactly this point of time in the Neo-Babylonian period, thus allowing Sîn-balāssu-iqbi to execute his extensive building project. In the 7th century BCE, the cities in southern Babylonia benefited from being located on the major trade routes, but the importance of the religious traditions in cities like Ur must also have played a part.1922 The question that cannot be fully answered is how much Assyrian influence and royal support on the part of Sargonid kings was present in Ur and other

Brinkman 1984, 18). The renovation and construction of temples in Babylonia was a royal prerogative with both religious and political implications: it was a sacred duty, which maintained the relationship between humanity and the deities, and it was used by NeoBabylonian kings to legitimise their claims to power (see Talon 1993, 423 and Schaudig 2010, 142–143). 1915 For an overview of the archaeological evidence see Brinkman 1969, 336–339 and Crawford 2015, 119. 1916 The sympathy Sîn-balāssu-iqbi had for the Assyrian king Assurbanipal, and not for Šamaš-šumu-ukīn who as the ruler of Babylonia was his actual overlord (see Brinkman 1965, 252–253; Brinkman 1984, 88; and Frame 1992, 126), is shown in the three inscriptions that mention Assurbanipal. RIMB, B.6.32.2003, 3–4 (see the citation on p. 345 below) and B.6.32.2004, 2–3 both concern the rebuilding of the ziqqurrat, and RIMB, B.6.32.2015, 4–6 commemorates the building of the well in the temple of Ningal. 1917 This title is found in the inscriptions RIMB, B.6.32.2001, 9 (ú-a É-kíš-nu6-gal) and B.6.32.2003, 8 (ú-a É-ĝiš-nu11-gal). Sîn-balāssu-iqbi uses also the title ú-a Eriduki-ga, “the provider of Eridu” (e.g. RIMB, B.6.32.2006, 5). 1918 See the discussion on p. 343ff. below. 1919 For the temple Edublamaḫ see the discussion on p. 356ff. below. 1920 The works of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi in the Ningal temple are discussed on p. 349ff. below. 1921 See RIMB, B.6.32.2016, IV 32–33. For the inscription of Amar-Suen see Steible 1991, 221–225 (Amarsuen 3). 1922 As noted in Frame 1992, 249.

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

339

cities of southern Mesopotamia.1923 There was an interest in this area at least on the behalf of Sargon II, who established freedom from debts (andurāru) in Ur, Uruk, Eridu, Larsa, Kissik, and Nēmed-Laguda, brought the stolen deities back to their cult places there, and also re-established regular offerings, which had been interrupted.1924 This was done in order to broaden the support base for the Assyrian presence in Babylonia. The same cannot be said for the other kings of the Sargonid dynasty, who make no references to the city in their inscriptions. In general, the city of Ur and its cult must not have been especially significant from the viewpoint of the Assyrian regime. Apart from the aforementioned inscriptions of Sargon II, two references to the cult of Sîn in Ur are found in the Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence. The first of these is in the letter ABL 1241+CT 54 no. 112 to Assurbanipal, written by a person loyal to the Assyrian king.1925 This letter dealt with the political situation in the southern reaches of Babylonia: the author feared the rebels who had already gained control over Eridu, Kullab, and the Gurasimmu, and therefore pleads with the king to send help to the Assyrian loyalists at Ur, Kissik, and Šātiddin. One of his arguments for receiving assistance is that the possessions of the temple of Sîn should not end up in the hands of the enemy. ABL 1241+CT 54 no. 112, r. 10–12 10 LUGAL EN-a-ni e-mu-qu a-na ki-tir ša É–DINGIR.MEŠ-šú 11 [liš]-pur NÍG.KA9 šá LUGAL.MEŠ AD.MEŠ-ka a-na d30 12 id-di-nu ŠUII lúKÚR la ta-kaš-šad [May] the king, our lord, [s]end forces to help the houses of his gods (so that) the enemy will not lay his hand on the property that the kings, your fathers, gave to Sîn. The identity of the kings who had given the said property to Sîn remains unknown, but this reference serves as evidence for direct contact of the Assyrian king with the cult of Sîn in Ur.1926 It has been suggested that it was Esarhaddon who made these donations,1927 but they may also have been donated by Sargon II in connection with the establishment of andurāru for Ur. Another similar letter to Assurbanipal, ABL 1246+CT 54 no. 486, speaks of cultic paraphernalia 1923

The possibility that Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s building project was supported by Assyrian resources is suggested in Brinkman 1984, 88–89. 1924 See Fuchs 1994, 169 and 335 (Ann. 373–378); Brinkman 1984, 22–23; and Frame 1992, 35. 1925 See Dietrich 1970, 200–203 (nos. 155–156) and Frame 1992, 164–165. 1926 Brinkman 1965, 252. 1927 See Holloway 2002, 368. Esarhaddon certainly was politically active in the area, since he helped to relieve the city of Ur from a siege by the Elamite-Chaldean alliance (see Brinkman 1984, 72).

340

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

donated to the goddess Ningal, Sîn’s spouse. The enemies of Assyria threaten to take these items away, but the citizens of Ur refuse to give them into their hands.1928 The objects included a table (gišBANŠUR), a golden wild bull (re-e-mu KÙ.GI),1929 and a mirror of gold (na-ma-ri KÙ.GI).1930 Whether these cultic objects were of interest to the Assyrian king because they were donated by the Assyrians, or because by taking these possessions away the enemies were committing a grave misdeed towards Sîn, Ningal, and the city of Ur while under Assyrian protection, remains unknown. After the end of the pro-Assyrian gubernatorial dynasty at Ur, the sources concerning the temple of the moon god fall silent until the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562 BCE) renovated the temple complex. The textual sources for his building activities are less detailed and informative than the ones left behind by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi and Nabonidus, and it is understandable that he did not show as great an interest in the renovations at Ur as the aforementioned rulers: the rebuilding of the city and its temples was merely one part of his extensive building projects in Babylonia. The place of Ur and Ekišnugal in the building programme of Nebuchadnezzar II is reflected in the frequent references to them in his inscriptions which reported the building work that had been done in the temple complexes of important Babylonian cities. In these lists of temples and the cities in which they are located, Ekišnugal and Ur are always situated at the end, most probably due to the geographical location of the city, set in the furthest reaches of the southern Babylonian territory. 5 R 34, II 28–381931 28 É-babbar-ra É dUTU ša ZIMBIRki 29 É-dúr-gi-na É dLUGAL-ÁSAL 30 ša uruBa-aṣki 31 É-i-bí-dA-num É dUraš 32 ša Dil-batki 33 É-an-na É dIš-tar ša UNUGki

1928

For a partial edition of ABL 1246+ see Dietrich 1970, 186–187 (nos. 122–123). See also Holloway 2002, 316–317 (no. 35). This letter was sent between 652–648 BCE. 1929 Dietrich 1970, 186–187 reads [gišpa]ššūr rēmu, “Tisch der Erbarmung”. The more likely translation of rēmu is “wild bull” (see the attestations of rīmu/rēmu in AHw, 986). A cultic object in the form of a bull is most suitable for the spouse of the moon god, who was closely associated with cattle. 1930 ABL 1246+CT 54 no. 486, 3’–11’. 1931 Langdon 1912, Nr. 1 II 28–38. For this inscription see also Berger 1973, 285–286 (Nebukadnezar Zylinder III, 3) and Da Riva 2008, 121 (C33). See also the similar accounts of building work in Langdon 1912, Nr. 13 II 59–71 (= Berger 1973, 292 [Nebukadnezar Zylinder III/7]; Da Riva 2008, 121 [C37]); and Langdon 1912, Nr. 20 III 4–22 (= Berger 1973, 293–294 [Nebukadnezar Zylinder III, 8]; Da Riva 2008, 121 [C38]).

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

341

34 É-babbar-ra É dUTU ša ARARMAki 35 É-kiš-nu-ĝál É d+EN.ZU ša Úriki 36 e-eš-re-e-ti DINGIR.GAL.GAL 37 e-eš-še-iš e-pú-uš-ma 38 ú-ša-ak-li-il ši-pí-ir-ši-in I built anew Ebabbar, the house of Šamaš in Sippar; Edurgina, the house of Bēl-ṣarbi in Baṣ; E-ibbi-Anum, the house of Uraš in Dilbat; Eana, the house of Ištar in Uruk; Ebabbara, the house of Šamaš in Larsa (and) Ekišnugal, the house of Sîn in Ur, the sanctuaries of the great gods, and I completed their (construction) work. In addition to the references to Ur and Ekišnugal in these inscriptions, there is also one brick inscription found at Ur that commemorated the rebuilding of Ekišnugal by Nebuchadnezzar II. UET 1 no. 1841932 d 1 AG–NÍG.DU–ÙRU LUGAL KÁ.DINGIR.RAki 2 za-nin É-saĝ-íl ù É-zi-da 3 IBILA SAG.KAL ša dAG–IBILA–ÙRU 4 LUGAL KÁ.MINki É-kiš-nu-ĝál 5 É d30 šá qé-reb Úriki 6 a-na d30 EN-ia lu e!-pu-uš I, Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, the provider of Esaĝil and Ezida, the foremost heir of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, verily built Ekišnugal, the house of Sîn in Ur for Sîn, my lord. These references to Sîn’s Ekišnugal temple by Nebuchadnezzar II are minimal and do not offer any details about the different parts of the temple complex despite the extensive restorations and alterations that can be seen in the archeological remains there. What Nebuchadnezzar II left behind was a temenos area that measured approximately 400×240 meters, with six gates altogether, and housed the ziqqurrat of the moon god.1933 From the magnitude of the archeological record, it is clear that Nebuchadnezzar II indeed built the temple complex in Ur anew – like the other Babylonian temples listed in the inscriptions – after it had fallen into decay only a few decades after the renovations executed by the local

1932

Langdon 1912, Nr. 35. See also Berger 1973, 204 (Nebukadnezar Backstein B I, 2), Walker 1981, 78–79 (No. 97), and Da Riva 2008, 117 (B10). 1933 See Woolley 1962, 1 and 3–4 and Crawford 2015, 120–126. Among the alterations to the temenos area by Nebuchadnezzar II was also the remodelling of the temple Agrunmaḫ of Ningal (see p. 304ff. above).

342

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi.1934 Among the aforementioned laconic references to the renovation work, the temple Ekišnugal and the moon god are presented in two inscriptions in a way that is highly significant for understanding the possible theological framework for the activities of the Babylonian king at Ur. First, in the account of building activities in the Wadi Brissa rock inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II, the moon god of Ur is portrayed as a god responsible for the fortuitous character of omens. Da Riva 2012, WBC VIII 14–161935 14 a-na d30 EN mu-dam-mi-i[q Á].MEŠ-ia 15 É-ĝiš-nu11-gal É-su i-na ⌈qé⌉-⌈reb⌉ ⌈Úri⌉⌈ki⌉ 16 e-eš-ši-iš e-pu-uš For Sîn, the Lord, who makes my omens propitious, I built anew Ekišnugal, his house at Ur. There is no misinterpreting this description: the power over the divine decisions made manifest in lunar omens was one of the central traits of Sîn.1936 Furthermore, because of to the significance of lunar omens, especially lunar eclipses, for the Mesopotamian king this aspect of the moon god was directly linked to the exercise of kingship and royal ideology.1937 A further reference to Ekišnugal and Sîn in a cylinder inscription of Nebuchaznezzar II indeed depicts the moon god as a divine protector of kingship. 1 R 65, II 44–451938 44 É-kiš-nu-ĝál ša Úriki a-na d+EN.ZU EN 45 na-ra-am šar-ru4-ti-ia e-eš-ši-iš e-pú-uš I built anew Ekišnugal of Ur for Sîn, the Lord, who loves my kingship. Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar II’s acknowledgement of Sîn’s sovereignty over propitious signs sent by the gods to the king and description of him as a god “who loves my kingship” is a clear reference to the moon god’s significance in Mesopotamian royal ideology. Shortly after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, king Nabonidus (555–539 1934

The archeological data shows that the walls surrounding the temple area were in a state of decay when Nebuchadnezzar II started working at the site, but there were also traces of possible restoration work done by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi (Woolley 1962, 3–4). 1935 For the previous edition see Langdon 1912, Nr. 19 VIII 14–16. See also Berger 1973, 316–318 and Da Riva 2008, 122 (WBC). 1936 See the discussion on p. 150ff. above. 1937 For the moon god’s significance for the Mesopotamian kings see p. 196ff. above. 1938 Langdon 1912, Nr. 9 II 44–45. See also Berger 1973, 287–288 (Nebukadnezar Zylinder III, 4) and Da Riva 2008, 121 (C34).

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

343

BCE) rose to the throne of Babylonia. Despite the relatively short period of time that had passed since Nebuchadnezzar II’s renovation project, Nabonidus too executed building work in the temple complex Ekišnugal. Not only did he leave a permanent mark in the city by his building programme, but he was also the last native Mesopotamian ruler to do work in the Ekišnugal. After him, the Persian king Cyrus followed the tradition of rebuilding temples, but only a little evidence of his work survives in Ur.1939 According to the account given in his inscriptions, Nabonidus had already directed his attention towards Ur during the second year of his reign by reinstalling the entu-priestess for the cult of Sîn and simultaneously rebuilding the giparu.1940 The veneration of Sîn on Nabonidus’ part and the benefits that it brought to the Ekišnugal temple are illustrated by the short passage in the E’igikalama Cylinder in connection with the consecration of En-niĝaldi-Nanna as the entu-priestess of the moon god. Schaudig 2001, 2.5, II 8–12 II 8 a-na d30 EN GAL-ú a-ši-ib É-kiš-nu-ĝál šá qé-reb Úriki II 9 sa-at-tuk-ki-šu ú-ṭa-aḫ-ḫi-id-ma ú-šar-ri-ḫu ni-id-bé-e-šú II 10 aš-te-né-’e-e-ma aš-ri-šu a-ba-lu be-lu-ut-su II 11 a-na e-ri-iš-ti i-ri-ša-an-ni ap-làḫ at-ta-’i-id-ma II 12 e-ri-iš-ta-šu la ak-la-am-ma am-gu-ru qí-bit-su For Sîn, great lord who lives in Ekišnugal in Ur, I made his regular offerings copious and I made his cereal offerings splendid. I visit assiduously his place, I supplicate to his lordship. I revered and heeded the wish he expressed to me, and I did not deny his desire but complied with his order. This was the first phase of Nabonidus’ building activities at Ur. The second phase, during which he restored the ziqqurrat and Agrunmaḫ, took place after his return from Tayma, probably during the 16th or 17th year of his reign.1941 Otherwise his inscriptions do not name any actions carried out in Ekišnugal, although the archaeological evidence for his building activities is abundant on the site.

III.1.2. The Ziqqurrat Elugalĝalgasisa The dominating element of the Ekišnugal complex was the ziqqurrat of the moon god which rose upward into the heavens in the western part of the temenos area.1942 This ziqqurrat and its restoration received considerable atten1939

For the archaeological remains of the Persian period see Woolley 1962, 2 and 49–51 as well as Crawford 2015, 129–130. 1940 See the discussion on p. 360ff. below. 1941 Beaulieu 1989, 42. 1942 The ziqqurrat in Ur can be traced back to the reign of Ur-Namma (2112–2095 BCE), the first ruler of the Ur III dynasty. For an overview of the ziqqurrat during this early period see Heinrich 1982, 154–155 and Crawford 2015, 83–87.

344

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

tion in the inscriptions of the local governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi and the Babylonian king Nabonidus. Although Nabonidus did not acknowledge Sîn-balāssu-iqbi as a former builder of the ziqqurrat in his inscriptions, but rather referred to the prestigious Sumerian rulers Ur-Namma and Šulgi,1943 a connection between these two Babylonian builders can be established through the name that they both used for the rebuilt ziqqurrat. In the earlier sources, deriving from the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE, the name of the moon god’s ziqqurrat in Ur is Étemen-ní-gùr-(ru), “House, Foundation Platform Clad in Terror”.1944 Whether this name stood for the complete ziqqurrat or only the ziqqurrat terrace remains unclear, although the absence of other names for the ziqqurrat in connection with the building activities of Ur III kings or later rulers in Ur can be taken as an indication that this name designated the ziqqurrat itself.1945 It is, however, possible that the ziqqurrat in Ur already had a name other than Etemenniguru before it was renovated by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi and Nabonidus: É-aga-du7-du7, “House of the Butting Crown”.1946 This name is attested in a litany of sanctuaries of the moon god, however it does not reveal the nature of the building it designated.1947 That this may have been the name of the ziqqurrat is suggested by the appearance of the name É-šu-gán-du7-du7 – perhaps a corrupted form of the name Éaga-du7-du7 due to the similarity of the signs – in a lexical list deriving from Nineveh.1948 Still, this name does not appear in any of the building inscriptions left behind the various rulers who rebuilt the ziqqurrat. Considering that the two names for the temple already existed, it is remarkable that a completely new appellation emerges in the inscriptions of Sînbalāssu-iqbi, who was the first to use the name É-lugal-ĝalga-si-sá, “House of 1943

See Schaudig 2001, 2.2, I 1–II 2 and Schaudig 2003, 478–482. George 1993, no. 1090. 1945 The name Etemenniguru is interpreted as the name of the ziqqurrat in Charpin 1986, 333. In George 1993, no. 1090 the name Etemenniguru is taken to only refer to the ziqqurrat platform on which the ziqqurrat Elugalĝalgasisa, or E’agadudu, stood. See also Schaudig 2003, 479 note 177 for detailed references for the use of the name Etemenniguru and how it has been understood by different scholars. 1946 George 1993, no. 47. In this connection it should be noted that the Akkadian equivalent nakāpu for the verb du7, “to thrust; gore”, is used in transferred meaning to describe a plant with branches that “butt” the sky, i.e. they reach towards the heavens (see CAD N/ 1, 157). A similar expression is also attested in the context of lunar eclipses (see Rochberg-Halton 1988, 205 line 5). For a discussion of the crown in connection with the moon and the moon god see p. 60ff. above. 1947 BL 27, 8’: [É]-aga-du7-du7. The sanctuaries listed here appear to be connected to Ur. 1948 K. 2053a+K. 4337, IV 18: É-šu-gán-du7-du7 MIN(= ziqqurratum) Úriki (see George 1993, 46 and no. 1057). The existence of this second name for the ziqqurrat in Ur was already noted in Combe 1908, 70. Due to the prominent position of the city Dūr-Kurigalzu in this list, A. R. George has suggested that the text may have been composed during the Kassite period (George 1993, 45). 1944

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

345

the King of Righteous Counsel”.1949 Two different inscriptions of Sîn-balāssuiqbi containing this name for the ziqqurrat were found stamped on bricks in Ur.1950 RIMB, B.6.32.2003 d Nanna lugal an-ki-a 1 2 zi nam-ti-la-šè 3 AN.ŠÁR–DÙ–IBILA-šè 4 lugal lugal-e-ne lugal-a-ni d 30–TIN-su–iq-bi 5 6 šakkan6 Úriki-ma 7 Eriduki-ga-ke4 8 ú-a É-ĝiš-nu11-gal 9 èš abzu zálag-ga-ke4 10 É-lugal-ĝalga-si-sá 11 é ki-áĝ-ĝá-ni 12 gibil-bi mu-un-na-dù For Nanna, king of heaven and earth, in order to ensure the good health of Assurbanipal, king of kings, his lord, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, viceroy of Ur and Eridu, the provider of Ekišnugal, the shining shrine of the apsû, built anew Elugalĝalgasisa, his beloved house. As the phrase “I built anew for him” (line 12) indicates, the work done by Sînbalāssu-iqbi included the rebuilding of the ziqqurrat, as opposed to mere restoration work.1951 The reference to a structure with the name Elugalĝalgasisa here is still ambiguous: it does not identify the nature of the building other than designating it the “beloved house” of the moon god. This remains unclear until five lines of a brick inscription of Nabonidus are taken into consideration: in this inscription Elugalĝalgasisa is outlined very clearly as the ziqqurrat of Ekišnugal. Schaudig 2001, 1.7, 1–5 d NÀ–I LUGAL Eki 1 2 za-nin Úriki 3 É-lugal-ĝalga-si-sá

1949

This translation is in line with the German translation “Haus des Königs des recht(leitend)en Rates” in Schaudig 2002, 637–638. The translation given in George 1993, no. 706 is “House of the King who Lets Counsel Flourish”. 1950 In addition to RIMB, B.6.32.2003 cited here, inscription B.3.32.2004 also relates to the matter. It should be noted that both of these inscriptions include the phrase that refers to the well-being of Assurbanipal, the overlord of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi. 1951 Pointed out already in Schaudig 2003, 480 note 181.

346

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

4 ziq-qur-rat É-ĝiš-nu-ĝál 5 ud-diš-ma ana KI-šú GUR Nabonidus, king of Babylon, provider of Ur: I have renewed and restored Elugalĝalgasisa, the ziqqurrat of Ekišnugal. This definition is repeated in an inscription of Nabonidus found on several cylinders among the ruins of the ziqqurrat (Elugalĝalgasisa Cylinder).1952 Despite the way in which the glorious past of the ziqqurrat is brought forward by Nabonidus through references to the prestigious rulers of the Ur III dynasty, the age-old name of the ziqqurrat, Etemenniguru, is not used in this context.1953 Since the earliest, and only, attestations for the name Elugalĝalgasisa derive from this Neo-Babylonian context, it is reasonable to postulate a Neo-Babylonian origin for it. This name was adopted by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, perhaps to distinguish the actual ziqqurrat from the platform area and the walled enclosure surrounding it.1954 This hypothesis is supported by his two inscriptions that report the rebuilding of the structure called by the name Etemenniguru.1955 Both of these inscriptions were found in situ in the area outside the ziqqurrat enclosure, which in itself indicates that the entity called Etemenniguru was unlikely to be the ziqqurrat itself. The inscription found in Edublamaḫ speaks of the “forgotten gates” of Etemenniguru, referring to Edublamaḫ’s former function as the gate leading to the ziqqurrat enclosure.1956 The second inscription, commemorating the building of Etemenniguru, is written on a foundation cone found against the wall of the gateway to the ziqqurrat enclosure in the courtyard located between the main gate of the temple complex and the ziqqurrat enclosure.1957 RIMB, B.6.32.2002 d Suen an-na 1 2 piriĝ diĝir-re-⌈e⌉-ne

1952

Edited in Schaudig 2001, 2.2. That the name Etemenniguru used by the Neo-Sumerian rulers is not repeated by Nabonidus shows that this inscription of his cannot have been based on inscriptions left behind by them (Schaudig 2003, 479–480). See Schaudig 2001, 2.2, I 1–9: “Nabû-na’id, der König von Babil, der Versorger von Esangil und Ezida, der die großen Götter fürchtet, bin ich. Elugalmalgasisa, den Stufenturm von Egišnugal, welches in Ur (gelegen), den Urnammu, ein König früherer Zeit, gebaut, aber nicht vollendet hat, – Šulgi, sein Sohn, hat die Arbeit daran vollendet.” 1954 As suggested in Schaudig 2003, 480 note 181. 1955 RIMB, B.6.32.2001 and B.6.32.2002. 1956 See the citation of the inscription RIMB, B.6.32.2001 on p. 358 below. 1957 So-called “Court of Nannar” (see Fig. 15 on p. 366 above). The presence of this cone led Woolley to note that perhaps this courtyard also was a part of the area called Etemenniguru (Woolley 1939, 95). 1953

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

347

3 lugal dEn-líl-e-ne 4 lugal-a-ni-ir I.d EN.ZU–TI.LA.BI–DU11.GA 5 6 šakkan6 7 Úriki-ma 8 dumu I.dNin-gal–SUM.MA 9 šakkan6 10 Úriki-ma 11 É-temen-ní-gùr-ru 12 é ki-áĝ-ĝá-na 13 gibil-bi 14 in-na-dù For Sîn of heaven, the lion of the gods, the king of the Enlil-gods, his king, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, viceroy of Ur, son of Ningal-iddin, viceroy of Ur, built anew Etemenniguru, his beloved house. Contrary to the evidence preserved in Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s inscriptions, the name Etemenniguru is not known to have been used by Nabonidus. What led to the renaming of the ziqqurrat, presumably during the middle point of the 7th century BCE? Why was the ziqqurrat no longer called by the name Etemenniguru, as it had been by its first builder Ur-Namma, or by the name E’agadudu which was used in the liturgical and lexical tradition? Although an exact reason cannot, of course, be given, the theological framework found in the inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi and the broader scope of theological ideas about the moon god allow an interpretation to be made of the possible development that took place around this time in Ur. The picture painted by the inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi clearly presents the moon god as a king: not only is the moon god the “king of heaven and earth”, but also the “king of the Enlil(god)s”.1958 These epithets contain the twofold message that the moon god was the most significant cosmic deity and also was the supreme head of the pantheon. The way that the moon god takes over the role of Enlil as the king of the gods in Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s inscriptions is conspicuous, and the same phenomenon can also be later seen in the inscriptions of Nabonidus.1959 This appropriation 1958

The moon god is addressed as the king of heaven and earth in RIMB, B.6.32.2003, 1 (see the citation on p. 345 above). The epithet “king of the Enlil-gods” for the moon god is present in almost every single inscription of Sîn-balāssi-iqbi: RIMB, B.6.32.2001, 3; B.6.32.2002, 3; B.6.32.2006, 1; B.6.32.2007, 1; B.6.32.2008, 1; B.6.32.2009, 1; B.6.32.2010, 1; B.6.32.2011, 1; B.6.32.2012, 1; and B.6.32.2013, 1. See also the summary of these epithets in Schaudig 2002, 630. 1959 This development was already noted in Frame 1995, 235 and (although sceptically) in George 1997, 69. The theological implications of renaming the ziqqurrat by Sîn-balāssuiqbi and the adoption of this name by Nabonidus have been discussed – with the same

348

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

is not only apparent in the use of this epithet, but also in the presence of Nippurian deities in the temple of Ningal, and the equation of Ningal herself with Ninlil, Enlil’s wife.1960 Therefore, the moon god as the divine king was likely the king referred to in ziqqurrat’s new name: “House of the King of Righteous Counsel”. The connection between the ziqqurrat in Ur and the cult of Enlil in Nippur is also delicately expressed by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi. In the inscription written on the door socket of Edublamaḫ, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi utters the wish that the doors he had made may stand forever there in the “doorway of Esaĝdili”.1961 Since, in this context, this doorway is clearly understood to be the old gateway to the ziqqurrat enclosure, it is possible to see the name É-saĝ-dili as an epithet of the ziqqurrat (enclosure) itself, not of the sanctuary Edublamaḫ in which the door was standing. This is a crucial point for the possible interpretation of the use of this name, since É-saĝ-dili is not just any “house of secrets”, but it is the name of the ziqqurrat of Enlil in Nippur.1962 By using this name in addition to the newly introduced name Elugalĝalgasisa to designate the ziqqurrat in Ur, Sînbalāssu-iqbi once again brought forth the central theological notion found in his texts: in Ur, the moon god is Enlil, the king of the gods and the cosmos.1963 In the name Elugalĝalgasisa, reference to the righteous counsel that is given by the king, i.e. the moon god, must be primarily understood in terms of the celestial omens. The significance of astral knowledge in the form of divination in Mesopotamia in the 1st millennium BCE was inarguably immense.1964 In particular, lunar omens were directly linked to kingship; they revealed matters that were of significance to the king and his country. The advice given by the king of the night sky, the moon god, to the earthly king in Assyria or in Babylonia was essential for planning the future according to the will of the gods. The moon god’s importance can be observed especially in connection with the last Neo-Assyrian rulers, who demonstrated an interest in the Ḫarranian moon god.1965 Because of the moon god’s to the importance in Assyria during this period, it has also been suggested that the development seen in Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s inscriptions was the result of an undeniable Assyrian presence in Ur.1966 This suggestion re-

conclusions as here – in Schaudig 2002, 637–638. See also p. 196ff. above. 1960 See the discussion on p. 349ff. below. 1961 RIMB, B.6.32.2001, 29 (see the citation of the text on p. 358 below). 1962 George 1993, no. 956. 1963 Similar exaltations of the city god can be observed e.g. in Sippar, the cult city of the sun god Šamaš (see Maul 1999b, 285–316 for liturgical evidence and Da Riva 2010, 45– 61 for Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions). 1964 See the discussion concerning the moon god as a sign-giver on p. 156ff. above. 1965 The attention the Sargonid kings showed towards the moon god of Ḫarrān was closely associated with the notion of kingship (see the discussion on p. 196ff. above). 1966 This local phenomenon is considered to be the result of Assyrian influence in Schaudig 2002, 638.

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

349

mains plausible, but it cannot be confirmed. It is more likely that the theological notion of the moon god as Enlil, the king of the gods, was a local phenomenon, tied to the status of the moon god as the “local Enlil”. This is also connected to his aspect as a father-figure in his role as the tutelary deity of the city. On the other hand, the association of the moon god with Enlil may also have been connected to the theological notion equating the moon god with the deities Anu, Ea, and Enlil during the first half of the lunar cycle (equation to Enlil during the full moon).1967 In this context the association of the moon with the aforementioned deities is connected to their role as divine decision makers as well as deities responsible for the three different cosmic regions.

III.1.3. The Temple of Ningal The spouse of the moon god, the goddess Ningal, occupied her own sphere in the temple complex Ekišnugal. This was the temple known by the name Agrunkù, “Sacred Bed-chamber”.1968 In the Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, the Agrunku of Ningal appears side by side with the Ekišnugal temple of Nanna/ Sîn,1969 and Ningal herself spoke of it, calling it the “house of my queenship”.1970 During the 1st millennium BCE, Ningal’s temple was located on the southeastern side of the ziqqurrat, directly adjacent to the wall that formed the temenos enclosure (see Fig. 15, p. 366 above), where it had been relocated by the Kassite king Kurigalzu.1971 According to the archaeological evidence, this Kassite temple was levelled by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, who then proceeded to build a new temple

1967

For the association of the moon god with not only Enlil, but also with Anu and Ea, see the discussion on p. 136ff. above. 1968 See George 1993, no. 345 with the transliteration É-gar6-kù. Whether this temple name should be read É-gar6-kù or Agrun-kù has been a topic of discussion (Caplice 1973, 300 note 5, Weadock 1975, 117–118, Charpin 1986, 212–213; and Michalowski 1989, 106). I have chosen to use the reading Agrun-kù based on the attestations of the epithet nin-agrun-na, “lady of the bed-chamber”, in bilingual texts, which have the Akkadian equivalent bēlet agarunni. Also another sanctuary of Ningal in the giparu is known from Old Babylonian sources: É-íd-lú-ru-gú-kalam-ma, “House of the River Ordeal of the Land” (see George 1993, no. 509). It is suspected that this sanctuary was connected to the sacred marriage ritual, because the name is attested also in the context of the sacred marriage ritual between Inanna and Dumuzi (see Weadock 1975, 118 and Charpin 1986, 213). The earliest discussion concerning the temple of Ningal in Ur can be found in Combe 1908, 67–69. 1969 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, 13–16 (Samet 2014, 54–55). 1970 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, 113: nu-nuz-ĝen agrun-kù é na-áĝ-ga-šanan-na-ĝu10, “To me, the woman in Agrunkug, my house of queenship” (Samet 2014, 60– 61). 1971 For an overview see Heinrich 1982, 319–321. During the earlier periods (Early Dynastic, Ur III, Isin-Larsa, and Old Babylonian) the Ningal temple had been a part of the giparu-building outside the ziqqurrat enclosure (Weadock 1975, 111).

350

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

with a modified ground plan.1972 This temple was later renovated by Nabonidus, who, however, does not mention it in his inscriptions. Although the Sumerian literary tradition provides many attestations of the “pure bed-chamber” of Ningal as an actual location and there are many records of its reconstruction by rulers of earlier periods,1973 this temple of the goddess is rarely mentioned in the textual record of the Neo-Babylonian period. A reference to the temple is made only once in an inscription celebrating the fashioning of a statue of Ningal – an event that likely took place in connection with the modifications made to the temple by the governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi. RIMB, B.6.32.2014, 1–17 d Nin-gal un-gal 1 2 É-ĝiš-nu11-gal d Nin-men-na ki-áĝ-ĝá 3 4 Úriki-ma nin-a-ni-ir I.d EN.ZU–TIN-su–iq-bi 5 6 šakkan6 Úriki-ma 7 ĝi6-pàr é dNin-líl-le 8 ĝidlam ki-áĝ-ĝá d EN.ZU 9 10 gibil-bi mu-na-dù 11 alam níĝ-dím-dím-ma d Nin-gal-ke4 u-me-ni-dím 12 13 šà é diĝir ḪU-dù-šè 14 u-mu-un-ku4-ku4 15 agrun-ta 16 ki-tuš nam-en-na-ni dù 17 bí-in-ri-a For Ningal, queen of Ekišnugal, Lady of the Crown, beloved of Ur, his lady, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, viceroy of Ur, built anew the giparu, the house of Ninlil, beloved wife of Sîn. After he constructed a statue, an image of Ningal, and brought it into the house of the wise god, she took up residence in the bedchamber, (which was) built (to be) her lordly abode. Even this inscription, which was written on 13 clay nails deposited below the walls and the pavement of the Ningal temple,1974 refrains from using the temple

1972

Woolley 1939, 60; Heinrich 1982, 320; and Crawford 2015, 123. See the attestations listed in George 1993, no. 345. 1974 Woolley 1939, 63–64 (Fig. 4.). The clay nails had been laid along the regular wall and the U-shaped wall that apparently surrounded the statue of the goddess Ningal. For the deposit of these nails see Ellis 1968, 83 note 237. The clay nail as a medium for an in1973

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

351

name that is known from literary sources: the noun ĝi6-pàr (Akk. giparu) for the temple of Ningal is used here instead of the name Agrun-kù.1975 A sanctuary of Ningal with the name Ĝi6-pàr-kù, “Pure Giparu-House”, is known from the inscriptions of Ur-Namma and Amar-Suen, and it is therefore possible to see the use of the ĝi6-pàr as a reference to the past when Ningal’s temple was still located in connection with the residence of the entu-priestess.1976 Still, the exact implications for its use in this context remain unclear. Due to the absence of a giparu for the priestess in Ur in this period, it is unlikely that the noun designated the actual giparu as it had in the past, leading us to conclude that ĝi6-pàr is used here as a general term for a dwelling place of deities.1977 It should, however, be noted that this could also be a reflection of the Ḫarranian cult of the moon god, transmitted to Ur by the Assyrian overlords of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi: the É-ĝi6-pàr of Ningal in Ḫarrān is the only contemporary sanctuary bearing this name. This kind of syncretism between Ningal of Ur and Ningal of Ḫarrān is possible and it does not necessarily conflict with the local theological tradition in the city. A significant element in the clay nail inscription of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi is the obvious syncretism between Ningal and Ninlil, Enlil’s wife. Although in earlier studies the use of this name was understood to be an epithet meaning “a supreme goddess”,1978 the association between the moon god and Enlil in the other inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi allows us to take this name literally: in Ur, Sîn was the king of gods, Enlil, and consequently his wife Ningal was Ninlil, Enlil’s wife.1979 This notion is also supported by the clay cylinder inscription of Sînbalāssu-iqbi, in which the goddess Ningal is described as the mother of the gods, as well as the dedicatory inscriptions left behind by Sargon II, Assurbanipal, and Nabonidus.1980 In addition to her own sanctuary, Ningal’s temple contained several shrines. This is evident on the basis of a fragmentary excerpt of a list that may describe

scription is anachronistic in the Neo-Babylonian period, and it certainly is a consciously archaising feature. As pointed out by J. Taylor in his presentation at the 62nd Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Philadelphia, 2016), the way the cones were deposited suggests that they were likened to cylinder inscriptions as objects. 1975 For a discussion of the set of problems concerning this inscription see Brinkman 1969, 337–338 note 2 and Frame 1995, 243–244. 1976 Steible 1991, 112–113 (Urnammu 19) and Steible 1991, 242–243 (Amarsuen 13). See also George 1993, no. 385. Note also the use of the Akkadian epithet kummu ellu for the Eĝipar of En-niĝaldi-Nanna (Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 39: i-nu-šu É-ĝi6-pàr ku-um-mi el-lu a-šar pa-ra-aṣ e-nu-tì uš-tak-la-lu qé-reb-šu, “At that time: Eĝipar, the sacred bed-chamber, the place in which the cultic ordinances of the entu-priestess are fulfilled”). 1977 See the examples for this use of the noun given in Brinkman 1969, 337–338 note 2. 1978 Brinkman 1969, 337 note 2. 1979 Noted already in Frame 1995, 243–244. 1980 See the nature of the goddess Ningal in these sources is discussed on p. 296ff. above.

352

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

the shrines in the temple area of Ekišnugal.1981 In this list, the “seats” (šubtu) bearing names Ki-du10-ga, “Lovely Place”, and É-en-nu-ĝá-ĝá, “House which Appoints the Watch”, are mentioned, the latter one being located in the Agrunkù of Ningal. The existence of several shrines within the temple is also suggested by the bricks found in its well and commemorating the building of a number of shrines for the moon god and for Nippurian deities by the governor Sînbalāssu-iqbi. Unfortunately, the exact location, size, or form of these shrines is unknown since these bricks constitute their only remaining archaeological evidence. Their inscriptions refer to seats (ki-tuš) or stations (ki-gub) of the deities.1982 Likewise, the brick inscriptions offer the only information regarding the deities who were connected to these shrines and who, therefore, most likely resided in the temple of Ningal.1983 Two of the shrines were dedicated to the moon god himself: É-an-šár, “House of all Heaven”,1984 and É-šà-du10-ga, “House which Pleases the Heart”.1985 RIMB, B.6.32.2011, 1–8 d Nanna lugal dEn-líl-e-ne 1 2 lugal-a-ni I.d EN.ZU–TI.LA.BI–DU11.GA 3 4 šakkan6 Úriki-ma 5 ú-a Eriduki-ga 6 É-an-šár 7 ki-tuš nam-lugal-la-ni 8 mu-na-dù

1981

UET 7 no. 136, 4’–8’. See George 1992, 202–203 as well as George 1993, no. 590 and George 1993, no. 246 respectively. 1982 For differing opinions concerning the form of these shrines, see e.g. George 1993, no. 81 where these bricks are taken to be representations of seats and socles for the deities named, and Schaudig 2002, 630 note 49 where it is presumed that these bricks were actually used as part of the shrines for the deities mentioned in the inscriptions. It is clear that the bricks themselves had not been used as building material for the shrines present in the Ningal temple, but they were laid in the well to symbolise the presence of these deities there. This is suggested by the presence of only a single brick to each minor deity in this group, and three to five bricks with the dedication to the gods Enlil and Nanna/Sîn (see the catalogue of the exemplars in connection with the text editions in RIMB). A case that bears resemblance to this one is known from Kalḫu, where bricks bearing an inscription of Assurnaṣirpal II were found in the well of the Sebettu temple (see Wiseman 1953, 149 and Hibbert 1982, 256). The exact reason for this action and the meaning of the presence of the deities in the well needs further investigation. 1983 This conclusion was presented already in Woolley 1925, 368. 1984 George 1993, no. 81. 1985 George 1993, no. 1013.

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

353

For Nanna, king of the Enlil-gods, his lord, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, viceroy of Ur (and) provider of Eridu, built E’anšar, the abode of his kingship. RIMB, B.6.32.2012, 1–8 d Nanna lugal dEn-líl-e-ne 1 2 lugal-a-ni I.d EN.ZU–TI.LA.BI–DU11.GA 3 4 šakkan6 Úriki-ma 5 ú-a Eriduki-ga 6 É-šà-du10-ga 7 ki-tuš nam-den-líl-a-ni 8 mu-na-dù For Nanna, king of the Enlil-gods, his lord, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, viceroy of Ur (and) provider of Eridu, built Ešaduga, the abode of his Enlil-ship. While the temple name Ešaduga does not bear any conspicuous connection to the theological notions of the moon god, the name E’anšar can certainly be attached to the appellation “lord Anšar”, attested for the moon god in Sumerian prayers and lamentations.1986 The existence of this appellation in the Sumerian liturgical texts also suggests that its meaning here should be taken literally, representing the moon god as the lord of the entire heaven. It is certainly possible to see this name as a reference to the Assyrian main god Aššur,1987 but its basic meaning underlines the function of the moon god as the supreme celestial deity and the moon as the supreme celestial body ruling all of the heavens. In a cosmic sense, the entirety of the heavens is a counterpart of the earth, for which Enlil, or the moon god as Enlil, is responsible.1988 In addition to these two shrines of the moon god himself, shrines of seven other deities are named: É-ušumgal-an-na, “House of the Dragon of Heaven”,1989 the station of Ninkasi1990

1986

This appellation is attested in the bilingual šu’ila-prayer 4 R2 9+//, 2 (see the citation on p. 147 above) as well as in the lamentations e-lum di-da-ra (Cohen 1988, 180: line b+88; see also the citation on p. 148 above) and an-na e-lum-e (SBH no. 24, 3; see the transliteration with further bibliographical information on p. 333 above). 1987 This name has been seen as proof for the possible Assyrian influence behind Sînbalāssu-iqbi’s innovations in Schaudig 2002, 630. 1988 See the discussion on p. 136ff. above. 1989 RIMB, B.6.32.2005, 6–7: É-ušumgal-an-na / ⌈ki⌉-gub dNin-ka-si-ke4. See also George 1993, no. 1214. This brick was not found in the well, but in a wall in the Ningal temple. It should be noted that dUšum-gal-an-na is one of the moon god’s names in the god-list fragment K. 4559 (CT 25, pl. 42), 6’. 1990 For an overview of Ninkasi, the goddess of beer and brewery, see Krebernik 2000,

354

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

É-èš-bàn-da, “House, Little Chamber”,1991 the seat of Šuziana1992 É-an-ki-kù-ga, “House of Pure Heaven and Underworld”,1993 the station of Kusu1994 É-ad-gi4-gi4, “House of the Counsellor”,1995 the seat of Nusku1996 É-kišib-gal-é-kur-ra, “House, Keeper of the Seal of Ekur,1997 the seat of Ninimma1998 [É...]ga?-kù-ga, “House of Pure ...”,1999 the seat/station of Ennugi2000 É-AŠ-AN-AMAR,2001 the abode of Enlil

442–444. 1991 RIMB, B.6.32.2006, 6–7: É-èš-bàn-da / ki-tuš dŠu-zi-an-na. See also George 1993, no. 265. 1992 See Krebernik 2012, 377–379 for an overview of the goddess Šuziana. According to An = Anum I, 184 she was Enlil’s concubine (dam-bàn-da dEn-líl-lá-ke4), but an alternate version also calls her Sîn’s wet nurse (um-me-ga-lá dEn-zu-na-ke4; see Litke 1998, 41). This role as the moon god’s wet nurse of is also repeated in other literature (see Krebernik 2012, 378). Šuziana is one of the deities residing in the temple of Sîn in Nippur (see p. 370 below). 1993 RIMB, B.6.32.2007, 6–7: É-an-ki-kù-ga / ki-gub dKù-sù-ke4. See also George 1993, no. 71. 1994 For a brief discussion about the goddess Kusu, who represented the censer (NÍG.NA, nignakku), see Michalowski 1993, 158–159. In the Enlil-cycle of the god-list An = Anum Kusu is one of the names of the grain goddess Nisaba (I, 298; see Litke 1998, 54–55), but she also has her own entry, in which she is called sáĝa-maḫ dEn-líl-lá-ke4, “the great purifier of Enlil” (I, 324; see Litke 1998, 59). 1995 RIMB, B.6.32.2008, 6–7: É-ad-gi4-gi4 / ki-tuš dNusku. See also George 1993, no. 42. 1996 For an overview of Nusku see Streck 2001, 629–633. In the Babylonian context Nusku belonged to Enlil’s circle at Nippur as his vizier (An = Anum I, 252: sukkal-maḫ d En-líl-la-ke4, “grand vizier of Enlil”; see Litke 1998, 50). For the adoption of Nusku as the son of Sîn in the cult of Ḫarrān see the discussion on p. 314ff. above. 1997 RIMB, B.6.32.2009, 6–7: É-kišib-gal-é-kur-ra / ki-tuš dNin-ìmma-ke4. Another possibility for interpreting this name would be to make an emendation É-DUB--gal-ékur-ra, “House of the Great Scribe of the Ekur”, as suggested in George 1993, no. 202. 1998 The goddess Ninimma is one of Enlil’s children (Focke 2000, 384–386). According to An = Anum I, 306 (Litke 1998, 56), she is the expert of Enlil (um-mi-a dEn-líl-lá-ke4), the registry official of Ekur (dub-sar-zà-ga É-kur-ra-ke4). In one variant she is Sîn’s wet nurse, like the goddess Šuziana mentioned above. For Sîn’s presence in the temple of Ninimma in Nippur see p. 370 below. 1999 RIMB, B.6.32.2010, 6–7: [É-x]-x-ga?-kù-ga / [ki-tuš/gub] dEn-nu-gi-ke4. In George 1993, no. 1255 this sanctuary name is read [É-x]-gú?-kù-ga. 2000 The god Ennugi is Enlil’s throne-bearer (gu-za-lá dEn-líl-lá-ke4) according to An = Anum I, 318–319 as well as other sources (see e.g. the lipšur-litany KAL 10 no. 34–37, 4 where Ennugi is mentioned directly after Enlil and Ninlil). 2001 RIMB, B.6.32.2013, 6–7: É-AŠ-AN-AMAR / ki-tuš dEn-líl-lá-ke4. George 1993, no. 91 suggests a provisional reading é-tillax-maḫ!, “House, Exalted Open Place”, which

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

355

The common denominator between these deities is their presence in the court of Enlil, who is also mentioned, in Nippur.2002 Moreover, the six minor deities named in Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s brick inscriptions are known to be part of a specific group, namely the seven children of Enmešara.2003 Each of these deities were active in attending rituals in Nippur, where they were known as “divine attendants” (DINGIR.GUB.BA), possibly of Ekur.2004 Beyond this connection to the cult of Enlil, these minor deities were also connected to the cult of the moon god in Nippur either mythologically or via other connections. In the Nippur Compendium, the divine directory of the temples in the city of Enlil, the deities Ninkasi, Sîn, Ninimma, Ninšar, Šuziana, Kusu, and Nusku are listed among the 21 gods of the “outer Court of the Sceptre”.2005 Sîn was also one of the nine gods listed as belonging to the temple of Ninimma.2006 We also know from this text that Šuziana, Sîn’s wet nurse, was housed in the temple of the moon god in Nippur.2007 The the god Ninšar’s absence from the group of deities to whom the shrines were dedicated is curious, but it is possible that the brick representing his shrine was simply not found in the excavations.2008 This absence has led to speculation that the brick inscription dedicating the sanctuary Ešaduga to the moon god, represents Ninšar instead of Nanna/Sîn, but there is no evidence to confirm such an assumption.2009 The existence of these shrines in the Ningal

would link it to Enlil’s sanctuary with the same name at Nippur (George 1993, no. 1101). Due to the connection to Nippur this cannot be ruled out, but the spelling AŠ.AN.AMAR.UTU for the name Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt in one of the manuscripts for the prayer “Šamaš 1” (K. 5780+ [BMS 10], 7’) speaks against such a correction. Therefore, a possible reading of this name is É-dili-damar, “House of the Unique Divine Calf” (see the discussion on p. 73 above). 2002 See the Middle Babylonian list of temples at Nippur, in which the “houses” of Nusku, Kusu, Ninkasi, Ennugi, Šuziana, and Ninimma are listed among the “houses of several deities” (é-ḫi-a diĝir-didli) (Bernhardt & Kramer 1975, 98). 2003 Noted already in Gadd & Legrain 1928, 56, where the absence of Ninšar is also pointed out. The seven children of Enmešara are discussed in Lambert 2013, 209–217 (see especially Lambert 2013, 215–216 where the inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi are briefly analysed). The equation of Ninimma, Šuziana, Ennugi, Kusu, Ninkasi, and Nusku with these seven deities is confirmed in Late Babylonian ritual commentaries (Livingstone 1986, 187–204; see especially AO 6479, III 1–14 in Livingstone 1986, 200) and also in the god-list An = Anum I, 139–146 (Litke 1998, 34–36). For an overview of the Sebettu see van Buren 1939–1941, 277–289 and Wiggermann 2010, 459–466. 2004 Nippur Compendium, § 14 iv 14–18 (George 1992, 156–157 and 450). 2005 Nippur Compendium, § 14 v 2–6 (George 1992, 156–159). See also p. 370 below. 2006 Nippur Compendium, § 14 v 11–13 (George 1992, 158–159). 2007 Nippur Compendium, § 14 v 7–8 (George 1992, 158–159). See also p. 370 below. 2008 Only one brick for each of the minor deities has been found (see the catalogue in connection with the text editions in RIMB). 2009 This is suggested in Gadd & Legrain 1928, 56 and Focke 1999–2000, 102. See the

356

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

temple underlines the notion put forth by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi through the renaming of the ziqqurrat and the use of the divine name Ninlil in connection with Ningal: the veneration of Nippurian deities, including Enlil himself, in Ur, as well as the conspicuous use of the term “Enlil-ship” to describe the status of the moon god, speak for association between Sîn and Enlil (and Ningal and Ninlil) in this context.

III.1.4. Edublamaḫ The remains of a sanctuary of the moon god with the name Edublamaḫ still stand among the remains of the city of Ur. Perhaps rightfully, Leonard Woolley described it as one of the most important buildings on the site, and also one of the buildings that boasts the longest history.2010 The location of the building later known by the name Edublamaḫ had once been the main entrance to the ziqqurrat enclosure. This gate structure is known by its name dub-lá-maḫ (“Massive Pilasters”), in the sources of the Ur III period. Later, the back door of this gate that lead to the ziqqurrat was walled up – a change made by king Sîn-iddinam of Larsa, according to Woolley – and thus an enclosed building was created.2011 Its fundamental character as a large gateway nevertheless persisted after this alteration: architecturally, the façade of the building remained that of a large gate. This was also inherent in the name of the building, which remained the same: Édub-lá-maḫ, “House of Massive Pilasters”.2012 Moreover, the Kassite king Kurigalzu, who rebuilt Edublamaḫ, refers to it as “the great main gate” (ká-galmaḫ),2013 a designation that underlines the building’s former function as a gateway. One of the architectural elements added by Kurigalzu was a platform in front of the entrance, which also created a narrow passage to the actual gate to the ziqqurrat enclosure.2014 In a way, the building thus became an extension of the newer ziqqurrat gate, perhaps functioning as a reminder of its former character. A reconstruction of this newly created building was offered in the excavation report by Woolley (Fig. 14).

citation of this inscription (UET 1 no. 178 = RIMB, B.6.32.2012) on p. 353 above. 2010 Woolley 1965, 9. 2011 In his preliminary report on the excavations at Ur, Woolley credited the changes to Išme-Dagan of Isin (Woolley 1925, 397); later he corrected this to Sîn-iddinam (Woolley 1965, 13). 2012 For the discussion of the meaning of dub-lá/dublû see George 1995, 185–186 with the definition “the pilaster mass commonly found at the side of a monumental gateway”. According to George, the term dublû, “projection”, together with ḫibšu, “niche”, is used to describe the pattern that particularly decorated gate structures in Mesopotamia. 2013 This inscription of Kurigalzu, UET 1 no. 159, was found on bricks of Edublamaḫ. 2014 Heinrich 1982, 210.

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

357

Fig. 14: Edublamaḫ’s courtyard during the reign of Kurigalzu (Woolley 1965, pl. 51) Because of its former function as a gate, the building history of the sanctuary Edublamaḫ in Ur is unique, but two other sanctuaries of the moon god with the same name were located elsewhere. For the Old Babylonian period, a temple with the name Edublamaḫ is attested in Urum.2015 During the 1st millennium BCE, a sanctuary with this name was located in the vicinity of Nippur.2016 Here, in the Nippurian context, Edublamaḫ was clearly connected to Sîn’s Ekišnugal sanctuary, according to the Nippur Compendium, and it therefore seems likely that both these sanctuaries of the moon god in Nippur were associated with Ur.2017 This is also supported by the development of Edublamaḫ in Ur, which resulted in a temple bearing the name of a gate. Based on the Akkadian translation of the name given in the Nippur Compendium, (“House which bears a funerary tablet”), it seems unlikely that the character of Edublamaḫ in Ur as a former gateway was understood in Nippur. In Ur, however, the fact that Edublamaḫ had been a gate in the ziqqurrat enclosure was still remembered in the 7th century BCE when Sîn-balāssu-iqbi renovated the building. Edublamaḫ’s name is not mentioned here, but because this inscription was written on a door socket in Edublamaḫ2018 and because it makes a reference to the old gate of Etemenniguru, it is clear that this temple can only have been the building that housed the door fashioned by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi.

2015

For references see George 1993, no. 205. A temple hymn to the sanctuary of the moon god in Urum has been edited in Sjöberg 1960, 137–139. 2016 Nippur Compendium, § 6 ii 14’: É-dub-lá-maḫ bi-tu na-áš ṭup-pi q[u]-bu-ru, “Edubla-maḫ, House which bears a funerary tablet (George 1992, 150–151). See also George 1993, no. 204. 2017 See also the discussion p. 368ff. below. 2018 Found in situ (see Woolley 1925, 384–385).

358

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

UET 1 no. 169 (RIMB, B.6.32.2001), 10–31 10 É-temen-ní-gùr-ru 11 níĝ-u4-ul-lí-a-ta 12 é-gar8 diri-ga-bi 13 te-me-en-bi a-ri-a 14 uš8-bi bí-in-šú-šú 15 ká-bi ḫa-lam-me-e-ne 16 ki-bi bí-in-kin-kin 17 šà dub te-me-en-bi 18 u-me-ni-dù 19 saĝ-bi ba-ni-íl ĝiš ig ĝištaškarin ĝiš saĝ 20 21 kur-bi-ta sù-ud-da 22 gag urudu bí-in-dù-a 23 kéš-da-bi kala-ga 24 uš kù-sig17-a-ke4 25 si-ĝar kù-babbar zálag-zálag 26 aškud nu-kúš-ù 27 urudu kala-ga 28 kù-babbar u-me-ni-dab-dab 29 ká É-saĝ-dili 30 é-ḫal-la-ta dù-a 31 da-rí-šè gub-bu-dè Etemenniguru, whose collapsed wall (and) foundation were waste land since the distant past, I (un?)covered its foundations and sought the location of its destroyed gates. After I had made the tablet (that is in?) its foundation deposit, I raised its (i.e. Etemenniguru’s) top. A door of boxwood, wood of finest quality from a distant mountain, made with with copper nails (and) whose bands are strong, (whose) foundation is of gold, (whose) door-bolt is of shining silver, (and whose) bar (and) fitting is of strong copper: I inlaid (it) with silver so that it would stand forever at the gate of Esaĝdili, the house built in secret.2019 It is important to note that this inscription reflects theological notions that are

2019

The translation for the lines 29–31 in RIMB, B.6.32.2001 is: “in order that is might stand forever fixed in the doorway of the ‘secret house’, the house of divination”. The translation “house built in secret” employed here is given in George 1993, no. 958. It should be noted that the name É-saĝ-dili is the same as one of the names of Enlil’s ziqqurrat in Nippur (see George 1993, no. 956). This name is translated as “House of Secrets” by A. R. George, but perhaps a translation based on the Sumerian noun saĝ-dili, “lone, single; noble” (Akk. gitmalu; ēdēnû) would also be possible in this connection.

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

359

also found in other inscriptions of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi by referring to one of the names of Enlil’s ziqqurrat in Nippur, É-saĝ-dili.2020 According to the archeological context this inscription, the doorway of Esaĝdili was Edublamaḫ which indeed had been one of the gates to the ziqqurrat in the past. The implication is that the ziqqurrat and its enclosure Etemenniguru is associated here with the Nippurian ziqqurrat of Enlil, underlining the equation of Sîn and Enlil found elsewhere in Sîn-balāssu-iqbi’s inscriptions. There are no other known references to Edublamaḫ in the Neo-Babylonian inscriptions. Although after Sîn-balāssu-iqbi both Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus made renovations that are visible in the archaeological remains at the site,2021 the building does not appear to have been important enough to be mentioned in their inscriptions. Still, Edublamaḫ appears in the litanies of temple names in Sumerian lamentations among other temples of the moon god, and on occasion the moon god is called “lord of Edublamaḫ”.2022 These few attestations are not enough to evaluate the meaning of this temple and its role in the cult of the moon god at Ur in the 1st millennium BCE. A hint at Edublamaḫ’s function in the older periods can be found in the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur as well as in the royal inscriptions of Amar-Suen of the Ur III dynasty and Šu-ilīšu of Isin. Both Amar-Suen and Šu-ilīšu refer to (E)dublamaḫ with the epithet “the place of his (i.e. Nanna’s) judgement”.2023 This epithet describes (E)dublamaḫ as a location – the gate to the ziqqurrat complex – where the moon god gives his judgements, implying that this building had a judicial role.2024 A similar function for (E)dublamaḫ is found in the description of the destruction of the city of Ur and its temples. Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, 4382025 dub-lá-maḫ ki nam-ku5-re-dè ki-inim-ma nu-ĝál

2020

See also the discussion concerning the renaming of the ziqqurrat of the moon god and its theological implications on p. 343ff. above. 2021 Woolley 1962, 15. 2022 An unpublished duplicate to SBH no. 24 reveals that Edublamaḫ is included in this litany amongst the other sanctuaries of the moon god (see the transliteration of the relevant passage on p. 333). See also CT 42 no. 9, I 26: ù-mu-u[n] dNanna ù-mu-un É-dub-lámaḫ-a, “Lord Nanna, lord of Edublamaḫ”. This temple name can also be found in BL 27, 7’: še-eb É-dub-lá-[maḫ], “brickwork of Edublamaḫ”. 2023 For Amar-Suen see Steible 1991, 238–242 (Amarsuen 12), ll. 19–21: dub-lá-maḫ / éu6-di-kalam-ma / ki di-ku5-da-ni. For Šu-ilīšu see RIME 4, E.4.1.2.1, 12–13: dub-lá-maḫ / ki di-ku5-da-ni. 2024 See also the Old Babylonian attestation of Dublamaḫ as a place for taking an oath in Dombardi 1996, 324. 2025 Michalowski 1989, 64–65.

360

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Verdicts were not given at the Dublamaḫ, the place where oaths used to be taken. These attestations suggest that (E)dublamaḫ, which was still a gate to the ziqqurrat enclosure and not yet an enclosed building, was a place where legal proceedings in the form of the decree of verdicts and the taking of oaths took place – a function well attested for gates in ancient Mesopotamia.2026 We can assume that a similar association of the place with the judicial sphere continued after its transformation from gate to enclosed building. It has even been suggested that the platform, built in front of the entrance to Edublamaḫ by Kurigalzu, served as a location for a court.2027 Unfortunately no conclusive evidence from the 1st millennium BCE concerning the nature of this sanctuary is available. It is plausible that Edublamaḫ was still perceived as a place of judgement, where either earthly or divine decisions were made. A hymn of Ur-Namma to the moon god hints at a connection to the latter in the Ur III period, naming Dublamaḫ as a place where divine decisions over destinies are made.2028

III.1.5. Eĝipar and the Consecration of En-niĝaldi-Nanna One of the most visible changes made by king Nabonidus to the cultic scene in Ur was the reinstatement of the entu-priestess of the moon god, which required the reconstruction of the giparu and the erection of a residential palace for the high priestess. Nabonidus’ inscriptions provide a justification for his reintroduction of the entu-priestess and, in addition, give us a glimpse into the spectrum of cultic personnel (possibly) active in Ekišnugal at the time of this renewal.2029 According to the report in Nabonidus’ inscription, the reason for re-establishing the institution of the entu-priestess was a direct wish on the part of the moon god Sîn in the second year of Nabonidus’ reign. This wish had been delivered by the lunar eclipse which occurred on the 13th day of Elūlu: the moon, called here “the divine Fruit”, had become dark and set while in the state of darkness.2030

2026

For the various functions of gates in Mesopotamia and Israel see May 2014, 77–122. Heinrich 1982, 210. 2028 Ur-Namma EF, 21–22: dub-lá-maḫ ki nam tar-re-za / diĝir gal-gal-e-ne nam mi-ni-ibtar-re-ne, “At your Dublamaḫ, the place where the fates are determined, all the great gods determine the fates.” (Flückiger-Hawker 1999, 278–279). See also Hall 1985, 405. For a discussion of the moon god as a divine decision maker see p. 150ff. above. 2029 For a description of this episode in Ekišnugal’s history see the report in En-niĝaldiNanna Cylinder (Schaudig 2001, 2.7; see also Reiner 1985, 1–16). The installation of En-niĝaldi-Nanna as the high priestess is also mentioned in E’igikalama Cylinder (Schaudig 2001, 2.5, II 13–14). 2030 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 1–10. See also the citation of the lines concerning the eclipse on p. 59 above in connection with the appellation Fruit for the moon. This lunar eclipse can be identified with the nearly total eclipse that took place on September 26th, 554 BCE 2027

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

361

The implication of such an eclipse, as stated in the inscription, was that “Sîn desires an entu-priestess”2031 – a wish that was also expressed in an entry in the astrological series EAE.2032 EAE 17, § VI 42033 DIŠ ina itiKIN AN.MI EN.NUN U4.ZAL.LI GAR d30 NIN.DINGIR.[RA URU4-eš] If an eclipse occurs in Elūlu in the morning watch, Sîn [will request] an entupriestess. The moon god’s wish was fulfilled, and the most visible aspect of this reformation in the cultic life of Ur was the rebuilding of the giparu of the entu-priestess on the southwest side of the ziqqurrat enclosure (see Fig. 15, p. 366).2034 According to Nabonidus’ account, the location of this building had been abandoned and filled with date palms and other trees by this time, and he needed to clear the area that had housed the giparu of old before the new building work could be started.2035 In addition to the giparu, Nabonidus built a house for his daughter

(Lewy 1949, 50 and Beaulieu 1989, 127–128). 2031 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 10: dEN.ZU NIN.DINGIR.RA i-ri-iš ki-a-am it-ta-šu ù pu-ruus-su-šu, “Sîn desires an entu-priestess, that was the sign and its decision.” 2032 See Lewy 1949, 50; Reiner 1985, 8; Beaulieu 1989, 128; and Reiner 1995, 76–77. Despite the undeniable connection between the eclipse and the actions taken by Nabonidus, Beaulieu doubted the king’s motives. He considered it possible that Nabonidus had decided to install his daughter as a priestess at Ur before the eclipse occured, since he had cancelled the office held by his daughter at Eana in Uruk during the previous year (555 BCE), and the governor of Ur (Sîn-nādin-aḫi) had also visited Uruk only few months later. By the time the eclipse actually occurred – a phenomenon that could be predicted by the astrologers working in the Babylonian court at the time – Nabonidus would then have used it as divine justification to bolster his own plans (Beaulieu 1989, 121–122 and 129). 2033 Rochberg-Halton 1988, 133. 2034 P. N. Weadock has throughly studied the giparu of Nanna at Ur in her dissertation (1958), and her results are summarized in Weadock 1975, 101–128. For this institution during the Old Babylonian period see Charpin 1986, 192–220; see also the short overview of the archeological remains in Crawford 2015, 124–127. During the Ur III and Old Babylonian period, this building included the temple of the goddess Ningal. This was moved inside the ziqqurrat enclosure during the Kassite era. 2035 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, I 39–43. It is difficult to determine the use of this site during the preceding centuries, but there are some remains there that can be dated to the time of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi. Any traces of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian building phases have mostly eroded, making the archeological evidence for this period scant (Weadock 1975, 111–114). It is noted in Woolley 1962, 19 that the monuments of Nabonidus were systematically destroyed by the Persians after their victory over the Babylonians, which

362

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

En-niĝaldi-Nanna next to that building.2036 This extension of the giparu can be identified with the building complex located on its southeast side, opposite the Edublamaḫ. Also connected to this new part of the Eĝipar was the Agrun-maḫ (or É-nun-maḫ) temple of Ningal which Nabonidus also restored.2037 Bricks commemorating the construction of the giparu were also found in the so-called “Palace of En-niĝaldi-Nanna” (“Palace of Bel-shalṭi-Nannar” in earlier publications), located outside the temple area by the harbour, and this has led to the identification of this palace as the house for the entu-priestess.2038 This connection is however dubious, because Nabonidus himself referred to a different location for the house of En-niĝaldi-Nanna.2039 Connected to this palace is a temple that was named the “Harbour Temple” by its excavators, but its ancient name and its function remain unknown.2040 The one aspect that can be ascertained is that a functional connection between this temple and the palace existed, as is shown by a road of burned bricks that links them. Because the tradition of a high priestess in the cult had come to an end during the Old Babylonian period in southern Mesopotamia,2041 Nabonidus was forced to tie the re-introduction of the priestess to the older tradition in order to lend credibility to the cultic changes made with her installation. This is likely to

probably also explains the lack of archaeological evidence at the site of the giparu. 2036 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, II 7: a-na i-te-e É-ĝi6-pàr É En-níĝ-al-di-dNanna DUMU. MUNUS-ia NIN.DINGIR.RA d30 e-eš-ši-iš e-pú-uš, “I build anew the house of Enniĝaldi-Nanna, my daughter, the entu-priestess of Sîn next to the Eĝipar ”. The identification of this site as the house of the high priestess is confirmed by the inscribed bricks of Nabonidus that were found at the site (see See Woolley 1925, 378 and Weadock 1975, 113). The inscription written on these bricks is edited in Schaudig 2001, 1.8. 2037 See the discussion on p. 304 above. 2038 See Mallowan apud Woolley 1931, 376–381; Mallowan apud Woolley 1962, 41–43; and Heinrich 1982, 323–324. 2039 The bricks containing the inscription may simply have been left over from the construction of Eĝipar and then used to build the palace by the harbour (Weadock 1958, 30 and Weadock 1975, 113). Moreover, it is likely that this palace was built as a residence for the royal representatives at Ur and for use by the king when he was visiting the city: a parallel for this can be found in Neo- and Late Babylonian Uruk, where the royal palace was located directly outside the temple complex Eana (Kessler 1999, 165–172 and Schaudig 2001, 341). 2040 Woolley 1962, 35–40 and Heinrich 1982, 324–325. This temple was clearly built by Nabonidus since Nebuchadnezzar II’s bricks found at the site were only re-used as building material. 2041 The custom of having a high priestess ceased after the shift of political power to Babylon in southern Mesopotamia (Reiner 1985, 5; see also the overview of the high priestess in Mesopotamian tradition in Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2005, 626–628). However, installation of entu-priestesses is still attested in Assur in the late Middle Assyrian period (S. M. Maul, personal communication).

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

363

have been the purpose for the description of the discovery of an old stele of Nebuchadnezzar I (1131–1126 BCE), detailing the proper attire for the high priestess, which was found during the construction work of the giparu.2042 Nabonidus also refers to an inscription of the last high priestess of the moon god known by name, Enanedu, sister of Rīm-Sîn (1822–1763 BCE).2043 It has been suggested that the re-introduction of ancient cult practises in Ur was part of Nabonidus’ attempt to bring about a renaissance of the moon god’s cult there after centuries of decline.2044 Sîn’s cult in Ekišnugal was certainly endorsed by the king in connection with this event: Nabonidus’ inscriptions speak of an increase in regular offerings to Sîn and Ningal as well as the establishment of privileged status for the cultic personnel of Ekišnugal.2045 Detailed information about the offerings and cultic personnel is given in the En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder.2046 Schaudig 2001, 2.7, II 15–28 II 15 ì-nu-šu ša dEN.ZU ù dNin-gal EN.MEŠ-e-a II 16 sa-at-tuk-ki-šu-nu e-li ša pa-na ú-ṭa-aḫ-ḫi-id II 17 mi-im-ma šum-šu in É-kiš-nu-ĝál ú-da-aš-ši II 18 ša u4-mi 3 UDU.NÍTA e-le-⌈en⌉ UDU.NÍTA gi-na-a la-bi-ri a-na d30 ù dNin-gal EN.MEŠ-e-a lu ú-ki-in II 19 bu-ša-a ma-ak-ku-ru qé-re-eb É-kiš-nu-ĝál ú-da-aš-ši II 20 aš-šum BUR.SAG-ge-e ul-lu-li-im-ma ḫi-ṭi-ti la ra-še-e II 21 ra-am-ku-ut É-kiš-nu-ĝál ù É.MEŠ DINGIR.MEŠ II 22 e-nu i-šip-pi ZABAR.DAB.BA lúKUL.LUM lúen-gi-ṣu lú a-ri-ru lúGAL.DÙ lúŠITIM lúKISAL.LUḪ-ḫa (lú)Ì.DU8.GAL-lu4 II 23 lú II 24 ti-ir É lúla-ga-ru šá-ki-nu taq-ri-ib-ti lú NAR.MEŠ mu-ḫa-ad-du-ú ŠÀ-bi DINGIR.MEŠ II 25 lú ki-ni-iš-tu4 šu-ut na-bu-ú šu-ma-an-šu-un II 26 II 27 i-li-ik-šu-nu ap-ṭu-ur-ma ŠU.BAR.RA-šu-nu ⌈aš⌉-ku-un ub-bi-⌈ibšu⌉-nu-ti-ma II 28 a-na dEN.ZU ù dNin-gal EN.MEŠ-e-a ú-zak-ki-šu-nu-ti At that time I made the regular offerings of Sîn and Ningal, my lords, more copious than before, I supplied everything abundantly to Ekišnugal. I estab-

2042

See Reiner 1985, 12 and Schaudig 2003, 485–488. It is reasonable to assume that such a stele did not actually exist, but the story was fabricated in order to legitimate the installation of the high priestess and to establish the proper cultic actions after such a long gap in the existence of the office (so in in Powell 1991, 30). 2043 See Schaudig 2003, 482–485. 2044 Reiner 1985, 14. 2045 In addition to En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder cited here, see the gate socket inscription that gives a summary of the building of the Eĝipar and the establishment of a special status for the cultic personnel at Ekišnugal (Schaudig 2001, 1.12.a). 2046 See also the citation and discussion of this passage in Beaulieu 1989, 131–132.

364

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

lished daily (an offering of) three sheep more than the one sheep of the previous regular offering for Sîn and Ningal, my lords; I made goods and property abundant in Ekišnugal. In order to keep the bursangû-offering pure and not to make any mistakes, I released the ‘bathed ones’ of Ekišnugal and the temples – the high priest, the purification priest, the bronze bowl holder, the diviner, the temple cook, the miller, the orchard keeper,2047 the builder, the courtyard sweeper, the head doorkeeper, the courtier, the lagar-priest who performs the taqribtu-ritual, the singers who delight the hearts of the gods, the council of priests, those whose names are mentioned (here) – from their service and I set them free; I purified them and I freed them to Sîn and Ningal, my lords. It is possible that the increase in daily offerings and temple property was ordered in connection with a larger religious reformation, but due to the lack of administrative material the extent of the changes in the cultic life cannot be evaluated.2048 Nabonidus’ list of temple personnel represents the complete hierarchical structure of the people involved in the cult, ranging from the enu-priest to the prebendaries who played their part in the upkeep of the temple cult. This list is extraordinary, because in addition to the actual prebends also found in other Neo-Babylonian temples, it also gives the titles of cultic functionaries who had disappeared from the administrative sources after the Old Babylonian era, or the ancient forms of titles still in use during the Neo-Babylonian times.2049 The king first named the high priest (Sum. en, Akk. enum), who was the most important cultic functionary in the cult of the temple’s main deity, but is not attested in the post-Old Babylonian administrative documents.2050 Therefore, the reference to the “high priest” here is anachronistic, but can be explained by the installation of the entu-priestess for Sîn. The second cultic functionary, išippu, was also associated with the past, because during the 1st millennium BCE this purification priest was called āšipu in Akkadian sources.2051 The occurrences of the zabardabbû-

2047

Here the meaning “orchard keep” for rab banê is adopted in accordance to Jursa 1995, 57–58 and Bongenaar 1997, 142. 2048 The possibility of a religious reformation is noted in Beaulieu 1989, 131–132. 2049 The anachronistic character of this list of temple personnel is already noted in Reiner 1985, 13. For a comparison see the lists of the prebends of other Neo-Babylonian temples in Bongenaar 1997, 141–142 and Beaulieu 2003, 34–35. 2050 Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2005, 626–628. 2051 Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2005, 631. See, however, also the few attestations from 1st millennium BCE that name both išippu and āšipu side by side (CAD I, 242–243).

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

365

functionary2052 and the temple cook engiṣu2053 are unusual in comparison to the other Neo- or Late Babylonian sources. Like the references to the kings of the past, the use of archaic titles for temple functionaries attests to an attempt to build a connection with the past in order to lend credibility to the revival of long-dead cultic practises. Whether this list attests to a larger reformation associated with the re-introduction of the entu-priestess must remain unsolved. It has been suggested that the religious reform of consecrating a high priestess for the moon god met opposition in the Babylonian population and that this is reflected in the Royal Chronicle, which describes the consecration of En-niĝaldi-Nanna as well as the building of the temple Ebabbar in Sippar.2054 However, this view has been opposed due to the positive tone of the chronicle that instead depicts Nabonidus as an expert on scholarly lore, using his knowledge of astrology, extispicy, and cult to interpret the wish that he had received from the moon god.2055 In addition to the list of cultic personnel given by Nabonidus, very few other attestations of cultic personnel working in the moon god’s temple in Ur are preserved. In a kudurru of Esarhaddon, two persons bearing the title nêšakku of Sîn (lúNU.ÈŠ d30) are named as witnesses,2056 but unfortunately nothing more of them is known. A kalû of Sîn, Nabû-šumu-iddin, is also attested as having made a copy of an inscription of Amar-Suen for Sîn-balāssu-iqbi.2057 In addition, isolated references to the prebend of a doorkeeper are attested in the Gallābu archive in the Persian period.2058

2052

During the Ur III period, zabar-dab5 was a functionary responsible for the royal libations (see Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2005, 635). In the Neo-Babylonian sources this functionary is attested only in the list concerning distribution of meat in Eana (Ash. 1922.256, 13; 37 and 63; see McEwan 1983, 188–195). For the presence of the title zabardabbû in Assur during the Neo-Assyrian period see Menzel 1981, 247. 2053 According to the attestations listed in CAD E, 167, the only other attestation of engiṣu can be found in an Old Babylonian document (UET 5 no. 249, 1). 2054 See the edition of the text in Schaudig 2001, P4, II 1’–III 16’. The negative tone for this chronicle is suggested in Beaulieu 1989, 131. 2055 Machinist & Tadmor 1993, 150–151. 2056 YBC 18182, r. 4’–5’ (see Paulus 2014, 724–726 [Ash 1]). For the cultic profession nêšakku see Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2005, 630–631. 2057 RIMB, B.6.32.2016, IV 29–38. For Nabû-šumu-iddin’s activities and family see Nielsen 2009, 171–182. 2058 See Jursa 2007, 134.

366

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Fig. 15: The Neo-Babylonian temple complex in Ur (Woolley 1962, pl. 60)

III.1. Ur and the Neighbouring Area

367

III.1.6. Kissik The city of Ur was the main cult centre of the moon god in southern Mesopotamia, but there were also local cults with the moon god and his wife Ningal as their central deities in its vicinity. In 1st millennium BCE, such a cult for Sîn and Ningal was found in Kissik, a city located in the proximity of Ur, and it is attested mainly through sporadic references to the goddess Ningal in sources dating to Neo-Babylonian period.2059 Most importantly, a reference to the temple of Ningal in Kissik is preserved in a cylinder inscription of Nabonidus, in which the rebuilding of the É-amaš-kù-ga, “House of the Pure Sheepfold”, of Ningal in this city is commemorated.2060 Schaudig 2001, 2.6, I 36–39 I 36 i-nu-šú É-⌈amaš⌉-kù-ga I 37 É dNin-gal be-let gi-mir el-le-ti I 38 su-pu-ru e-⌈el⌉-li I 39 šá qé-er-ba URU KISIG!.ki At that time: E’amaškuga, the temple of Ningal, pure goddess of the whole world, the pure sheepfold that is in the city Kissik2061 The adherence to the moon god is also portrayed in a few of the letters belonging to the Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence, which show that the city Kissik, like the neighbouring city Ur, was an Assyrian ally in Babylonia.2062 In two letters that were written to Assurbanipal by the Kissikeans, the divine pair Sîn and Ningal are presented as tutelary deities of Kissik in the introductory formulae. ABL 210, 3–72063 d 3 30 u dNin-gal a-na 4 LUGAL KUR.KUR EN-i-ni lik-ru-bu u4-mu-us-su d 30 u dNin-gal a-na TIN ZI.MEŠ ù 5 6 a-ra-ku UD.MEŠ šá LUGAL KUR.KUR EN-i-ni 7 nu-ṣal-li May Sîn and Ningal bless the king of the lands, our lord! We beseech Sîn and Ningal daily to preserve the life and to prolong the days of the king of the lands, our lord!

2059

See the overviews in Röllig 1976–1980, 620–622 and Beaulieu 1992, 400–424. A temple with the same name belonged to the goddess Inanna in earlier times (see George 1993, nos. 60 and 61). 2061 In Beaulieu 1989, 28 no. 10 this location is identified by the name Dūrum. 2062 See Frame 1992, 40 and 162. 2063 The same formula is found also in ABL 736, 3–6. 2060

368

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Also pertaining to the cult of Ningal is the reference to a Kissikean šatammu of Ningal, mentioned in the letter ABL 1000,2064 but this isolated reference does not offer any further information concerning the cult of the moon god and his wife in Kissik. Overall, the situation in Kissik is not well-documented: only a small number of texts have been unearthed by the Iraqi excavations there, and among those only a few documents are associated with the temple of Ningal.2065 Perhaps these still unpublished documents will, in the future, reveal more details of the moon god’s cult in this city.

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia The city of Ur and its surrounding area were not the only places in Babylonia, where the cult of Sîn is attested in some form. On the contrary, the moon god is known to have enjoyed a cult in all of the major Babylonian cities: Nippur, Uruk, Sippar, Babylon, and Borsippa. Although the moon god was unarguably one of the major deities in the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon, and therefore venerated in several contexts, the connecting factor for each of these local Babylonian cults of Sîn is his genealogical relationship to the main local deities, such as Enlil and Ninlil in Nippur, Ištar in Uruk, Šamaš in Sippar and Larsa, and Nanaya in Borsippa. This aspect of the cult, which is tied to the mythological relationship between different deities of the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon is visible in the (at times) meagre evidence available concerning the moon god’s presence in these locations. III.2.1. Nippur The cult of the moon god in Nippur has a history which reaches back to the Early Dynastic period (ED IIIb), but in which the Semitic moon god Suen and the Sumerian moon god Nanna appear as distinct deities.2066 The first references to these two moon gods in Nippur are sporadic and do not offer concrete information about their status within the city. In the case of Nanna, the first attestation appears in connection with what seems to be a visit of the en-priestess Enmenana to Nippur, and the moon god Suen is mentioned in an inscription of Lugalzagesi, who held the title “grandvizier of Suen” (sukkal-maḫ dSuen) among others, in his inscription.2067 Still, it was not until the 14th regnal year of Šulgi of the Ur III dynasty that the Sumerian moon god Nanna was introduced to the city of Nippur and his cult established. This introduction of Ur’s city god 2064

ABL 1000, 19: lúŠÀ.TAM šá dNin-gal lúki-sik-a-[a]. See the overview in Jursa 2005, 102 (with a reference to a forthcoming publication of these texts by K. Kessler). 2066 For the cult of the moon god in Nippur during the 3rd millennium BCE see SuchGutiérrez 2003, 254–267 as well as Hall 1985, 727–728. 2067 See Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 254 and 261. For the inscription of Lugalzagesi see Steible 1982, 316 (Luzag. 1, I 21–22). 2065

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

369

to Nippur may have served a political purpose, as Jacob Klein has suggested.2068 According to the material available from the Ur III period, the gods Suen and Nanna were venerated separately; they either received their offerings in different locations or, if they were both present in the same place, at different times. It is noteworthy that while Nanna particularly received offerings in the temple of Ninlil, his mother, offerings to Suen were mostly delivered to him at his own temple.2069 This underlines the genealogical relationship between Nanna, Enlil, and Ninlil in Sumerian theology. During the Old Babylonian period the moon god continued to be an important part of cultic life in Nippur; references to the sanctuary of Sîn can be found in administrative texts, but he also received offerings in the temple of Nusku.2070 The existence of an actual “house of Sîn”, which is attested in the administrative sources, is however not supported by the metrological text HS 194, which gives the area measurements of different temples in Nippur: no sanctuary of Sîn is listed in this text, which dates perhaps to the Kassite period.2071 On the other hand, the Nippur Compedium includes the sanctuaries Ekišnugal and Edublamaḫ in its list of etymological explanations.2072 Since these buildings, which were evidently located in Nippur or its vicinity, share the names of the principal temple of the moon god, Ekišnugal of Ur,2073 and one of the principal sanctuaries in the temple complex Ekišnugal in Ur, Edublamaḫ,2074 a strong connection to the cult of the moon god in Ur is connoted through them. No other references to these sanctuaries of the moon god in Nippur by their names are extant, but according to Andrew George it is plausible that they were located in Bīt-Suena, which most likely was a suburb of Nippur.2075 A sanctuary of Sîn without a specific name is mentioned elsewhere in this same compendium: a house of Sîn and its resident deities are listed in the section that names the deities living in temples of Nippur. From this we learn that the deities housed there included Sîn himself, his wife Ningal (who is listed here twice2076), his daughter (Ištar), his son Šamaš, and the gods Šuziana and Kalkal.

2068

Klein 2001, 284–285. See also the discussion on p. 291ff. above. Such-Gutiérrez 2003, 267. 2070 For and overview see Richter 2004, 148–151 2071 Bernhardt & Kramer 1975, 97–98. 2072 See the citation on p. 80 above. 2073 See pp. 79ff. and 333ff. above. 2074 See p. 356ff. above. Edublamaḫ’s connection to Ur is particularly evident through the development of this sanctuary and its name through architectural changes. 2075 George 1992, 446–447: the administrative district Bīt-Sîn is attested for Nippur in 2nd millennium BCE. See also George 1993, nos. 204 and 655. 2076 This must mean that she had two manifestations in the temple. 2069

370

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Nippur Compendium, § 14 v 7–82077 d 7 30 dNin-gal dDUMU.MÍ-d30 dŠu-zi-an-na dNin-gal dUTU dKal-kal 8 7-ÁM DINGIR.MEŠ É d30 Sîn; Ningal; Sîn’s Daughter; Šuziana; Ningal; Šamaš; Kalkal: 7 gods, the temple of Sîn. As can be seen, each of these deities had either a genealogical relationship to the moon god or they filled roles that were mythologically connected to Nanna/Sîn’s status as a son of Enlil: the goddess Šuziana was not only Enlil’s secondary wife, but also Nanna-Sîn’s wet nurse,2078 and the god Kalkal was the doorkeeper of Ekur who the moon god petitioned to open the door upon his arrival to Nippur.2079 The presence of these deities was thus deeply rooted in the notion of the moon god being the “first-born son” of the god Enlil.2080 According to this same text, the moon god was also present in other locations in Ekur. He was counted among the 21 deities of the outer Court of the Sceptre and the nine gods of the temple of Ninimma.2081 These attestations confirm that the theological and mythological framework for the moon god’s cult in Nippur was his position as the eldest son of the city’s tutelary deities, Enlil and Ninlil.2082 Indications of this can be traced back to the Ur III period, and the sources from the Neo-Babylonian period suggest that this father-son relationship was still a focal point in the moon god’s cult in Nippur. In addition to the information concerning the presence of Sîn in the temples of Nippur, the Nippur Compendium also reveals that in the first month of the

2077

George 1992, 158–159. See Krebernik 2012, 378. In An = Anum I, 184 Šuziana holds the explanations dambàn-da dEn-líl-lá-ke4 and um-me-ga-lá dEn-zu-na-ke4 (Litke 1998, 41). For the presence of the goddess Šuziana in Neo-Babylonian Ur see the discussion on p. 353ff. above. 2079 Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nippur, 259–318. (see Ferrara 1973, 66–74 and 98–103). See also the edition of this section in Sjöberg 1960, 148–165, and the overview of the deity Kalkal in Sjöberg 1960, 156–157. In An = Anum I, 281 Kalkal is identified as ì-du8gal É-kur-ra-ke4, “great doorkeeper of Ekur” (Litke 1998, 53). 2080 A cultic structure that is based on mythology can be also observed in other Babylonian and Assyrian temples. For a study of the relationship of the temple, cult, and myth in Assur see Meinhold 2013, 325–334. 2081 See Nippur Compendium, § 14 v 2–6 and v 11–13 (George 1992, 156–159). The name of the moon god is also found in the last preserved line of this section, but it is impossible to understand the connection because of to the fragmentary nature of the line. For the presence of the god Ninimma in Ur during the reign of Sîn-balāssu-iqbi see the discussion on p. 353ff. above. 2082 For a further discussion of the genealogical relationship between the moon god and Enlil and Ninlil see the discussion on p. 291ff. above. 2078

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

371

year, an akītu-festival of Sîn was celebrated in the city.2083 Unfortunately, the only additional detail about this festival that the text provides is its connection to the god Ninurta, who also was Enlil’s son. Since the compendium states that all the other akītus – apart the one for Marduk and Ninurta’s own akītu – are also celebrated in honour of Ninurta, this must be interpreted as a sign of a special Nippurian theological context.

III.2.2. Uruk In the city of Uruk, the main cult centre of the goddess Ištar in Babylonia, there was also a house for her father, Sîn. The earliest attestations for the moon god ’s cult there derive from the Ur III period, and the existence of this cult in the Old Babylonian period is confirmed by the sporadic records of offerings delivered to the moon god, who is called by both the names Nanna and Sîn.2084 For the NeoBabylonian period, the cult of the moon god in Uruk is well-attested in the administrative sources,2085 and this material shows that he had three different manifestations in the cultic landscape of the city.2086 The sources confirm the existence of these three manifestations of the moon god, but questions concerning their exact nature remain unanswered. Still, it is clear that the moon god had a presence not only in his own temple in Uruk, but also as a minor deity in the household of his daughter, Ištar. First, there was a moon god in Uruk known only by the name Sîn, who received offerings of salt, dates, barley, emmer, billatu-beer, sesame, and meat.2087 This manifestation had his own temple/sanctuary in the city, designated bīt Sîn (É d30), “house of Sîn”, in the administrative sources. Unfortunately, no ceremonial name for this building is known for certain, but it is possible that it was the same building as the É-dumu-nun-na, “House of the Princely Son”,2088 which is attested in the Hellenistic ritual that was performed during the eclipse of the moon.2089 However, since no other attestations for this temple name in Uruk are known, the connection cannot be established for certain.2090 Regarding the mean-

2083

Nippur Compendium, § 13 iii 16’: á-ki-it dSuen-na a-na dNin-urta sa-pàr DINGIR. MEŠ, “akītu of Sîn: for Ninurta, net of the gods” (George 1992, 154–155). See also Cohen 1993, 309 and Cohen 2015, 394–395. 2084 For the references see Renger 1967, 161 and Richter 2004, 316–318. 2085 The Neo-Babylonian administrative material connected to the cult of the moon god in Uruk is discussed in Beaulieu 2003, 271–274 and 346–347. 2086 In addition to these three manifestations of the moon god in Uruk, four letters in the Eana archive refer to the moon god of Ur (Beaulieu 2003, 347). 2087 Beaulieu 2003, 272–273. It appears that the same prebendary was in charge of the offerings for the sanctuaries of Sîn and Marduk. 2088 George 1993, no. 214. 2089 BRM 4 no. 6, 33’: É-dumu-nun-na É d30 tu-kap-par (see Linssen 2004, 307). 2090 According to George 1993, no. 214, the only other possible reference to a temple of

372

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

ing of this name, it is a reference to Sîn’s status as the “princely son” of Enlil.2091 There is no apparent reason why the moon god’s temple in Uruk had a name that connoted this genealogical relationship, but it should be noted that in the text listing the gates of Esaĝil, the gate of Ištar has the name Ká-dumu-nun-na, “Gate of the Princely Son”, which could be a reference to her father Sîn as the son of Enlil.2092 It should also be noted that Ningublaga, the moon god’s son according to local theology in Ur, was still venerated in Sîn’s sanctuary in Uruk in the Hellenistic period: this is made apparent by the terse note that forbade offerings of beef to Ningublaga there.2093 The second manifestation of the moon god in Uruk was Sîn-ša-šamê, “Sîn of Heaven”.2094 Based on this name, this must have represented the moon god in his celestial form as the moon,2095 but it remains unclear what this meant in cultic reality. Since a similar manifestation of Sîn is not attested in the canonical godlist An = Anum or in the literary sources of the 1st millennium BCE,2096 it was probably a local phenomenon confined to Uruk and Sippar, where Sîn-ša-šamê is also attested. The existence of similar manifestations of the moon god in the cult cities of the two other principal astral deities in the Mesopotamian pantheon, Ištar and Šamaš, must be connected to the celestial character of Sîn, Šamaš, and Ištar, but the further implications of this connection elude us. It is also possible that Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, the pro-Assyrian governor of Ur, wanted to refer to this manifestation of Sîn when he used the Sumerian equivalent of this name to designate the moon god in his inscriptions, but it is equally likely that the connection is mere coincidence.2097 In Uruk, Sîn-ša-šamê was a minor deity

the moon god with this name is restored in the lexical list Kagal Bog F, I 14: [É-dumunun-na | É-tu-mu-n]u-na | bi-it ši-i-in (MSL 13, 152). 2091 One of the names of the moon god is dDumu-nun-na (An = Anum III, 15). For the references to and use of this epithet see the discussion concerning the father-son relationship between Enlil and Sîn on p. 291ff. above. 2092 See the text BM 35046, 19 (George 1992, 92–93). 2093 AO 6451, 41 (Linssen 2004, 175 and 179). It should be noted that Ningublaga is absent in the materials presented in the study of Uruk’s pantheon during the Neo-Babylonian period by P.-A. Beaulieu (2003). It is not clear whether Sîn’s vizier, Alamuš, also belonged to the moon god’s household in Uruk, but it is certainly possible based on Ningublaga’s presence. For Ningublaga and Alamuš as a pair see p. 323 above. 2094 Beaulieu 2003, 346–347. As Beaulieu notes, other astral deities were also attested as having similar manifestations as early as the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian sources (see Beaulieu 2003, 346). 2095 For a discussion concerning the relationship between the nature of the moon god as both an anthropomorphic deity and a celestial phenomenon see p. 19ff. above. 2096 For attestations, see CAD Š/I, 341. No similar epithets for Sîn are attested in literary sources (see the overview of Sîn’s epithets in Tallqvist 1938a, 444). The epithet that can be compared with this divine name is nannār šamê (see the discussion on p. 31ff. above). 2097 As noted in Beaulieu 2003, 346 note 90. The divine name dSuen an-na is used by Sîn-

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

373

who probably was housed in the temple Eana of Ištar.2098 He did have a silver offering table, mentioned in the available documentation,2099 and offerings of dates and barley are also attested.2100 The third manifestation of the moon god in Uruk is Sîn-ša-kisalli, “Sîn-ofthe-Courtyard”. The moon god with this name is not found in the administrative records connected to the temple Eana, but a single reference to him is given in a kudurru-stone of Marduk-zākir-šumi I, who reigned around the middle of the 9th century BCE.2101 This kudurru records a royal endowment of land, real estate, and prebendaries that entitled him to receive 1 qû bread and 1 qû beer from the “sanctuary of Sîn-of-the-Courtyard” to Ibni-Ištar.2102 This suggests that a manifestation of the moon god in Eana, perhaps in the form of a lunar crescent, was housed in his own sanctuary in the courtyard of the temple complex. However, other aspects of this manifestation remain unfortunately unknown.2103

III.2.3. Sippar The moon god’s cult in Sippar may have been similar to his cult in Uruk. Both of these cities were dominated by the cult of Sîn’s children, Šamaš in Sippar and Ištar in Uruk. For the Old Babylonian period, attestations for the presence of the moon god in Sippar are common, but they are completely absent in Middle Babylonian and early Neo-Babylonian sources, and it is only in the reign of Nabonidus that the moon god resurfaces in the cult in Sippar.2104 According to Jennie Myers’ study of the Sippar pantheon, the earliest attestation for the moon god Sîn in Sippar can be found in a seal impression containing the divine name d EN.ZU on a document dated to the reign of the local king Immerum, who reigned at the same time as Sumulael of Babylon (1880–1845 BCE).2105 During balāssu-iqbi in his inscriptions that describe the restoration of Etemenniguru (see RIMB, B.6.32.2001, 1 and B.6.32.2002, 1). 2098 Beaulieu 2003, 325. This is suggested by the fact that no sanctuary for “Sîn-of-Heaven” is attested in the Eana archive. 2099 See, for example, the Late Babylonian document YOS 7 no. 185, 20: 1 gišBANŠUR KÙ.BABBAR šá d30 šá AN-e, “One offering table of silver belonging to Sîn-of-Heaven”. For other attestations, see Beaulieu 2003, 346–347 and 385. 2100 See Beaulieu 2003, 28–29 and 347. 2101 This kudurru-inscription was first edited in Thureau-Dangin 1919, 117–156, and a new edition can be found in Paulus 2014, 666–672 (MZŠ I 1). See also the reference in Beaulieu 2003, 347. 2102 MZŠ I 1, II 10–11: 0;0.0.1 NINDA.ḪI.A 0;0.0.1 KAŠ.SAG / ina É dEN.ZU šá KISAL (Paulus 2014, 667). 2103 Beaulieu 2003, 325 takes “Sîn-of-the-Courtyard” to be one of the minor deities in Eana. 2104 For an overview of the cult of Sîn in Sippar see Myers 2002, 107–112 and 335–337. For the Old Babylonian evidence for Sîn’s temple in the city see Harris 1975, 183–184. 2105 BM 92649 A (CT 8 no. 47 a), l.e.: dEN.ZU (see Dekiere 1994, 199 [no. 9]). In con-

374

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

the Old Babylonian period, references to the moon god, to his šurinnu-emblem, or to his cultic personnel in legal and administrative texts are numerous.2106 For the Old Babylonian period, there is evidence for the existence of a sanctuary of Sîn with the name É-idim-an-na in Sippar since this name is featured in Old Babylonian personal names.2107 Since É-dim-an-na, “House, Bond of Heaven”, is attested as a sanctuary of the moon god in Ur and in Borsippa, it can be assumed that É-idim-an-na is simply a variant of this name.2108 The exact location of such a sanctuary in Sippar remains unknown, but since the moon god appears in a list of offerings together with the deities Bunene and Mamu, who both resided in Ebabbar of Šamaš, it seems likely that Ebabbar also housed the sanctuary of Sîn.2109 After the Old Babylonian period, evidence for a cult of the moon god at Sippar disappears completely. This disappearance is conspicuous in the records of animal offerings dating to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, which present the pantheon of Sippar in its most complete form.2110 The moon god re-emerges in Sippar in the documentation in the 16th regnal year of Nabonidus, for which there is a document containing a reference to Sîn.2111 CT 57 no. 683, 1–4 1 1/2 GÍN šá KÙ.BABBAR ⌈ŠÀM⌉ 2 1+en mušenKUR.GI šá 3 [UD.x].LÁ.KÁM šá itiAPIN 4 a-na d30 il-lik Half a shekel of silver: the price of one goose that went to (the house of) Sîn on [X]th [day] of Araḫsamnu.

nection with these documents from the period before the reign of Hammurapi, we should note that they contain many personal names that incorporate the theophoric element Sîn, which attests to the popularity of the moon god in the area. 2106 See the attestations given in Renger 1967, 153–154 and Myers 2002, 107–112. The šangû of Sîn seems to be found in legal contexts particularly, because he often acted as a witness or was called to resolve legal cases (Myers 2002, 107–109). 2107 For the attestations of the temple name É-idim-an-na in Old Babylonian personal names in Sippar see Wilcke 1971, 546 note 2; Frankena 1973, 149; and Myers 2002, 110. 2108 A reading É-dim7-an-na for this Old Babylonian spelling is suggested in Frankena 1973, 149. For the temples with the name É-dim-an-na see George 1993, nos. 159–160 and the discussion here on p. 333ff. (Ur) and 383ff. (Borsippa). 2109 See Myers 2002, 110–111. 2110 The gods Šamaš, Aya, Marduk, Zarpanītu, Bunene, Queen-of-Sippar, Anunītu, Gula, Adad, and Šala, the Divine Chariot, Anum, and Enlil, the Daughters-of-Ebabbar, Ištartašmê, Nanaya of Dūr-Kurigalzu, the Birth Goddess, Ūmu, Kittu, Mīšaru, Dayyānu, Nergal, and the Bride-of-Ekur are included in these records (see MacGinnis 1995a, 152). 2111 See Myers 2002, 335–336.

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

375

In addition to this allocation of a goose, the moon god is repeatedly mentioned in a tablet that lists the monthly sheep offerings, which should probably be dated to the 12th year of either Nabonidus or Cyrus.2112 This single list does not reveal much about the position of the moon god in Sippar, but it does include some noteworthy details. First, Sîn appears in this list in the entourage of the goddess Anunītu, who was his daughter.2113 Second, the monthly sheep offerings to the moon god are consistent with the pattern of the lunar cycle: in the month Araḫsamnu Sîn receives a sheep on the 7th day,2114 and in the unidentified month of the following subsection a sheep is offered to Sîn on the 15th day.2115 The final entry for the sheep offering to the moon god is connected to the 16th day.2116 This indicates that offerings were made to Sîn in accordance with the lunar cycle and its seven day stages, and serves as a reminder of the cultic importance of the new, half, and full moon.2117 The second attestation of sheep offerings to Sîn is found in a fragmentary document listing the sheep that are given away from the stalls. According to this text, an unknown number of sheep were given to Sîn in a ceremony involving maṣḫatu-flour during an unknown month.2118 Unfortunately, the date of this list is also unknown, but it certainly derives from the period after the second year of Nabonidus, since the “statue of the king”, i.e. the statue of Sargon that was repaired and provided with offerings after the rebuilding of Ebabbar in this year of Nabonidus, is included in it.2119 No definite explanation for the disappearance of the moon god from sources pertaining to the cult in Sippar after the Old Babylonian period, or for his reemergence during the reign of Nabonidus can be offered. Since the return of the moon god in Sippar appears to coincide with the restoration of the temples of Šamaš and Anunītu there,2120 it has been suggested that perhaps the moon god’s 2112

It is claimed in MacGinnis 1995a, 153 that it is the manifestation Sîn-ša-šamê that is attested in this document CT 55 no. 469, but the name of the moon god in the text, d30 without any further definition, is unambiguous. The dating of this document remains uncertain, but an origin in the reign of Cyrus is suggested in Myers 2002, 336 note 1149. 2113 For this genealogical relationship see the discussion on p. 313ff. above. 2114 CT 55 no. 469, 5: 1 šá d30 UD.7.KAM. 2115 CT 55 no. 469, 9: 1 šá d30 UD.15.KAM. 2116 CT 55 no. 469, r. 19’: [1 šá] d30 UD.16.K[AM]. 2117 For the phases of the lunar cycle see the discussion on p. 98ff. above. 2118 BM 63751, 7’: [x UDU.NÍTA] a-na ma-aṣ-ḫa-tu4 šá d30 iti[x SUM-nu], “[x] sheep [given] for the maṣḫatu of Sîn (in) the month [x]” (see MacGinnis 1995b, 184). 2119 This statue is attested as having received regular offerings from the 11th year of Nabonidus to the 2nd year of Cambyses (MacGinnis 1995b, 183; Myers 2002, 337–339). 2120 See e.g. Eḫulḫul Cylinder reporting the restoration of Eḫulḫul of Sîn in Ḫarrān as well as Ebabbar of Šamaš and E’ulmaš of Anunītu in Sippar (Schaudig 2001, 2.12). According to Beaulieu 1989, 42, Nabonidus conducted building activities in Sippar throughout his reign, starting from his second regnal year with the restoration of Ebabbar and culminating in the restoration of E’ulmaš probably in his 16th year.

376

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

renewed presence in the city should be explained by Nabonidus’ the personal intervention.2121 It remains unclear if this was the case, but it certainly is possible that Nabonidus promoted the already existing but minor cult of the moon god. A reason for this endorsement can most likely be found in the presence of the triad Sîn-Šamaš-Anunītu/Ištar in this city, reflecting the theological concepts of the family relationship between these celestial deities found in Nabonidus’ inscriptions and in the iconography of his reliefs.2122 Documents from the Persian period reveal that a cult of Sîn-of-Heaven (Sînša-šamê), a manifestation that is also known to have been present in Uruk, existed in Sippar.2123 Like the attestations of Sîn, this manifestation of the moon god in his celestial form is only sporadically mentioned in the extant documentation.2124 No residence for Sîn-of-Heaven is mentioned in the available sources, making it likely that this minor deity resided in the temple complex Ebabbar in the household of his son Šamaš. This is also suggested by documents that mention Sîn-of-Heaven in connection with the bakers of Šamaš, known to have prepared the offerings for the minor deities of Ebabbar who had no prebendaries or sanctuaries of their own.2125 Although we do not know exactly where Sîn-ofHeaven was housed, it is certainly plausible that this manifestation of the moon god was venerated in the courtyard of the temple, where the moon could be seen in the night sky. On the basis of an attestation in a prebend contract from the Persian period, it appears that a third manifestation of the moon god existed in Sippar, in the palace of the crown prince (bīt redûti).2126 Since there is no other information concerning this manifestation of Sîn, it is impossible to evaluate the theological 2121

Myers 2002, 336–337. Furthermore, Myers explains Sîn’s disappearance from the local pantheon in Sippar by the larger theological development in Babylonia, where the moon god prominence appears to have dwindled during the post-Old Babylonian period (Myers 2002, 371–372). 2122 This concept is also the principle behind the combination presented in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder mentioned above: in this inscription, the report of building the moon god’s temple is combined with the similar reports concerning the children of Sîn, Šamaš, and Anunītu despite the geographical and temporal distances between these places and actions. The genealogical principle behind the combination of these three building reports is noted in Schaudig 2001, 415. For the sun god as Sîn’s son, see p. 305ff. above, and for Anunītu as Sîn’s daughter see p. 313ff. above. For an example of the triad Moon-SunVenus in the reliefs of Nabonidus, see Fig. 7, on p. 45 above. 2123 For Sîn-ša-šamê in Uruk, see the discussion on p. 371ff. above. 2124 Sîn-of-Heaven is attested in the documents CT 57 no. 117, 8; Cyr 40, 6; Cyr 256, 14; Camb 150, 3’; and BM 64882, 9. See the discussion and attestations in Bongenaar 1997, 230; Jursa 1999, 72, Myers 2002, 363; and Zawadzki 2013, no. 85. 2125 Bongenaar 1997, 170. 2126 BM 42408, 4: ITI-us-su šá d30 ⌈É⌉ re-du-ú-tu (Jursa 1999, 177). This contract is dated th 13 of Addaru, 13th year of Darius.

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

377

framework for the presence of the moon god’s manifestation in this royal residence.2127 Michael Jursa has suggested that perhaps this manifestation stands in connection with the moon god as the first-born son of Enlil (that is, the crown prince), or, alternatively, that the cult of Sîn in the palace of the crown prince could have been the result of Nabonidus’ personal endeavours.2128 As Jursa himself noted, the first of these options seems more plausible, since it appears unlikely that a religious innovation introduced by Nabonidus would have been adopted by the Achaemenid rulers. The connection between the moon god and kingship is theologically well-attested in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources; not only was the moon god the “princely son” of Enlil, but he was also bound to royal ideology, especially through celestial divination.2129

III.2.4. Larsa The question of whether there was a cult of the moon god Sîn during the 1st millennium BCE in Larsa, the cult city of the sun god in southern Mesopotamia, must remain unanswered. For the Old Babylonian period, the cult of the moon god in Larsa is quite well-attested: Nanna/Sîn, his wife Ningal, and the procession boat (gišMÁ) of Nanna are listed in administrative documents as receiving goods, and a cultic functionary of Nanna is mentioned in a text from the reign of Sîn-iddinam.2130 During this period, the moon god clearly had a sanctuary of his own, attested in the name of the 4th regnal year of Rīm-Sîn,2131 as well as in administrative contexts.2132 However, the ceremonial name of this building remains unknown. Despite the apparent existence of a cult and a temple of Nanna/Sîn and Ningal in Larsa in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE, the available Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian sources make no mention of it.2133 Whether this si2127

It should be noted that in the aforementioned list of sheep offerings (CT 55 no. 469, r. 19’–20’), the moon god is directly followed by the palace of the crown prince. 2128 Jursa 1999, 74–75. For the bīt redûti during Nabonidus’ reign see Beaulieu 1989, 155–157. 2129 See the discussion on p. 196ff. above. 2130 See the attestations in Renger 1967, 146–147 and Richter 2004, 388–392. 2131 Rīm-Sîn, 4th year: mu é dInanna é dNanna ù é dEn-ki šà Larsaki-ma ba-dù (see Ungnad 1938, no. 206; Hall 1985, 219; Richter 2004, 389; and George 1993, no. 1413). The cultic activities of Rīm-Sîn in Ur (described in Hall 1985, 578–583) are noteworthy in this context since they show a clear connection between the ruler of Larsa and the moon god of Ur. 2132 The document YOS 12 no. 102, 1–3 describes a house that is located next to the temple of Sîn (see Richter 2004, 391). 2133 The preserved Neo-Babylonian and Late Babylonian documentation concerning Larsa is focused on the temple Ebabbar and the deities Šamaš and Aya, who lived there. However, the sources relating to the cult(s) in Larsa are scarce in comparison to the extensive material found in Uruk or Sippar. For an overview of the available sources see

378

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

lence simply represents a lack of surviving material, or if the moon god indeed was not important in Larsa during this period remains unclear. Considering the theological connection between Šamaš and his father Sîn, the moon god most likely was revered in some form in the temple Ebabbar as he was in other Babylonian temples belonging to his family members.

III.2.5. Babylon Babylon, like the older Sumerian cultic centres of southern Mesopotamia, was also home to the cult of the moon god Nanna/Sîn.2134 Evidence of the moon god’s presence in the city can be traced back to the reign of Sumu-abum of the First Dynasty of Babylon: the construction of an “exalted temple” (é maḫ) of Nanna is recorded in the name of his fifth regnal year.2135 Because of the unspecific character of this reference, it remains unclear which sanctuary of the moon god in Babylon is meant: the “house” in question could be either one of the two temples of Sîn, Ekišnugal, or Enitendu, attested in the year names of the succeeding kings of Babylon. The first reference to the temple of the moon god with the name Ekišnugal in Babylon is found in the name of the 3rd regnal year of Hammurapi of Babylon.2136 Following the First Dynasty of Babylon, the sources concerning the temple of Sîn there disappear. Ekišnugal of Sîn in Babylon does not resurface until the Neo-Babylonian period, when it is known from the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar II, himself known for his massive building projects not only in Babylon, but also in other Babylonian cities. The references to the temple by the formulation “Ekišnugal in Babylon” make it clear that the temple in question was not located in Ur. Usually Ekišnugal of Sîn in Babylon is simply listed with the other temples in the city that were renovated by Nebuchadnezzar II.2137 A similar list of renovated temples is also found in the Beaulieu 1991, 58–81; Beaulieu 1993b, 137–152; and Jursa 2005, 108–110. 2134 See Combe 1908, 73–74. 2135 Hall 1985, 220 and Horsnell 1999, 45 (5th year of Sumu-abum). As noted in George 1992, 320, the building of the “house” for Nanna must have been a very significant event since the following years (6th and 7th) are designated only by a reference to it (“the year following (the year that) exalted house (of Nanna) was built”). The name of the 8th year of Sumu-abum records the making of a great cedar door for the temple of Nanna (Hall 1985, 220 and Horsnell 1999, 46). 2136 Hammurapi, 3rd year: mu ĝišgu-za bára maḫ (é) dNanna Ká-dingir-raki É-kiš-nu6-galki mu-un-na-an-dím (Hall 1985, 220 and Horsnell 1999, 107). For the later attestations in the year names of Samsu-iluna and Abi-ešuḫ see George 1992, 320. An overview of Old Babylonian attestations of the moon god Nanna and his spouse Ningal in Babylon can be found also in Renger 1967, 139. 2137 See Langdon 1912, Nr. 13, I 45 and the similar passage in Langdon 1912, Nr. 20, I 45. Here this temple is mentioned among the temples of Ninmaḫ, Nabû, Ninkarrak, Adad, Šamaš, Nineana in Babylon. For these inscriptions see also Berger 1973, 292–294 (Nebukadnezar Zylinder III,7 and III,8) and Da Riva 2008, 121 (C 37 and C 38).

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

379

stone tablet inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II, but in this case the deities and temples in question are described in more detail through their epithets and location. 1 R 55, IV 25–282138 IV 25 a-na dEN.ZU mu-da-am-mi-iq IV 26 i-da-ti-ia IV 27 É-ĝiš-nu11-gal É-su IV 28 i-na Ba-bi-iliki e-pú-uš For Sîn, the one who makes my omens favourable, I built Ekišnugal, his house, in Babylon. The wording here is similar to the account of rebuilding of Ekišnugal of Sîn in Ur: even the epithet, which emphasises the importance of celestial divination and the role of the moon god as one of the divine decision makers for the Mesopotamian king, is the same.2139 The affinity of this temple to the cult of the moon god in Ur is naturally also clear from its name, which is adapted from the temple Ekišnugal in Ur. Because a temple with the same name is also attested in Nippur, the religious centre of the Sumerian world, it is plausible that the adoption of this name for the moon god’s temple in Babylon reflects Babylon’s rise to the new focal point of religious power. Since this temple Ekišnugal has not been found by the excavations at the site, its location can only be proposed on the basis of textual references. The first clue is offered by the more detailed expression used in an additional description of the renovation of Babylon’s temples by Nebuchadnezzar II. In this case the Ekišnugal of Sîn is said to be located in the eastern side of the city: “Ekišnugal, house of Sîn on the eastern bank of the river”.2140 A location for the moon god’s temple in the eastern part of the city is also confirmed by the description of Babylon, Tintir, in which this temple of Sîn is said to be situated in the quarter called Kullab that was located in the northeastern corner of the city.2141 Although the exact location of this temple is not known, it can be assumed that it was situated in Kullab, relatively close to the ancient centre of the city that was later known by the name Eridu.2142 Andrew George’s theory about its location is 2138

Langdon 1912, Nr. 15, IV 25–28. See also Berger 1973, 310–312 (Steintafel X,1) and Da Riva 2008, 122 (ST). 2139 See the discussion on p. 340ff. above. 2140 BM 85965 (CT 37, pl. 13), II 42: É-ĝiš-nu11-gal É d30 bal-ri dUTU.È.A (see George 1992, 320). 2141 Tintir IV, 24 (George 1992, 60–61). 2142 Since the existence of the temple Ekišnugal was already recorded in the year names of the First Dynasty of Babylon, it can be assumed that this temple was situated near to the ancient city centre. That it was separated from the other temples mentioned by the

380

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

shown here in Fig. 16 (p. 382). In addition to the temple Ekišnugal, a sanctuary known by the name É-ní-teen-du10, “House of Pleasant Rest” or É-ní-te-en-na, “House of Rest”, also belonged to Sîn in Babylon.2143 The earliest references to this sanctuary name derive from the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, during which it is attested in the year names of Ammiditana and Ammiṣaduqa.2144 After the Old Babylonian period, the name is attested mainly in Sumerian litanies and laments, in which several sanctuaries of the moon god are mentioned. It is present in the litany of sanctuary names in the balaĝ-composition “The Honoured One of Heaven” (anna e-lum-e), in which it directly follows the temple Ekišnugal. Because of this litany’s affinity to the moon god’s cult in Ur, it is most likely that a sanctuary for Nanna/Sîn by the name Enitendu existed not only in Babylon, but also in Ur.2145 Therefore, it is plausible that like Ekišnugal, the name Enitendu for a sanctuary of Sîn in Babylon also had its origin in the city of Ur, and was imported to Babylon after the city’s rise to political and religious hegemony. Consequently, it is plausible that here, like in Ur, this name was a designation for a particular chapel within the moon god’s temple Ekišnugal. Besides Ekišnugal and Enitendu, the moon god appears to have had a sanctuary in the temple É-tùr-kalam-ma, “House, Cattle Pen of the Land”, that belonged to Bēlet-Bābili and was located in the city quarter Eridu in Babylon.2146 This is suggested by the text that describes the journey of a group of deities from Borsippa to Babylon, from whence they continue their way to Kiš with Bēl.2147 The ritual in question took place at the end of the month Šabāṭu, and on the 28th day of that month (during the moon’s invisibility) Sîn and Ningal from Borsippa spent the night in the “chapel of Sîn in Eturkalama”.2148 The existence of such a chapel in the temple of Bēlet-Bābili, the local manifestation of the goddess Ištar, is unsurprising, since the genealogical relationship between Ištar and Sîn is deeply rooted in Sumero-Babylonian mythology.2149 Moreover, it appears that

early kings of Babylon is suggested by the topography in Tintir IV: the other temples are situated in the city quarter Eridu, but the temple Ekišnugal’s location is in Kullab (see George 1992, 13–29). 2143 See George 1992, 308 and George 1993, no. 870. 2144 See Ungnad 1938, 189 and Horsnell 1999, 312 (30th year of Ammiditana); Ungnad 1938, 190–191 and Horsnell 1999, 347–348 (17th year of Ammiṣaduqa). 2145 See the transliteration of this litany and the following discussion on p. 333ff. above. 2146 George 1992, 16 and 307–308. See also George 1993, no. 1117. 2147 See the edition of BM 32516 and BM 41239 in George 2000, 289–299. 2148 BM 32516//BM 41239, 7: dSîn u dNin-gal ina bīt dSîn šá É-⌈tùr⌉-⌈kalam⌉-⌈ma⌉ ⌈i⌉⌈bit⌉-⌈tu⌉-’ (George 2000, 293). J. Fincke has noted that the moon god’s travel during the day, combined with his period of rest at night, reflects the concept that the moon god was fully active during the sunlit hours (Fincke 2009, 530–531). 2149 See the discussion on p. 309ff. above.

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

381

there was a connection between the temple Eturkalama of Bēlet-Bābili and Enitendu/Enitena of Sîn: the list in Tintir IV, 8–9 mentions these names together, with Eturkalama preceding the name Enitena.2150 For this reason, it is possible that the sequence reflects the topography in Eturkalama in addition to the fatherdaughter relationship between Sîn and Ištar.2151 Due to the aforementioned accommodation of Sîn and Ningal in a chapel inside Eturkalama in the month Šabāṭu, it is plausible that the place where they rested was, in fact, the sanctuary Enitena/Enitendu, “House of (Pleasant) Rest”. In addition to the presence of the moon god in the temple of his daughter Ištar, a further attestation in the text Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons also indicates his presence in the temples of Nabû and Marduk in Babylon. Sîn is not named in the section listing the deities who reside in Esaĝil and Babylon, but most likely this is due to the lacuna at the beginning of this section.2152 The additional section that deals with the deities found in the temple of Nabû, lists Sîn and Ningal after Marduk and Zarpānītum and before Šamaš and Gula.2153 In the list of the deities who stand before Marduk in his sanctuary, Sîn is named in the same line as the god Madānu.2154 These references, which reveal that several manifestations of Sîn could be found in Babylon’s main temples, accord with the short remark made in the text Tintir, which reveals that there was a “seat” (šubtu) of Sîn in the temple complex Esaĝil: this “seat”, whose name remains unknown, is said to be located in the west, behind the well.2155 Outside the city of Babylon, the town Damru appears to have housed a sanctuary for Sîn with the name É-ĝissu-bi-du10-ga, “House whose Shade is Pleasant”.2156 The existence of the moon god’s cult there is supported by the epithet bēl Damru, “lord of Damru”, which is attested for Sîn in a lipšur-litany.2157

2150

George 1992, 58–59. In George 1992, 308 the genealogical relationship is seen as the reason why the names Eturkalama and Enitena were listed together. 2152 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, i+487–516 (Meinhold 2009, 396–398 and 404–405). 2153 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, i+521 (Meinhold 2009, 398 and 405). 2154 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, k+537 (Meinhold 2009, 399 and 405). 2155 Tintir II, 34: [x-(x)]-kù šubat(MIN) d30 É šá im4 šá ku-tal bur-tum (George 1992, 46– 47). 2156 See George 1993, no. 407. This temple name is perhaps attested in the Canonical Temple List, 271 (George 1993, 15). According to George, an unpublished manuscript of the so-called “Syncretistic Ištar Hymn” reveals that this temple was located in Damru. For further references for the existence of the cult of the moon god there in the Old Babylonian period see Charpin 1978, 19 note 26. 2157 K. 2096 (ABRT I no. 58), o.! 9: d30 EN! DU10.GARki (collated from the photograph available in CDLI P394190; see also the citation in George 1993, no. 407). 2151

382

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Fig. 16: Reconstruction of Babylon’s topography (George 1992, Fig. 4)

III.2. Other Cult Places of Sîn in Babylonia

383

III.2.6. Borsippa In Babylonia, the moon god Sîn also had a sanctuary in Borsippa, at least during the Neo- and Late Babylonian times. Whether he had a sanctuary in the city during earlier periods is uncertain, but the moon god’s presence in Borsippa can already be observed in the famed colophon of Esaĝil-kīn-apli, compiler of the medical diagnostic series: the gods Sîn, Lisi, and Nanaya are all brought forward in connection with the city Borsippa.2158 Neo-Babylonian sources reveal that a sanctuary of the moon god called É-dim-an-na, “House, Bond of Heaven”,2159 existed in the city, but information concerning this temple is scarce. This sanctuary, which most likely bore the same name as one of the moon god’s sanctuaries in Ur,2160 is best attested in one of king Nebuchadnezzar II’s inscriptions, where it is mentioned among the Babylonian temples that he had built. 1 R 55, IV 61–652161 IV 61 a-na dEN.ZU na-aš ṣa-ad-du IV 62 da-mi-iq-ti-ia É-dim-an-na É-su IV 63 i-na i-gar li-mi-ti É-zi-da IV 64 na-am-ri-iš e-pu-uš For Sîn, the bearer of signs (that are) favourable to me, I brilliantly built Edimana, his house, at the surrounding wall of Ezida. The topographical details (“at the surrounding wall of Ezida”) given here suggest that the sanctuary Edimana perhaps was located in the courtyard of the Ezida, but this cannot be confirmed by the archaeological data.2162 There also seems to be an attestation of the name Edimana in a fragment of a text from Babylon, VS 24 no. 112 (VAT 17017). Because only a small part of this tablet is preserved, it is difficult to tell its exact content: what is clear is that it concerns the chapels (papāḫu) of certain deities.2163 Sîn together with another deity – most

2158

ND 4358+4366, r. 55–56 and BM 41237+, r. 21’: um-mat d30 dLi9-si4 u dNa-na-a BÁRA.SIPAki-i reš-ti-i, “the ummatu of Sîn, Lisi and Nanaya, a prominent citizen of Borsippa” (see Finkel 1988, 148–149). For the god Lisi in Borsippa see Waerzeggers 2010, 30. 2159 See George 1993, no. 160. A temple with presumably the same name existed also in Sippar (see p. 373ff. above). 2160 SBH no. 24//, 8 (see Cohen 1988, 210–211 and the transliteration of this passage on p. 333 above). An overview of the available attestations can be found in George 1993, no. 159. 2161 See Langdon 1912, no. 15, IV 61–65. For detailed bibliographical information see Berger 1973, 310–312 (Steintafel X,1) and Da Riva 2008, 122 (ST). 2162 For the location of the Sîn temple in Borsippa see Unger 1931, Abb. 27 (Tf. 18); Unger 1932, 422 and Waerzeggers 2010, 31. 2163 The editor of the text suggests that this fragment is a list belonging to the temple ad-

384

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

likely his spouse Ningal – is mentioned in this fragment and in the following line the building name Edimana can be read.2164 Due to the origin of the text in Babylon and its apparent late date,2165 we can only suppose that the sanctuary Edimana in Borsippa, not the sanctuary with the same name in Ur, is meant. Unfortunately the administrative sources from Borsippa stay quiet about the cult of Sîn and his wife Ningal in this city, which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate his position there. The sporadic references to “Sîn of Edimana” that are known all come from the Persian period, and involve prebendary income from the offerings presented to Sîn.2166 Due to this lack of sources, the reason for the moon god’s presence in Borsippa can only be speculated about, but it may plausibly have been connected to the cult of his daughter Nanaya there.2167 Such an interpretation is supported by the presence of Sîn and Ningal among the gods who travel together with Nanaya from Borsippa to Babylon as part of a festival at the end of the month Šabāṭu.2168 Upon reaching Babylon on the 28th day of Šabāṭu, the deities from Borsippa spent the night there before continuing with Bēl to Kiš.2169 This explanation, based on genealogy, parallels the cult of Sîn and Ningal elsewhere in Babylonia: the presence of the moon god in Nippur, Uruk, Sippar, and Babylon was connected to the cult of his parents (Enlil and Ninlil) or his children (Šamaš, Ištar, Anunītu, and Nanya).

III.3. Ḫarrān The main city of the moon god in the northern part of Mesopotamia was Ḫarrān.2170 Located along the river Baliḫ in the upper reaches of the Euphrates, at ministration (van Dijk 1987, 14). It is noted in the review article of VS 24 that this text appears to list different structures and parts of the sanctuaries like chapels and doors (Oelsner 1993, 145–146). 2164 VS 24 no. 112, r. 9–10: 4? d30 ù d[...] / É-dim-a[n-na ...]. 2165 This tablet belonged to the archive/library N15 in Babylon (Pedersén 2005, 257 no. 80). 2166 See Waerzeggers 2010, 563 and 614–616. 2167 The temple of Nanaya in Borsippa was called É-ur5-šà-ba (see George 1993, no. 1195 and Drewnowska-Rymarz 2008, 63). For an overview of the cult of Nanaya in Borsippa during the Persian period see Waerzeggers 2010, 20–29. For a discussion of Nanaya as Sîn’s daughter see p. 312ff. above. 2168 BM 32516//BM 41239, 1–9 (George 2000, 289–299). See also Waerzeggers 2010, 31. 2169 Sîn and Ningal spend the night in the “chapel of Sîn” (ina bīt Sîn) in the temple É-tùrkalam-ma (see the discussion on p. 378ff. above). 2170 The history of Ḫarrān has been discussed and outlined by several authors in the past, and the overview given here is based on the following studies: Lloyd & Brice 1951, 87– 89; Prag 1970, 70–76; Postgate 1972–1975, 122–125; Fales 1979, 13–41; Green 1992, 19–22; Donbaz 1987, 15–19; Lipiński 1994, 171–174; Holloway 1995, 279–284; Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 549–550; Fales 1998, 216–217; Theuer 2000, 323–326; Holloway

III.3. Ḫarrān

385

the crossroads of trade routes that connected the West and the East as well as the North and the South,2171 Ḫarrān was economically and politically important throughout its existence. Correspondingly, the moon god, as the tutelary deity of Ḫarrān, held religious power in the area. It remains unknown whether this place was a centre for the worship of the moon already in the pre-historic past. Although it is likely that the cult of moon god in Ḫarrān as it is attested in the 2nd and 1st millennium BCE was an import from Ur, the possibility that a longer tradition of moon worship existed in the city cannot be excluded. The archeological evidence confirms that the site of Ḫarrān has a long history of habitation: the earliest clear remains date back to the Early Dynastic II– III period, ca. 2750–2350 BCE.2172 Documentation from Ebla reveals that around the 24th century BCE, Ḫarrān was an independent city with a local ruler.2173 These references in the Ebla material do not, however, mention the tutelary deity of Ḫarrān. Written sources that speak of the moon god of Ḫarrān first begin to appear during the Old Babylonian period. The most notable is a treaty concluded in the temple of Sîn in Ḫarrān.2174 During the latter part of the 2nd millennium BCE, when Ḫarrān was a part of the Mitannian kingdom, the moon god of Ḫarrān is attested in a treaty between the Hittite ruler Šuppiluliuma and Šattiwaza of

2002, 389–404; Novotny 2003, 2–5; and Groß 2014, 139–140. The clearly close relationship between the Sargonid kings and Ḫarrān cannot be definitively explained, but various speculations have been presented. K. Radner has suggested that Esarhaddon turned to the moon god of Ḫarrān in order to be healed from a skin disease (Radner 2003, 173). Meanwhile, E. Leichty proposes that Esarhaddon’s mother Naqī’a was from Ḫarrān (Leichty 2007, 189–191). A similar hypothesis is offered by E. Frahm: Sennacherib’s mother Ra’īmâ perhaps came from the city (Frahm 2014, 180–181). To explain the surge of references to Ḫarrān from the reign of Sargon II onward, N. May has recently suggested that Ḫarrān was a city where collateral lines of the Assyrian royal family resided (May 2017, 516–521). 2171 Lloyd & Brice 1951, 80–81. 2172 See Prag 1970, 70–72. It is most likely that the site was inhabited before the 3rd millennium BCE, but only one object that could be dated to the Samarra period (ca. 5000 BCE) has been found in the excavations. 2173 The sources from Ebla concerning Ḫarrān are presented in Archi 1988, 1–8. 2174 ARM 26/1 no. 24, 10–12: IÁs-di-ta-ki-im ù LUGAL.MEŠ ša Za-al-ma-qí-imki ù / lúsuga-gu.MEŠ ù lúŠU.GI4.MEŠ [š]a DUMU.MEŠ ia-mi-na / ⌈i⌉-na É dEN.ZU ša Ḫa-ar-ranimki anšeḫa-a-ri iq-ṭú-ú-lu-[n]im, “Asdi-takim and the kings of Zalmaqum, the sheikhs and the elders of the Benyaminites, killed a male donkey in the temple of Sîn of Ḫarrān”. See also Dossin 1939, 986. Asdi-takim, one of the people entering the treaty in this text, is identified as the king of Ḫarrān in ARM 27 no. 80, 8: Ás-di-ta-ki-im LUGAL Ḫa-arra-nimki. Perhaps predating the attestation in ARM 26/1 no. 24 is the reference to the Ḫarranian moon god in the inscription of Narām-Sîn of Ešnunna, ca. 1800 BCE (Recipieoli 1999, 19–20), but the reading of the inscription remains uncertain.

386

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Mitanni.2175 Here, the moon god is listed among the Mitannian deities.2176 Ḫarrān entered the Assyrian political sphere during the Middle Assyrian period when both Adad-nērārī I (1305–1274 BCE) and Šalmaneser I (1273–1244 BCE) claim to have conquered the district of Ḫarrān.2177 After the areas controlled by Assyria were reduced to the core of the realm in the 11th century BCE, it was most likely not until the reign of Assurnaṣirpal II (883–859 BCE) that the city became incorporated as part of the Assyrian empire.2178 During the Neo-Assyrian period Ḫarrān assumed a position as one of the provincial capitals, as an Assyrian outpost in the western part of the empire. The political and religious importance of the city is clear by the activities of the Sargonid kings there: Ḫarrān was exempted from taxes and corvée work by Sargon II;2179 Esarhaddon was crowned there as the king of the universe on his way to Egypt;2180 and in addition to appointing his younger brother as a priest of Sîn there, Assurbanipal also executed a large scale renovation project in Ḫarrān.2181 In the final days of the Assyrian empire Ḫarrān became the last bastion of the Assyrian king Aššur-uballiṭ II, who was based there after the sack of Nineveh in 612 BCE until it succumbed to enemy forces in 610/609 BCE.2182 In the following chapters, the main focus will be on the sources that contain information about the activities of the Sargonid kings and Nabonidus in Ḫarrān since they form the bulk of sources that refer to the moon god and his cult there. These activities include the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul, Emelamana, Eĝipar, and the akītu-house as well as the celebration of the moon god’s akītu-festival in Ḫarrān. An overview of the local character of the Ḫarranian moon god – the differences and the similarities between the moon god of Ḫarrān and Sîn as he is presented in Sumero-Babylonian sources – will also be outlined. The lack of material is problematic in this respect, but information concerning the local pantheon and certain theological aspects of the moon god can be gleaned from the royal inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus, as well as from the introductory formulae of letters and from personal names deriving from the area.

2175

CTH 51–52 (see the translation in Beckman 1996, nos. 6a and 6b). See Holloway 1995, 280–281, Theuer 2000, 325, and Holloway 2002, 392. 2177 See Postgate 1972–1975, 123 as well as Harrak 1987, 63–64 and 135. 2178 In Postgate 1972–1975, 123 an annexation during the reign of Šalmaneser III (858– 824 BCE) was suggested, but since the city is not mentioned in any of his inscriptions, it was probably annexed to the empire during the reign of Assurnaṣirpal II (see Reade 1989, 96 and Yamada 2000, 70). See also Holloway 2002, 394–395, where Postgate’s suggestion is followed, and Novotny 2003, 2–3 note 9. 2179 See p. 398 below. 2180 See p. 209ff. above. 2181 See p. 401ff. below. 2182 For the references see p. 405 below. 2176

III.3. Ḫarrān

387

III.3.1. Local Aspects of the Moon God’s Cult in Ḫarrān The local pantheon in Ḫarrān is mostly known from the sources deriving from the 1st millennium BCE and from the later Graeco-Roman and Arabic sources which reveal that the worship of the moon god and his family in the area continued well into the Islamic era.2183 The core of the Ḫarranian pantheon is wellknown. Like Ur in southern Mesopotamia, the city’s tutelary deities were the moon god Sîn and his wife Ningal.2184 This theological connection between Ur and Ḫarrān is also reflected in the biblical tradition, which ties these two cities of the moon god together: according to Genesis, the patriarch Abraham wandered from Ur of the Chaldees to Ḫarrān.2185 The Panbabylonian school of the late 19th and early 20th century wanted to see the patriarch as the moon god, who traveled from Ur to Ḫarrān to live there.2186 Even without a “Panbabylonian” explanation for this myth, Abraham’s travel from Ur to Ḫarrān has been described as guided by the moon.2187 The Sumero-Babylonian moon god’s transfer from southern Mesopotamia to the North has been explained as the product of commercial connections or political ties, although no direct evidence for such a transfer exists.2188 The most significant indication for the transfer of the SumeroBabylonian moon god Nanna/Suen to Ḫarrān can be found in the names of the divine pair Sîn and Ningal, which reflect the theological framework that had been well-established in Mesopotamia by the 3rd millennium BCE. Ningal (who was also known by the name Nikkal in the local panthea of northern Syria) tak2183

For the religious tradition in Ḫarrān in Graeco-Roman and following periods see Green 1992 and Fales 1998, 220–227. 2184 A overview of the goddess Ningal as the spouse of Nanna/Sîn in Sumero-Babylonian tradition is found on p. 296ff. above. 2185 Genesis 11, 31: “And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go out into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.” 2186 See the references in Combe 1908, 84–85. 2187 The relationship between these cities housing the Mesopotamian moon god and their connection to the nomadic groups in Mesopotamia and Syria as well as to Abraham has been discussed in Dhorme 1928a, 367–385 and 481–511. 2188 The view that the moon god of Ur was brought to Ḫarrān by Ur III merchants is expressed in Green 1992, 2 and 19; Theuer 2000, 325; and Holloway 2002, 390–391. To prove the connection between Ur and Ḫarrān, Holloway claims that the temple of the moon god in Ḫarrān, Eḫulḫul, bears the same name as the moon god’s temple in Ur (Holloway 2002, 391), but this is false: no temple or a sanctuary by this name is known to have ever existed in Ur. Another proposition for the transfer of the moon god’s cult from Ur to Ḫarrān dates this event to even earlier than the Ur III era: it is suggested in Lipiński 1994, 172–173 that the moon god of Ur was perhaps imported to Ḫarrān as early as the reign of Narām-Sîn of Akkad (2254–2218 BCE), whose daughter was the high priestess of Nanna in Ur. This, however, remains highly speculative.

388

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

ing the role of the moon god’s wife, particularly points to this goddess’ Sumerian origins.2189 There is no evidence for whether or not a pre-historic cult of the moon god had already existed in the area before the arrival of the Sumero-Babylonian moon god. Differentiating from the Sumero-Babylonian tradition, the son of the moon god in Ḫarrān was Nusku, who in Babylonia belonged to the household of Enlil. Thus the role of sun god Šamaš as the son of Sîn was taken over by Nusku, another god of light.2190 It is possible that, during the reign of Nabonidus, these two sons of Sîn were associated with each other in Ḫarrān, but the evidence for this is meagre.2191 Also, an equation between the gods Nusku and Nabû has been proposed especially for Ḫarrān.2192 As the son and the vizier of the moon god Nusku was not restricted specifically to the cult of the moon god in Ḫarrān, but he was also found in Nērab, written in Aramaic as nsk.2193 The father of the Ḫarranian moon god is not named in the available sources, but it is most likely that he was Enlil, in accordance with the prevailing Sumero-Babylonian tradition.2194 In Ḫarrān, the triad Sîn, Ningal, and Nusku enjoyed a well-established position not only on the official level, but naturally also among the local people. The building work executed by Assurbanipal in the temple Eḫulḫul of Sîn and the sanctuaries of Ningal and Nusku in Ḫarrān demonstrates the king’s reverence for these Ḫarranian deities. The same group of deities is present in the inscriptions of the Babylonian king Nabonidus, who recounts how he led the deities Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna back to Ḫarrān after their long stay in Babylon.2195 The triad is also well-known from the introductory formulae of letters sent to the Assyrian king from Ḫarrān.2196 The letters sent to Sargon II or his officials by Nabû-pāšir always include a greeting that invoked Sîn and Ningal.2197 The gods Sîn, Ningal, and Nusku in the form of a triad are also attested

2189

This highly significant factor is noted already in Dhorme 1928a, 382. See also Theuer 2000, 325. 2190 For Šamaš and Nusku as sons of Sîn see p. 305ff. and 314ff. above, respectively. 2191 See the discussion on p. 316ff. above. 2192 The suggestion that, in Ḫarrān, Nusku was equated with the god Nabû can be traced back to Lewy & Lewy 1948, 146–159, and this idea has been repeated in Gadd 1958, 40; Drijvers 1980, 145; Green 1992, 34; and Nissinen 1998, 122. 2193 See Theuer 2000, 374. 2194 For the god Enlil as the father of the moon god Nanna/Sîn see p. 291ff. above. 2195 See the citation of the Adda-guppi Stele on p. 409 below. 2196 This is noted already in Combe 1908, 58. 2197 SAA 1 nos. 188–193; 195–196; 198; 200; and 201. A letter, probably sent by Nabûpāšir and Nabû-dūr-makie (SAA 1 no. 210), also contains the greeting formula that invokes Sîn and Ningal/Nikkal. One anomaly is letter SAA 1 no. 202, which was sent by Nabû-pāšir, but its greeting formula invokes Nabû and Marduk instead of Sîn and Ningal.

III.3. Ḫarrān

389

in letter SAA 13 no. 187, which indicates that the sender had a connection to Ḫarrān.2198 The veneration of the moon god, his wife and their son among the population living in and around Ḫarrān is highlighted by the personal names that are attested in the area.2199 The most significant piece of evidence in this respect is the Ḫarrān Census, which lists families together with their agricultural holdings in various places in the area of Ḫarrān.2200 These either Akkadian or West Semitic personal names also reveal the local form Sē’ or Sī’ of the divine name Sîn.2201 In addition to the local form Sī’/Sē’ of the Akkadian divine name Sîn, the Ḫarranian moon god was also known by the epithet Bēl-Ḫarrān, “Lord of Ḫarrān”, which takes the place of the god’s name in certain contexts. When referred to by this name, the moon god was strictly connected with his manifestation in Ḫarrān as opposed to other local manifestations. Based on the local character of this divine name, it is unsurprising that it is attested both in Akkadian and Aramaic contexts, primarily in Ḫarrān and its surrounding areas. A stark contrast to this is shown by the almost complete absence of the name Bēl-Ḫarrān in the Assyrian official texts connected to Ḫarrān: in both royal correspondence and Assurbanipal’s inscriptions, the moon god is nearly always referred to with the name Sîn or the traditional Sumero-Babylonian appellations Nannāru and Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt. A single reference to the moon god by this local name can be found in letter SAA 10 no. 179, which informs the king of a conspiracy that is being planned against him.2202 In doing so, the correspondent Kudurru recounts the events that had taken place in the temple of Bēl-Ḫarrān2203 and in the temple of Nusku.2204 Despite the use of the name Bēl-Ḫarrān for the moon god, the circumstantial evidence suggests that the temple in question was in fact loc-

2198

See the citation on p. 64 above. An overview of the Akkadian and West Semitic personal names containing the theophoric element for Sîn can be found in Lipiński 1994, 174–180. See also the listing of the names beginning with the element Sē’ or Sîn in PNA 3/I, 1097–1107 and 1112–1151, respectively. The names with the element Nikkal are few in number (see PNA 2/II, 961– 963), but the names containing the element Našuḫ or Nusku are more popular (see PNA 2/II, 935–937 and 972–975, respectively). The popularity of the moon god, Nikkal, and Nusku in the personal names in the area of Ḫarrān is indicated by the existence of theophoric names incorporating these deities in almost every single family in the area, as described by M. Fales (Fales 1998, 219). 2200 See the editions in Fales 1973, 15–89 and SAA 11 no. 200–219. An overview of the structure and purpose of the Ḫarrān Census can be found in Fales & Postgate 1995, XXX–XXXIV. 2201 For this form of the divine name Sîn see p. 30 above. 2202 This letter is discussed in Nissinen 1998, 133–134. See also Frahm 2010a, 121–122. 2203 SAA 10 no. 179, 12: É dEN–KASKAL. 2204 SAA 10 no. 179, 21: É [d]Nusku. 2199

390

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

ated in Nineveh, not Ḫarrān.2205 It is possible that the moon god would have been present in Nineveh under this name, or that Kudurru used this appellation to specifically refer to the Ḫarranian moon god. In this respect, it should be noted that there is more evidence to indicate a connection between Ḫarrān and Nineveh at the time of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal: Urad-Ea, the chief lamentation priest of the Ḫarranian moon god was also active in Nineveh,2206 and an attestation in the Assurbanipal Prism T presents Nusku as part of the moon god’s household also in Nineveh.2207 The veneration of the Ḫarranian moon god under the name Bēl-Ḫarrān was not restricted to the immediate vicinity of the city, and that this god was acknowledged across a wider Syro-Anatolian area is illustrated by the presence of Bēl-Ḫarrān with his crescent moon standard in the stele of Bar-rākib, ruler of Sam’al (Zinçirli).2208 In this case, the name of the moon god is given in its Aramaic form, b‘l ḥrn, indicating the Ḫarranian moon god’s popularity in the Aramaic cultural sphere across the western provinces of Assyria. The veneration of the moon god, under the name Bēl-Ḫarrān, by the general population in the area of Ḫarrān as well as in the Assyrian mainland is confirmed by the existence of numerous theophoric personal names containing this element.2209 One high-ranking person with such a theophoric name was Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēlu-uṣur, who lived during the reigns of Šalmaneser IV and Tiglath-pileser III.2210 As the palace herald (nāgir ekalli),2211 and the eponym of the year 741,2212 Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēluuṣur appears to have enjoyed a remarkable level of independence from the king,

2205

The architectural details present in the building reports of Assurbanipal speak against the identification of this two-storied temple as Eḫulḫul (see Novotny 2003, 117–118). The temple of the moon god in Nineveh as the meeting place in SAA 10 no. 179 is also suggested in Nissinen 1998, 134: according to Nissinen, this must have been the place in which the Babylonian scholar Kudurru was detained. Such a view is accepted also in Frahm 2010a, 121–122. 2206 For Urad-Ea see the discussion on p. 393ff. below. 2207 See p. 435ff. below. 2208 See p. 43 above. The stele of Bar-rākib is discussed in Seidl 2000, 94–96 and Theuer 2000, 358–360. 2209 The PNA lists 17 different personal names containing this theophoric element (see PNA 1/II, 300–304). All of these names begin with the theophoric element, but a possible attestation for a name [Ix x (x)–EN]-KASKAL in TSF 97 F 200/140(+)214, r. 2’ should be noted (Fales, Radner, Pappi & Attardo 2005, 635). These names include some that are clearly West Semitic (e.g. IEN-KASKAL–id-ri in SAA 11 no. 214, 3’) and some that are Akkadian (e.g. IEN-KASKAL–ku-ṣur-a-ni in SAA 6 no. 196, 1). For an overview of the use of Bēl-Ḫarrān in personal names see also Lipiński 1994, 186–187 and Theuer 2000, 362–363. 2210 See the overview of the sources concerning Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēlu-uṣur in PNA 1/II, 301. 2211 For Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēlu-uṣur as the nāgir ekalli see Mattila 2000, 30–31. 2212 See year 741 in the Eponym List and the Eponym Chronicle (Millard 1994, 44).

III.3. Ḫarrān

391

which is illustrated by the stele he erected in Tell Abta to commemorate the founding of Dūr-Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēlu-uṣur.2213 It should be noted that only in very few instances the theophoric element Bēl-Ḫarrān in personal names is written together with the divine determinative as is expected in the case of a divine appellation.2214 This suggests that this appellation was rather understood as an epithet of the Ḫarranian moon god than as a divine name on its own right. The moon god and his spouse were naturally not the only deities venerated in Ḫarrān, but the available sources unfortunately do not contain tangible information about any other deities who resided in the city. A single Neo-Assyrian text, VAT 8005, implies that, in addition to Sîn and Ningal, the gods Aššur and Enlil enjoyed a prominent position in Ḫarrān.2215 No further attestations for the cult of these deities in the city are known, but it should be noted that both Aššur and Enlil may have been conceptually equated with the moon god in this respect.2216 The Akkadian documentation gives us the impression that, in Ḫarrān, the sun god Šamaš and the goddess Ištar did not play a significant role in the household of their father Sîn. Since the moon, sun, and planet Venus share a tight connection in the Sumero-Babylonian tradition, as members of the same family and as the principal celestial bodies, it is reasonable to assume that this is only an illusion created by the lack of sources. This is supported by the rich material in the Graeco-Roman and Islamic sources concerning the veneration of both the sun and the planet Venus in the area.2217 Moreover, sporadic Neo-Assyrian references suggest that both Šamaš and Ištar were either venerated as minor deities in Ḫarrān or they had their own cult places in the vicinity. The sun god’s presence in Ḫarrān is suggested by a letter sent from the city to the queen mother: in this letter, SAA 13 no. 188, a greeting formula that includes the divine pair Šamaš and 2213

See the photograph of the stele (Archaeological Museum, Istanbul [Inv. no. 1326]) in Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 232 and the text edition in RIMA 3, A.0.105.2. 2214 According to the overview presented in PNA 1/II, 300–304, only five certain attestations for a spelling with a divine determinative are known among the names with BēlḪarrān as the theophoric element. These attestations are: I.d+EN-KASKAL–⌈KI⌉?-⌈ia⌉? (SAA 6 no. 132, 1 and 6); I.dEN-uruKASKAL–MAN–PAB (SAA 6 no. 254, r. 2);I.dENuru KASKAL–MAN–PAB (SAA 6 no. 297, r. 5’); I.dEN-KASKAL–DAB-a-ni (Sm. 55+, VI? 16 = ADD App. no. 2, r. XI? 16); I.dEN-KASKAL–ki-la-ni (Sm. 55+, VI? 17 = ADD App. no. 2 r. XI? 17). 2215 VAT 8005, r. 17: ki-i ina uruKASKAL MIN d30 dNin-gal dAš-šur dBAD MIN, “When you ditto (i.e. put salt) in Ḫarrān, ‘Sîn, Ningal, Aššur, Enlil ditto’ (i.e. ‘Sîn, Ningal, Aššur, Enlil – receive!’ you say)” (Ebeling 1952, 131 and 134; Menzel 1981, T 112). See also Menzel 1981, 88. 2216 For the connection of Aššur and Sîn see the overview on p. 395 below. 2217 For the veneration of the sun god in Ḫarrān during the Graeco-Roman and Islamic times see Tubach 1986, 140–142 and 160–175 as well as Green 1992, 62–65. In Ḫarrān, the moon god’s daughter was known by the names Bath Nikkal, Tar‘atha, and al‘Uzza in these later sources (see Green 1992, 59–62 and 157–159; Green 1996, 87–100).

392

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Aya, in addition to Sîn and Ningal, is used.2218 The sun god Šamaš is also present, as the son of Ningal, in the inscription of Assurbanipal written on the wooden carrying poles of the goddess.2219 More evidence for the veneration of the sun god in connection with the moon god can be found in the Aramaic context in Nērab, an Aramean cult city of the moon god.2220 In the stele of the priest Šnzrbn, who in Akkadian is known by the name Sîn-zēru-ibni, the Aramaic moon god Šḫr is paired with the sun god Šmš, leaving the goddess Nkl and the son Nsk in a secondary position.2221 The goddess Ištar is absent in Neo-Assyrian sources related to Ḫarrān, which leaves us uninformed about her status there. Despite the view presented by Jo-Ann Scurlock, a manifestation Ištar of Ḫarrān is not attested in Akkadian sources although it can be assumed that Ištar belonged to the household of her father.2222 Although Ištar is not attested to have been venerated in Ḫarrān during the Neo-Assyrian period, she was certainly worshipped in Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe), close to Ḫarrān.2223 Ḫuzirīna and Ḫarrān were linked by their geographical closeness to each other, and the available sources also suggest a religious/cultic connection between them. One indication of this can be found in the donation of temple personnel from among the servants of Ištar of Ḫuzirīna to (most likely) Nusku of Ḫarrān.2224 A more tangible piece of evidence for the presence of the Ḫarranian moon god in Ḫuzirīna is provided by the crescent moon stele found there, broken in two pieces.2225 The moon god also appears in a document that gives accounts of wine issues and sil-

2218

SAA 13 no. 188, 4–7: [d30] dNin-gal [dNusku] / ⌈dUTU⌉ dA-a [x x x x x] / a-na LUGAL a-na ⌈AMA⌉-⌈LUGAL⌉ be-[lí-ia] / li-ik-⌈ru⌉-[bu], “May [Sîn], Ningal, [Nusku], Šamaš, Aya, [DN, and DN] ble[ss] the king and the mother of the king, [my lo]rd!” This letter that informed the queen mother Naqī’a about the materials donated to the temples in Ḫarrān (see p. 401 below). 2219 See the citation of Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 1–11 on p. 301 above. 2220 For a discussion of the Nērab stelae see Theuer 2000, 373–376 with further bibliographical information. 2221 KAI 225, 9: šḫr wšmš wnkl wnšk ysḥw, “may Šaḫar and Šamaš and Nikkal and Nusk eradicate”. 2222 See especially Scurlock 2009, 67–68 as well as the discussion on p. 310ff. above. Goddesses that correspond to the Mesopotamian Inanna/Ištar are attested in Ḫarrān only in the much later Graeco-Roman and Islamic sources (see Green 1996, 87–100). 2223 For an overview of the sources for the cult of Ištar in Ḫuzirīna see Menzel 1981, 90. 2224 SAA 12 no. 91, 1–2: [ARAD?.MEŠ ša] ⌈d⌉15 ša uruḪu-z[ir]-ri-i-ni / [ša LUGAL? a-na] d Nusku ⌈e⌉-di-nu-ni, “[The servants of] Ištar of Ḫuzirīna, [that the king] has given [to] Nusku.” This donation may have occurred in connection with the expansion of the sanctuary of Nusku in Ḫarrān (see Novotny 2003, 169–170 and also the discussion on p. 404ff. below). Sîn is Ḫarrān is also mentioned in a fragmentary context in a land grant from Ḫuzirīna (SAA 12 no. 48, 6’). 2225 See Lloyd & Gokçe 1953, 39–40 and Pl. IV; Börker-Klähn 1982, no. 230 and Lipiński 1994, 187.

III.3. Ḫarrān

393

ver payments, which also confirms to the cultic veneration of Sîn in Ḫuzirīna.2226 One of the silver payments, eight shekels, was made for a calf that was apparently intended as an offering for Sîn.2227 At the end of the text, moreover, a laḫḫinu of Sîn is named as a recipient of 10 shekels of silver.2228 Because of the lack of documentation, not much is known about the cult of the moon god in Ḫarrān. Royal correspondence confirms that an akītu-festival of Sîn was celebrated in the city yearly, but apart from this, no evidence exists for the local cult in the temple Eḫulḫul.2229 Only a few individuals belonging to the temple personnel in Ḫarrān are known by name. The temple administrator (šangû) of Ḫarrān, named Balāssu, is found in an account of a ceremonial banquet, but no further details about him are preserved in the documentation.2230 A family of lamentation singers of Sîn is known through royal correspondence and genealogies present in colophons. This family was active in Ḫarrān and in the royal court in Nineveh during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, and originally came from Babylonia.2231 The lamentation priest Urad-Ea is best known from the correspondence of Esarhaddon.2232 Seven letters sent by UradEa to Esarhaddon concern cultic matters not only in Ḫarrān, but also in Kurba’il.2233 On the basis of the titles, which presumably designate Urad-Ea in dif-

2226

STT 48 (SU 52/331), edited in Gurney 1953, 21–25. See also Menzel 1981, 90. STT 48, r. 6–7: 8 ⌈GÍN⌉.MEŠ ina lìb-bi gu4mu-u-ru É x [x (x)] / ina IGI d30 šá ina MURUB4 URU e-lu-u-ni. As already pointed out in Gurney 1953, 24 note 2, it is not clear whether the subject of the verb e-lu-u-ni is the calf or the moon god. 2228 STT 48, l.e. 1: lúlaḫ-ḫi-nu ša d30. For the function of laḫḫinu in Neo-Assyrian temples see Menzel 1981, 223–228. 2229 See the discussion on p. 410ff. 2230 SAA 7 no. 151, r. I 5’–6’: 1 mBa-la-su lúSANGA / ša uruKASKAL. It has been suggested in Mattila 1990, 16 that this account is connected with the New Year’s festival or possibly the occasion of swearing the loyalty oath to Esarhaddon. This šangû of Ḫarrān is also shortly mentioned in Menzel 1981, 88. See also Holloway 2002, 409–410. 2231 For recent overviews of the Babylonian Šumu-libši family see Gabbay 2014b, 119– 121 and Gabbay 2014a, 241–242. Šumu-libši, the ancestor of the lamentation priests Urad-Ea and his son Nabû-zēru-iddina, is given the title “galamāḫu of Esaĝil” in a colophon written by Nabû-zēru-iddina (see e.g. 81-2-4, 306, r. 10’–11’ in Elat 1982, 15–16; see also Hunger 1968, no. 500). 2232 The latest overview of Urad-Ea can be found in Gabbay 2014b, 120. See also the previous discussions in Parpola 1971, 43–44 and PNA 3/II, 1396–1397. For the position of Urad-Ea in the “inner circle” of scholars in the service of the Assyrian king see Parpola 1993a, XXV–XXVII. 2233 The letters sent by Urad-Ea are edited in SAA 10 nos. 338–344. The letters SAA 10 nos. 338–339 concern the akītu-festival in Ḫarrān and Kurba’il. Three letters (nos. 340– 342) inform the king of kettledrum performances for celestial deities. Two letters (SAA 10 nos. 343–344) are badly preserved, but they can be connected to the moon god of Ḫarrān due to their introductory formulae, which mention Sîn, Nikkal, and Nusku. 2227

394

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

ferent stages of his life, it is clear that throughout his whole career he was in the service of the moon god Sîn.2234 It has been suggested that he began his career as the chief lamentation priest (galamāḫu) for the Ḫarranian moon god, but made his way to the royal court in Nineveh, where he also stayed in Sîn’s service, perhaps in the Sîn-Šamaš temple.2235 Whether he completely relocated himself from Ḫarrān to Nineveh in order to be closer to the king can be disputed, but it is certain that he at least temporarily lived at the royal court in Nineveh.2236 The son of Urad-Ea, Nabû-zēru-iddina, inherited his father’s position as the lamentation priest of Sîn.2237 Like his father, Nabû-zēru-iddina was also active at the royal court in Nineveh: in the list of experts in the court he is the first of the six listed lamentation priests.2238 The most visible traces of Nabû-zēru-iddina and his family are found in the colophons that reveal his family genealogy and his career as a lamentation priest. On the basis of these colophons it is evident that Nabûzēru-iddina was employed in the service of the moon god and the king, as his father Urad-Ea had been. In the tablet containing the third excerpt of the lamentation “He who Makes Decisions in the Council” (unkin-ta eš-bar til-la),2239 Nabû-zēru-iddina describes himself as “kalû of Sîn and the king, son of UradEa”.2240 The title “aštalû of Sîn” that Nabû-zēru-iddina uses for himself in the colophon of a tablet containing a war ritual2241 differs from the title kalû known from other sources, and is perhaps an indication of the professional development in his career.2242 Nevertheless, the connection to the moon god appears to have persisted through all the stages of his career in the service of the Assyrian king. As in the case of cultic personnel, written sources shedding light in the theological notions connected to the Ḫarranian moon god form unofficial contexts are lacking. The role of Sîn as the tutelary deity of the city is, however, demonstrated by certain aspects of the Neo-Assyrian documents and iconography.

2234

For designations of kalûs as connected to a specific deity see Gabbay 2014a, 69–70. Gabbay 2014b, 120. This proposition is based on the development of Urad-Ea’s titles from galamāḫu of Sîn of Ḫarrān (81-2-4, 306, r. 10’–11’ in Elat 1982, 15–16 and Hunger 1968, no. 500) to galamāḫu of the king (K. 4240, r. II 11’ in Borger 1998, 31) and finally to galamāḫu of Sîn and the king (e.g. Sm. 80, 1’–2’ in Hunger 1968, no. 524). For the double temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Nineveh see the discussion on p. 431ff. below. 2236 Urad-Ea, the lamentation priest (lúGALA) is present in the list of court officials (SAA 7 no. 5, I 51). 2237 See the overview of the sources concerning Nabû-zēru-iddina in PNA 2/II, 908. 2238 SAA 7 no. 1, r. I 1. 2239 This lamentation is edited in Cohen 1988, 479–499. 2240 K. 3238 (BL 158), r. 7’: I.dAG–NUMUN–SUM-na ŠÚ d30 u LUGAL A IÌR–dÉ-a. See the edition of this colophon in Hunger 1968, no. 499. 2241 81-2-4, 306, r. 9’: I.dAG–NUMUN–SUM-na áš-ta-lu-u d30 A IÌR–dÉ-a (Elat 1982, 15– 16; see also the edition of the colophon in Hunger 1968, no. 500). 2242 This is suggested in Elat 1982, 22. 2235

III.3. Ḫarrān

395

Most tangibly, the moon god of Ḫarrān acted as the guarantor of contracts in the area and he was the recipient of penalty payments in the case of a contract violation.2243 A further local aspect is seen in the iconography of cylinder seals from northern Mesopotamia and Syria: depictions of the crescent moon together with motifs of vegetation suggest an association between the moon god and fertility.2244 In contrast to the moon god’s traits as the head of the local pantheon, the epithets of the Ḫarranian moon god in the official texts, mostly inscriptions of Assurbanipal, conform with general Sumero-Babylonian theological notions regarding the moon god. Importantly, the theological-astronomical thinking that emerged in Nineveh during the Sargonid dynasty made its way to Ḫarrān in the form of the so-called “Theology of the Moon”.2245 Sîn’s ability to bestow kingship and to sustain it is apparent in royal correspondence and the inscriptions of Assurbanipal in Ḫarrān and was clearly important to the Sargonid kings.2246 Also significant is the apparent juxtaposition of the Ḫarranian moon god with the national god Aššur (and the cities of Ḫarrān and Assur) beginning from the reign of Sargon II.2247 Such a phenomenon is exhibited by the juxtaposition of the cities Ḫarrān and Assur, both of which were granted the kidinnūtu and zakûtu privileges (as the only cities in Assyria) by Sargon II.2248 Moreover, an inscription of Sargon II mentioning a rebellion in the western provinces of Assyria depicts Sîn as the king of the gods in the same way that the god Aššur is depicted in the Aššur Charter.2249 At Esarhaddon’s coronation in Ḫarrān, while he was travelling

2243

See the discussion on p. 249ff. above. See Fig. 11, on p. 52 and discussion on p. 229ff. above. 2245 The “Theology of the Moon” associates Sîn with the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil during the first half of the lunar cycle. For this association see the discussion on p. 136ff. and especially the citation of the inscription K. 8759+ on p. 142ff. 2246 See the discussion on p. 196ff. above. 2247 The sources suggesting that Aššur and Sîn were associated during the reign of the Sargonid dynasty are detailed in Schaudig 2002, 628 note 37. See also Mayer 1995, 66– 67 where the rise of the moon god during the reigns of the Sargonid kings is connected to the attempt to bind the Aramaic population to the Assyrian empire. Similarly, in Uehlinger 1997, 315–323, the Ḫarranian moon god is interpreted as having been the highest ranking god in the western provinces of Assyria, thus corresponding to the god Aššur in Assyrian main land. See also Mayer 1998, 257 with the same argument for the promotion of the moon god as an equal to the god Aššur. In the most recent discussion concerning Ḫarrān and the Sargonid dynasty, N. May suggests that Ḫarrān may have been a domain of collateral branches of the royal family, thus explaining the close connection of the rulers who were not first in line to the throne (Sargon II, Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal) with the city and its cult (May 2017, 516–521). 2248 The references to the kidinnūtu and zakûtu for Ḫarrān in the inscriptions of Sargon II are given on p. 398ff. below. 2249 Frahm 2013a, 46–47 and 49 (ll. 16–19); see also the discussion on p. 203 above. 2244

396

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

to Egypt, both Aššur and Sîn were the deities who granted the king his royal power.2250 A further connection was embedded in the installation of Assurbanipal’s two younger brothers as šešgallu-officials: one was stationed in the temple of Aššur in Assur and the other in the temple of Sîn in Ḫarrān.2251 These actions must have aimed at enforcing Assyrian control in the region of Ḫarrān. On the other hand, they may also be regarded as evidence for the hypothesis that collateral lines of the Assyrian royal family were residing in Ḫarrān.2252 Outside of the royal context, a group of Neo-Assyrian penalty clauses likened Aššur and the Ḫarranian moon god to each other: as beneficiaries, both of them were to receive white horses if the contract was breached.2253 A peculiar case for the possible equation of Aššur with Sîn is offered by Bēl-iddina’s letter to the Assyrian king (SAA 13 no. 187). Here the triad Aššur, Nikkal, and Lord-Crown is named in the introductory formula, suggesting that the moon god was perhaps associated with Aššur as “Lord-Crown”.2254 Moving to the city of Assur itself, a celestial association between Aššur and Sîn can be found in the compendium that described the akītu-festival in Assur: in the first line of the section pertaining to the planetary equivalences of the deities Sîn, Aššur, Adad, and Šamaš, we encounter the statement “Jupiter is the star of Sîn and Sîn is Aššur”.2255 Finally, a connecting factor between Sîn of Ḫarrān and the god Aššur is formed by the god Nusku, who in Assyria was the son of Aššur, the “Assyrian Enlil”,2256 but in Ḫarrān (and possibly later in Nineveh) was the son and vizier of the moon god.2257 Therefore, Nusku being a member of both Aššur’s and Sîn’s households may have provided a theological justification for juxtaposing them in both royal and non-royal contexts.

III.3.2. The Temple Eḫulḫul, Sargonid Kings, and Nabonidus The temple of the moon god in Ḫarrān was known by the name É-ḫúl-ḫúl, “House of Joy”.2258 When seeking the possible implications of this temple name,

2250

See the citation and further discussion of the letter SAA 10 no. 174 on p. 209 above. See the discussion on p. 401ff. below. 2252 May 2017, 516–521. 2253 For the penalty clauses prescribing the donation of white horses to the moon god of Ḫarrān see the discussion on p. 266ff. above. 2254 See the discussion on p. 64 above. 2255 BM 121206, VIII 55’: dSAG.ME.GAR MUL šá d30 šú-u ù d30 Aš-šur šú-u (see Menzel 1981, T 64 as well as the citation of this line in Parpola 1983, 59). 2256 For the god Aššur as the Assyrian Enlil see Lambert 1983, 82 and Mayer 1995, 62. 2257 See the discussion on p. 314ff. above. 2258 The translation given in George 1993, no. 470 is “House Which Gives Joy”. Because of the similarity to the name of Sîn’s temple in Assur, Eḫulḫuldirdira, “House of Surpassing Joys”, it is perhaps more likely that the element /ḫulḫul/ is here a plural nominal form, not a participle. See also the discussion in Novotny 2003, 92–93 note 293. 2251

III.3. Ḫarrān

397

it seems primarily to refer to the joyous emergence of the moon in the night sky that is also especially praised in the ikrib-prayers to Sîn (which assert that mankind, as well as the stars and the night, rejoice over the moonrise).2259 It is worth noting that the names of Sîn’s temples in Ḫarrān (Eḫulḫul) and in Assur (Eḫulḫuldirdira) resemble each other greatly, but since the origins of both these names is clouded by the lack of sources, their possible relationship cannot be confirmed.2260 Despite the apparent existence of this temple in the city during the Old Babylonian period at the latest,2261 textual references to it are focused on the last decades of the Neo-Assyrian period and its reconstruction during the reign of the Babylonian king Nabonidus. The earliest attestation for the name Eḫulḫul derives from the reign of Sargon II, and it is further attested in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus.2262 Eḫulḫul’s location remains unknown (see Fig. 17, p. 407 below). Ḫarrān was excavated by British archeologists in the 1950’s and more recently by their Turkish colleagues, but their excavations have not revealed the remains of the once dominant temple in the city.2263 The only clues are the stone stelae and their fragments containing inscriptions of Nabonidus which were reused as building material for the Great Mosque. The way these stones were utilised in the construction of the mosque suggests that the temple of the moon god was located in the vicinity, if not at the same spot as the mosque. On the basis of the locations where bricks with Nabonidus’ inscription were found combined with the description in Assurbanipal’s report concerning the building of Eḫulḫul, Jamie Novotny has suggested that the temple of the moon god was located in the northeastern quarter of the tell, but this remains to be confirmed by archeological excavations.2264 The general appearance of the temple is provided by the relief found in Til Barsip, which depicts the Ḫarranian moon god standing on top of his house.2265 If we are to believe the history of the temple Eḫulḫul as it is portrayed in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal, the only Neo-Assyrian king before him to build

2259

K. 2751+//, 14’–15’; 35’–36’; 47’ and 61’ (see p. 483ff. below). The verb that is used in this connection is ḫadû, which is also present through the noun ḫidâtu in the Akkadian translation of Eḫulḫuldirdira’s name in Götteradressbuch, 156 (see p. 420 below). 2260 For the moon god’s temple in Assur see p. 416ff. below. 2261 See the discussion on p. 384ff. above. 2262 The lack of sources prior to the Sargonid dynasty was already noted in the overview of the moon god’s temple in Ḫarrān in Combe 1908, 75–81. 2263 For discussions concerning the location of Eḫulḫul see Lloyd & Brice 1951, 79–80; Gadd 1958, 90; Saggs 1969, 166–169; Prag 1970, 77–78; Fales 1998, 228–237 as well as Novotny 2003, 46–47 note 148. Locating the temple on the basis of later Arabic authors’ descriptions of Ḫarrān is complicated by the mixing of traditions in the city. 2264 Novotny 2003, 123–126. 2265 See Fig. 4, p. 24 above.

398

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

and repair the temple of the moon god was Šalmaneser III (858–824 BCE).2266 However, no trace of any activity in Ḫarrān have been preserved in the inscriptions of Šalmaneser III, which makes it difficult to verify the truth of this claim. The same history for Eḫulḫul is repeated by Nabonidus, who apparently relied only on the inscriptions of Assurbanipal in this matter.2267 The kings Adad-nērārī III (810–783 BCE) and Šalmaneser IV (782–773 BCE) are not named as builders of the temple in any sources, but the two boundary stelae containing their inscriptions indicate that they were otherwise active in the area surrounding Ḫarrān.2268 Beginning with the reign of Sargon II, Ḫarrān rose to an important position in the political and religious context of Assyria. This is reflected by the significant increase in references to the city around this time. The attention given to Ḫarrān by Sargon II is apparent, and the most important indication of its special status was its exemption from taxes and corvée service (kidinnūtu and zakûtu), as reported in his inscriptions.2269 An example is found in the cylinder inscription from Dūr-Šarrukīn. Sg Zyl, 62270 le-e’ kàl mal-ki ša UGU uruḪar-ra-na an-dùl-la-šu it-ru-ṣu-ma ki-i ṣa-ab dAnim u dDa-gan iš-ṭu-ru za-kut-su

See e.g. Assurbanipal Prism T, II 39–40 (= Assurbanipal Prism C, I 78–79): É d30 ša Šùl-ma-nu–MAŠ / A IAš-šur–[PAB–IBILA] LUGAL pa-ni / maḫ-ri-ia e-pu-šu, “the temple of Sîn that Šalmaneser, son of Assur[naṣirpal], a king who preceded me, had built” (Borger 1996, 142 and 207 and Novotny 2003, 97–99; now also RINAP 5/I nos. 10 and 6, respectively). See also Holloway 1995, 287 no. 1; Novotny 2003, 47–49; and the overview of the history of the city and the temple in Mayer 1998, 251–252. 2267 Schaudig 2001, 2.12, II 3–5 (Ex. 1): [e-li] te-me-en-na ša IAN.ŠÁR–ba-an–IBILA LUGAL KUR Aš-šurk[i] / [ša] te-me-en-na IŠul-man–SAG.KAL DUMU IAN.ŠÁR–naṣir–IBILA i-mu-r[u] / [u]š-šu-šuv ad-di-mav ú-kin, “I laid its foundation over the foundation of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, [who] had seen the foundation of Šalmaneser, son of Assurnaṣirpal, and made it permanent”. 2268 RIMA 3, A.0.104.2 and RIMA 3, A.0.104.3 (Adad-nērārī III); RIMA 3, A.0.105.1 (Šalmaneser IV). The curse formulae in these boundary stones name the Ḫarranian moon god: a reference to his role as a guarantor of treaties and oaths (see p. 249ff. above). See also the discussion about the depictions of the crescent standard of Sîn on p. 43ff. above. 2269 See Holloway 1995, 284–285 and Holloway 2002, 406. It has been suggested that the Ḫarrān Census may have been compiled in connection with the kidinnūtu that Sargon II granted to Ḫarrān (Fales & Postgate 1995, XXXII–XXXIII; see also Parpola 1974, 108 and Postgate 1974, 36–39). Another reason for the compilation of this list may have been the separation of Ḫarrān from the province of the general (turtānu) to become a province itself (see Radner 2006, 54 and Groß 2014, 142). 2270 Fuchs 1994, 32 and 289. See also the similar passages in Sg Ann., 2; Sg S4, 10; Sg Stier, 9; Sg R. 7; and Sg Bro. 13. 2266 I.d

III.3. Ḫarrān

399

the most able of all the kings, who extended his protection over the city Ḫarrān and wrote down its exemption like (for) the people of Anu and Dagān Another reference to the privileges given to Ḫarrān conspicuously juxtaposes the cities Assur and Ḫarrān as the recipients of these rights which, according to Sargon II, had existed previously but had since been forgotten. Sg Prunk 10–122271 10 za-kut Bal-tilki ù uruḪar-ra-ni šá ul-tu u4-me 11 ma-a’-du-ti im-ma-šu-ma ki-den-nu-us-su-un ba-ṭil-ta ú-ter 12 áš-ru-uš-šá The exemption from taxes and corvée service, which has been forgotten long ago, for Baltil and Ḫarrān, as well as their interrupted privileged status I restored. The attention given to Ḫarrān in this respect is balanced by the absence of references to restoration work in the moon god’s temple in Ḫarrān. Still, a clay cylinder of Sargon II contains the oldest reference to the temple Eḫulḫul, mentioned alongside other important Assyrian temples.2272 The relevant passage in the lines 3’–7’ of the cylinder is difficult to interpret because the predicate verbs are missing, but it is clear that it subject matter is the donation of precious metals – zaḫalû and silver – for the decoration of temples.2273 The deities that are mentioned by name together with their temples are Aššur, Šarrat-Ninūa, Bēlet-Arba’il, and Sîn of Ḫarrān. The purpose of the silver donation remains unknown although most likely it was in some way associated with the establishment of the kidinnūtu for Ḫarrān.2274 The possibility that the metal would have been used for šurinnu-standards of Sîn seems unlikely since these crescent standards in Ḫarrān were in good condition during the reign of Sargon II, as the letter sent by Ṭābšār-Aššur informs the king.2275 SAA 1 no. 50, 1–8 1 a-na LUGAL be-lí-ia 2 ARAD-ka IDU10.GA–IM–dAš-šur 3 lu SILIM-mu a-na LUGAL be-lí-ia 2271

Fuchs 1994, 192 and 343. See also the similar passages in Sg XIV, 5 and Sg S5, 10. BM 122614+BM 122615, published in Thompson 1940, 86–89 and Fig. 1–2. See also Menzel 1981, 88; Novotny 2003, 50–51; and Groß 2014, 144. 2273 BM 122614+, 6’: [...] 7 1/2 ma-na KÙ.BABBAR eb-bu a-na ši-pir É-ḫúl-ḫúl maš-tak d 30 a-šib uruḪar-⌈ra⌉-a[n ...], “[...] 7 1/2 minas of pure silver for the work of Eḫulḫul, the abode of Sîn who lives in Ḫarrā[n ...]”. 2274 The preceding passage in this inscription mentions kidinnūtu. 2275 See Menzel 1981, 88 and Novotny 2003, 51–52. 2272

400

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

4 ina UGU dšu-ri-in-ni ša d30 5 ša uruKASKAL ša be-lí iš-pur-an-ni 6 i-ba-áš-ši 2 SIG5.MEŠ 7 ša a-na ma-ṣar-ti ⌈ša⌉ [x x] x 8 ša LUGAL be-[lí-ia x x] To the king, my lord: your servant Ṭāb-šār-Aššur. Good health to the king, my lord! As to the emblem of the moon god of Ḫarrān of which the king my lord wrote to me, there are two good ones which [...] for the watch of [...] of the king, my lord [...]. Sargon II’s interest in the state of the šurinnu-standards of Sîn in Ḫarrān further attests to his involvement in the moon god’s cult in that city. Jamie Novotny has considered the possibility that the letters concerning the manufacture of large doors, written by Nabû-pāšir who is known to have been active in Ḫarrān, may refer to Eḫulḫul, but this matter cannot be resolved on the basis of Sargon II’s correspondence alone.2276 Sennacherib was the only king of the Sargonid dynasty, who left no tangible evidence of activity in Ḫarrān.2277 During the reign of his successor Esarhaddon, however, an upsurge in sources relating to the city and the cult of the moon god there can be observed.2278 Although no references to Esarhaddon’s construction work in Ḫarrān survive, he was involved with the city in several other ways.2279 The preserved references to his activities in Ḫarrān appear to be concentrated in the last four years of his reign (672–669 BCE), the time when the two crown

2276

Novotny 2003, 52–53. For the editions of these letters see SAA 1 nos. 202–203. Nabû-pāšir also wrote to Sargon II about the akītu-festival of the moon god in Ḫarrān (see the citation of this letter on p. 410 below). 2277 See Novotny 2003, 53–55. It has been suggested that the stele with crescent moon standard found in Açaği Yarimca contains an inscription of Sennacherib (Gadd apud Lloyd & Brice 1951, 108–110 as well as Keel 1994, 139 no. 1), but this suggestion has since been rejected (see Frahm 1997, 193). N. May has recently suggested that the reason Ḫarrān may have been a place with an association with the collateral lines of the royal family (May 2017, 516–521). This would mean, according to May, that Sennacherib as the crown prince of Sargon II did not have the same connection with the city as Sargon II, Esarhaddon, or Assurbanipal appear to have had. 2278 For an overview of Esarhaddon’s activities in connection with Ḫarrān see especially Novotny 2003, 56–84. 2279 The number of references to Ḫarrān during Esarhaddon’s reign led E. Leichty to suggest that this city was the original home of the Sargonid kings (Leichty 2007, 189–191). A different explanation for the piety towards the Ḫarranian moon god shown by Esarhaddon is given by K. Radner, who suggested that the king sought help for his illness (a disease involving skin lesions) from Sîn, who was considered to be a source of such illnesses (see Radner 2003, 173 and Groß 2014, 143). For the conceptual connection of the moon god to skin diseases see the discussion on p. 270ff. above.

III.3. Ḫarrān

401

princes Assurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukīn were promoted by installation of their statues in the moon god’s temple,2280 a rebellion against Esarhaddon broke out in Ḫarrān,2281 and the king was blessed by the moon god as he was on his way to conquer Egypt.2282 In addition to Esarhaddon himself, the queen mother Naqī’a appears to have shown benevolence towards the cults in Ḫarrān. This is suggested by letter SAA 13 no. 188, which concerns the donation of materials to the temples in Ḫarrān.2283 The letter is badly damaged, but it seems that these materials were meant for decorations and cultic paraphernalia. After Esarhaddon’s death, the new king Assurbanipal executed his father’s plan concerning the royal brothers. This plan involved not only installing Šamaš-šumu-ukīn as the king of Babylonia, but appointing two of Assurbanipal’s younger brothers to what appear to be two of the most prestigious cultic positions in the land. According to inscription K. 891, Aššur-mukīn-palē’a was appointed as the šešgallu-priest of a god, who most likely was Aššur,2284 and Aššuretel-šamê-erṣeti-muballissu was installed as the šešgallu-priest of Sîn in Ḫarrān.2285 K. 891, 10–132286 10 ul-tu an-na-a e-tap-pu-šu ag-mu-ru šip-ri a-mat AD ba-ni-ía ul x x at-ta-ṣar ana-ku

2280

See the citation of SAA 10 no. 13, r. 2’–17’ on p. 157 above. For the rebellion that originated in Ḫarrān see Nissinen 1998, 127–135 and Radner 2003, 165–184. 2282 See the citation of the letter SAA 10 no. 174 on p. 209 above. 2283 See Melville 1999, 52–53 and Holloway 2002, 314 no. 27 and 408. 2284 The identity of this deity remains unclear, since the relevant passage is damaged. In the edition of K. 891 by M. Streck, the identity is left open, but he suggests that perhaps this deity was Aššur (Streck 1916, 250–251). In AHw, 1220 it is, however, suggested that Aššur-mukīn-palē’a was installed in Babylon, i.e. as the šešgallu of Marduk. This latter view is followed also by K. Radner and E. Weissert in PNA 1/I, 198 and 162, respectively. J. Novotny maintains that the former option (Aššur) is, in fact, correct on epigraphic grounds (Novotny 2003, 57 note 185 and Novotny 2014, 80–81). A collation of the tablet K. 891 (CDLI P237924) from a photograph supports the view presented by Streck and Novotny: the spacing in the line suggests that there was space only for a single sign at the end of the line. 2285 For an overview of the sources concerning Aššur-etel-šamê-erṣeti-muballissu see PNA 1/I, 184–185. For Assurbanipal’s family see especially Parpola 1983, 117–119 and PNA 1/I, 161–163. This appointment of the brothers is referred to also in Dhorme 1928a, 385; Holloway 1995, 291 no. 17; Mayer 1998, 251; and Holloway 2002, 412. 2286 See editions of this tablet in Streck 1916, 249–252 and Novotny 2014, 80–81 (no. 19). For further bibliographical information see Borger 1996, 320. K. 891 is also discussed in Novotny 2003, 57–58 and 200–204. 2281

402

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

GIŠ.NU11–MU–GI.NA ŠEŠ-MU ta-li-me LUGAL-ut kurKar-dDuní[a-àš] ú-šad-gi-la pa-nu-uš-⌈šú⌉ I.d AN.ŠÁR–mu-kin–BALA.MEŠ-ía ŠEŠ-MU tar-den-ni ana 12 lú ŠEŠ.GAL-tú ug-dal-lip ina IGI AN.[ŠÁR?] I.d AN.ŠÁR–e-tel–AN–KI–TI.LA.BI ŠEŠ-MU TUR ana lúŠEŠ.GAL13 tú ina IGI d30 a-šib uruKASKAL ug-dal-lip After I had done this and completed the work, I did not ..., (but) heeded the word of the father who engendered me: I entrusted the kingship of the land Karduniaš to my favourite brother Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, consecrated my younger brother Aššur-mukīn-palē’a to the status of šešgallu before Aš[šur?], (and) consecrated my younger brother Aššur-etel-šamê-erṣeti-muballissu to the status of šešgallu before Sîn who lives in Ḫarrān. 11

I.d

The exact role of the šešgallu-priest in the Assyrian cultic context remains unclear since nearly every attestation detailing the function of this cultic official derives from the Late Babylonian period.2287 Still, because members of the royal family were consecrated for this office, it must have possessed prestige in the cultic context.2288 The appointment of the younger brothers of the king as temple functionaries in these two important Assyrian religious centres (Assur and Ḫarrān) also resulted in a permanent royal presence in these cities. These appointments certainly were not without political motives,2289 but they also served as further evidence for the association between the gods Aššur and Sîn, who were juxtaposed through the appointment of the king’s brothers as their priests, during the time of the Sargonid kings.2290 Assurbanipal was the most prolific builder of sanctuaries in Ḫarrān. His activities are known through three different reports detailing his building pro-

2287

See the discussions concerning šešgallu in Kümmel 1979, 134–135; McEwan 1981, 9–10; and Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2005, 629. In the Hellenistic Rēš-temple, the šešgallu had an important cultic role, for example in the New Year’s festival, but in the earlier periods his function appears to have been administrative. 2288 According to Mayer 1998, 251 this appointment of members of the royal family to a cultic position reflects the same dynastic ideals as, for example, the appointment of Sargon’s daughter Enḫeduana as the en-priestess of Nanna in Ur. A similar comparison between the installation of Nabonidus’ daughter En-niĝaldi-Nanna as the high priestess of the moon god in Ur and the installation of Assurbanipal’s brother in Ḫarrān is made in Groß 2014, 147. 2289 It is suggested in Fales 1998, 218 that the appointment was made in order to control the clerics in the moon god’s temple, which had played a role in the rebellion against Esarhaddon. On the other hand, the installation of Assurbanipal’s younger brother as a priest of Sîn in Ḫarrān is seen a further proof for the suggested connection between the city and the collateral lines of the royal family in May 2017, 520. 2290 For further discussion concerning this association see p. 395ff. above.

III.3. Ḫarrān

403

ject, references to this project in the inscriptions detailing the deeds of the king, and through the copies of the inscriptions that were written to be displayed in Eḫulḫul of Sîn, Emelamana of Nusku, Eĝipar of Ningal, and the akītu-house in Ḫarrān.2291 It appears that the building project in Ḫarrān was one of the first to be commissioned by Assurbanipal in the early years of his reign.2292 The building reports are detailed enough to allow us to reconstruct six phases for the rebuilding of the temple.2293 First, the site was prepared by removing the old structures build by Šalmaneser III, after which the walls of the temple were built. The temple grounds were expanded, making the temple larger than it had been before. The roof of Eḫulḫul was then built using cedar beams and the doors made of cypress wood were decorated with silver bands. The interior of the temple was decorated with zaḫalû-metal, and images of wild bulls, laḫmu-figures and anzû-birds were made to guard its gateways. After all this had been done, the moon god was able to return to his temple – an event that most likely took place between the years 664–662 BCE.2294 Despite the goddess Ningal/Nikkal’s prominence in the area of Ḫarrān and other cult centres of the moon god in the Syro-Anatolian area by the 2nd millennium BCE,2295 her sanctuary É-ĝi6-pàr in Ḫarrān is known only from a single inscription of Assurbanipal.2296 This inscription, preserved as an archival copy in

2291

The building activities of Assurbanipal in Ḫarrān have been studied in depth by J. Novotny in his doctoral dissertation (2003) and, therefore, there is no need to discuss the details of the construction work here. There are three reports that describe the work in Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān: 1) The report in LET (r. 43–69) is the earliest and most detailed one and it was written in the first years of Assurbanipal’s reign (see Onasch 1994, 110–114; Novotny 2003, 88–94 as well as Novotny 2014, 84–85 and 102–103); 2) The so-called “Canonical First Summary Report” was written ca. 15 year after the LET report. This later report, which begins with the divine commission for building Eḫulḫul, is present in the Assurbanipal Prisms C, T, CND, G and I (Novotny 2003, 94–100; for recent editions, see Assurbanipal Prism T, II 29–III 14 and Assurbanipal Prism C, I 71–98 in Borger 1996, 141–143 and 207 [RINAP 5/I nos. 10 and 6], as well as the editions of the Prisms I and T in Novotny 2014, nos. 1–2 [RINAP 5/I nos. 5 and 10] and Prism G in RINAP 5/I no. 8); 3) The third report, which also is shortest and only fragmentarily preserved, is found in IIT, 60–69 (see Fuchs apud Borger 1996, 273–274 and Novotny 2003, 100– 106; now also edited as RINAP 5/I no. 23). For further details of these texts and other fragments related to Assurbanipal’s building work see Novotny 2003, 86. 2292 Novotny 2003, 196–218. 2293 The building phases for the Eḫulḫul temple are discussed in Novotny 2003, 109–153 2294 See Novotny 2003, 151. 2295 For the Hittite and Hurrian sources concerning Ningal/Nikkal see Imparati 2000, 356–357. The moon god yrḫ and his spouse nkl in Ugarit have been studied in Theuer 2000, 5–296. 2296 See George 1993, no. 380. The Eĝipar of Ningal is also discussed in Novotny 2003, 154–160. In Sumerian and Babylonian sources, the É-ĝi6-pàr is connected with the enu-

404

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

tablet Bu. 89-4-26, 209, was composed for the goddess Ningal/Nikkal and written on the gold plating of her wooden carrying poles.2297 In it, Eĝipar is portrayed as her dwelling-place.2298 Since this is the only reference to the Eĝipar of Ningal/Nikkal, the nature of the structure remains uncertain: it is not known whether it was a separate temple or only a sanctuary inside Eḫulḫul of Sîn, although the latter opinion has prevailed.2299 The view that Eĝipar was a chapel inside Eḫulḫul of Sîn is supported by the complete lack of written sources referring to a temple of Ningal/Nikkal in Ḫarrān. Moreover, the passage that refers to the rebuilding of the moon god’s temple by Nabonidus gives the impression that Eḫulḫul housed the sanctuaries of all the principal deities in Ḫarrān: Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna.2300 The god Nusku, who in Ḫarrān was Sîn’s son, also had a sanctuary in the city. Like Ningal’s, this building is also known from the inscriptions of Assurbanipal.2301 However, references to it are more numerous than to the Eĝipar of Ningal, and it is even mentioned along with Eḫulḫul in Assurbanipal’s later building reports.2302 Additionally, five display inscriptions composed for the temple are preserved as copies in Nineveh.2303 The name of the sanctuary is itself a loan from Nippur, where Nusku was the vizier of Enlil and his house was called É-me-lám-an-na, “House of the Radiance of Heaven”.2304 Whether this

priest and entu-priestess (see George 1993, nos. 377–390). The name É-ĝi6-pàr is also used by Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, the governor of Ur under Assurbanipal, for the temple of Ningal in Ur (see p. 350 above). 2297 See the citation on p. 301 above. 2298 Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 10–11: ru-ba-a-⌈tu⌉ réme-ni-tum ma-ḫi-rat tés-li-ti a-ši-bat É-ĝi6pàr / šá ⌈qé⌉-reb uruḪar-ra-na, “merciful queen, the one who receives supplication, the one who lives in Eĝipar that is in Ḫarrān” (see Novotny 2003, 234). 2299 For Eĝipar as a sanctuary of Ningal inside Eḫulḫul see Ebeling 1938a, 279; Streck 1916, 289 note 13; George 1993, no. 380; Zgoll 2000, 355; and Holloway 2002, 290 note 218 (as opposed to Holloway 1995, 290 no. 13 where Eĝipar is taken to be the temple of Ningal). Support for an opposing view can be found only in the formulation “Eĝipar that is in Ḫarrān” (as opposed to “that is in Eḫulḫul”), but this is not enough to argue for a separate temple for the goddess Ningal (Novotny 2003, 157). 2300 As noted in Novotny 2003, 156–157. See the passages describing how the gods Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna again took their abode in Eḫulḫul in Schaudig 2001, 1.9; 2.12, II 16–19 (Ex. 11); 3.1, III 21–24 (Ex. 1), and 3.2, II 18–21 (Ex. 1). 2301 The sources concerning Emelamana are discussed in Novotny 2003, 160–182. 2302 See e.g. Assurbanipal Prism T, II 49–51: É-me-lám-an-na É dNusku SUKKAL MAḪ / ša LUGAL pa-ni maḫ-ri-ia la e-pu-šú / ab-na-a qé-reb-šú (Borger 1996, 142 and 207; Novotny 2003, 98–100; and Novotny 2014, 56 and 89). See also IIT, 62 (Fuchs apud Borger 1996, 273 and 292 as well as RINAP 5/I no. 23). 2303 New transliterations of the display inscriptions K. 2803+, K. 2813+, K. 2822+, K. 9143 and Sm. 530+ are presented in Novotny 2003, 236–248. 2304 George 1993, nos. 763–764. This association is noted also in Novotny 2003, 166.

III.3. Ḫarrān

405

name was first adopted for the Ḫarranian sanctuary of Nusku during the reign of Assurbanipal or if it had been used there earlier remains unknown. The references to Emelamana in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal reveal that this structure was built inside Eḫulḫul, which suggests that, like the sanctuary of Ningal, it was located within the temple complex. At the same time that Assurbanipal rebuilt Eḫulḫul, he enlarged the temple grounds, and it is plausible that the sanctuary of Nusku was also enlarged and completely rebuilt.2305 Numerous objects and architectural features are mentioned in connection with Emelamana in the sources detailing the building work, which suggests that the building project was significant. It also seems that with the increase in size, additional manpower was needed in Ḫarrān, and that the necessary cultic personnel were donated by the temple of Ištar in Ḫuzirīna.2306 It has been suggested that, like the temples of Sîn and Šamaš in Assur and Nineveh, Eḫulḫul of Sîn and Emelamana of Nusku formed a double temple, but this cannot be confirmed.2307 There is a possibility that by the reign of Assurbanipal, the temple complex in Ḫarrān was similar in form to the Sîn-Šamaš-Ningal temple in Dūr-Šarrukīn2308 or the double temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Assur2309 and Nineveh,2310 but this remains highly speculative due to the lack of archeological evidence. After the destruction of Nineveh in 612 BCE, the last Assyrian king Aššuruballiṭ II held power in Ḫarrān, but not for long. In 610/609 BCE Ḫarrān was conquered by the Babylonian king Nabopolassar, together with his Median allies, and the temple Eḫulḫul was sacked.2311 This meant that Sîn of Ḫarrān abandoned his city, and did not come back until decades later when his temple was rebuilt by the Babylonian king Nabonidus. According to Nabonidus, Sîn’s temple in Ḫarrān had lain in ruins for 54 years before the reconciliation and return of the moon god and his household from Babylon to Ḫarrān occured.2312

2305

For a discussion of this possible enlargement see Novotny 2003, 169–170. This is perhaps the context of the text SAA 12 no. 91 (STT 406+) which concerns the transfer of 50 to 60 people allegedly into the service of Nusku in Ḫarrān (Streck 2001, 633 and Novotny 2003, 169–170). 2307 This possibility is mentioned in Pongratz-Leisten 1995, 554 and Holloway 2002, 291 note 219. See also Novotny 2003, 167. 2308 See p. 426ff. below. 2309 See p. 416ff. below. 2310 See p. 431ff. below. 2311 The capturing of Ḫarrān and the looting of the city and the temple in the 16th regnal year of Nabopolassar is described in Grayson 1975, 95–96 (no. 3, 58–65). See also Fales 1998, 219–220 and Mayer 1998, 252. 2312 Schaudig 2001, 3.3a, X 8’–31’. The Median occupation of the city came to an end in the third year of Nabonidus (Beaulieu 1989, 108–110 and Mayer 1998, 252–253). The journey of Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna from Babylon to Ḫarrān is referred to in the Adda-guppi Stele (Schaudig 2001, 3.2, II 17–21 (Ex. 1); see also Beaulieu 1989, 2306

406

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

This happened after the king’s return from Tayma, perhaps during his 14th or 15th regnal year.2313 Nabonidus had a personal connection to Ḫarrān and the moon god living there because his mother had lived there before its sacking by the enemies of Assyria.2314 In addition to the inevitable economical and geopolitical aspects of the attention Nabonidus gave to the city, his intimate connection most likely played a role in his endeavour to reintroduce the Ḫarranian deities back to their homes after decades of exile in Babylonia.2315 Moreover, the moon god’s significance to the kings of the Sargonid dynasty, especially as a god who held power over kingship, is echoed in his inscriptions that refer to the rebuilding of Sîn’s temple in Ḫarrān.2316 The link between Nabonidus and Assurbanipal as builders of the temple Eḫulḫul in Ḫarrān is especially conspicuous. As a builder, Nabonidus saw himself as a successor to the kings Šalmanaser III and Assurbanipal, who had rebuilt the moon god’s temple Eḫulḫul before him.2317 Based on this, as well as the expression of similar theological ideas about the moon god in Assurbanipal’s and Nabonidus’ Ḫarrān inscriptions, it is clear that Assurbanip208–209). It is claimed in Fales 1998, 220 that Nabonidus consecrated his daughter as the high priestess of the moon god in connection with rebuilding the temple Eḫulḫul, but this was done in Ur, not in Ḫarrān (see p. 360ff. above). 2313 According to the chronology established in Beaulieu 1989, 43. It is suggested in Tadmor 1965, 351–358 that the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul took place during the 15th or 16th year of Nabonidus. See also the discussion in Beaulieu 1989, 205–209. It is possible that the construction of Eḫulḫul had already taken place while Nabonidus was residing in Arabia, since a fragmentary inscription from Tayma appears to contain an epithet referring to the restoration of Eḫulḫul (TA 11381, 3’; see Schaudig, forthcoming [no. 5]). 2314 The idea that Adda-guppi was a priestess of the moon god in Ḫarrān was formulated by É. Dhorme already in the first half of the 20th century (see Dhorme 1908, 131 and Dhorme 1947, 1–21), and it has since been repeated in literature concerning the cult of the Ḫarranian moon god (e.g. Green 1992, 21 and Theuer 2000, 328). P.-A. Beaulieu has, however, questioned the accuracy of this claim, maintaining that the reverence shown by Adda-guppi to Sîn and other Ḫarranian deities does not necessarily indicate the cultic status of Nabonidus’ mother (Beaulieu 1989, 67–86). This view is accepted in D’Agostino 1994, 117 as well as Schaudig 2001, 14, and indeed, there is no definitive evidence to link Adda-guppi with a cultic office in the moon god’s temple. Despite Beaulieu’s suspicion, W. Mayer speculates that since she remained childless until her late thirties, Adda-guppi indeed was a high priestess of the moon god (Mayer 1998, 253– 254). Moreover, Mayer hypothesises that she was the daughter of Assurbanipal’s brother, Aššur-etel-šamê-erṣeti-muballissu, who had been appointed as the šešgallu-priest of Sîn in Ḫarrān. For this appointment see p. 401ff. above. 2315 As pointed out in Beaulieu 1989, 109–110, it is impossible to know to what extent the decision to rebuild the moon god’s temple in Ḫarrān was motivated by religion as opposed to geopolitical strategy that aimed at securing control of the area. 2316 For the moon god’s character in connection with kingship see p. 213ff. above. 2317 Assurbanipal is mentioned as the previous builder of the temple in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder of Nabonidus (Schaudig 2001, 2.12, I 39–40).

III.3. Ḫarrān

407

al’s inscriptions were familiar to the scholars who composed Nabonidus’ own texts.2318 Like Assurbanipal, who claimed to have acted on a divine order to rebuild Eḫulḫul,2319 Nabonidus stressed his divine mandate. In his case, however, the order did not come from the moon god alone, but from both Marduk and Sîn, who made themselves manifest to the king in a dream.2320

Fig. 17: Plan of Ḫarrān (Lloyd & Brice 1951, 85 Fig. 3)

2318

See the discussion concerning the use of the “Theology of the Moon” in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus (p. 142ff. above). 2319 Sîn’s selection of Assurbanipal to build the temple is discussed on p. 214ff. above. 2320 For an overview of dreams that contained a direct message from a deity or deities see Butler 1998, 15–18. The motif of revealing the temple’s reconstruction via a dream is also found in the Adda-guppi Stele (Schaudig 2001, 3.2, II 5–11 [Ex. 1]). See also the overview of Sîn’s role in oneiromancy on p. 189ff. above).

408

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Schaudig 2001, 2.12, I 15–20 (Ex. 1)2321 I 15 i-na re-eš LUGAL-ú-ti-ia da-rí-ti ú-šab-ru-’i-in-ni šu-ut-ti d AMAR.UTU EN GAL ù d+EN.ZU na-an-na-ri AN-e ù KI-tì I 16 I 17 iz-zi-zu ki-lal-la-an dAMAR.UTU i-ta-ma-a it-ti-ia d NÀ–NÍ.TUKU LUGAL TIN.TIRki i-na ANŠE.KUR.RA ru-ku-bi-ka I 18 I 19 i-ši SIG4.ḪI.A É-ḫúl-ḫúl e-pu-uš-ma d+EN.ZU EN GAL-ú I 20 i-na qé-er-bi-šu šu-ur-ma-a šu-ba-at-su At the beginning of my everlasting kingship, he showed me a dream: Marduk, the great lord, and Sîn, the luminary of the heaven and earth, were both present and Marduk spoke with me. “Nabonidus, king of Babylon, bring bricks with your riding horses, build Eḫulḫul and let Sîn, the great lord, take his place of residence therein!” In addition to the lengthy episodes detailing the rebuilding of the temple Eḫulḫul and reintroduction of the deities Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna to their abodes in the Eḫulḫul Cylinder, the Ḫarrān Stele and the Adda-guppi Stele, this event was also recorded in a short inscription written on bricks and brick fragments found in Ḫarrān. Schaudig 2001, 1.92322 I.d 1 MUATI–na-’i-id LUGAL TIN.TIRki za-nin É-saĝ-íl 2 u É-zi-da DUMU I.dMUATI–ba-laṭ–iq-bi NUN gít-ma-lu4 3 É-ḫúl-ḫúl É d30 šá qé-reb uruḪar-ra-na a-na d30 d Nin-gal dNusku u dSa-dàr-nun-na EN.MEŠ-a lu DÙ-uš 4 Nabonidus, king of Babylon, provider of Esaĝil and Ezida, son of Nabûbalāssu-iqbi, the perfect ruler. I have verily built Eḫulḫul – the house of Sîn in Ḫarrān – for Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna, my lords. This short inscription, in addition to the lengthier descriptions, speaks of the four main deities in Ḫarrān in a way that leads us to assume that they were all resident in the same temple complex known by the name Eḫulḫul. The lack of references to separate “houses” for Ningal and Nusku leads us to assume that, at least after the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul by Nabonidus, the sanctuaries of Ningal/ Nikkal and Nusku were located within the larger temple complex.2323 Whether the sanctuary of Nusku was still called Emelamana, as it was in the time of Assurbanipal, or if the sanctuary of Ningal bore the name Eĝipar remains unknown. Importantly, it appears that the temple complex rebuilt by Nabondius

2321

See also the similar account in the fragment of a cylinder found in Ḫarrān (Schaudig 2001, 2.19). This passage is briefly discussed in Oppenheim 1956, 202–203 and 250. 2322 See also the fragment of an inscription on a stone from Ḫarrān (Schaudig 2001, 4.4). 2323 See also p. 403ff. above.

III.3. Ḫarrān

409

also included a ziqqurrat of the moon god. This is suggested by a single inscription written on a stone bowl dedicated to the moon god of Ḫarrān.2324 According to its inscription, the bowl, together with a jug, was intended for use in the ziqqurrat of Eḫulḫul, whose name remains unknown.2325 Nothing else is known about the ziqqurrat in Ḫarrān, and it remains unclear whether it was introduced to the temple complex by Nabonidus in connection with the rebuilding of Eḫulḫul, or if the structure had existed there previously. The former option appears more likely on the basis of the available evidence, since no references to a ziqqurrat of the moon god in Ḫarrān have been preserved in any earlier sources:. Even Assurbanipal, who otherwise appears to have rebuilt all the parts of the temple and even enlarged it, does not mention a ziqqurrat in Eḫulḫul.2326 As already discussed, the reconstruction of Sîn’s Eḫulḫul climaxed in the reintroduction of the city’s deities, who had been taken to Babylon by enemy forces, to their abode in Ḫarrān. This journey of Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna from Babylon back to Ḫarrān is described in the Adda-guppi Stele. Schaudig 2001, 3.2, II 17–21 (Ex. 1) II 17 qa-ti d 30 dNin-gal dNusku dSa-dàr-nun-na ul-tu II 18 II 19 ŠU.AN.NA URU LUGAL-ú-ti-šú iṣ-bat-ma ina qé-reb uruKASKAL II 20 ina É-ḫúl-ḫúl šu-bat ṭu-ub ŠÀ-bi-šú-nu ina ḫi-da-a-tú II 21 u ri-šá-a-tú ú-še-šib he grasped the hands of Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadarnuna (taking them away) from Babylon, and let them in joy and exultation take their abode in Ḫarrān, in Eḫulḫul, the abode of their happiness The return of the moon god and his family to Ḫarrān was the occasion on which Nabonidus commanded the creation of a new cult image of Sîn. According to his own account, help in fashioning the statue was provided by a cylinder seal of Assurbanipal on which the moon god was depicted.2327 As already pointed out in connection with the anthropomorphic depictions of the moon god, this new statue appears to have been fashioned in Assyrian style in accordance with the local tradition in Ḫarrān, and this provoked resistance from the Babylonian, if we are to believe the mocking description of the statue in the Verse Account.2328 2324

HSM 899.2.282 (Dole & Moran 1991, 268–273; Schaudig 2001, 4.2). Schaudig 2001, 4.2, I 2–4: [kal-lu u] / šul-pi šá na4a-lál-lu4 a-na na-še-e me-⌈e⌉ [ŠUII ina TN] / ziq-qur-rat É-ḫúl-ḫúl šá qé-reb KASKALki e-pu-u[š-ma], “I made [a bowl and] a jug of alallu-stone for raising water [for the hands (in) TN], the ziqqurrat of Eḫulḫul”. 2326 See Novotny 2003, 192–193. 2327 A description of this can be found in the Babylon Stele of Nabonidus (Schaudig 2001, 3.3a, X 12’–51’). See also the citation of lines X 32’–45’ on p. 26 above. 2328 See the discussion on p. 24ff. above. 2325

410

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

III.3.3. The Akītu-Festival of Sîn in Ḫarrān In Ḫarrān, an akītu-festival of the moon god was celebrated much like in other Assyrian cities.2329 According to Mark Cohen’s interpretation of the Mesopotamian akītu-festival, the main objective of this festival procession was to celebrate the return of the city’s deities from the akītu-house back to the city, thus renewing their benevolent presence there.2330 Beate Pongratz-Leisten has expressed a similar view; she sees the akītu-festival in the Assyrian provincial cities not only as a means of celebrating the original entry of the patron deity into the city, but also as a way to visualise the presence of the Assyrian king in the periphery.2331 This would explain the existence of such a festival in strategically significant cities, such as Ḫarrān, which was an important military garrison. The importance of the akītu-festival in Ḫarrān for the exercise of power of the Assyrian king is demonstrated by the references to it in the royal correspondence. It should be noted that these reasons for an akītu-festival do not necessarily explain the purposes of the festival in entirety, since the references to appeasing or feeding the gods suggest a more complex theological framework for the festival.2332 The history of the akītu-festival of the Ḫarranian moon god remains unknown to us because there are only two references, both in the Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence, to its celebration.2333 The older reference dates back to the reign of Sargon II, who also expressed concern about the cult of Sîn in Ḫarrān in other ways.2334 In a letter to the king, Nabû-pāšir2335 informs him of the procession of the moon god from his temple to the akītu-house, where sacrifices in the name of the king were performed. SAA 1 no. 188, 7–r. 7 7 [itiX] UD.17.KAM 8 [dEN.ZU] ⌈it⌉-tu-ṣi-a 9 [ina É] ⌈á⌉-ki-it 10 [e]-ta-rab 2329

For a short overview of the akītu-festivals recorded in the documentation of the 1st millennium BCE see Cohen 1993, 426–427. For the akītu-festivals in Assyria see Postgate 1974, 60–62; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 79–83; and Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 245–252. See also Theuer 2000, 327–328 with a discussion of the akītu in Ḫarrān. 2330 Cohen 1993, 404. 2331 Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 251–252. 2332 See Postgate 1974, 61. 2333 In Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 79 a Neo-Assyrian origin of the akītu-festivals in Assyrian provincial cities is postulated. 2334 See p. 398ff. above. 2335 That Ḫarrān was the place where Nabû-pāšir was active is confirmed by the use of a greeting formula invoking Sîn and Nikkal in his letters to the king (see PNA 2/II, 858).

III.3. Ḫarrān

411

11 ⌈udu⌉⌈SISKURv⌉.MEŠ ša LUGAL EN-a 12 i-na SILIM-mu 13 it-te-pa-áš d EN.ZU i-su-[ḫur] r. 1 r. 2 ina É-šú e-ta-rab r. 3 i-na ša-lim-ti r. 4 i-na šub-ti-šu r. 5 it-tu-ši-ib r. 6 a-na LUGAL EN-a r. 7 ik-tar-ba On the 17th of [the month ... Sîn] came out and entered the akītu-house. The sacrifices of the king, my lord, having been performed successfully, Sîn returned, entered his temple, took his seat in peace and blessed the king, my lord. The second letter can be dated to the reign of Esarhaddon2336 and it reveals how the royal presence in the akītu-festival was assured by sending the king’s garments to act as his substitute.2337 The performance of lamentations for pacifying the heart of the god were performed in order to ensure the benevolence of Sîn of Ḫarrān towards the Assyrian king.2338 SAA 10 no. 338, 9–r. 2 9 UD.17.KÁM d30 i-ta-bi 10 ina a-ki-it ú-šab 11 LUGAL be-lí 12 ṭè-e-mu liš-kun 13 [tú]ggu-zip-pi lid-⌈di⌉-⌈nu⌉ 14 [is]-si-ia lu-[bi-la] 15 [É]R.ŠÀ.ḪUN.GÁ ina [UGU-ḫi] 16 [in-né]-pa-áš a-na LUGAL [EN-ía] 17 ⌈i⌉-kar-[rab] 18 ba-laṭ na-p[iš-ti]

2336

The traitors based in Ḫarrān mentioned in the letter serve as the main clue that this letter can be dated to the reign of Esarhaddon: the king’s closest men required bodyguards to ensure their safety (see Parpola 1983, 262 [no. 272] and Nissinen 1998, 132). To the contrary, it is suggested in Menzel 1981, 88 that this festival was perhaps connected to the building activities recorded in Assurbanipal’s inscriptions. Perhaps letter SAA 10 no. 343, which shows similarities to SAA 10 no. 338, also pertained to the akītu of Sîn, but the subject matter of the letter is unfortunately broken off. 2337 The sending of kuzippu-garments for the akītu in Kurba’il is also recorded in the letter SAA 10 no. 339 (Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 247). See also Holloway 2002, 271 no. 9. 2338 See Maul 1988, 28–29.

412

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

19 [šá u]4-me ru-q[u-ú-ti] r. 1 a-na LUGAL be-lí-[ía] r. 2 i-da-an On the 17th day Sîn sets off and takes up residence in the akītu-temple. Let the king, my lord, order that they give the garments; I should b[ring them] with me. The penitential psalm will be [per]formend ov[er them], he will bless the king, [my lord], and give a life of dis[tant d]ays to the king, [my] lord. Both of these letters contain the same date for Sîn’s procession to his akītuhouse, but unfortunately the name of the month is not preserved in either one of them. There has been speculation about the month in question, ranging from Ayyāru (2nd month)2339 to Simānu (3rd month)2340 to Tašrītu (7th month).2341 The 17th

2339

For an earlier overview of all the suggested months for the akītu in Ḫarrān see Novotny 2003, 183 note 567. An akītu-festival in the month Ayyāru in Ḫarrān is based on the dating of Urad-Ea’s letter (SAA 10 no. 338) to ca. 10th of Ayyāru (Parpola 1983, 262 [no. 272] and 429) and this suggestion is followed in Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 246 and Holloway 2002, 275 note 168. 2340 The moon god’s month Simānu is thought to be the month of the akītu-festival in Green 1992, 30 and 157. The attribution of the festival to this month is said to be based on hemerological texts from the library of Assurbanipal, but no references to these texts are given. Such a reference to an akītu-festival of the Ḫarranian moon god in the hemerological corpus is unknown to me. Furthermore, Green suggests that the proximity of the solar solstice to this date would create a dichotomy between the akītu of Sîn in the summer and the association of Nergal, Sîn’s brother, to the winter solstice. This view is followed in Theuer 2000, 327. 2341 The passage that has been seen as evidence for the akītu of Sîn in Tašrītu is found in Schaudig 2001, 3.1, II 13 (Ex. 1): ina itiDU6 UD.17.KAM u4-mu d30 im-ma-⌈ag⌉-⌈gàr⌉, “In the 17th of Tašrītu, the day ‘Sîn will be well-disposed’.” It is suggested in Beaulieu 1989, 152–153 that king Nabonidus wanted his return from Tayma on the 17th of Tašrītu to coincide with the most important festival of the Ḫarranian moon god, the akītu, and, therefore, the month for the akītu-festival must be Tašrītu. This view is repeated in Wolters 1995, 199–206, where it is further noted that this date for the akītu would coincide with the full moon nearest to the autumnal equinox. An akītu-festival of the moon god in Ḫarrān on the 17th of Tašrītu is taken for granted in Bidmead 2004, 136–137 note 28 and 139, and Schaudig 2001, 20. Since there is no other evidence supporting such an identification, the reference in Nabonidus’ Ḫarrān Stele should primarily be seen as a reference to the Babylonian Almanach, which it cites (see Beaulieu 1993a, 255 for this more careful approach and Schaudig 2001, 491 note 699 for bibliographical references). The entry for the 17th of Tašrītu in the Babylonian Almanac can be found in Livingstone 2013, 45, but see also the overview of the 17th day in relation to the moon god on p. 114ff. above. The closeness to the autumnal equinox and the special character of the full moons in the period preceding it, noted by Wolters, may have played a role in the attribution of this day to the good disposition of the moon god.

III.3. Ḫarrān

413

day of Tašrītu was certainly connected to the moon god in the Babylonian hemerological tradition, which makes this date a good candidate, but this does not reliably prove that the akītu in Ḫarrān would have taken place in that month. Since the evidence supporting the different suggestions is circumstantial, it is perhaps better to leave the question concerning the month of the akītu open for the time being. The only certain detail concerning the timing of the festival is that the procession of the moon god to the akītu-house took place on the 17th day, during the waning gibbous moon. This is a date that differs considerably from the Sumerian and Babylonian akītu-festivals.2342 However, when the attested days in connection with the other Neo-Assyrian akītu-festivals are taken into consideration, we see that the akītu-festivals in Nineveh and Arbela took place on a similar day (16th and 17th), but in a different month.2343 This suggests that the date for the akītu in Ḫarrān was not necessarily related to lunar theology, but was perhaps inspired by some other unknown factors present in the imperial religious context of the Neo-Assyrian era. The akītu-house of Sîn in Ḫarrān is known to have been rebuilt by king Assurbanipal.2344 A copy of the inscription displayed in this building in Ḫarrān is partially preserved in the tablet Sm. 671.2345 Also, the copy of the inscription written on the carrying poles of Ningal/Nikkal contains a brief reference to the akītu-house, suggesting that these carrying poles were used in the procession of Sîn and Ningal/Nikkal in this festival.2346 A further brief reference to this build-

2342

For the Ur III period, it is evident that both the vernal and autumnal á-ki-ti-festivals of the moon god took place at the beginning of the month (see Cohen 1993, 408–411). The latest overview of the days of the Babylonian New Year’s festival is given in Bidmead 2004, 46–106. 2343 Compare to the akītu of Ištar in Nineveh, which is thought to have taken place on the 16th day of Ṭebētu (Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 249). A similar date is found in a reference concerning the entry of deities to the akītu-house (of Ištar of Arbela?) and offerings for them on the 17th of Elūlu (RINAP 4 no. 54, r. 20–32 = Borger 1956, § 64; see also Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 80). 2344 The references to the akītu-house in Ḫarrān and the building work of Assurbanipal are discussed in Novotny 2002, 191–199 and Novotny 2003, 183–192. 2345 Sm. 671, r. 5’: [ša ina UGU x x (x)] ⌈É⌉ ⌈a⌉-ki-ti d30 ša uruKASKAL, “[Which is (written) on ... (of)] the akītu-house of Sîn of Ḫarrān.” (see Bauer 1933, Pl. 49 and Novotny 2003, 249–250). 2346 Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 23: a-na i-tab-bul DINGIR-ti-šá GAL-tú ša a-ṣe-⌈e⌉ ⌈É⌉ a-ki-ti epeš x [x x (x)], “to carry her great divinity every time it goes out of the akītu-house to perform” (see Novotny 2003, 159 and 235). This reference to the akītu-house in the inscription concerning the goddess Ningal/Nikkal has led some scholars to suspect that she had an akītu-house of her own in Ḫarrān (Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 79; Holloway 1995, 290 no. 11; and Holloway 2002, 290 no. 10). Like Novotny, I maintain that there was only one akītu-house in Ḫarrān and that the reference here is to the participation of Ningal/Nikkal in the procession alongside her husband Sîn.

414

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

ing can be found in the IIT inscription of Assurbanipal.2347 According to Jamie Novotny, the construction of the akītu-house represented the third and final phase of Assurbanipal’s restoration of temples in Ḫarrān, and perhaps began in the period between 647–644 BCE.2348 Whether this building was located inside or outside the city has long remained unclear since the few textual references to it yield no direct information about its location.2349 According to Novotny, a new reading of a passage in tablet K. 2664+,2350 which is perhaps an archival copy of an inscription of Assurbanipal, reveals that the akītu-house of the moon god was in fact located inside the city perimeter.2351 Based on epigraphical and philological evidence, Novotny plausibly suggests that the temple name in this passage, which reports the rebuilding of a temple of Sîn inside the city of Ḫarrān, refers to the akītu-house of the moon god and not the temple Eḫulḫul, as had been previously thought.2352 This implies that the location of the akītu-house in Ḫarrān is comparable with the location of Ištar’s akītu-house in Nineveh2353 or the location of akītu-chapels within the temple of Nabû in Kalḫu.2354 Furthermore, a location inside the city contradicts Mark Cohen’s idea that the primary concern of the akītu-festival in Mesopotamia was the return of the city’s deities from an akītuhouse that was located outside the city.2355 The plausible absence of this notion of the god’s return to his home city in Sîn’s akītu in Ḫarrān suggests that the festival may have had other aspects. The festival certainly served political purposes, as Beate Pongratz-Leisten has stressed in her discussion of the akītu-fest-

2347

IIT, 64: É á-ki-tu mu-š[ab? be-lu-ti-šú(?) a]r-ṣip ú-šak-lil KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.[GI ú-šalbiš ...], “I completely rebuilt the akītu-house, [his lordly] resi[dence, (and adorned (its walls)] with silver (and) go[ld ...]” (see Novotny 2002, 193; Novotny 2003, 184 and Fuchs apud Borger 1996, 273; now edited also as RINAP 5/I no. 23). 2348 Novotny 2002, 197 and Novotny 2003, 192. 2349 It is assumed in Lewy 1945–1946, 458 note 246 that the akītu-house of Sîn was located outside the city and that this was in fact the “temple of cedar” that was built outside the city when Esarhaddon was crowned there as the conqueror of Egypt (see the letter SAA 10 no. 174). In Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 79, it is maintained that it remains unclear whether this building was located inside or outside the city. 2350 See Borger 1996, 137 (TTaf 1). 2351 The matter is discussed in Novotny 2002, 194–197 and Novotny 2003, 184–192. 2352 For an earlier rendering of the passage see Borger 1996, 169. According to Novotny’s suggestion, the lines K. 2664+, V 14–15 are to be read ina u4-me-⌈šú⌉-⌈ma⌉ [É a-ki-i]t!(?) d 30 / ⌈ša⌉ ⌈qé⌉-⌈reb⌉ uruKASKAL, “At that time, (with regard to) [the akīt]u-[house of] the god Sîn, which is (situated) inside the city Ḫarrān” (Novotny 2002, 194; Novotny 2003, 184; and Novotny 2014, 65). 2353 See Reade 2000, 419. Ištar’s akītu-house is described to be “inside Nineveh” in the building report in the Assurbanipal Prism T, V 33–34 (Borger 1996, 169). See also Pongratz-Leisten 1994, 79. 2354 For locating the akītu-house inside Nabû’s temple in Kalḫu see Postgate 1974, 51–74. 2355 Cohen 1993, 404.

III.3. Ḫarrān

415

ivals in provincial military garrisons in Assyria.2356 Thus the akītu-festival in which the king took part, either in person or with his clothing acting as a substitute, had the purpose of embodying the power of the Assyrian king in this peripheral area. However, the whole spectrum of meaning in the moon god’s akītufestival in Ḫarrān and its local theological significance remains out of our reach.

III.3.4. The Moon God of Elumu Ḫarrān and Nērab are famous as centres of worship for the moon god in the Syro-Anatolian area, but the Assyrian king recognised other, smaller cult places of the moon god in this region. This is suggested by attestations naming a Sîn who lived in a place called Elumu, probably located near Carchemish.2357 The moon god of Elumu is prominent in text SAA 12 no. 90, which records the reinstallation of a stele dedicated to Sîn by Assurbanipal.2358 The stele commemorated the donation of the village to Sîn who lives in Elumu (Sîn āšib Elumu),2359 first dedicated by Il-yabi, who later had unlawfully taken it away. It is significant that although this local manifestation was most likely of Aramaic origin, the moon god of Elumu, here identified with Sîn, is addressed through epithets that are already familiar from other Assyrian and Babylonian sources.2360 Their affinity to the epithets employed in connection with the Ḫarranian moon god particularly suggests that this local moon god was associated with Sîn of Ḫarrān. SAA 12 no. 90 (K. 2564), 1–3 1 a-na d30 a-šá-red AN-e u KI-[tim ...] 2 DUGUD dDILI.ÍM.BABBAR e-muq la šá-na-an [...] 3 EN réme-nu-u šá a-na LUGAL mut-n[e]n-ni-šú i-x [...] For Sîn, the foremost of heaven and eart[h ...], the honoured Namraṣīt, power without equal, [...], the compassionate lord who [...]s the king who is pious to him, [...] A significant detail about this text, which records the donation of a village, fields, and orchards to Sîn in Elumu, is the direct connection to kingship expressed in the text: through the donation and the erection of a stele commemorating it, Assurbanipal sought to achieve continuity for his dynasty.2361 This is expressed by the use of the verbal form līteddiš, “may it renew itself”, which in 2356

See Pongratz-Leisten 1997, 251–252. This presence of the moon god in Elumu is discussed in Fales 1973, 112–113. 2358 A copy of the tablet K. 2564 (SAA 12 no. 90) is published in Bauer 1933, pl. 21. A photograph of this tablet is available in CDLI P336174. 2359 SAA 12 no. 90, 8: a-na d30 a-šib uruE-lu-ma. 2360 Cf. K. 8759+, 11–12 (p. 142ff. above) and “Sîn 1”, 17 (p. 452ff. below). 2361 SAA 12 no. 90, 3: a-na u4-me da-ru-ti li-te-ed-diš pa-lu-⌈u⌉-[ia? ...], “May [my] dynasty renew itself forever [...]!” 2357

416

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

this context creates a direct connection to the renewal of the moon. Therefore, the underlying idea at play was the the moon god’s divine protection for the king that allowed his dynasty to renew itself unceasingly, like the moon god who creates himself anew every month.2362 Apart from Assurbanipal’s praise of the moon god of Elumu, little information of this deity is available. In fact, the place Elumu is mentioned only in a one further text: BM 116230.2363 This document, which records an agreement between the rab kiṣri Šarrī-taklāk and the citizens of Elumu, contains a penalty formula involving Sîn, Šamaš, and perhaps a third deity.2364 The naming of the moon god and the sun god suggests that they were both venerated in that town. Nothing else regarding the moon god of Elumu is known.

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities III.4.1. Assur In the cultural centre of the Assyrian world, the city of Assur, the moon god Sîn shared a temple with his son, the sun god Šamaš.2365 The remains of this building were uncovered by the German excavations at the southeast side of the square located in the northern part of the city. This temple was surrounded by palaces and other temples (Anu-Adad temple and Ištar-Nabû temple).2366 The history of the temple can be traced back to at least ca. 1500 BCE. This was when king Aššur-nērārī I designated himself as the “builder of the temple of Sîn and Šamaš” in one of his brick inscriptions.2367 This earlier form of the double temple, which was preserved through the Middle Assyrian2368 and early Neo-As-

2362

For this aspect of the moon god’s connection to royal power see p. 196ff. above. Edited in Postgate 1974, 360–362. See also Radner 1997a, 16. 2364 For this penalty clause see the discussion on p. 261 above. 2365 For an overview of the textual sources connected to this temple see Menzel 1981, 76. The archeological data has been recently studied by P. Werner (2009) who also gives references to the inscriptions connected to this temple. See also the earlier publication of the archaeological material in Haller & Andrae 1955, 82–92 and the brief overview of the Neo-Assyrian building phase of the temple in Andrae 1977, 226–227. 2366 See Haller & Andrae 1955, 83 and Werner 2009, 11 and Tf. 1. In the map of the area, the grid square in which the Sîn-Šamaš temple is found is f6. 2367 RIMA 1, A.0.60.3: [b]a-ni É dEN.ZU / ⌈ù⌉ dUTU. In Haller & Andrae 1955, 86 the initial construction of the temple was originally dated to the reign of Šamšī-Adad I (ca. 1808–1776 BCE) on the basis of the bricks that were used in the earliest phase of the building. Later, a dating to the reign of Aššur-nērārī I, who reigned during the transitional phase between the Old Assyrian and Middle Assyrian periods, has been made (see Heinrich 1982, 201; Werner 2009, 16; and Miglus 2013, 542). 2368 The Middle Assyrian king Tukultī-Ninurta I (1243–1207 BCE) left behind an inscription on an alabaster tablet reporting that he rebuilt the Sîn-Šamaš temple (for an edition of the inscription see RIMA 1, A.0.78.18, 29–43). Two inscriptions of the earlier king 2363

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

417

syrian period, consisted of a broad building with the cellas of Sîn and Šamaš located on opposite ends, facing each other.2369 This opposition of the moon and the sun gods in the cultic topography of the temple must have represented the monthly opposition of the moon and the sun during the full moon.2370 The NeoAssyrian temple of Sîn and Šamaš was remodelled by Assurnaṣirpal II. It was enlarged, and given a completely different ground plan: the orientation of the cellas were changed and the gods no longer faced each other in opposition (Fig. 18). This remodelling was perhaps modelled on the Anu-Adad temple, which had a similar temple form and orientation of the cellas.2371

Fig. 18: Sîn-Šamaš temple of Assurnaṣirpal II (Andrae & Haller 1955, Abb. 26)

Arik-dēn-ili (1317–1306 BCE) also mention this temple, but only in connection with the sun god Šamaš (see RIMA 1, A.0.75.1 and A.0.75.2). Note also the donation of cedar resin made by Šalmaneser II (1030–1019 BCE) to the temples in Assur, among which the temples of Sîn and Šamaš are also listed (KAV 78, 14–15; edited in Menzel 1981, T 23– 24 and Meinhold 2009, 479–482). Another Middle Assyrian reference to the temples of Sîn and Šamaš is found in fragment KAV 176, which perhaps contains a list of products supplied to the temples in Assur (Meinhold 2009, 477–478). 2369 See the description of the architectural structures in Werner 2009, 19–24. 2370 The celestial character of the opposition of Sîn and Šamaš in the topography of this double temple is discussed in Lanfranchi 1995, 135–144 and noted also in Miglus 2013, 542. For the opposition of the moon and sun during the full moon see p. 217ff. above. 2371 Lanfranchi 1995, 138–142.

418

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

In spite of this change in the topography of the Sîn-Šamaš temple, the continued co-residence of the moon god and the sun god can be seen as a reflection of the similar positions held by these two celestial luminaries: whereas the sun god Šamaš was the ruler of the daytime, the moon god Sîn reigned over the night. Together they embodied both the passage of time and the stability of the cosmos.2372 It is important to note that the gods Sîn and Šamaš also shared a temple in the later capital cities of Dūr-Šarrukīn and Nineveh – a practise that may have been based on the cultic topography established in Assur. The archeological evidence can be evaluated only in the case of Dūr-Šarrukīn, and like the NeoAssyrian temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Assur, the temple built by Sargon II for his new residence incorporated sanctuaries for the moon god and the sun god within a larger complex.2373 Although the excavations in Assur were well-recorded, the badly preserved state of the Neo-Assyrian layers in the area of the Sîn-Šamaš temple leaves much room for speculation.2374 Two possible reconstructions of the temple have been made, both on the basis of the stone rails uncovered at the site.2375 These rails, which were introduced by Sennacherib, were presumably built for the cultic vehicles that transported the divine statues from and to the temples during the akītu-festival.2376 Along with the other deities who lived in the city, Sîn and Šamaš took part in the procession to the akītu-house located outside the city during the akītu of the god Aššur; here they also received meat offerings.2377 The description of this festival in Assur containing the list of the deities who participated in its various phases is supported by the account given by Sennacherib concerning the depictions of the deities in the relief of the akītu-house’s gate.2378 2372

See the discussion on p. 91ff. above. See the discussion on p. 426ff. below. The textual evidence points to a double temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Nineveh (see p. 431ff. below). 2374 See Werner 2009, 24–25. 2375 The old plan published in Haller & Andrae 1955, 88 (Abb. 26) has been modified by P. Werner to have a different entrance of the stone rails to the temple (Werner 2009, 25 [Abb. 9]). See also the overview in Heinrich 1982, 264. 2376 See Haller & Andrae 1955, 91–92 and Heinrich 1982, 264. The return of Sîn and Šamaš to their cellas on their processional boats is depicted by W. Andrae in his description of the city of Assur (Andrae 1977, 70 [Abb. 49]). For the origin of the akītu-house in the reign of Sennacherib see van Driel 1969, 57–59 and Cohen 1993, 424–425. 2377 Menzel 1981, 76. In BM 121206, V 7’ Sîn and Šamaš are among the fifteen deities who stand to the right of Aššur, and in VIII 28’; 39’–42’ the moon god is listed as a recipient of meat offerings (Menzel 1981, T 59 and T 64). For a different listing of the deities see the text VAT 13596, I 7’–15’ (Menzel 1981, T 72). 2378 See Lambert 1963, 189–190 and Cohen 1993, 23. The ritual texts detailing the procession of the deities are named in van Driel 1969, 163. See also the list of deities in Sennacherib’s succession treaty VAT 11449 (= SAA 2 no. 3. A new edition of the text together with a copy is published as KAL 3 no. 69). 2373

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

419

Here, the deities Mullissu, Šērūa, Sîn, Ningal, Šamaš, Aya, Kippat-māti, Anu, Antu, Adad, Šala, Ea, D[amkina], Bēlet-ilī, and Ninurta are described as following the god Aššur as he goes to fight Tiamat.2379 In addition, Sennacherib called himself the “one who fashioned images” of Aššur and the great deities, including Sîn, in connection with his construction work in the akītu-house.2380 The same compendium that details the akītu-festival in Assur also includes a list of the bathing rituals for the deities living there. This list states that the moon god had his bath (rimku) during six separate months of the year. BM 121206, VII 5’–7’2381 VII 5’ UD.7.KAM ša BÁRA UD.10.KAM šá itiGU4 UD.16.KAM VII 6’ šá itiKIN UD.2.KAM šá iti⌈DU6⌉ UD.16.KAM ša itiAPIN UD.18.KAM ša itiZÍZ VII 7’ rim-ka-a-ni šá d30 7th day of Nisannu (I), 10th day of Ayyāru (II), 16th day of Elūlu (VI), 2nd day of Tašrītu (VII), 16th day of Araḫsamnu (VIII), 18th day of Šabāṭu (XI). Baths of Sîn. These dates do not reveal any clear cut lunar pattern, but they are more or less connected to either the beginning of the month (2nd day), the half moon (7th day), the gibbous moon (10th and the 18th days), and the full moon (16th day). Despite Sennacherib’s apparent influence on the Sîn-Šamaš temple in Assur, Assurnaṣirpal II, the builder who changed the temple’s ground plan, was the only Neo-Assyrian king who mentioned this temple in his inscriptions. In the long inscription written on the stone slabs of the Ninurta temple in Kalḫu, he reports that he brought cedar logs from the Mount Amanus to the Aššur temple and the Sîn-Šamaš temple. RIMA 2 A.0.101.1, III 90 ÙR.MEŠ giše-re-ni iš-tu KUR ḫa-ma-ni na-šá-ku DU-ka a-na É-šár-ra a-na É-ia-as-ma-ku É ḫi-da-te a-na É d30 u dUTU DINGIR.MEŠ KÙ.MEŠ I transported cedar logs from Mount Amanus and brought (them) to Ešara, to my temple the shrine, a joyful temple, to the temple of the gods Sîn and Šamaš, the pure gods.

giš

2379

RINAP 3 no. 160, r. 26–31. As opposed to these mostly peaceful deities, the gods marching before Aššur include more aggressive deities such as Tišpak, Ninurta (of the Wall), and the Sebettu. 2380 RINAP 3 nos. 172–174. 2381 Menzel 1981, T 61.

420

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

An inscription on clay cones found inside the temple also records the building work done by Assurnaṣirpal II, who recounts that he had rebuilt the temple his predecessors had built, but which had now grown dilapidated. RIMA 2, A.0.101.67, 11–152382 11 e-nu-ma É d30 u d[UT]U 12 DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ EN.MEŠ-a 13 šá MAN.MEŠ [ālikūt pānīya e]-⌈pu⌉-šu 14 e-n[a-a]ḫ [iš-t]u uš-še-šú a-di gaba-dib-bi-šú 15 ar-ṣip At that time the temple of Sîn and [Šam]aš, the great gods, my lords, which kings [who preceded me] had built, had become dilapidated. I erected it from its foundations to its crenellations. The construction work on the temple has also been recorded in a fragmentary section in the stone slab inscription found in the Aššur temple;2383 it recounts that Assurnaṣirpal II had rebuilt the temple and let the gods Sîn and Šamaš re-enter their abode. RIMA 2, A.0.101.52, r. 7’–9’ r. 7’ šu-bat d30 u dUTU DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.[MEŠ] r. 8’ [bēlīya] ⌈a⌉-⌈na⌉ ⌈eš⌉-⌈šu⌉-te ina ŠÀ ad-di d30 u d[Šamaš] r. 9’ [ana libbi] ⌈ú⌉-⌈še⌉-ri-ib I newly founded therein the abode of Sîn and Šamaš, the great [gods, my lords,] and brought Sîn and Šamaš inside. No other references to the Sîn-Šamaš temple in Assur have been preserved in the official texts of the Neo-Assyrian period beyond these few inscriptions of Assurnaṣirpal II. This may be purely coincidental, but it may also reflect the relocation of political power from Assur to the later capital cities of Kalḫu, Dūr-Šarrukīn, and Nineveh. These inscriptions also do not refer to the temples of Sîn and Šamaš by their ceremonial names, É-ḫúl-ḫúl-dir-dir-ra, “House Filled with Joy” and É-babbar-ra, “Shining House”;2384 these names are known only from the list of Assyrian temples in the Götteradressbuch. Götteradressbuch, 156–1572385 156 É-ḫúl-ḫúl-dir-dir-ra É šá ḫi-da-a-ti ma-lu-u

2382

É d30

See also the fragment of a clay cone inscription from Assur, RIMA 2, A.0.101.69. See also Haller & Andrae 1955, 83 and Werner 2009, 14. 2384 George 1993, nos. 472 and 100 respectively. 2385 George 1992, 178–179. 2383

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

421

157 É-babbar-ra É nam-ru É dUTU Eḫulḫuldirdira: House which is filled with joy; the temple of Sîn Ebabbara: Shining house; the temple of Šamaš The ceremonial name for the temple of the moon god in Assur is strikingly similar to the name of his temple in Ḫarrān, Eḫulḫul.2386 However, it is impossible to evaluate any possible connection between these names, especially as the name Eḫulḫuldirdira is only rarely attested. Therefore, the question that remains unanswered is whether the name of the moon god’s temple in Assur reflects the name of his temple in Ḫarrān or if the name of the Ḫarranian temple was actually adopted from Assur during the reign of Sargon II at the latest. In addition to recording the ceremonial names for the temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Assur, the Götteradressbuch also offers us a list of the deities who lived in the households of Sîn and Šamaš.2387 According to this list, alongside Sîn and his wife Ningal two other deities, Tambāya and Ebeḫ, lived there. Götteradressbuch, 63–642388 d 63 30 dNin-gal dTam-ba-a-a d E-be-eḫ PAB 4 DINGIR.MEŠ šá É d30 64 Sîn, Ningal, Tambāya, Ebeḫ: a total of four gods of the house of Sîn. These same deities are also said to be living in the moon god’s temple in the Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, this time grouped together with the deities Bunene, Kettu, and Ūmu, who belonged to the household of Šamaš.2389 Tambāya, who was also connected with the temple of Mullissu in Assur,2390 is further mentioned in letter SAA 13 no. 47.2391 Although this letter concerning cultic images of Ningal and Tambāya is fragmentary, the references to the deities Ningal, Tambāya, and Šamaš together allows us to connect it to the temple of Sîn and Šamaš.2392 Ebeḫ was, in turn, the divine Jebel Hamrin,2393 who was also revered in the temple of Anu according to the Götteradressbuch.2394

2386

For this temple see the discussion on p. 384ff. above. For an overview of the available sources see Menzel 1981, 76. 2388 Meinhold 2009, 434. 2389 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, 103–109 (Meinhold 2009, 384 and 400). 2390 Götteradressbuch, 20 (Meinhold 2009, 431). 2391 An overview of the sources mentioning Tambāya is given in Krebernik 2012, 431. 2392 SAA 13 no. 47, 9’–r. 9 concerns the manufacture of a ring for Ningal’s statue, the removal of the hands from the statue of Tambāya, and the production of a new pair of hands for the same. 2393 See Lambert 1983, 82–86. 2394 Götteradressbuch, 57 (Meinhold 2009, 433). 2387

422

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

The nature of these deities is not known, but their evidently close connection to the city of Assur testifies to the highly local character of Sîn’s cult (as opposed to his cult in the Sumero-Babylonian tradition). Worth noting in this cultic setting is the absence of Sîn’s children, apart from Šamaš who was worshipped in the same temple building. Nusku, who in Ḫarrān was the son of the moon god, here belongs to the household of Aššur, who was equated with the god Enlil.2395 Sîn’s daughter, Ištar, was revered in her own temple.2396 In Assur the moon god was not restricted to his own temple. According to the text Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, the moon god had two different manifestations in the temple of the god Aššur. First, Sîn is listed in a group consisting of the deities Sîn, Adad, Šamaš, and Ištar. Their names follow those of the cosmic gods Enlil, Anu, and Ea-šarru.2397 This grouping was most likely associated with the character of Sîn, Adad, Šamaš, and Ištar as cosmic forces who manifested as observable forces of nature (the moon, the weather, the sun, and the planets/stars). A similar grouping is also found in the text of the tākulturitual. Sîn appears in the opening lines: “[D]rink [Aššur]! Drink Enlil! Drink Anu! Drink Ea-šarru! Drink Bēlet-ilī! Drink Sîn! Drink Šamaš! Drink Adad! Drink Ištar! May the great gods, the Sebettu (and) Narudi drink!”.2398 According to the Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, the second manifestation of Sîn in the Aššur temple appears among deities that clearly functioned as divine judges, including Aššur-Divine Judges, Ea, Kettu, Sîn, and Šamaš.2399 The presence of the moon god among these other divine judges is a reminder of his aspect as a divine decision maker.2400 Details about the temple personnel in the Sîn-Šamaš temple in Assur remain for the most part unknown.2401 A šangû of Sîn is present as a witness in a document that dealt with the division of an inheritance,2402 and a nargallu of Sîn and Šamaš likewise acted as a witness in a fragmentary document concerning a purchase.2403 Significant in respect to this latter attestation is the nargallu’s service to both Sîn and Šamaš, a reflection of their double temple in Assur.

2395

Götteradressbuch, 16 (Meinhold 2009, 430). The cult of Ištar in Assur has been studied by W. Meinhold (2009). 2397 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, 7–8 (Meinhold 2009, 379 and 400). 2398 Tākultu-Ritual Aššur-etel-ilānīs, 1–5 (Meinhold 2009, 414 and 420). See also the previous editions of the text in Frankena 1954, 23–39; Ebeling 1954b, 116–128; and Menzel 1981, T 138–142. 2399 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, 17–19 (Meinhold 2009, 380 and 400). 2400 See the discussion on p. 150ff. above. 2401 See the overview of the sources in Menzel 1981, 76. 2402 VAT 9330, 40 (Deller, Fales & Jakob-Rost 1995, no. 71). The name of this person is unfortunately not preserved. 2403 StAT 2 no. 114, r. 2’: [IGI Ix x x l]úNAR.GAL šá d30 dŠá-maš. For nargallu in NeoAssyrian sources see Menzel 1981, 254–255. 2396

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

423

III.4.2. Kalḫu Sîn is known to have belonged to the gods who were worshipped in Kalḫu, the city which became the capital of Assyria under the reign of Assurnaṣirpal II (883–859 BCE). In Kalḫu, Sîn had his own sanctuary, which unfortunately is never mentioned by its ceremonial name.2404 Information about the moon god’s presence in Kalḫu is sporadic and mainly concentrated in the references to Sîn’s sanctuary from the inscriptions of Assurnaṣirpal II. The only attestation outside the royal inscriptions is a receipt listing various materials that were delivered to the bīt Sîn in Kalḫu.2405 Due to the lack of both written and archaeological evidence, the sanctuary of Sîn cannot be identified in the remains of the excavated buildings. Based on the circumstantial evidence, mainly the lists of Kalḫu’s deities in the inscriptions of Assurnaṣirpal II, some information about the organisation of this temple can be gleaned. The main piece of information in this respect is that instead of being linked with the sun god Šamaš, who shared temples with Sîn in Assur, Dūr-Šarrukīn, and Nineveh, in Kalḫu Sîn is grouped with the deities Ninurta, Ea, Adad, Šarrat-nipḫi, and Gula.2406 Moreover, although there is some inconsistency in Assurnaṣirpal II’s inscriptions concerning the founding of sanctuaries for these deities,2407 it appears that these sanctuaries were initially built as part of his building programme when Kalḫu became the capital of Assyria: in his inscriptions, Assurnaṣirpal II spoke of founding these sanctuaries, not rebuilding them. An example can be found in the inscription written on the outer face of the wall panels in the temple of Ninurta. RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, II 135 BÁRA dMAŠ EN-a ina qé-reb-šá lu ú-šar-ri-ḫi É dGAŠAN-KUR d30 u dGula NU dÉ-a-MAN NU dIŠKUR GÚ.GAL AN-e KI-te lu-ú ad-di I made the dais of the god Ninurta, my lord, resplendent therein. I founded the house of Šarrat-nipḫi, Sîn and Gula, the statue of Ea-šarru (and) the statue of Adad, the canal-inspector of heaven (and) the earth. Also the inscription on the monumental lions found at the entrance to the temple of Šarrat-nipḫi commemorated the founding of the houses for Ninurta, Ea, Adad,

2404

For overviews of the textual sources concerning the temple of Sîn in Kalḫu see Menzel 1981, 105 and George 1993, no. 1412. 2405 ND 2758, 10’: a-na É ⌈d⌉30 (Parker 1961, 48 and Pl. 26; Menzel 1981, 105 note 1445). 2406 See RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, II 135; A.0.101.28, V 7–9; A.0.101.29, 13’–14’; A.0.101.30, 55–59; A.0.101.32, 9–10. 2407 Although the other attestations speak of founding these houses for the gods, the Banquet Stele speaks of rebuilding them (RIMA 2, A.0.101.30, 59: ana eš-šú-te ina lìb-bi addi, “I founded therein anew”; see Reade 2002, 143).

424

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Sîn, Gula, and Šarrat-nipḫi. In this case, other who deities undoubtedly lived in these sanctuaries – Ninurta’s father Enlil and the spouses of Ea and Adad – are also mentioned, but the moon god is still named without his wife Ningal. RIMA 2, A.0.101.28, V 7–9 V7 É dBAD u dMAŠ V8 É dÉ-a u dDam-ki-na É dIŠKUR u dŠa-la É d30 É dGu-la V9 É dGAŠAN-KUR É.KUR-at DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ ina qé-rebšu lu-ú ad-di I founded therein the house of Enlil and Ninurta, the house of Ea and Damkina, the house of Adad and Šala, the house of Sîn, the house of Gula, (and) the house of Šarrat-nipḫi, temples of the great gods Similar references can be also found in the text Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, in the section that most likely named the deities who resided in Kalḫu. In this list, Sîn and his spouse Ningal are mentioned after the weather god Adad and his spouse Šala, thus reflecting the same cultic topography as can be found in the inscriptions of Assurnaṣirpal II.2408 Importantly, the sun god Šamaš was not connected to Sîn in this list, which underlines their separation in the cultic topography of Kalḫu in constrast to other Assyrian capital cities.

Fig. 19: Proposed locations of shrines in Kalḫu (Reade 2002, Fig. 2) 2408

Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, d+303 (Meinhold 2009, 391 and 403).

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

425

Based on the references to the house of the moon god in the inscriptions of Assurnaṣirpal II mentioned above, Julian Reade has proposed that the moon god was housed in the temple complex that belonged to Ninurta, located in the citadel between the North-West Palace and the ziqqurrat (Fig. 19, p. 424).2409 Thus the topography of the temple complex would resemble the better documented situation in Dūr-Šarrukīn, but with the moon god occupying only one of the smaller sanctuaries in the Ninurta temple. According to this reconstruction, supported by the lack of any reference to Sîn and Šamaš together in Kalḫu, the sun god Šamaš did not reside in the same temple complex, but his presence can be traced to the House of Kidmuri, where a pedestal for the symbol of Šamaš was found.2410 The separation of the moon and sun gods in its cultic topography is the most notable difference between Kalḫu and the other three Assyrian capital cities, where Sîn and Šamaš were housed in the same temple complex. The reasons for this difference, and the theological implications of the particular separation of Sîn and Šamaš in Kalḫu, remain unknown due to the lack of sources. Further references to the moon god’s presence in Kalḫu are very restricted. It has been proposed that the moon god of Kalḫu is referred to in the introductory formula of letter SAA 13 no. 102, in which the gods Aššur, Bēl, Nabû, Sîn, [Šamaš], Ninurta, and Nergal are mentioned, since the writer of the letter, Nabûšumu-iddina, was based in Kalḫu as the ḫazannu of the Nabû temple.2411 Moreover, a connection to the city is found in the letter SAA 13 no. 58, which describes an outing of the gods Aššur, Sîn, and Adad-of-Plenty to the king.2412 SAA 13 no. 58, r. 1–9 r. 1 UD.6.KAM dAš-šur d30 r. 2 a-na gišKIRI6 ša šap-[la] r. 3 ta-am-li-i ur-ru-⌈du⌉ r. 4 dul-lu i-ba-áš-ši in-né-pa-áš r. 5 SÍSKUR.MEŠ ša LUGAL r. 6 in-né-pa-šá dIŠKUR nu-uḫ-še r. 7 ina ŠÀ am-ba-si il-lak r. 8 SÍSKUR.MEŠ-ma ša LUGAL r. 9 in-né-pa-šá th On the 6 day Aššur (and) Sîn will descend to the garden belo[w] the terrace. There is a ritual, and it will be performed. Offerings in the name of the king will be made. Adad-of-Plenty will go to the park. More offerings in the name of the king will be made.

2409

See Reade 2002, 192–193 and Fig. 2. Reade 2002, 145–146. 2411 See Menzel 1981, 105 note 1445 and PNA 2/II, 885–886. 2412 See Schwemer 2001, 608–609 where Adad’s cult in Kalḫu is discussed. 2410

426

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Because the letter’s author, Urad-Nabû, was the priest of Nabû in Kalḫu, that city has been nominated as the location for the outing described.2413 The joint ritual of Sîn and Adad may also be a reflection of their co-habitation in the temple of Ninurta, as depicted in the inscriptions of Assurnaṣirpal II.

III.4.3. Dūr-Šarrukīn The temple of the moon god Sîn held a prominent position in the topography of Sargon II’s newly founded capital city, Dūr-Šarrukīn.2414 Sîn’s significance in the new capital bears a resemblance to the role played by the god Ninurta as the main deity in Assurnaṣirpal II’s capital city – a connection that is reflected in the similar layout of Ninurta’s temple in Kalḫu and Sîn’s temple in Dūr-Šarrukīn.2415 The prominent role taken by Sîn in Sargon II’s city is perhaps reflected also in text SAA 12 no. 19, which refers to the founding of Dūr-Šarrukīn. At the beginning of this text, the moon god appears under the name Nanna in a fragmentary context and he is followed by Ninmenana, who perhaps should be identified as Ningal.2416 The exact character of the moon god in this city is clouded by the lack of textual sources pertaining to his cult. It has been maintained that in DūrŠarrukīn the moon god was not defined by geographical epithets, but was rather understood in a supra-regional form, like the moon itself.2417 This is not entirely true, since Sîn who lived in Dūr-Šarrukīn (Sîn āšib Dūr-Šarrukīn) is attested in a penalty clause of a real estate purchase, which stated that if the completed purchase should be litigated in the future, the complainant should give ten minas of refined silver and one mina of pure gold to Sîn who lives in Dūr-Šarrukīn.2418 This reference to the local manifestation of Sîn also confirms that the moon god living in Sargon II’s city was not the Ḫarranian moon god as has been previously suggested on the basis of the Sargonid kings’ interest in Sîn of Ḫarrān.2419 Fur2413

See Menzel 1981, 106–108 and PNA 3/II, 1408–1409. For an overview of the archaeological data see Heinrich 1982, 271–272. The written sources concerning the temples of Dūr-Šarrukīn are brought together in Menzel 1981, 83–84. See also the description of how the city was built in Parpola 1995b, 47–77. 2415 Reade 2002, 199. 2416 SAA 12 no. 19, 3’–6’: [... wh]ose m[ind], Nanna, the [...] ..., has t[urned] to (re)settling the wasteland. The true king [...] whose lordship the goddess Ninmena[na ha]s magnified, that he may not oppress the weak, and may cause the feeble to prosper.” See also the copy and the previous edition of this text in Postgate 1969, no. 32. For the possible identification of Ningal with the divine name Ninmen(an)a see p. 304ff. above. 2417 As noted already in Schaudig 2002, 630. 2418 SAA 14 no. 220 (see also p. 269 above). 2419 So in Uehlinger 1997, 316: “Im Zuge der sog. Aramaisierung Assyriens im Laufe des 8. Jhs. hat der Mondgott von Harran weiter an Prestige gewonnen: Sargon II. hat ihm in Dur-Šarrukin die größte Palastkapelle reserviert, gleichzeitig den Tempel von Harran mit königlichen Opfern vesorgt und der Stadt zakūtu und kidinnūtu genannte Privilegien gewährt.” In fact, the Ḫarranian moon god may have been present in the capital city 2414

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

427

thermore, Sîn’s role as the beneficiary in the penalty clause underlines his central role in Dūr-Šarrukīn because such a function is commonly attested for the tutelary deities of the city.2420

Fig. 20: Shrines in Dūr-Šarrukīn (Reade 2002, Fig. 39) The house of the moon god, for which no Sumerian ceremonial name is known, was a part of a temple complex located beside the palace (see Fig. 20, p. 427).2421 This complex also contained sanctuaries for the wife and son of the moon god (Ningal and Šamaš) and the gods Adad, Ninurta, and Ea. All the sanctuaries can be securely identified with the help of the thresholds found at the site, each of which was inscribed with a short dedication to the deity in whose doorway the threshold was situated. The inscription for the house of the moon god, written on a slab of alabaster stone, depicts the aspects of the moon god that are also highlighted in other references to him by the Sargonid kings: he

Nineveh during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal (see p. 431ff. below). 2420 See the discussion on p. 264ff. above. 2421 This complex was first identified as a harem by the French excavator V. Place, but its true nature as a temple – recognised in Andrae 1930, 22–23 – was confirmed by the further American excavations in the season 1931–1932 (see Wilson 1995, 114–115).

428

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

was portrayed as a god who was responsible for the divine decisions concerning the king and the country, and his ability to control time is brought forth. Both of these qualities made Sîn an important supporter of the Assyrian king.2422 OIP 38, 130 no. 32423 d 1 EN.ZU DINGIR KÙ KU5-is EŠ.BAR mu-šak-lim 2 ṣa-ad-di a-na I20–GIN MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR Aš-šurki GÌR.ARAD 3 KÁ.DINGIR.RAki MAN KUR EME.GI7 ù URIki ba-nu-ú 4 ku-me-ka ina ku-un lìb-bi-ka ki-niš IGI.BAR-su-ma 5 bu-un-ni-ka šá me-šá-ri šu-ut-ri-ṣa e-li-šú 6 šu-ut-lim-šú UD.MEŠ DU10.GA UZU.MEŠ ru-qu-ti 7 MU.AN.NA.MEŠ ḫu-ud lìb-bi ši-i-me ši-ma-tuš 8 it-ti AN-e u KI-tim šu-ri-ik BALA-šú 9 UGU kib-rat LIMMU-i ki-in gišGU.ZA-šú O Sîn, pure god, maker of decisions, revealer of signals to Sargon, king of the world, king of Assyria, šakkanakku of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, builder of your chamber, look steadily at him and let your just face be turned to him! Grant him many days of well-being (and) decree years of happiness as his fate! Let his reign last as long as the heaven and the earth (and) establish his throne on the four corners (of the world)! The construction of the temples in Dūr-Šarrukīn is mentioned in various inscriptions of Sargon II found in the city. The exact date when the deities entered their newly-built abodes was the 22nd day of Tašrītu in the year 707, as recorded in the Assyrian eponym chronicle.2424 Two inscribed bricks found at the site also commemorate the building of the temples for Sîn and Šamaš. Sg Ziegel e2425 I 1 20–GIN MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR AŠ 2 URU DÙ-ma BÀD-20-GIN 3 šùm-šú ab-bi šu-bat d30 d UTU ana TI-a GIN BALA-a 4 5 qé-reb-šú lu ab-ni

2422

For the importance of the moon god in royal ideology especially during the reign of the Sargonid dynasty, see the discussion on p. 196ff. above. 2423 See the edition in Fuchs 1994, 280 and 369 2424 See the entry for this year in Millard 1994, 48. See also Parpola 1995b, 66. 2425 Fuchs 1994, 287 and 372.

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

429

(I,) Sargon, king of the universe, king of Assyria, I built the city and called its name Dūr-Šarrukīn. I constructed therein the abodes of Sîn and Šamaš for my life (and) the continued existence of my reign. From the theological point of view, the ground plan of the temple complex in Dūr-Šarrukīn is very interesting. First, the size and location of the sanctuaries of Sîn, Ningal, and Šamaš suggest that they were the principal deities venerated in the temple. The sanctuary of Sîn was the largest of the cult spaces accessed through the courtyard XXVII, and it also was the closest to the ziqqurrat, located beside the palace. Due to the proximity of Sîn’s sanctuary to the ziqqurrat, it is possible that the ziqqurrat was also dedicated to Sîn, but no direct evidence for this has been preserved.2426 Similar in form and almost of the same size, the sanctuary of Šamaš was located in the same courtyard. The smaller sanctuaries belonged to the gods Adad, Ninurta, and Ea, who thus held only minor roles in the temple belonging to Sîn and Šamaš. The fact that Sîn and Šamaš were the main inhabitants of a shared temple is reflected also in a brick inscription found at the site. In this inscription, the construction of a single temple of Sîn and Šamaš, as opposed to two separate temples, is commemorated. Sg Ziegel f2427 I 1 20–GIN MAN ŠÚ MAN KUR Aš-šurki 2 É d30 dUTU EN.MEŠ-šú 3 šá ŠÀ uruBÀD-20-GIN 4 TA URU4-šú a-di gaba-dib-bi-šú 5 ana TI-šú GIN BALA.MEŠ-šú 6 SI.SÁ e-bur KUR Aš-šurki 7 šá-lam KUR Aš-šur DÙ-uš Sargon, king of the universe, king of Assyria, built the house of Sîn and Šamaš, his lords, that is in Dūr-Šarrukīn, from the foundations to the crenellations for his life for the continued existence of his reign, for letting the harvest of Assyria thrive, (and) for the well-being of Assyria. Seen from this point of view, Sargon’s temple of Sîn and Šamaš must be understood as a development in temple topography that is most notably attested in Assur: the double temple of the moon and the sun.2428 In this new design, however, the moon god and the sun god were not placed in opposition to each other, as in

2426

That the ziqqurrat in Dūr-Šarrukīn was dedicated to the moon god is considered likely in Menzel 1981, 83 note 1131. 2427 Fuchs 1994, 287 and 372. 2428 See p. 416ff. above. There was also a double temple for Sîn and Šamaš in Nineveh, but its archeological remains have not been found (see p. 431ff. below).

430

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

the Middle Assyrian temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Assur, or even side by side, as in the Sîn-Šamaš temple of Assurnaṣirpal II.2429 Despite the differences in the temple layout, the concept behind the coexistence of the moon and the sun gods in a double temple must reflect not only their genealogical relationship, but also their character as the two most important celestial luminaries who functioned in relation to each other. Attached to the double temple of Sîn and Šamaš was the sanctuary of Ningal, Sîn’s wife. Although it had its own courtyard, through which it was accessed, it was an integral part of the temple complex (Fig. 20, p. 427). These temples are referred to as a group in the letter from the treasurer Ṭāb-šār-Aššur to Sargon II, in which the king is informed about the progress of the work on the silver-coated doors in the “House of Sîn”, the “House of Šamaš”, and the “House of Ningal”. SAA 1 no. 66, r. 4–11 r. 4 ki-i an-ni-i r. 5 iq-ṭí-bi-a ma-a gišIG.MEŠ r. 6 ša É d30 ša É dUTU r. 7 ša É dNin-gal r. 8 ša le-’a-a-ni ša KÙ.BABBAR.MEŠ r. 9 ina muḫ-ḫi e-lu-u-ni ra-aṣ-pa giš sa-ra-me-e la ga-mu-ru r. 10 r. 11 ma-a UD.1.KAM ša itiDU6 a-ga-mar He informed me as follows: “The doors of the temples of Sîn, Šamaš, and Ningal to be coated with silver sheets have been made but the wooden saramus are not ready; I shall finish them by the 1st of Tašrītu.” Based on the presence of the goddess Ningal as one of the chief deities, it might be more accurate to speak of a triple temple of Sîn, Šamaš, and Ningal instead of a double temple of Sîn and Šamaš. The arrangement reflects Sargon II’s conspicuous veneration of Ningal, who usually remained in the shadow of her husband Sîn.2430 Ningal’s status in the temple complex in Dūr-Šarrukīn is the main difference between it and the Sîn-Šamaš temple in Assur. The only parallels for such an elevation of the moon god’s wife can be found in Ur and in Ḫarrān, which were the main cult centres of the moon god in Mesopotamia. For this reason, the possibility that Sîn and Ningal (perhaps together with Šamaš) were the tutelary deities of Dūr-Šarrukīn must be considered.

2429

A speculative hypothesis concerning the orientation of the cellas for Sîn and Šamaš in Dūr-Šarrukīn, presented in Lanfranchi 1995, 143, is that it reflects the “ethnic” background of these deities: Sîn was considered to be primarily an Assyrian deity whereas Šamaš was seen as ultimately Babylonian. 2430 See the discussion on p. 296ff. above.

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

431

III.4.4. Nineveh There is much that remains unknown about Sîn’s temple and cult in Nineveh. No ceremonial name for his temple is known,2431 and because of the lack of archeological evidence even the exact location of his sanctuary inside the city is unclear. Still, the few references to Sîn’s temple in the inscriptions of Sennacherib and Assurbanipal do offer us some details concerning its general location and the deities who were housed there. An important source of information is also the text Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, which contains a list of deities that were part of the moon god’s temple in Nineveh.2432 The earliest known reference to the temple of Sîn in Nineveh can be found in the inscription of Sennacherib issued in connection with his vast building projects there after Nineveh was made the capital of Assyria.2433 Among the temples that he rebuilt were also the sanctuaries of Sîn, Ningal, Šamaš, and Aya. RINAP 3 no. 36, r. 3’–10’2434 r. 3’ e-nu-ma É x [...] r. 4’ É d30 É d⌈Nin⌉-[gal É dUTU É dA-a ...] r. 5’ É dGAŠAN-NINAki GAŠAN ⌈ra⌉-[bi-ti? (...) ša IAš-šur–PAP–A MAN KUR Aš-šurki] r. 6’ DUMU ITukul-ti–dMAŠ MAN KUR Aš-⌈šur⌉[ki ... ēpušú? É.MEŠ] r. 7’ šá-ti-na la-⌈ba⌉?-riš u4-me [...] r. 8’ aq-qur-ši-na-ti-ma dan-⌈nat⌉?-[si-na akšud? uššēšina? (...) itti? kiṣir?] r. 9’ KUR-i dan-ni ar-ti-ma ul-[tu uššēšina adi gabadibbīšina arṣip] r. 10’ ú-šak-lil At that time, the temple of ... [...], the temple of Sîn, the temple of Nin[gal, the temple of Šamaš, the temple of Aya, ...], the temple of the Lady of Nineveh, the gr[eat] lady, [(...) which Assurnaṣirpal, king of Assyria], son of Tukultī-Ninurta, king of Assyria, [... had built] – with the passage of time those [temples ...]. I tore them down and [reached their ] foundation pits. I secured [their foundations (...) like] solid [bed]rock and [I built] and completed (them) [from their foundations to their crenellations.]

2431

George 1993, no. 1414. For an overview of the available sources see Menzel 1981, 123; Frahm 1997, 136– 137; Frahm 1998, 117–118; and Reade 2000, 410. A proper edition of the text Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons has become available recently (Meinhold 2009, 377– 412), and it certainly has contributed to our knowledge of the deities living in the moon god’s temple in Nineveh. 2433 The connection of this marble tablet inscription to king Sennacherib is confirmed by the analysis presented in Frahm 1997, 136–137 and Frahm 1998, 107–121. 2434 See also Frahm 1998, 108–113. 2432

432

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

Although this is the earliest preserved reference to the temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Nineveh, the inscription implies that Sennacherib demolished the remains of earlier buildings at the site (perhaps built by Assurnaṣirpal II who is mentioned in the inscription) before he could begin his own building work. However, no references to a temple of Sîn and Šamaš in Nineveh are preserved in Assurnaṣirpal II’s inscriptions. More information about Sîn and Šamaš’ temple in Nineveh is gained from the inscription of Esarhaddon that recorded his restoration work on this temple. RINAP 4 no. 12, 12–232435 12 a-na-[ku I]AN.ŠÁR–ŠEŠ–SUM.NA LUGAL ŠÚ LUGAL KUR Aššurki [...] 13 É d30 dNin-gal dUTU dA-a [...] 14 ina qé-reb MURUB4 URU šá NINAki a-na mu-šab [...] 15 ina ITI šal-me u4-me še-me-e ina na4pi-i-li NA4 KUR-i [dan-ni ...] 16 ṣe-er tam-le-e šu-a-tu uš-ši-šú ad-di [...] 17 É šu-a-ti a-na si-ḫir-ri-šú ar-ṣip [ú-šak-lil ...] giš ÙR.MEŠ gišEREN MAḪ.MEŠ ú-šat-⌈ri⌉-[ṣa UGU-šú ...] 18 giš IG.MEŠ gišŠUR.MÌN šá e-re-es-si-na ṭa-a-ba [...] 19 20 mim-ma ú-na-a-ti ḫi-šiš-ti É šá KÙ.BABBAR KÙ.[GI ...] 21 ul-tu É šu-a-tu ú-šak-li-lu ú-[qat-tu-u ag-mu-ra ši-pir-šú ...] d 30 dNin-gal dUTU dA-a DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.[MEŠ ...] 22 23 ina ITI-šam-ma la na-par-ka-a [...] I, Esarhaddon, king of the world, king of Assyria, [...] the temple of Sîn, Ningal, Šamaš (and) Aya [...] in the citadel of (the city of) Nineveh as residence of [...]. In a favourable month, on a propitious day, I laid its foundation upon that terrace with limestone, [strong] stone from the mountains, [...]. I built (and) [completed] that temple in its entirety. [...] I roof[ed it] with magnificent cedar beams [... (and) I fastened bands of silver and copper on] doors of cypress, whose fragrance is sweet, [and installed (them) in its gates. I ...] whatever utensils were needed for the temple, whether silver (or) go[ld ...]. When I had completed that temple (and) br[ought its construction to an end ...] the gods Sîn, Ningal, Šamaš (and) Aya, the great gods, [...] monthly without ceasing. A significant detail in this description is the use of the phrase ina qabal āli ša Ninua, which, according to Eckart Frahm, denotes the “acropolis” in Nineveh, corresponding to the mound Kuyunjik.2436 This area, which was located on the western side of the city, close to the river Khosr, was the place where the royal

2435 2436

See also Borger 1956, Nin. I (§ 29) and Borger 1996, 134–135. See Frahm 1997, 272 and Frahm 1998, 118–119.

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

433

palaces and temples were grouped together, separated from the rest of the city by a wall. The temple of Sîn and Šamaš in this area is also alluded to in the building inscription of Naqī’a/Zakûtu, wife of Sennacherib, who records how she “cleared a tract of land in the citadel of (the city of) Nineveh, [be]hind the temple of the gods Sîn and Šamaš, [for a] royal [residence of Esarh]addon, my [beloved son, ...]”.2437 This confirms that the remains of this temple should be in the citadel Kuyunjik, close to the palace built for Esarhaddon. Julian Reade has noted that there is enough room for this temple both on the eastern and western sides of the Kuyunjik mound, but he has also suggested another possible location for this temple beside the North Palace of Assurbanipal.2438 As he did in Assur and Dūr-Šarrukīn, the moon god shared his temple in Nineveh with his son Šamaš. This cultic topography must be seen as a reminder of the importance of the monthly opposition and conjunction of the moon and the sun in the context of divination and royal ideology.2439 In this respect, it is significant that the temple may have been founded by the king Sennacherib when he made Nineveh the new capital of the Assyrian empire. Perhaps there had been a temple for Sîn or Šamaš in Nineveh prior to this inauguration, since Sennacherib made a reference to Assurnaṣirpal II in his inscription reporting on the building of this temple, but the lack of any evidence for a temple of Sîn and Šamaš on the site makes it equally possible that this sanctuary was introduced to the city only after it had been made the new capital. Because the layout of the temple is not known, it is impossible to judge whether this double temple resembled the Sîn-Šamaš temple in Assur or if it was perhaps similar to the SînŠamaš-Ningal temple complex known from Dūr-Šarrukīn.2440 The identity of other deities who most likely resided in the temple of Sîn in Nineveh, or who were otherwise associated with the moon god’s cult there, is conveyed by the text Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, which instructs the reader to invoke the names of specific deities when a sheep offering for the moon god is made. Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, c+242–2482441 c+242 d30 dNin-gal Aš-šur

2437

RINAP 4 no. 2003, II 15’–II 20’: qaq-qa-ru pu-ṣe-e / ina MURUB4 URU šá NINAki / [ku]-tal É d30 u dUTU / [ana mu-šab?] LUGAL-u-ti / [ša IAš-šur–PAP?]–AŠ / [DUMU na-ram lìb-bi?]-ia. See also Melville 1999, 38–40 and Reade 2000, 416. Frahm 1998, 118 notes that this temple must have been impressive enough to offer a reference point for the location of the newly built palace. 2438 Reade 2000, 391 (Fig. 2) and 410. 2439 See the discussion on p. 150ff. and p. 196ff. above. 2440 For the temple in Assur see p. 416ff. and for Dūr-Šarrukīn p. 426ff. above. 2441 See the edition in Meinhold 2009, 389 and 402. The deities who are invoked when an offering is made to Šamaš are listed in lines c+234–c+241.

434

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

c+243 dBE dDUMU.MEŠ-ZI c+244 dMAŠ.TAB.BA gi-ru dMUATI c+245 DINGIR.MEŠ mu-ši-ti c+246 ki-i uduSISKUR.MEŠ c+247 ina IGI d30 BAL-u c+248 MU.-šú-nu MU-ár Sîn, Ningal, Aššur, Enlil, dDUMU.MEŠ-ZI, Twins, the Fire, Nabû, the Gods of the Night: when you make a sheep offering in front of Sîn, you call out their names. The reason for the appearance of the deities on this list can, in some cases, be found in the family relationship between them and the moon god. Thus, Ningal, as Sîn’s spouse, should of course be invoked while an offering is made to her husband.2442 The presence of Enlil perhaps reflects his genealogical relationship to Sîn, as known in the Sumero-Babylonian tradition.2443 The exact association between the divine Twins (dMAŠ.TAB.BA) and the moon god in this context remains unclear due to the lack of further details. A possible explanation can be found in the connection between the Twins and Sîn in Mesopotamian astrologyastronomy. The Great Twins constellation (mulMAŠ.TAB.BA.GAL.GAL.LA) was associated with the twin gods Lugalgira and Meslamtae’a, who were further associated with the gods Sîn and Nergal.2444 On the other hand, the Little Twins constellation (mulMAŠ.TAB.BA.TUR.TUR), represented the pair Alamuš and Ningublaga: the vizier and son of Sîn in Ur.2445 In addition to this, another possible connection existed between the divine Twins and Šamaš and Ištar based on their status as children of Sîn.2446 Invoking the gods of the night reflected a nocturnal setting for the offering. Who the deity dDUMU.MEŠ-ZI was, and the nature of his relationship to Sîn, remains unclear. The fire that is listed may be a reference to either the gods Gira or Nusku (or to both of them) considering their close association.2447 No apparent explanation for the presence of the god Nabû in this context is available.2448 It should be noted that, to a certain degree, the

2442

For the goddess Ningal as the wife of Sîn see the discussion on p. 296ff. above. For Enlil as the father of the moon god Nanna/Sîn see p. 291ff. above. 2444 MUL.APIN I, i 5 (Hunger & Pingree 1989, 19). See also the overview of Lugalgira and Meslamtae’a in Lambert 1987b, 143–145. These deities are called by the names Sîn and Nergal in 4 R 46 no. 1, 4–5 (Weidner 1915, 51). 2445 See the discussion on p. 324 above. 2446 For an attestation of Šamaš and Ištar as the twin gods Māšu and Māštu see Muššu’u IV, 13 (Böck 2007, 152 and 170). The character of the twin gods Māšu and Māštu as the children of Sîn was noted already in Combe 1908, 18–19. 2447 For the equation of Gira and Nusku see Streck 2001, 632. 2448 Nabû’s presence in this group of deities is noted in Pomponio 1978, 93, but left unexplained. Since the older editions of the text did recognise that this group concerned deit2443

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

435

groups of deities in the temples of Sîn and Šamaš in Nineveh overlap: the gods Nabû, the Twins, Gira, and Nusku are also in the group of deities invoked when an offering to the sun god Šamaš was made.2449 The Twins, Gira, and Nusku were also present in the temple of Aššur in Nineveh, according to the same text.2450 A more simplistic view of the inhabitants of the Sîn-Šamaš temple in Nineveh is offered in the prism inscription of Assurbanipal recording the king’s restoration work there. In this reference, the deities Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, Šamaš, and Aya are listed as the residents of the temple. Assurbanipal Prism T, III 32–352451 III 32 ⌈d⌉30 dNin-gal dNusku dUTU u dA-a III 33 [DINGIR].MEŠ tik-le-ia ina qer-bi-šú III 34 ⌈ú⌉-še-rib-ma ú-šar-me III 35 pa-rak ⌈da⌉-ra-a-ti I let Sîn, Ningal, Nusku, Šamaš, and Aya, the [god]s (who are) my supporters, enter it and take residence in an everlasting shrine. That Nusku’s name directly follows Ningal’s in this reference suggests that Nusku was a part of the moon god’s household, not only in Ḫarrān but also in Nineveh. Moreover, since he is mentioned side by side with the main deities who lived in the Sîn-Šamaš temple, his status in this sanctuary must have been greater than that of a minor deity. Exact information about the cult of Nusku in Nineveh is lacking, and because of this we can only speculate about the details.2452 If this reference to Nusku living in Nineveh in the same temple as Sîn and Ningal indeed reflected the cultic reality of the city at the time of Assurbanipal’s reign, it portrays a cultic scheme that differs from Sîn’s other temples in

ies in Nineveh, not in Assur, Pomponio’s reference to Nabû in this group was associated with the city of Assur. For the possible equation of the gods Nusku and Nabû in Ḫarrān see p. 388 above. 2449 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, c+234–241 (Meinhold 2009, 388–389 and 402). 2450 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, b+205–206 (Meinhold 2009, 388 and 402). 2451 Assurbanipal Prism T, III 18–35 (see the editions in Borger 1996, 144 and Novotny 2014, 56; now also RINAP 5/I no. 10). It should be noted that Assurbanipal tells that this temple had been built by his father Esarhaddon, as it is known from Esarhaddon’s own inscriptions (see Borger 1996, 134–135). A corresponding section to this building report – without the god Nusku – can be found also in the IIT of Assurbanipal (IIT, 40–41; see Fuchs apud Borger 1996, 270 and 291 as well as RINAP 5/I no. 23). 2452 References to Nusku are absent in the overview of the deities worshipped in Nineveh in Menzel 1981, 120–123.

436

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

the Assyrian heartland. In Assyria, Nusku was attached to the god Aššur through Aššur’s identity as the Assyrian Enlil. This is supported by Nusku’s presence as a member of Aššur’s household in Assur.2453 Since the theological concept that Nusku was the son of Sîn and Ningal is central to the cult of the moon god in Ḫarrān, the reference to Nusku in the Assurbanipal Prism T certainly brings to mind the Ḫarranian moon god and his cult. This is not the only association between Nineveh and Ḫarrān in respect to Sîn. As already noted, the chief lamentation priest of Sîn of Ḫarrān, Urad-Ea, was also active in Nineveh in the service of the king.2454 Moreover, it is possible that the temple of the moon god in Nineveh was the location of a conspiracy that, according to letter SAA 10 no. 179, took place in the “temple of Bēl-Ḫarrān”.2455 If this identification is indeed true, the moon god’s temple in Nineveh must have had two storeys, based on the reference to an upper room in the temple of Bēl-Ḫarrān in that letter.2456 More importantly, the reference in the letter suggests that the Ḫarranian moon god was either worshipped in Nineveh or that Sîn of Nineveh used the name Bēl-Ḫarrān in this context, thus indicating an equation of Sîn in Nineveh and in Ḫarrān. The matter must remain open at the moment, but it is plausible that the importance of both the moon god and Ḫarrān, especially during the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal, led to a situation where the Ḫarranian moon god was worshipped not only in his home city, but also in Nineveh, the centre of the Assyrian empire. The text Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons reveals that in addition to having his own temple in Nineveh, the moon god Sîn also belonged to the groups of deities that were worshipped in the temples of Aššur and Ištar. According to this text, Sîn appears in the temple of Aššur as a part of the triad Sîn, Adad, and Šamaš that directly follows the gods Anu and Ea-šarru.2457 This resembles the cultic setting known at Aššur’s temple in Assur.2458 In the temple of Ištar, both Sîn and Ningal are among the deities who presumably were invoked when a sheep offering to Ištar was made. Interestingly, they are not named as a couple; instead Ea-šarru, Ninurta, and an unidentified deity separate their names in the list.2459 Sîn and Ningal’s presence in the household of their daughter Ištar

2453

See the discussion on p. 314ff. above. For Urad-Ea and his son Nabû-zēru-iddina see the discussion on p. 393ff. above. 2455 See p. 389 above. 2456 SAA 10 no. 179, 14: a-na ŠÀ-bi É e?-li-ti ul-te-la-an-ni, “he made me go up to an upper room”. The existence of an upper room in this temple also supports locating it in Nineveh instead of Ḫarrān: according to the calculations concerning the height of the walls in Eḫulḫul made by J. Novotny, on the basis of Assurbanipal’s building reports, Eḫulḫul did not have two storeys (Novotny 2003, 117–118). 2457 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, b+204 (Meinhold 2009, 388 and 402). 2458 See p. 422 above. 2459 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons, c+250–252: Aš-šur-dBE d30 / dÉ-aMAN / dMAŠ d⌈x-(x)⌉ dNin-gal (Meinhold 2009, 389 and 402). 2454

III.4. The Temples of Sîn in the Assyrian Capital Cities

437

can only be connected to the mythological geneaological relationship of the moon god and Inanna/Ištar.2460 No references to the cult personnel employed at Sîn’s temple in Nineveh are preserved. An extispicy query concerning the appointment of a šangû of Sîn by Assurbanipal is preserved, but it is unknown whether this official was in the service of the moon god’s temple in Nineveh or another Assyrian temple of Sîn.2461 City

Temple/ sanctuaries

Ziqqurrat

Associated Cult deities personnel

Ur

É-kiš-nu-ĝál/ É-ĝiš-nu11-gal É-dub-lá-maḫ É-ní-te-en-du10 É-dim-an-na É-dim-gal-an-na (É-)iti6-kù-ga

(É-temen-ní-gur(ru)) É-aga-du7-du7/ É-šu-gán-du7-du7 É-lugal-ĝalga-si-sá

Ningal Ningublaga Nin(e)igara Alamuš Amarazu Amaraḫea

En-niĝaldiNanna, entupriestess of Sîn

Kissik

(É-amaš-kù-ga of — Ningal)

(Ningal)

(šatammu of Ningal)

Nippur

É-kiš-nu-ĝál/ É-ĝiš-nu11-gal É-dub-lá-maḫ

—

Ningal Mārat-Sîn Šuziana Šamaš Kalkal

unattested

Uruk

É-dumu-nun-na

—

Ištar Ningublaga unattested (Alamuš?)

Sippar

É-(i)dim-an-na

—

Šamaš Anunītu

unattested

Larsa

unattested

—

Šamaš(?)

unattested

Ištar Nabû Marduk Šamaš

unattested

É-kiš-nu-ĝál/ É-ĝiš-nu11-gal Babylon É-ní-te-en-na/ — É-ní-te-en-du10 É-ĝissu-bi-du10-ga

Table 17: Cult places of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria (to be continued)

2460

For Ištar as the daughter of the moon god see the discussion on p. 309ff. above. SAA 4 nos. 307–308. The name of the šangû is only partially preserved (SAA 4 no. 307, r. 12: ana UGU IARAD–x [x x x x]). 2461

438

III. The Cult of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria

City

Temple/ sanctuaries

Ziqqurrat Associated deities

Cult personnel

Borsippa É-dim-an-na

—

Nanaya (Nabû)

unattested

Ḫarrān

name unknown

Ningal/ Nikkal Nusku Šamaš Ištar

Aššur-etel-šamêerṣeti-muballissu, šešgallu of Sîn Balāssu, šangû of Ḫarrān Urad-Ea, galamāḫu of Sîn (Nabû-zēru-iddina, kalû of Sîn and the king)

Ḫuzirīna unattested

—

Ištar(?)

laḫḫinu of Sîn

Elumu

unattested

—

Šamaš(?)

unattested

Assur

É-ḫúl-ḫúl-dir-dir-ra —

Ningal Šamaš Tambāya Ebeḫ

šangû of Sîn nargallu of Sîn and Šamaš

Kalḫu

name unknown

—

Ninurta Ea Adad Šarrat-nipḫi Gula

unattested

Dūrname unknown Šarrukīn

(name unknown)

Ningal Šamaš Adad Ninurta Ea

unattested

Nineveh name unknown

—

Ningal Šamaš Aya Nusku

Urad-Ea, galamāḫu of Sîn (Nabû-zēru-iddina, kalû of Sîn and the king)

É-ḫúl-ḫúl (É-ĝi6-par of Ningal/Nikkal) (É-melam-an-na of Nusku)

Table 18: Cult places of Sîn in Babylonia and Assyria (continued)

IV. Conclusions The preceding chapters have been an attempt to fulfil the demanding task of describing the theologies and the cults of the moon god Sîn during the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods. As already noted in the introduction to this study, the theological concepts surrounding Sîn in the available cuneiform sources are by no means limited only to his role as the god of the moon, but he shared numerous abilities and powers with other deities of the Mesopotamian pantheon depending on the context. Despite this, it is certainly not inaccurate to state that his nature as the moon god was the elementary core of his divine personality to which a multiplicity of additional aspects can be added. The fact that there was no distinction between the moon god Sîn and the moon as a celestial object is clear from the cuneiform sources, as the discussion in Chapter II.1 shows. Like the cult images of the moon god, the anthropomorphic statues as well as the crescent moon emblems, the moon was considered to be a manifestation of the god Sîn, making him approachable anywhere under the open sky. Most of Sîn’s attested qualities can be divided into two main categories: his character as the celestial deity and his abilities as the patron god of his home cities. Out of these, the descriptions of, or references to, celestial aspects outweigh the sources that detail the capacities of Sîn in his cult cities. The emphasis on the nature of Sîn as the moon begins with his principal names and epithets (see Chapter II.2). The name Sîn/Suen, already attested in the 3rd millennium BCE, was the dominant name of the moon god and the moon in the Akkadian context. In the sources deriving from the 1st millennium BCE, the numeric spelling d30 was the most common way to write this name, although the logogram dEN.ZU was also used. In addition to the normal Akkadian form Sîn, the name had the form Sī’ or Sē’ in West Semitic contexts. The noun nannāru, “luminary”, was both an appellation and an epithet of Sîn (Chapter II.2.2). As an epithet, it was used either alone or as a part of a more elaborate epithet (e.g. nannār šamê u erṣeti, “luminary of the heaven and the earth”). Although the noun nannāru derived from the verb nawāru, “to be bright”, the spellings that were used to write it demonstrate that it was commonly associated with the name of the Sumerian moon god, Nanna. Furthermore, it is plausible that it was associated with the waxing moon of the first half of the lunar cycle. A strong argument in support of this interpretation is the equation of the crescent moon (Sum. u4-sakar) with nannāru. The noun “crescent” (Akk. uskāru) was itself never used as an epithet for Sîn, but it rather referred to crescent-shaped objects, such as his crescent emblem (Chapter II.2.3). In the form of this emblem, the moon god was made manifest in various media ranging from his divine crescent standard to the crescent shaped amulets used for therapeutic purposes, as well as elements of iconography and monumental architecture. Three different forms of Sîn’s crescent are attested in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources. The simple thin crescent is ubiquitous in the iconography of cylinder and stamp seals. The variant in

440

IV. Conclusions

which the crescent moon forms a disc is also frequently encountered in symbolic depictions of the main deities of the Assyro-Babylonian pantheon. During this period, the crescent moon mounted on a pole – a divine manifestation of Sîn equal to the anthropomorphic cult image – was associated especially with the Ḫarranian moon god. The metaphor of the moon as a boat or a barge that travels across the sky, prominent already in Sumerian literature, was widely-used in names and epithets for Sîn, and was also depicted in the iconography of cylinder seals (Chapter II.2.4). The available sources indicate that the terms “the boat” and “the barge” were both associated with the waxing crescent moon and the appellation nannāru. In the case of the barge (makurru), the shapes that were associated with the term in other contexts suggests that the epithet may refer to several different lunar phases: the crescent, the half, the gibbous, and the full moon. In a similar fashion, the appellation “Fruit” for the moon god was associated with both the beginning of the month and the days preceding the full moon (Chapter II.2.5). In cases where the “Fruit” referred to the moon god on the days of the gibbous moon, it was associated with the epithet “crown of splendour” (agê tašriḫti), another description of the nearly-full moon (Chapter II.2.7). In general, the moon as a crown is one of the most central lunar metaphors in the Sumero-Babylonian sources (Chapter II.2.6). The lunar crown incorporates several different levels of meaning. On the one hand it described the illuminated lunar disc as a crown in the night sky, and on the other hand it referred to the moon god’s power to endow royal insignia. In the astrological literature, the crown of the moon referred either to the lunar disc or the lunar halo. Therefore, the description of the moon god as the “lord of the crown” (bēl agê) related both to his control over the appearance of the lunar disc and his ability to endow the ruler with kingship. The third principal name of the moon god was Dilimbabbar (Akk. Namraṣīt) which refers to the white luminosity of the moon (Chapter II.2.9). This name was relatively rare in the Akkadian texts of the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian times, but was more often used in bilingual texts. There are some indications that this name may have specifically referred to the full moon, but the matter must remain unsettled due to the lack of indisputable evidence. In the case of the appellation Ellammê, “radiant in me-powers”, the attestations of the name in connection with lunar eclipses suggest an association with the full moon (Chapter II.2.8) Celestial luminosity was a central trait of the moon god. This underlined by the names and epithets that describe him as a source of light or relate to his radiance and luminosity (Chapter II.3). Moreover, the motifs in literary sources illustrate that the moonrise was observed not only for the purpose of celestial divination but that the moment when the moon illuminated the night sky was a moment of joy for both the people and the animals. The luminosity of the moon was associated with the notion of purity and holiness, and it represented the

IV. Conclusions

441

awe-inspiring radiance that emanated from divine beings. The lunar cycle forms the basis for the lunar month and, therefore, the moon was central to time-keeping in Mesopotamia (Chapter II.4). In this respect, the reappearance, transformation, and disappearance of the moon were significant since they marked the boundaries of a single month and its main points. The establishment of the moon’s movements and the lunar month was best illustrated mythologically in the Enūma eliš, when Marduk created the heavenly bodies and fixed their movements. Sîn’s powers relating to time are also emphasised by the references to Sîn governing the night and determining the boundaries of temporal units, especially the month (Chapter II.4.1). It should also be noted that this role for Sîn was fundamentally connected to the similar character of the sun god Šamaš, and these two deities were often depicted as the two forces holding power over the two halves of a single diurnal cycle (night and day) and also responsible for setting the limits of the month and the year. The most important stages in the Mesopotamian month are the beginning (reappearance of the crescent moon), the middle (opposition of the moon and the sun during the full moon), and the end (invisibility of the moon). Moreover, the phases of the waxing and waning half moon were significant. These stages are reflected in the days associated with the moon god in Mesopotamian hemerological and cultic traditions. The general trend was for the moon god to receive offerings, take part in specific rituals, or to be active in some other way, at intervals of seven days (Chapter II.4.2). The 13th day of each month was dedicated to Sîn, as shown by lists of monthly festivals and hemerological texts. In addition, individual days without explicit lunar association were linked to the moon god: for example, according to hemerological tradition, one should give a gift to Sîn on the 3rd day of Araḫsamnu. During the Neo-Assyrian period, a theological idea about the moon god and his powers during the first fifteen days of the lunar cycle surfaced in two different contexts: in scholarly explanatory works and in inscriptions issued by Assurbanipal and Nabonidus (Chapter II.5). First, this so-called “Theology of the Moon” is prominent in scholarly texts that explained the correspondences of the different lunar phases. These texts made it clear that during the first half of the lunar month Sîn was considered to hold the divine powers (Sum. ĝarza; Akk. parṣū) of the supreme triad Anu (crescent moon), Ea (half moon), and Enlil (gibbous and full moon). The meaning of such a statement involved the moon god encompassing the highest divine powers in the cosmos during this part of the month. Importantly, the supreme powers of Anu, Ea, and Enlil were associated with divine decision-making, and therefore this notion must have been related to lunar divination. On the other hand, by taking hold of the supreme powers in the cosmos, Sîn became the supreme deity – a notion that must also have been linked to the “Theology of the Moon”. Both these aspects, divine

442

IV. Conclusions

decision-making and the supreme character of Sîn, most likely were of significance in the references to the “Theology of the Moon” in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus. The section in the Ḫarrān Stele of Nabonidus that ascribes the supreme divine powers to Sîn has long been known, and it is often cited as proof for Nabonidus’ reverence for him. However, the citation from the “Theology of the Moon” in one of Assurbanipal’s inscriptions for the temple Eḫulḫul demonstrates that this text was used to praise the Ḫarranian moon god long before Nabonidus reigned, and it undermines the often repeated idea that Sîn’s association with Anu, Ea, and Enlil in Nabonidus’ Ḫarrān Stele must indicate the promotion of the moon god to the head of the Babylonian pantheon. As one of the highest ranking deities in the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon, Sîn is one of the authorities who made divine decisions and decreed fates (Chapter II.6.1). His powers in this respect were praised by epithets such as pāris purussê, “decision maker”, and by his aforementioned association with the triad Anu, Ea, and Enlil, who exerted supreme power over the cosmos. This aspect is inherently linked with the nature of Sîn as the moon god because the decisions made by Sîn or other deities in the divine assembly were made manifest in the lunar disc (Chapter II.6.2). Sîn’s powers as a divine decision-maker and the signs signalling his will are prominent in royal inscriptions and other sources concerning the Assyrian or Babylonian kings: because lunar divination concerned the king and his land, any favourable signs from the moon signalled the moon god’s benevolence (and the benevolence of similarly powerful deities) towards the ruler. Correspondingly, unpropitious lunar omens revealed a disturbance in the relationship between the king and the gods who held the fates in their hands. As the correspondence from the royal court at Nineveh shows, the signs of the moon were diligently observed and reported to the court. Of particular importance were the reappearance of the moon at the beginning of the month and the opposition of the moon and the sun during the full moon. In this respect, the correspondence of the lunar cycle to the ideal month of 30 days was a central notion in lunar astrology, but other aspects, including the appearance of the lunar disc, were significant. The evil that was announced by an unpropitious sign from the moon could be warded off by the performance of a namburbi-ritual. A further option was the performance of a ritual that was designated IGI.DU8.A d30 ḪUL SIG5.GA, “to make an unpropitious appearance of Sîn good” (Chapter II.6.2.1; see also the edition of the text K. 6018+// on p. 497ff. below). This procedure aimed at dissipating Sîn’s anger and the subsequent restoration of the human-divine relationship. In comparison to the observations of the moon’s day-to-day appearance, a lunar eclipse constituted an extreme sign of divine displeasure, connoting the disruption of the cosmic order due to the darkening of the moon (Chapters II.6.2.2–II.6.2.3). An eclipse was considered to have been established either by

IV. Conclusions

443

Sîn or other decision-making deities and, therefore, it was a sign of problems in the relationship between the ruler and the deities who would normally support him. A different concept is presented in the 16th tablet of the series Udug-ḫul, according to which the moon became eclipsed not by his own will but due to an external attack by demons. Regardless of the cause, a lunar eclipse, possibly portending the demise of the king or destruction of his land, meant that the king had to be protected by elaborate procedures. In the case of direct danger, a substitute king (šar pūḫi) was enthroned, but other, less extreme methods to ward off the evil of the eclipse and to appease the deities also existed. Lunar astrology was the main field of divination in which Sîn was actively present, but his influence also extended to other divinatory practices. The sources detailing his role in the context of extispicy are scarce, but it is evident that, as one of the great gods taking part in the divine assembly, Sîn had a role in establishing the divine verdicts made manifest in the innards of the sacrificial animals (Chapter II.6.3). In the rituals of the bārû, Sîn, together with other celestial deities, received offerings, and he was implored to enter the place of the verdict. Moreover, some ikrib-prayers to Sîn, performed during the extispicy ritual, are preserved (see the edition of K. 2751+// on p. 483ff. below). The epithets that were used to praise Sîn in this context stress his abilities as a divine decision-maker, protector/giver of kingship, and the first-born son of Enlil. Furthermore, the preserved rubrics in the collection of ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//) suggest that different lunar phases were significant to the choice of prayer to be performed. Receiving divine signs through dreams, oneiromancy, was the last notable branch of divination in which the moon god was active (Chapter II.6.4). In this context, his role was undoubtedly connected with his status as a prominent nocturnal deity. Moreover, luminosity was a trait shared by the deities who prominently appear in Mesopotamian dream rituals. In these rituals, Sîn was approached for a sign of reconciliation between the petitioner and their personal deities, and the dream god Zaqīqu was depicted as a proxy between Sîn and the petitioner. The available references to the particular dates on which dream rituals should be performed before the moon suggest that the days around the middle of the month (during the phases of the gibbous and full moon) were suitable for the performance. In royal inscriptions, both Assurbanipal and Nabonidus referred to messages relating to kingship and temple building received from the moon god in dreams. Furthermore, Nabonidus’ reference to celestial signs observed in dreams indicates that the position and appearance of the moon and other celestial bodies conveyed messages from the gods also in dreams. The significance of lunar divination is one of the reasons why the moon god is associated with kingship, but other aspects can also be observed in this respect (Chapter II.7). Importantly, he had the status of the divine king in the local theo-

444

IV. Conclusions

logical framework of his cult cities, Ur and Ḫarrān (Chapter II.7.1). The notion of the moon god as local “king of the gods” becomes especially important as his praise in the inscriptions of Assurbanipal, Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, and Nabonidus is considered. In the case of Nabonidus this contextualisation gives a good reason to doubt the validity of the often repeated claim that the moon god was promoted by him at the expense of the chief Babylonian deity Marduk. Sîn was considered to be one of the Sumero-Babylonian deities who endowed and protected kingship: Sîn as the “lord of the crown” was able to give the crown and sceptre to the king (Chapter II.7.2). Sîn’s protection and support for the ruler is expressed by propitious signs of the moon, signifying order in the cosmos. The renewal and continuity of the lunar cycle also symbolised the renewal and continuity of the king’s reign. In respect to cosmic order, the relationship of the moon and the sun, Sîn and Šamaš, was important in Mesopotamian royal ideology (Chapter II.7.3). The regular cycles of the moon and the sun embodied stability and order, and the propitious conjunction and opposition of these two celestial bodies signified divine benevolence toward the king. The moon god’s role as the patron of the king becomes especially prominent with the emergence of theophoric royal names with the element Sîn during the reign of the Sargonid kings: the exceptional throne names Sîn-aḫḫē-erība (Sennacherib) and Sîn-šarru-iškun suggest that such names had become suitable for the ruling king (Chapter II.7.4). In addition, several personal names, chiefly from the same period, evoked the moon god as a protector of the king – a detail that underlines Sîn’s role as one of the deities who support and protect the ruler. Also, the association of the moon god with fecundity, growth, and animals was related to both his celestial nature and his role in the local cults in Ur and Ḫarrān. The role of the moon as a source of fertility is, of course, found in most cultures around the globe, and likewise in Akkadian prayers Sîn was praised as the provider of offspring. Moreover, he was thought to offer help when childbirth was difficult, as the mythological passage in the incantation Cow of Sîn exhibits (Chapters II.8.1–II.8.2). On the other hand, in the local cults in Ur and Ḫarrān, the divine pair Sîn and Ningal/Nikkal had the status of a father and a mother who brought their divine children into being, and who also continued to secure abundant resources to nourish their city. The affinity of the moon god to cattle was linked to several theological notions (Chapter II.8.3). In his local cult in Ur, cattle and milk products played an important role, which becomes apparent especially in connection with his son Ningublaga (god of herding and cattle) and his housekeeper Nin(e)igara (goddess of dairy products). The connotation of bovine imagery to fertility and fecundity – exemplified by Cow of Sîn – should also be taken into consideration. Moreover, the moon as a celestial phenomenon was described with bovine metaphors: the moon was the shepherd of celestial cows (the stars), the crescent moon had horns, and the lunar halo was described

IV. Conclusions

445

by both the terms “sheepfold” (supūru) and “cattle pen” (tarbaṣu). In addition to the association of the moon god with domesticated cattle, there are some indications that wild animals, especially the gazelle and the ibex, have a special connection to him (Chapter II.8.4). One plausible explanation for such a connection is that these animals’ horns were associated with the crescent moon. Significant in this respect is also the moon’s general affiliation with the wilderness: because of his celestial nature, the moon god made himself manifest not only in the urban centres and their sanctuaries, but also in the uninhabited regions. The concepts of celestial (supra-regional) and local theological notions are also useful in describing the moon god’s role as a divine guarantor of contracts, oaths sworn by his name, and curses that name him as the executor of divine punishments. The first two of these, acting as the divine guarantor of contracts and having oaths sworn by his name, was specifically connected with his cult cities. This aspect is particularly visible in Neo-Assyrian sources in which references to Sîn of Ḫarrān as the guarantor of contracts are well-attested, both in textual sources and artistic representations (Chapter II.9.1). Likewise, the penalty clauses in Neo-Assyrian contracts that named the moon god as the receiver of donations – be it silver/gold, animals, or human servants – almost always spoke of the Ḫarranian moon god (Chapter 2.9.2.2). Such a direct link to the local cultic context is not apparent in the attested curse formulae that name Sîn (II.9.2.1). Particularly the curse motif that threatens leprosy inflicted by Sîn was widespread both in Assyria and Babylonia. In the context of illness and healing, the moon god played a restricted role in comparison to many other major deities of the Sumero-Babylonian pantheon. Diagnostic and therapeutic texts reveal that he was thought to cause certain types of symptoms. One group of such symptoms is formed by epileptic seizures and feverish trembling, both involving involuntary body movements (Chapter II.10.1). Sîn did not function alone in afflicting people with epilepsy or fever; he commanded the demons Bennu (epilepsy) and Lamaštu (fever) to attack the victim. Another group of diseases or symptoms considered to be a sign of Sîn’s anger is formed by afflictions of the skin (Chapter II.10.2). The association between leprosy and the moon god is demonstrated by the widespread curse formula that threatens with leprosy caused by Sîn. References in diagnostic and therapeutic texts further suggest that red pustules, boils, and lesions were particular signs of Sîn’s “hand”. To a lesser extent, the moon god appears to have been associated with night-blindness and day-blindness through his luminosity (Chapter II.10.3). The centrality of Sîn’s association with epileptic symptoms and skin diseases in Mesopotamian conceptions of illness is suggested by the fact that he is beseeched as a part of therapies for epilepsy and leprosy: because he was the cause of the malady, he was able to relieve the patient from it. Apart

446

IV. Conclusions

from these instances, however, Sîn played a diminutive role in therapeutic procedures (Chapter II.10.4). The theologies concerning the members in the moon god’s household (Chapter II.11) present a prime example of plurality created by local traditions as opposed to supra-regional notions. There are notions that are ubiquitous in Babylonian and Assyrian theologies, and one of them is the status of the moon god as the first-born son of the god Enlil (Chapter II.11.1). It should be noted that the father-son relationship between Sîn and Enlil is highlighted in the context of divine decision-making, which suggests that this aspect of Sîn’s authority was inherited from his father, the king of the gods. Also Ningal/Nikkal is omnipresent as the wife of the moon god (Chapter II.11.2). In this role, she acts as the mistress of Ur and Ḫarrān, and as a compassionate intermediary between human petitioners and her husband. The differences between the theological traditions become apparent in connection with the moon god’s children. As attested by epithets and other sources, the two foremost children of the moon god, in the broader Sumero-Babylonian theological tradition, are the sun god Utu/Šamaš and the Venus goddess Inanna/Ištar – a genealogy that undoubtedly is based on the celestial character of all three (Chapters II.11.3–II.11.4). Ištar’s status as Sîn’s daughter is also reflected in the status held by Nanaya and Anunītu, the two goddesses that syncretised with Ištar in the 1st millennium BCE (Chapters II.11.4.1– II.11.4.2). Different conceptions can, however, be observed in the local cults in Ur and Ḫarrān, where the gods Ningublaga and Nusku, respectively, had the position of moon god’s son. In Ḫarrān, Nusku, the god of the lamp, was venerated as the moon god’s son and vizier (Chapter II.11.5). This is the same role that Nusku occupied as the son and vizier of Enlil in Nippur and the vizier of Aššur in Assur. In Ur, the god Ningublaga was the son of the moon god: he was in charge of herding and cattle, and his wife, Nin(e)igara, who is associated with dairy products, was the housekeeper of the moon god (Chapter II.11.6). The bulk of references to these two deities derive from the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE, but their status in the theological framework in Ur is still reflected in the literary sources of the 1st millennium BCE. It is clear, however, that Ningublaga belonged to the moon god’s household in Uruk, likely modelled after the cult in Ur, still in the Hellenistic period. Sîn’s vizier (sukkallu), Alamuš, is also associated with Ur, though he is rarely mentioned in Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian sources (Chapter II.11.7). Importantly, Alamuš acted as the messenger between the diviner (bārû) and Sîn in the ikrib-prayers, thus fulfilling his role as the vizier. Further members of the moon god’s household in Ur were the goddesses Amarazu and Amaraḫea, who in the 1st millennium BCE are attested only in god-lists and bilingual adjurations (Chapter II.11.8). The mother goddess Bēlet-ilī, the elder sister of Sîn, is not attested as a part of the moon god’s house-

IV. Conclusions

447

hold in any of his local cults, but she took a prominent position as his partner in the royal hemerology Inbu bēl arḫi (Chapter II.11.9). As shown in the overview of Sîn’s cults in Assyria and Babylonia, he was venerated in several cities in the southern and northern parts of Mesopotamia. In his cult cities Ur and Ḫarrān, the moon god was the head of the local pantheon and the tutelary deity of the city. It is clear that the worship of the moon god in the city of Ur and its vicinity goes back at least to the emergence of written sources, and this tradition continued into the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods (Chapters III.1–III.6). The documentation from this period concerning the moon god’s temple complex in the city, Ekišnugal, is unfortunately very meagre, and only sporadic references to the temple are found in private documents of the Persian period. Therefore, the bulk of available information is focused on the building activities of the local governor Sîn-balāssu-iqbi, as well as the Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus; their inscriptions detail the reconstruction of individual buildings within the temple complex (the ziqqurrat Elugalĝalgasisa, Ningal’s temple, the sanctuary Edublamaḫ, and the Eĝipar of the entu-priestess) as well as the rebuilding of the temple Ekišnugal in general. Elsewhere in Babylonia, the moon god Sîn appears to have been mainly venerated in the temples of his family members. He is attested to have enjoyed a cult in Nippur, the city of his father Enlil, already by the Early Dynastic period, and his veneration is still exhibited in the sources from the 1st millennium BCE (Chapter III.2.1). In this context, the influence of myth and genealogical relationships on the cult is particularly apparent because the deities who are housed in the moon god’s sanctuary are mythologically connected with him. Moreover, the names of the moon god’s sanctuaries in Nippur (Ekišnugal, Edublamaḫ) demonstrate a link to his cult in Ur. In Uruk, the city of Sîn’s daughter Ištar, three different manifestations of the moon god were venerated during the Neo-Babylonian period (Chapter III.2.2). First, documents from the temple administration attest to offerings that were delivered to the “house of Sîn” (bīt Sîn), which may be identical to the sanctuary Edumununa that is attested during the Hellenistic period. Second, a manifestation of the moon god known by the name “Sîn-of-Heaven” (Sîn-ša-šamê) plausibly was a minor deity in the temple Eana of Ištar. Third, the manifestation “Sînof-the-Courtyard” (Sîn-ša-kisalli), was most likely housed in the courtyard of Eana. In Sippar, which was the cult city of both the sun god Šamaš and the goddess Anunītu, the cult of the moon god is well-attested in the Old Babylonian period, but in the later times, references to it are only found in sources dating to the reign of Nabonidus (Chapter III.2.3). In the available documentation, Sîn is found in the entourage of his daughter Anunītu, which suggests that he was venerated in connection with her. Attestations from the Persian period exhibit two

448

IV. Conclusions

further manifestations of the moon god: “Sîn-of-Heaven” (Sîn-ša-šamê) and Sîn who resides in the palace of the crown prince. It should also be noted that Sîn’s status as the father of Šamaš and Anunītu in the context of Sippar was stressed in the inscriptions of Nabonidus. During the Old Babylonian period, the moon god was also venerated in Larsa, another cult city of Šamaš, but it remains unclear if this tradition continued into the Neo-Babylonian period (Chapter III.2.4). The presence of the moon god’s cult in Babylon can be traced back to the Old Babylonian period, when the city became a political and religious centre (Chapter III.2.5). Like the temple of Sîn in Nippur, his temple in Babylon, Ekišnugal, adopted its name from Ur, which suggests that the veneration of Sîn reflected Babylon’s status as the new focal point in the land. During the NeoBabylonian period, the temple Ekišnugal of Sîn in Babylon is referred to by Nebuchadnezzar II in connection with his rebuilding work in the city, and it is possible that it was located in the quarter Kullab in the northeastern part of the city. A sanctuary known by the names Enitendu or Enitena is also attested to have belonged to Sîn in Babylon, but its location remains unknown. One possibility is that this was a sanctuary of Sîn within the temple Eturkalama of the local Ištar-manifestation, Bēlet-Bābili. Therefore, Babylon appears to be the only Babylonian city where the cult of Sîn was not primarily associated with his genealogical relationships, but with the city’s status as the political and religious centre. In Borsippa, the sanctuary Edimana of Sîn appears to have been located within the temple Ezida (Chapter III.2.6). Otherwise, the references to the cult of the moon god in the city are sporadic, and they all derive from the Persian period. Due to the lack of evidence, it cannot be known for sure whether Sîn was venerated as the father of his daughter Nanaya in the city. Nevertheless, such a context is plausible on the basis of the evidence from other Babylonian cities. In Assyria, the centre of the moon god’s worship was Ḫarrān, located at the critical junction of trade routes along the river Baliḫ (Chapters III.3). The moon god as the tutelary deity of Ḫarrān is assuredly attested in the Old Babylonian period, but his cult in the area most likely had a much longer history. Because of the lack of written documentation from the city and the fact that his temple has not been unearthed in archaeological excavations, the information available about the Ḫarranian moon god and his household must be primarily gleaned from the inscriptions of Assurbanipal and Nabonidus, both of whom rebuilt the temple Eḫulḫul in the city (Chapter III.3.2). The status of the god Nusku, the son of the moon god in Ḫarrān, differentiates the Ḫarranian household of Sîn from his household in other Assyrian or Babylonian cities (Chapter III.3.1) whereas the status of the goddess Ningal/Nikkal, Sîn’s wife, creates a link between the Sumerian tradition and the local one. It is plausible that Ištar and Šamaš were also worshipped in connection with the moon god in this area, but explicit evid-

IV. Conclusions

449

ence of this is lacking. The daily cult in Eḫulḫul remains completely clouded by the lack of sources: the Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence and the archives in Nineveh offer only sporadic references to cultic personnel of the Ḫarranian moon god. Likewise, the celebration of the moon god’s akītu-festival in the city is known from Neo-Assyrian royal correspondence, but the only assuredlyknown detail is that the procession to the akītu-house took place on the 17th day of an unnamed month (Chapter III.3.3). A specific feature that becomes visible in the sources from the reign of Sargonid kings is the apparent juxtaposition of the national god Aššur and the Ḫarranian moon god or their respective cities, Aššur and Ḫarrān (Chapter III.3.1). This involves royal actions, such as the installation of Assurbanipal’s two younger brothers as šešgallu-officials in the mains temples of Aššur and Ḫarrān, as well as theological statements, such as the equation of Sîn and Aššur in a compendium that describes the akītu-festival in Aššur. It is impossible to pinpoint a single reason for the juxtaposition of the moon god and Aššur, but several possibilities present themselves. First, the importance of Ḫarrān and the popularity of its moon god in the surrounding area provided a tool for enforcing Assyrian control in the region. Second, the appellation “Lord-Crown” for Aššur offered a direct association between him and the moon god, who was “lord of the crown”. Third, the position of Nusku as the son and vizier of both Sîn of Ḫarrān and Aššur provided a further theological argument for their juxtaposition. A contributing factor may also be the hypothesised personal connection between the Sargonid kings and Ḫarrān: it has been suggested that Sargon II, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and Assurbanipal may have been linked with the city through their family. Most importantly, it has recently been proposed that Ḫarrān was a place where collateral lines of the Assyrian royal family resided and were active. Although no definitive portrayal of the situation can be given here, it is clear that Ḫarrān and its moon god had a special position in the political and religious context of Assyria during the reigns of the Sargonid kings. It should be stressed that Ḫarrān was not the only cult place of the moon god in the Syro-Anatolian area. Although the cults of the Aramaic moon god remain outside the scope of the present study, it must be noted that the moon god of the town Elumu is identified with Assyro-Babylonian Sîn in a text that records the recovery of a stolen village, and its dedication to the moon god by Assurbanipal (Chapter III.3.4). In the Assyrian heartland, cults of the moon god are attested only in the political centres, which suggests that ideological concerns were a fundamental element in the worship of Sîn. Nevertheless, it should be stressed that the mythological-theological elements similar to those found in Babylonian cults must also have been significant in the cults in Assyrian capital cities, but they often remain undetected due to the nature of the available sources. First, in the city of Assur, the double temple of Sîn and Šamaš was located in the northern part of the city,

450

IV. Conclusions

in the area that contained the palace and the other temples (Chapter III.4.1). In the earlier phases of the temple, the cellas of Sîn and Šamaš were located opposite each other, thus presenting the moon and the sun in permanent opposition. When the temple was rebuilt by Assurnaṣirpal II, the alignment of the cellas was changed, but Sîn and Šamaš continued to share their house. The few references to the deities living in this household emphasise the local character of Sîn’s cult in Assur in comparison to the Babylonian cities: the deities named as members of his household are strictly Assyrian. In contrast to Assur, the setting of the moon god’s cult in Kalḫu appears to be completely different (Chapter III.4.2). Here, the moon god shared a temple with Ninurta, Ea, Adad, Šarrat-nipḫi, and Gula, which means that he was separated from the sun god Šamaš in the city’s cultic topography. References to the moon god in the context of Kalḫu are very few, but the available sources stress a cultic connection between the weather god Adad and Sîn. Unfortunately, the details of the theological framework or the daily cult are unknown. A shared temple for Sîn and Šamaš is also attested in the last two Assyrian capitals, Dūr-Šarrukīn and Nineveh. In the city built by Sargon II, Dūr-Šarrukīn, the temple complex of Sîn, Šamaš, and Ningal was prominently located next to the palace and the ziqqurrat (Chapter III.4.3). In addition to the temple’s prominence in the citadel, a reference to Sîn of Dūr-Šarrukīn in a penalty clause suggests that the moon god played a central role in the city’s cult and that he may even have had the status of tutelary deity. Also worth noting is the exceptional status held by the goddess Ningal in this context: instead of occupying a small sanctuary inside Sîn’s temple, her cella equalled the cellas of her husband and her son in size. In Nineveh, the earliest reference to the temple of Sîn and Šamaš appears in an inscription of Sennacherib who executed extensive building projects in the city after it was made the new capital (Chapter III.4.4). The temple’s location is not known for certain, but there are indications that it was grouped with the houses of the other great gods and the palace. A significant detail in Sîn’s cult in Nineveh is that, as in Ḫarrān, the god Nusku appears to have been a member of his household, suggesting a possible Ḫarranian influence on his cult during the reign of Assurbanipal at the latest. Moreover, in Nineveh, manifestations of the moon god were also housed in the sanctuaries of Aššur and Ištar. In the latter case, the presence of Sîn and Ningal within Ištar’s temple serves indicates of their genealogical relationship, demonstrating that mythological context was apparent also in Assyrian cults of the moon god. As this summary and the more detailed information in the preceding chapters show, the sources from the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods describe the moon god Sîn first and foremost as the moon, a celestial luminary that embodies cosmic order and regulates time, conveys messages about the decisions he or other deities have made, brings stability to the reign of the king, allows

IV. Conclusions

451

people (and animals) to procreate, and afflicts them with epilepsy and skin diseases (but also heals them, if he wills). He is present not only in cult images in and around sanctuaries but also in the night sky, where he unceasingly makes himself manifest from day to day, month to month; the jewel of heavens, surrounded by rejoicing stars.

V. Text Editions V.1. “Sîn 1” The prayer “Sîn 1” (Mayer 1976, 408) is the most widely attested and the best preserved among the Akkadian šu’ila-prayers to the moon god. The manuscripts that contain it belong most notably to the purificatory ritual bīt rimki, performed in response to a lunar eclipse, but it is attested also in the context of dream rituals. The prayer highlights Sîn’s celestial luminosity and his power in divine decision-making. The incipit of this prayer is cited in the bīt rimki rituals BBR 26, III 53 and K. 4494+, 23’ (see Ambos 2013a, 188 and the translation in Farber 1987, 245–255), as well as in namburbi BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190), r. 13’ (see Maul 1994, 458). Manuscripts A: K. 155, 1–28 (BMS 1; CDLI P393771) B: K. 2823+K. 3332+K. 11347+K. 11722+K. 15427, 1–r. 8 (AOAT 34 no. 1; CDLI P394701) C: Sm. 1382, 1’–4’ (AOAT 34 no. 2; CDLI P425889) D: VAT 14060, 1’–r. 1’ (LKA 39) E: SU 51/107, 19–r. 7 (STT 56) F: Si. 18, 1’–r. 52462 G: Si. 884, 1–7 (Butler 1998, pl. 15a) H: Si. 904, 1’–r. 4 (Butler 1998, pl. 15b) I: BM 78432 = Bu. 88-5-12, 335, 1’–r. 4 (Langdon 1918, pl. 7; Butler 1998, pls. 1–2) J: VAT 13854 (KAL 4 no. 66), 1’–r. 52463 K: K. 15528, r. 1–52464 (pl. 1; CDLI P401429) Editions: King 1896, no. 1 (K. 155); Perry 1907, no. 2 (K. 155); Combe 1908, no. 2 (K. 155); Ebeling 1953a, 6–9 (K. 155), Mayer 1976, 490–495 (“Sîn 1”); Butler 1998, 379–398 (“Shamash-shum-ukin Dream Ritual”) Translations: Stephens 1950, 386; Falkenstein & von Soden 1953, 316–317; Tallqvist 1938b, 121–122; Tallqvist 1947, 330; Tallqvist 1953, 106– 107; Leibovici 1962, 109–110; Labat 1970, 284–285; Seux 1976, 278– 280; Foster 2005, 760–761

2462

No copy of this tablet is available, but it is transliterated in Combe 1908, no. 6 (see also Scheil 1902, 104). The transliteration here follows the collations made by W. von Soden for the edition in Mayer 1976, 490–495. 2463 This fragment is likely to belong to the same tablet as VAT 14060 (here Ms D; see Maul & Strauß 2011, 123). 2464 This fragment was identified and kindly brought to my attention by E. Jimenéz.

V.1. “Sîn 1”

453

Literature: Sperl 1994, 221–223; Butler 1998, 149–150; Frechette 2012, 201– 208 and 269 Score transliteration ] 1 A1 ÉN d30 dNanna-ru ⌈šu⌉-⌈pu⌉-⌈ú⌉ [ d d ] B1 ÉN 30 Nanna-ru [ E 19 ⌈ÉN⌉ d30 NAN[NA](or: ŠEŠ-[ru]) ⌈šu⌉-⌈pu⌉-⌈u⌉ S[AG.KAL DIN]GIR.MEŠ G1 [ š]u-pu-u SAG.KAL DINGIR.MEŠ d

A2 B2 E 20 G2

30 ed-deš-šu-ú mu-nam-mi[r 30 ed-deš-šu-ú ⌈mu⌉-[nam-mir [ ] ⌈ed⌉-⌈deš⌉-⌈šú⌉-u mu-na-⌈mir⌉ uk-[l]u [ ] mu-nam-mir uk-li

3

A3 B3 E 21 G3

ša-ki-in na-mir-ti a-na UN.MEŠ [ ] ša-ki-in na-mir-t[i ] [ n]a-⌈mir⌉-te ana U[N].MEŠ a-pa-[a-ti] [ ] UN.MEŠ a-pa-a-ti

4

A4 B4 C 1’ E 23 G4

ana UN.MEŠ ṣal-mat SAG.DU uš-šu-ru šá-[ ] ana UN.MEŠ ṣal-mat SAG.DU [ ] [ ] ⌈uš⌉-⌈šu⌉-⌈ru⌉ [ ] [ana UN.ME]Š ṣal-mat SAG.DU uš-šu-ru šá-r[u-ru-ka] [ ] uš-šu-rù šá-ru-ru-⌈ka⌉

5

A5 B5 C 2’ E 22 G5

nam-rat UD.DA-ka ina AN-e e[l?-lu?-ti?] nam-rat UD.DA-ka [ ] [ UD.DA-k]a ina AN-e [ [nam-ra]t UD.DA-⌈ka⌉ ina ⌈AN⌉-e e[l?-lu?-ti?] [ i]na AN-e e[l?-lu?-ti?]

]

A6 B6 C 3’ E 24 G6

] šar-ḫat di-pa-ra-ka GIN7 dGìra ḫ[i? ] šar-ḫat di-pa-[r]a-ka G[IN7 [ -k]a GIN7 dGìr[a ] [šar-ḫa]t UD.DA-ka GIN7 dGìra x [ d [ G]IN7 Gìra x [ ]

]

A7 B7 C 4’ E 25

ma-lu-ú nam-ri-ru-ka KI-ta DAG[AL-ta] ma-lu-ú nam-ri-ru-ka KI-t[a ] [ -r]u-ka [ ] (rest broken away) [ma-lu]-⌈u⌉ nam-ri-ru-ka ⌈KI⌉-tim DA[GAL-ta]

2

6

7

d

] ]

454

V. Text Editions

G7

[

nam-ri-ru-k]a KI-tim D[AGAL ] (rest of the

obverse broken away)

[

8

A8 B7 F1 I 2’

šar-ḫa UN.MEŠ ug-da-šá-ra ana a-ma-ri ka-[a-ta] [ ] ? [ r]a ana a-ma-ri ka-[a-ta] [ ] ana a-⌈ma⌉-ri ka-a-ta

8a

E 26

[

9

A9 B8 E 27

d

A-num AN-e šá la i-lam-ma-du mì-lik-šú ma-a[m-man] ] ⌈d⌉A-num AN-e šá la [ ] [la i]-lam-ma-du mi-lik-šú kab-[tu?

10

A 10 B9 D 1’ E 28

šu-tu-rat UD.DA-ka GIN7 dUTU bu-uk-ri-[ka] [šu-tu-ra]t UD.DA-ka [ ] [ -k]a GIN7 ⌈d⌉[UTU ] ] (edge) [ UD].⌈DA⌉-⌈ka⌉ ⌈GIN7⌉ ⌈dUTU⌉ [

11

A 11

[k]ám-su ⌈IGI⌉-⌈ka⌉ ⌈DINGIR⌉.⌈MEŠ⌉ ⌈GAL⌉.⌈MEŠ⌉ EŠ.BAR KUR.KUR GAR-in ina IGI-k[a] ]/ [ -s]u? I[GI?-ka [EŠ.B]AR KUR.[KUR ] [ EŠ.BA]R KUR.KUR GAR-in [ ] [ ] IGI!-ka DINGIR.MEŠ G[AL.MEŠ] / [ šá]-⌈kin⌉ ina IGI-[ka]

B 10–11 D 2’ E r. 1–2

K]I-⌈ta⌉ [

] ⌈ti?⌉

I 1’

] x DINGIR-ut-ka ú-paq-⌈qu⌉(-)ka(-)x [

]

11c 11d 11e

D 3’ D 4’ D 5’

ina UGU AN.MI d30 šá ina ITI NENNI UD NENNI GARn[u] [ UG]U AN.M[I ] UGU Á.MEŠ GISKIM.MEŠ ḪUL.MEŠ NU DU10.MEŠ šá ina É.GAL-MU u KUR-MU GÁL-a [UG]U Á.[MEŠ ]/ [šá] ina É.GA[L ] [ana-ku I.dAN.ŠÀR–D]Ù–A DUMU [DINGIR-šú] [šá DINGIR-šú dAš-šur] diš-tar8-šú dAš-šur-⌈i⌉-[tum] [pal-ḫa-ku a]d-ra-ku u šu-ta-d[u-ra-ku]

12

A 14 B 15 D 6’

DINGIR.MEŠ GAL.MEŠ i-šal-lu-ka-ma SUM-in mil-ka [DINGIR].M[EŠ ] [ i-šal]-lu-ka-ma SUM-in [ ]

11a

A 12

11b

B 12 A 13 B 13–14

V.1. “Sîn 1”

13

A 15 B 16 D 7’

455

uš-bu pu-ḫur-šú-nu uš-ta-mu-ú ina KI.⌈TA⌉-⌈ka⌉ [u]š-[bu ] [ pu-ḫur-šú-n]u uš-ta-mu-u ina K[I.TA-ka] (rest of the obverse broken away)

14

A 16

d

E r. 3 J 1’

30 šu-pu-ú šá É-kur i-šal-⌈lu⌉-⌈ka⌉-⌈ma⌉ ta-mit DINGIR.MEŠ SUM-[i]n d [30 i-šal-lu]-k[a]-ma / t[a-mit S]UM-in [ ] i-šal-⌈lu⌉-ka ta-nam-[din] [ i-šal]-⌈lu⌉-[ka-ma

14a

E r. 4

[

15

A 17 B 19–20 E r. 5 J 2’

UD.NÁ.ÀM u4-um ta-mit-ti-ka pi-riš-ti DINGIR.MEŠ G[AL.MEŠ] U[D.NÁ.ÀM ta-mit]-ti-ka / p[i-riš-ti G]AL.MEŠ ] [ u]4-um EŠ.BAR šá DINGIR.MEŠ [ ] [ u4]-⌈um⌉ ⌈ta⌉-⌈mit⌉-ti-ka p[i-riš-ti

15a 15b

E r. 6 E r. 7

[ina? ūm?] te-diš-ti i-qul-lu-ka [ [ ]ixxxxx[ ]

16

A 18 B 21–22 J 3’

UD.30.KÁ[M] i-sin-na-ka ⌈u4⌉-um ta-šil-ti DINGIR-ti-[ka] [ i-sin-n]a-ka / [ t]i-ka ] [ i]-sin-na-ka u4-um t[a-šil-ti

17

A 19

d

B 17–18

B 23–24 F2 I 3’–4’ J 4’–5’

] u dÍ-gì-gì ú-šat-lim-k[a

] ]

]

DILI.⌈ÍM⌉(or: ⌈IM5⌉).BABBAR e-muq la šá-na-an ⌈šá⌉ la i-lam-ma-du mi-lik-šú ma-a[m-man] [ šá]-na-an / š[á m]a-am-man d N[amraṣīt e]-muq la ša-na-an ša la i-l[am-ma-du] mi-lik-šú [ ] [ e]-muq la šá-na-an /[ ilam-ma]-du ⌈mi⌉-lik-⌈šú⌉ mam-ma ] / [dDILI.Í]M(or: [IM]5).BABBAR e-muq [ [la i-l]am-ma-du mi-lik-š[ú ]

17a

F3 I 5’

ana-ku dGIŠ.NU11-MU-GI.NA Ì[R-ka] d UTU]-MU-GI.NA ⌈ÌR⌉-ka [

18

A 20 B 25–26

as-ruq-ka si-riq GI6 el-⌈lu⌉ aq-qí-ka re-eš-ta-a ši-kar [ a[s-ruq-ka e]l-⌈lu⌉ /

]

456

V. Text Editions

F 4–5 I 6’–7’ J 6’–7’

aq-[qí-k]a re-⌈eš⌉-[ta-a ] as-ruq-ka ši-riq mu-ši e[l-lu] / aq-qi-ka re-eš-ta-a ši-kar [ ] [ š]i-riq mu-ši el-la / [ re]-eš-ta-a ši-kar da-áš-pa [as-ruq]-ka se-er-q[u ] / [ ] re-eš-ta-a ši-ka[r ]

F6 I 8’ E r. 8 F7 I 9’ E r. 9

ina giš⌈GÁN⌉?.⌈LAGAB⌉? qud-du-ši MU-ka az-kur [ ]-ši MU-ka az-kur [ ]-ka EN ina q[é-reb ] al-si-ka be-lí ina qé-reb AN-e K[Ù.MEŠ] [ be-l]í ina qé-reb AN-e KÙ.MEŠ [ ] ana DI[N]GIR.MEŠ an-na-⌈a⌉? ⌈šu⌉-⌈te⌉-⌈šir⌉?

19

A 21 B 27 F8 I 10’ J 8’

kám-sa-ku az-za-az a-⌈še⌉-’e-ka ka-⌈a⌉-[šá] kám-[sa-k]u az-za-az ⌈a⌉-[še-’e ] [kam-sa]-ku a-za-az a-še-’e ka-a-[ ] [ az-za-a]z a-še-’e ka-a-šá [ az-za]-⌈az⌉ a-še-⌈’e⌉ [ ]

20

21

A 22 B 28 F9 I 11’ J r. 1 A 23

22

A 24

18a 18b

18c

INIM.GAR dum-qí u mì-šá-ri GAR-un UGU-[ia] INIM.[GAR du]m-qí u mì-šá-ri [ ] [ ] dum-qí u mi-ša-ri šu-kun UGU-[ia] [ ] u mi-šá-ri šu-kun UGU-ía [ d]um-qí u mi-šá-ri GAR-u[n ] DINGIR-MU u iš8-tár(i) ša iš-tu u4-um ma-du-ti is-bu-su [ ] ] B 29–r. 1 DINGIR-M[U u diš8-tá]r-⌈MU⌉ ⌈ša⌉ ⌈iš⌉-t[u (edge) / is-bu-su UGU-[MU] F 10 [ ] u d[ištarī] iš-tu u4-mu ma-a’-du-x is-bu-su [ ] I 12’ [ i]š-tu UD.MEŠ ma-a’-du-tú is-bu-su ⌈UGU⌉-⌈ía⌉ ] / [ma-’-d]u-ti J r. 2–3 [ ] diš8-tár(i) ša iš-t[u is-bu-s[u ]

B r. 2–3 F 11

ina kit-ti u NÍG.SI.SÁ lis-li-mu KI-MU : ur-ḫi lid-mì-iq pa-da!(tablet: iš)-ni l[i-šir] ina kit-ti NÍG.SI.SÁ lis-li-[m]u KI-M[U] / ur-ḫi lid-mì-iq pa-da-ni li-š[ir] [ kit]-ti u m[i-ša-ri li]-is-li-mu [ ]

V.1. “Sîn 1”

457

I 13’–14’ [ mi]-⌈šá⌉-ri li-is-li-mu KI-ía / [ ] pa-da-nu li-šir J r. 4–5 [ina kit-t]i u mi-šá-ri ⌈lis⌉-li-[mu] / [ -i]q pa-d[a]-⌈ni⌉ [ ] (rest broken away) K r. 1 [ pa-d]a-ni li-š[ir] 23

A 25 B r. 4 F r. 1 H 1’ I 15’ K r. 2

24

A 26 B r. 5–6 F r. 2–3 H r. 1–2 I r. 1–2 K r. 3–4

ú-ma-’e-er-ma AN.ZA.GÀR DINGIR šá MÁŠ.GI6.[MEŠ] ú-ma-’e-er-ma AN.ZA.[G]ÀR DINGIR šá MÁŠ.G[I6.MEŠ] [ú-ma-’e]-er-ma AN.ZA.GÀR [ ] ú-ma-[’e-er-ma ] (edge) [ ] AN.ZA.GÀR DINGIR.MEŠ šá MÁŠ.GI6.MEŠ (edge) [ š]á MÁŠ.GI6.MEŠ ] ina šat GI6 DU8.MEŠ ár-ni-ia5 lu-uš-me šèr-ti lu-ta-l[íl ina šat GI6 DU8.MEŠ ár-[ni-ia5] /[lu-u]š-me šèr-ti l[u-t]a-líl [ ] [ mu]-ši-im li-paṭ-ṭi-ra [ ] / [lu-ušm]e šèr-ti lu-ta-líl [ ] ina šat mu-ši-i[m ] / lu-uš-me šèr-[ti ] [ -r]a [á]r-ni-⌈ia⌉ / [ lu-tal]íl ana-ku [ á]r-ni-ia5(erasure; written over the sign ia) / [ lu-ta-lí]l ana-ku

25

A 27 B r. 7 F r. 4 H r. 3 I r. 3 K r. 5

ana dà-ra-ti lud-lul dà-lí-lí-[ka] ⌈ana⌉ ⌈dà⌉-⌈ra⌉-⌈ti⌉ [lud-l]ul d[à-lí-lí-ka] [ da]-ra-a-ti lud-lu-la da-li-li-ka ana da-ra-a-ti lud-l[ul ] [ lud-l]u-⌈la⌉ dà-lí-lí-ka [ k]a (rest broken away)

26

A 28 B r. 8 D r. 1’ F r. 5 H r. 4 I r. 4

KA.INIM.MA ŠU.⌈ÍL⌉.LÁ d+S[U]EN.[NA.KÁM] d ]SU[EN].NA.KE4 KA.INIM.MA [ d [KA.INIM.M]A ŠU.ÍL.LÁ N[ANNA?.KÁM] [KA].INIM.MA ŠU.ÍL.LÁ dSUEN.NA.[KÁM] KA.INIM.MA ŠU.ÍL.L[Á ] [ ŠU].⌈ÍL⌉.LÁ d+SUEN.NA.KÁM

458

V. Text Editions

Translation 1 Incantation: O Sîn, the splendid luminary, the foremost of the gods! 2 O Sîn, the constantly self-renewing one, the one who illuminates the darkness, 3 the one who provides light for the teeming mankind, 4 (down) to the black-headed people is your radiance released! 5 Bright is your glow in the r[adiant?] heavens, 6 glorious is your torch(var.: light [Ms E]), like Gira […]! 7 Your awesome radiance fills the wi[de] earth, 8 the people become filled with pride, they vie with each other to see you! 8a’: [...] they [...] heed your divinity! 9 O Anu of heaven, whose intent(var.: impo[rtant?] intent [Ms E]) no one can comprehend, 10 your light is supreme like Šamaš, [your] first-born son! 11 The great gods [k]neel before you, the decision(s) of all the lands are put before you! 11a Because of the lunar eclipse that happen[ed] of the month soand-so, day so-and-so, 11b because of ill-boding (and) unpropitious omens and signs that have come into being in my palace and in my land: 11c [I am Assurba]nipal, son [of his god] 11d [whose god is Aššur and] whose goddess is Aššurī[tum] 11e [I am afraid, I] am frightened and [I am in p]anic! 12 The great gods ask you and you give counsel, 13 they sat in their assembly, they deliberated at your feet. 14 O Sîn, the splendid one of Ekur, they ask you and you give the response of the gods! 14a [The Anunnakū] and Igigū gods granted yo[u ...] 15 The day of disappearance is the day of your answer, the secret of the great gods! 15a [on the day of?] renewal they pay attention to you [...] 15b [...] 16 The 30th day is your festival, the day of [your] divinity’s celebration! 17 O Namraṣīt, power without a rival, whose intent no one can comprehend! 17a I am Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, your servant: 18 I have strewn the pure night-time offering for you, I have libated firstclass honey-sweet beer, 18a I sworn by you by (using) the purified ...! 18 b I invoke you, my lord, in the midst of radiant heavens! 18c [...] set? this straight? for the gods! 19 I am on my knees, I stand (here), I am seeking you,

V.1. “Sîn 1”

20 21

459

25

grant me an oracle of goodness and righteousness! My god and my goddess who have been angry with me since so many days, may they make peace with me in justice and equity! May my path be good, may my road be straight! I have ordered Zaqīqu, the god(var.: gods [Ms I]) of dreams so that he may absolve my sins (for me) during the night! May I learn of my misdeed, may I be cleansed! Let me proclaim your glory for eternity!

26

Wording of a šu’ila-prayer to Sîn.

22 23 24

Commentary 1 In Ms E the epithet nannāru is written either as NAN[NA] or ŠEŠ-[ru]. The lack of the divine determinative does not help in deciding which of these possibilities would be more likely here, since the other attestations of similar spellings all include the determinative. dŠEŠ-ru is used for nannāru in an ikrib-prayer to Sîn in K. 3794+, 13 (see the edition on p. 483ff. below) and dŠEŠ is found in the stele inscription of Bēl-Ḫarrānbēlu-uṣur, RIMA 3, A.0.105.2, 6. For a discussion of the epithet nannāru for Sîn see p. 31ff. above. 5 In the edition by S. Butler the end of this line is restored as AN-e e[l!lu-ti] (Butler 1998, 382). W. Mayer left the end incomplete in his transliteration, but suggested the restoration D[AGAL.MEŠ] (Mayer 1976, 419). In my opinion, the traces present in Mss A, E and G support Butler’s suggestion. Moreover, there are no attestations of “wide heavens” in CAD Š/1, 339–348 whereas the expression “radiant heavens” (or “pure heavens”; see the discussion concerning the meaning of the adjective ellu in Feder 2014, 87–113) appears often in connection with the celestial deities (see e.g. Sîn’s epithets āsib šamê ellūti in CTN 4 no. 61+62, 3 and nannār šamê ellūti in K. 2884, 12). 6 There have been different suggestions for the restoration of this line (for an overview see Butler 1998, 393). The most plausible are ḫi[-mi-iṭ-ka] (Ebeling 1953a, 6; Mayer 1976, 491) and ru[š-ši] (Langdon 1918, 107; Zimmern apud Perry 1907, 15). The first of these would therefore refer to the heat of fire (CAD Ḫ, 193: ḫimṭu, “scorching; fever; anxiety”) and the second to its colour (CAD R, 427: ruššû, “having a reddish sheen”). Since no further attestations for the use of either of these expression in connection with Sîn are known to me, the line is left here without a restoration. 8a This is a variant line that replaces line 8’ in Ms E. In comparison to line 8’ in the other manuscripts, this line contains a masculine subject in-

460

V. Text Editions

stead of the feminine nišū. Butler 1998, 383 restores the adverb “constantly” (ka-⌈a⌉-[a-na]) to the destroyed section of at the end of the line – perhaps according to note 2 in Foster 2005, 760 – but no attestations of similar passages are known to me. 9 Mayer 1976, 492 suggests the restoration mi-lik-šú kab-[tú mamma(n)] for the variant part in Ms E. 11a–e For the eclipse (attalû) formula see Mayer 1976, 100–102 and Butler 1998, 149. 14a It is possible that the Anunnakū and Igigū gods are present here as a pair, but unfortunately it cannot be confirmed. 15–16 For the days of lunar invisibility described here see p. 122ff. above. 15a A possible reconstruction for this line could be [ina ūm] tēdišti iqullūka, “they pay attention to you [on the day of] renewal”. It is clear that here the line refers to the renewal and reappearance of the moon after the days of its invisibility, therefore forming a logical continuation to the previous line. Note also that the term tēdištu, “renewal”, is included in the explanations for the logogram UD.NÁ.ÀM in the 2nd division of iNAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a (K. 2164+, r. 12’–14’; see the citation on p. 123 above). 17 For discussion of the divine name Dilimbabbar see p. 71ff. above. giš GÁN.LAGAB? according to collation of W. von Soden (Mayer 1976, 18a 493). 21 The reading iš8-tár(i) has been adopted from the edition of Ms J (VAT 13854) in KAL 4 no. 66. The use of a sign value with an appended vowel (see MZL, 457–459) solves the problem of the missing possessive suffix in Ms A (K. 155) discussed in Butler 1998, 394 (Ms A1 in Butler’s edition). 23 The subject of the verb uma’’erma is not entirely clear. In previous editions it has been variously taken to be either an unspecified “he”, the personal god of the supplicant, the moon god Sîn, or the petitioner himself (see the overview in Butler 1998, 394). Despite the preference towards the moon god as the subject of the verb in the latest edition of this prayer (see Butler 1998, 392 and 394), I agree with the previous translations that saw the petitioner as the sender of Zaqīqu. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Sîn is not named in this plea at the end of the prayer. Also the form of petitions in general in Akkadian šu’ila-prayers (imperative/precative address to the deity coupled with 1. Sg. verbal forms) supports the interpretation that it is indeed the petitioner who sends the dream god to act as a messenger between him and the moon god. 24 The emendation lu-uš-lim!(me) in Butler 1998, 388 (adopted also in Foster 2005, 761) cannot be correct, since it would mean that this “mis-

V.1. “Sîn 1”

461

take” had occurred in four different manuscripts. The sign value limx for ME given in Jaques 2015, 238 is not included in sign lists. The structure of the line also supports the reading lušme: the object in each sentence is presented after the predicate.

462

V. Text Editions

V.2. “Sîn 2” The prayer “Sîn 2” (Mayer 1976, 408) is known only from a single Neo-Assyrian fragment from Nineveh. The remains of the first two lines of this prayer parallel the prayer “Sîn 1” (see the edition on p. 452ff. above), but the rest of the preserved lines diverge from the wording of that prayer. Due to the fragmentary nature of the manuscript the context of “Sîn 2” remains unknown. The only clue is the formulation in line 3, which suggests that Sîn’s healing powers – especially in respect to epilepsy – were praised in this prayer. Manuscript: K. 10151, 1–11 (Perry 1907, Taf. III; CDLI P398518; pl. 1) Editions: Perry 1907, no. 7; Combe 1908, no. 11 Transliteration 1 ÉN d30 U4.SAKA[R d 30 ed-de-š[u-u 2 3 DINGIR nam-ru muk-k[iš 4 nu-úr ma-a[-ti d DILI.ÍM.BABBAR šu-x [ 5 6 raš-bu d30 [ 7 MAS.SÙ-ú r[a?-bu?-u? 8 kab-tu šur-b[u-ú 9 IBILA gít-m[a-lu 10 [r]e-mé-nu-⌈ú⌉ [ 11 [d]30 x x [

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

(rest broken away)

Translation 1 Incantation: O Sîn, the lumina[ry 2 O Sîn, the constantly rene[wing one 3 the brilliant god, the one who driv[es out 4 the light of the la[nd 5 O Namraṣīt, the ... [ 6 the awe-inspiring one, Sîn [ 7 the gr[eat?] leader [ 8 the supr[eme] venerable one [ 9 the perf[ect] heir [ 10 [the m]erciful one [ 11 O Sîn [ (rest broken away)

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

V.2. “Sîn 2”

463

Commentary 3 The last two signs were copied incorrectly as DÙ and K[I] in Perry 1907, Taf. III., leading to the reading kàl ir[ṣitim(?)] in his edition (Perry 1907, 30). The verb akāšu, “to go; to move” in its D-stem form (ukkušu, “to drive out”; see the attestations in CAD A/1, 264) is attested in connection with Sîn in the context of epilepsy: in the prayer “Sîn 14” he is begged to drive the epilepsy-causing demon Bennu away from the body of the patient (“Sîn 14”, 9; see the edition on p. 479ff. below). Therefore, it is plausible that by using the participle mukkiš in “Sîn 2” the healing powers of Sîn were praised. 6 The adjective rašbu, “awe-inspiring; fearsome” is not otherwise attested as one of Sîn’s epithets (see CAD R, 191–192). However, in a syncretistic hymn to Marduk, the station of the moon in the sky is described as awe-inspiring: [šá ina] AN-e man-za-as-su ra-áš-bu (KAR 337, r.? 9; see Lambert 1964, 12–13. Note that a new publication of this hymn with duplicate manuscripts was planned by W. G. Lambert and I. Finkel according to the information given in Schwemer 2001, 665 note 5519). 7 The epithet massû rabû is otherwise attested only in a reference to Šamaš, and therefore it is uncertain whether or not it should be restored here (see CAD M/1, 327–328). 8 The epithet kabtu, “important”, applied to the moon god is attested also in SAA 12 no. 90, 2 and perhaps in K. 8759+, 11 (see the citation on p. 142 above). For the use of the adjective kabtu (“honoured, influental, venerable”) as an epithet for deities, see CAD K, 26–27. 9 According to the attestations in CAD G, 111, the epithet aplu gitmālu, “perfect heir”, is only attested in connection with Nabû.

464

V. Text Editions

V.3. “Sîn 3” The prayer “Sîn 3” (Mayer 1976, 408) is attested in six different manuscripts from Nineveh, Assur, and Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe). It is evident from these manuscripts that this prayer was not performed for a specific purpose, but that it was used in a variety of ritual contexts. The manuscript from Nineveh (Ms A) belongs to the cycle of prayers recited during the royal ritual bīt salā’ mê. In addition to the existence of this tablet, the incipit from “Sîn 3” is also found in the tablet that outlines the performance of this ritual (see Ambos 2013a, 162; line B2 47). It is possible that Ms F was written for the same purpose since the organisation of the tablet corresponds to the structure of bīt salā’ mê: the prayer that follows “Sîn 3” is addressed to Gula (noted in Ambos 2013a, 203). The attribution of Ms F to this ritual context cannot, however, be confirmed since the purpose of the text is not stated in the tablet. The second explicitly attested context is therapeutic: two of the manuscripts from Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe), Mss D and E, involve healing procedures against epilepsy and also contain the prayer “Sîn 14” (see p. 479ff. below). It is also possible that “Sîn 3” is referred to in BAM 3 no. 244 – a tablet that contains procedures for easing childbirth (BAM 3 no. 244, r. 69: [ÉN d 30] na-nàr AN-e DIN[GIR? …]). Ms C from Assur gives no indications of its context because it contains nothing other than the prayer to Sîn. Manuscripts A: K. 2106+K. 2384+K. 3393+K. 6340+K. 7146+K. 8605+K. 8983+K. 9576+K. 9688+K. 9754+K. 11589+K. 12911+K. 13792+K. 13800, 36– 70 (BMS 6; CDLI P394195) B: K. 16342, 1–6 (AOAT 34 no. 17; CDLI P401954) C: VAT 13681, 1–r. 22 (LKA 52)2465 D: SU 51/85+, 57–84 (STT 57+263) E: SU 51/49, o.! 1–28 (STT 58) F: SU 51/34, 1–29 (STT 59) Editions: King 1896, no. 6 (K. 2106+); Perry 1907, no. 10 (K. 2106+); Combe 1908, no. 7 (K. 2106+); Ebeling 1953a, 44–47 (K. 2106+); Mayer 1976, 495–502 (“Sîn 3”); Ambos 2013a, 203–211 (K. 2106+) Translations: Seux 1976, 280–282 Literature: Frechette 2012, 269–270 Score transliteration 1 A 36 ÉN d30 na-[ B1 [ÉN] d30 na-n[àr d 3]0 [ C1 [ 2465

] ] ]

Collation of this tablet from a photograph was kindly made possible by S. M. Maul.

V.3. “Sîn 3”

465

D 57 E1 F1

ÉN d30 dnán-na-ru AN-e e-tel-lu ÉN d30 dnán-an-ru ⌈AN⌉-e EN d n]án-na-ru AN-e DINGIR e-tel-lu [

2

A 37 B2 C2 D 57 E1 F1

ga-šir ina D[INGIR.MEŠ ] [g]a-šir ina DI[NGIR.MEŠ ] [gaš]-ru ⌈DINGIR⌉.⌈MEŠ⌉ [ ] x [x (x)] ga-šir ina [DINGIR?] GAL.⌈MEŠ⌉ ga-šir DINGIR.MEŠ [ ] ga-š[ir ]

3

A 38 B3 C3

E2 F2

LUGAL kib-r[a-a-ti ] E[N ] LUGAL UB.MEŠ [ ] [L]UGAL kib-rati ⌈AD⌉ ⌈DINGIR⌉.⌈MEŠ⌉ EN ⌈NAM⌉.L[Ú?.U18?] ⌈LUGAL⌉ ⌈kib⌉-ra-a-ti a-bi DINGIR.MEŠ [EN a-m]e?-lutum LUGAL kib-ra-ti a-bi DINGIR.MEŠ be-el [ ] [ ki]b-ra-a-ti a-bi DINGIR.MEŠ [ ]

4

A 39 B 4–5 C4 D 59 E3 F3

a-šá-red A[N n]u-ú[r ] SAG.KAL AN-[e ] / SAG.KAL d[Igigī?] ⌈a⌉-šá-red AN-e u ⌈KI⌉-ti[m] ⌈ZÁLAG⌉ ⌈d⌉[Í]-⌈gì⌉-⌈gì⌉ ⌈SAG⌉.KAL AN-e u KI-tim nu-úr dI-⌈gi4⌉-gi4 [S]AG.KAL AN-e u KI-tim nu-úr dI-gi4-gi4 [SA]G.KAL ⌈AN⌉-e u KI-tim nu-⌈úr⌉ dI-gi4-gi4 ⋮

5

A 40 B6 C5 D 59 E3 F3

šá nap-ḫar g[i ] ⌈ša⌉ ⌈nap⌉-⌈ḫar⌉ [ ] (rest broken away) ša [na]p-ḫar x (x) [g]i?-⌈mir⌉? x x x nap-ḫar ⌈gi⌉-m[ir] a-pa-tú nap-ḫar gi-m[ir ] š[á ]

6

A 41–42 C 6–7

] ina ba-li-k[a ] / [a]b?-ra-a-[ti? ina NU.[ME].A-ka ⌈ul⌉ ⌈up⌉-⌈taḫ⌉-⌈ḫa⌉?-[r]a / ⌈UN⌉.ME[Š] ⌈sap⌉?-[ḫa?]-⌈a⌉?-⌈ti⌉? ina ba-li-ka ul up-taḫ-ḫa-ra UN.MEŠ sa-ap-[ḫa]-ti [ina] ba-li-ka (erasure: AMAR) ul up-taḫ-ḫa-ra UNKIN sapḫa-[ti] ina ba-⌈li⌉-ka ul up-taḫ-ḫa-ra [ ]

D 58

D 60 E4 F4

466

V. Text Editions

7

A 43 C8 D 61 E5 F5

a-šar at-ta t[a-qab-bu-ú ] ⌈a⌉-šar at-ta taqa-b[u]-⌈u⌉ [ ] a-šar at-ta ta-qab-bu-ú na-di-tum uš-⌈téš⌉-š[èr] a-šar [at]-ta [t]a-qab-bu-⌈ú⌉ na-di-tum u[š-téš-šèr] a-šar at-ta ta-qab-bu-ú n[a-di-tum ]

8

A 44 C9 D 62 E6 F6

ma-aq-tum šá ⌈i⌉[-ni-šú [ma]-aq-tú šá i-ni-šú t[a-ṣab-bat ma-aq-tú tu-⌈uš⌉?-ṭa-ba ta-ṣab-bat qa-a[s]-⌈s⌉u ma-aq-[tú?] i-ni-šu ta-ṣa-[bat ma-aq-ta šá i-ni-šu [

9

A 45 C 10 D 63 E7 F7

di-in kit-ti ⌈u⌉ m[i-šá-ri ] [di]-in kit-ti [ ] di-in kit-tú u mi-šá-ri tu-šar-šá tu-šam-ḫar ⌈en⌉-šá di-in kit-t[e] u mi-šá-ri! tu-šar-šá tu-šam-ḫar [en]-šá di-in kit-ti u mi-šá-r[i x x (x)] x [ ]

10

46 C 11 D 64 E8 F8

šá ap-la l[a ] [ša IBI]LA NU T[UKU ] šá IBILA la i-šu-ú tu-šar-šá-a IB[IL]A šá IBI[LA] la i-šu-ú tu-⌈šar⌉-šá-a IB[I]LA šá IBILA la i-⌈šu⌉-ú [tu-ša]r-šá [ ]

11

A 47 C 12–13

la a-lit-tum ina b[a-li-ka ] [NU a]-⌈lit⌉-[tum ] / [NUMU]N me-⌈re⌉-[e ul DA]B?-[at?] la a-lit-tum ina ba-li-ka NUMUN u me-e-re-e ul iṣ-ṣab-bat la a-lit-tum ina ba-li-ka NUMUN u me-e-re-e ⌈ul⌉ ⌈iṣ⌉-⌈ṣa⌉bat ⌈la⌉ a-lit-ta ina ba-li-k[a] ⌈NUMUN⌉ [u me-re]-e ul iṣ-⌈ṣab⌉⌈bat⌉

D 65 E9 F9

12

A 48 C 14 D 66 E 10 F 10

ša iš-te-né-’u-[ka ] [šá] iš-te-’i-i-⌈ka⌉ [u]l ⌈i⌉-[ḫa-aṭ-ṭ]i? dum-[qí?] šá iš-te-ne-’u-ú-ka ⌈ul⌉ i-ḫa-aṭ-ṭi dum-[q]í šá iš-ta-na-ú-ka ul i-ḫa-a[ṭ-ṭ]i [du]m-qa šá iš-⌈te⌉-⌈né⌉-⌈’u⌉-ú-ka u[l i-ḫa-aṭ-ṭ]i dum-⌈qí⌉

13

A 49 C 15 D 67

⌈šá⌉ ka-a-šá i[t-ka-lu-ka ] [š]á ana ka-a-šá tak-lu t[u]-kan iš-di-šú šá a-na ka-a-šá it-ka-lu-[k]a? tu-ka-an iš-di-⌈šu⌉

] ] ] ]

V.3. “Sîn 3”

467

E 11 F 11

[šá] a-na ka-a-šá it-ta-ka-lu-ka tu-ka-an [ šá a-na ka-a-šá it-ka-lu-k[a tu]-ka-an iš-di-⌈šu⌉

]

14

A 50 C 16 D 68 E 12 F 12

⌈la⌉ ⌈a⌉-⌈lit⌉-[tum tu-šá-aṣ]-⌈bat⌉ [l]a a-lit-tú ár-[ḫi]š? tu-šá-[a]ṣ-bat la x x x x tu-[šá-aṣ-ba]t [la] a-li-⌈ki⌉ ⌈pa⌉-na tu-šá--⌈aṣ⌉-bat la a-⌈li⌉-kám! pa-na tu-šá-a[ṣ-bat]

15

A 51 C 17 D 68 F 12

[l]a le-⌈’a⌉-[ le-ú]-ti la le-’a-⌈a⌉ ⌈ta⌉-[šá?-k]an ana re-e-ši [l]a-a ⌈le⌉-⌈’a⌉-⌈a⌉ ⌈ta⌉-⌈šak⌉-⌈kan⌉ ana r[e]-⌈eš⌉? [la]-a le-’a-a ta-[šá]-kan ana re-e-ši

16

A 52 C 18 D 69 F 13

[š]á is-saḫ-ru-k[a re]-e-ma [š]á ⌈is⌉-ḫu-ru-ka ⌈ta⌉-⌈na⌉-[á]š-ši re-es-su šá is-saḫ-⌈ru⌉-ka ta-⌈ra⌉-áš-ši ⌈re⌉-e-me ⌈šá⌉ [is-saḫ]-ru-k[a] ta-ra-áš-ši re-e-⌈mu⌉

17

A 53 C 19 D 70 E 13 F 14

šá sa-ap-ḫi t[u-paḫ-ḫa-ra ga]-nun-šú [š]á sap-ḫi tu-paḫ-ḫa-r[a g]a-nun-šú šá sa-ap-ḫi tu-paḫ-ḫa-⌈ra⌉ KI.NE-šú [šá] sa-ap-ḫi tu-paḫ-ḫa-ra [ ]-šu šá [ KI.N]E-šu :

18

A 54 C 20 D 70 E 14 F 14

šá ár-na TUKU-š[i á]r-nam [š]a ar-na TUKU-u ta-paṭ-ṭar a-ra-an-šú šá ár-ni i-šu-ú ta-paṭ-⌈ṭar⌉ ár-ni [š]á ár-⌈ni⌉ i-šu!-ú tu-u-p[aṭ-tar ar]-ni šá ár-ni i-šú-ú ta-⌈paṭ⌉-ṭar ⌈ár⌉-ni

19

A 55 C 21 D 71 E 15 F 15

šá DINGIR-šú iz-n[u] ⌈KI⌉-[šú tu]-sal-lam [š]á DINGIR-šú KI-šú ze-nu-⌈u⌉ tu-sal-la[m] (edge) šá DINGIR-šu ze-nu-⌈ú⌉ it-ti-šu tu-sal-lam ar-ḫiš [š]á DINGIR-⌈šu⌉ ze-nu-ú KI-šú [tu]-sal-[lam ar]-ḫiš šá [ i]t-ti-šu tu-sal-lam ⌈ar⌉-⌈ḫiš⌉

20

A 56 C r. 1 D 72 E 16 F 16

e-nu-ma [DINGIR]-MU z[e-nu-u K]I-ia ⌈e⌉-nu-ma DINGIR-MU ze-nu-[u] it-ti-⌈ia5⌉ e-nu-ma [DI]NGIR-MU z[e]-nu-ú KI-ia [e-nu]-ma DINGIR ze-nu-ú KI-i[a] [e-nu-m]a DINGIR-MU [ze-nu]-⌈ú⌉ ⌈KI⌉-⌈ia⌉ ⋮

468

V. Text Editions d

21

A 57 C r. 2 D 72 E 16 F 16

i[š8-tár(i) n]é-sa-[at U]GU-ia ⌈ù⌉ diš8-tár-i14 ze-⌈na⌉-at KI-ia d iš8-tár(i) taš-bu-ús UGU-ia d iš8-t[ár(i) i]š?-b[u]-ú[s? UGU]-ia5 d iš8-tár(i) né-sa-at U[G]U-i[a]

22

A 58 ul-tu u[l-la-a n]i-sa-tú ṭ[a?-a’?-tú? GA]R UGU-ia C r. 3–r. 4 [u]l-tu ul-la a-šad-⌈da⌉-da ni-sa-tú / [ṭ]a-a’-tú taš-ku-na UGU-MU D 73 iš-te ul-la-a a-šad-da-⌈ad⌉ DINGIR.MEŠ ⌈tam⌉-ṭa-a-ti Á ⌈iš⌉-ku-nu UGU-ia E 17 [iš-t]u ul-la-a a-šad-da-ad DINGIR.⌈MEŠ⌉ [tam?]-⌈ṭa⌉?-ti Á iš-k[u-nu] U[GU-MU] F 17 ⌈iš⌉-[t]u ul-la-a a-š[ad]-da-ad ⋮ DINGIR.MEŠ tam-ṭa-a-t[i] Á ⌈iš⌉-k[u-nu U]GU-i[a]

22a

C r. 5

⌈ana⌉-ku NENNI A NENNI šá ⌈DINGIR⌉-⌈šú⌉ [N]ENNI 15-šú NENNI-⌈tú⌉

d

23

A 59

ṣi-i-ti ⌈ḫu⌉-l[u-uq-q]u-ú bu-tuq-q[u-ú ]→ [ G]AR-nu-nim-ma C r. 6–r. 8 [ṣ]i-i-tú ḫu-⌈lu⌉-uq-qu-ú / [ø] bu-tuq-⌈qu⌉-ú [n]u-šur-ru-ú / [ø m]a-⌈gal⌉ GAR-nu-nim-ma D 74–75 ṣi-tum ḫu-lu-uq-⌈qu⌉-ú bu-tuq-qu-ú / nu-šur-ru-ú ma-gal šak-nu-nim-[ma] E 18–19 [ṣi-t]u ḫu-lu-uq!-qu-ú [bu-tu]q-q[u]-⌈ú⌉ / [nu-šur-ru-u] magal [š]ak-[nu]-ni[m-m]a F 18–19 ṣi-tum ḫu-l[u]-uq-qu-ú ⌈bu⌉-⌈tuq⌉-⌈qu⌉-ú / nu-šur-ru-ú magal šak-nu-nim-ma ⋮

24

A 60 C r. 9 D 75 F 19

i-ta-šu-uš [lì]b-bi i[k-tu-ru] ⌈ZI⌉-tim [i-ta-š]u-uš lì[b-bi i]k-tú-ru ZI-tim ⌈i⌉-ta-šu-uš lìb-bi i[k]-tu-ru na-piš-ti i-ta-šu-uš lìb-⌈bi⌉ ik-tu-[r]u ⌈na⌉-piš-ti

25

A 61 C r. 10 D 76 E 20 F 20

al-si-ka ⌈be⌉-lum ina [ .ME]Š [al-s]i-k[a b]e-lí [ AN]-⌈e⌉ KÙ.MEŠ al-si-⌈ka⌉ be-⌈lum⌉ d30 [ina] qé-reb AN-e KÙ.MEŠ [al-si-ka be]-lum ⌈ina⌉ qé-⌈reb⌉ AN-[e K]Ù.MEŠ al-si-ka b[e]-lum ina qé-reb AN-e KÙ.[M]EŠ

V.3. “Sîn 3”

469

26

A 62 C r. 11 D 77 E 21 F 21

ki-niš nap-lis-an-⌈ni⌉-ma š[i-me ] [k]i-⌈niš⌉ ⌈nap⌉-l[i-sa-an-ni-ma ] ki-niš nap-li-sa-an-n[i]-ma [š]i-me tes-li-tum [ki-niš nap-li-sa]-an-⌈ni⌉-ma ši-me ⌈tes⌉-l[i-ti] ki-niš nap-li-sa-a[n]-ni-ma ši-me tes-li-ti

27

A 63 C r. 12 D 78 E 22 F 22

] ta-a-a-ra-⌈ta⌉ d30 [ ⌈ta⌉-a-a-ra-ta [ ] d ta-a-a-⌈ra⌉-ta ⌈ ⌉[3]0 i-na DINGIR.MEŠ as-ḫur [ta-a-a-ra]-⌈ta⌉ d[3]0 ana DINGIR.MEŠ as-ḫur [ta]-a-a-ra-ta d30 i-n[a D]INGIR.MEŠ as-ḫur

28

A 64 C r. 13 D 79 E 23 F 23

] e-ṭi-ra-ta d30 [ ] ⌈e⌉-ṭi-re-⌈ta⌉ ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉[ [e-ṭi]-re-ta d30 KAR-ir ZI-ti [e-ṭi-ra-t]a d30 KAR-ir ⌈ZI⌉-⌈ti⌉ ⌈e⌉-ṭi-ra-ta d30 K[A]R-ir ZI-ti

29

A 65 C r. 14 D 80 E 24 F 24

] [ga]m-ma-la-ta d3[0] ina DINGIR.⌈MEŠ⌉ [ ] ⌈gam⌉-⌈ma⌉-⌈la⌉-ta ⌈d⌉[30 d ! [gam-ma-la-t]a 30 ina DINGIR.MEŠ gi-⌈mil⌉-la šuk -na [gam-ma-la-t]a d30 gi-mil-⌈la⌉ ⌈šuk⌉-⌈na⌉ ga-am-ma-la-ta d30 ina DINGIR.MEŠ gi-mil-la šuk-na

30

] A 66 [š]á la ma-še-e d[3]0 la [ C r. 15–16 šá ⌈la⌉ ma-še-⌈e⌉ ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉ ⌈la⌉ ⌈ta⌉-[maš-šá-an-ni] / si-⌈lim⌉ it-t[i-ia] D 81 [ ] d30 la ⌈ta⌉-maš-šá-an-ni si-lim KI-ia E 25 [ša la ma-še-e] ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉ la ⌈ta⌉-maš-šá-an-⌈ni⌉ si-lim ⌈KI⌉-[ia] F 25 ⌈šá⌉ la ma-še-e ⌈d⌉30 la ta-m[a]š-šá-an-ni si-l[i]m KI-ia

31

A 67 ì-lí u iš-ta-ri ze-n[u]-ti š[ab-šu-ti ] C r. 17–18 [DIN]GIR-i14 u diš8-tár-i14 ze-nu-⌈ti⌉ / [š]ab-su-ti u ku-ummu-lu-⌈ti⌉ D 82 [ šab-s]u-ti ù kit-mu-lu-ti E 26 [ š]ab-su-u kám-[m]u-lu-ti d F 26 DINGIR u 15 ze-nu-t[i š]ab-su-ti ù kit-[m]u-lu-t[i]

32

A 68 C r. 19–20 D 83 E 27

i-lut-ka GAL-ta [K]I-i[a su-ul-li]-⌈ma⌉-⌈am⌉-⌈ma⌉ [DIN]GIR-ut-ka GAL-tú KI-i[a] / [ø] su-ul-li-ma-a[m-ma] [ s]ul-li-ma-a[m]-⌈ma⌉ [ KI-ia5] sul-li-⌈ma⌉-a[m-ma]

470

33

34

V. Text Editions

F 27 A 69 C r. 21–22 D 84 E 28 F 28

i-lut-ka GAL-ta KI-ia sul-li-ma-am-[ma] nar-bi-ka lu-šá-pi [ ] lud-lul [nar-bi]-ka lu-š[á-pi] / [dà-l]í-lí-⌈ka⌉? [ [ ] dà-lí-lí-ka lud-lul [ ] ⌈dà⌉-[lí-lí-ka lud-lul] nar-bi-ka lu-[š]á-pi dà-lí-lí-ka lu[d-lul]

A 70 F 29

⌈KA⌉.INIM.MA ŠU.Í[L.LÁ] dNANNA.KÁMv KA.INIM.MA ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d30 [ ]

]

Translation 1 Incantation: O Sîn, luminary of the heaven, prince (var.: lord [Ms E]; divine prince [Ms F]), 2 he is powerful among the great gods! 3 King of the world, father of the gods, lord of [man]kind, 4 foremost of the heaven and earth, light of the Igigū gods (var.: foremost of the heaven [and earth], foremost of [the Igigū?] g[ods?] [Ms B]), 5 of the whole, enti[re] humankind! 6 Without you the scattered people (var.: the scattered mankind [Ms A]; the assembly of the scattered? [Ms E]) will not be gathered! 7 Where you command, the fallow woman will successfully deliv[er] (a child)! 8 You grasp the hand of the fallen one, who has become weak (var. : you make happy the one who has fallen, you grasp his hand [ms D]), 9 you secure the righteous and just verdict, you let the weak receive (it)! 10 The one who does not have an heir you endow with an heir, 11 without you the childless woman cannot conceive and become pregnant! 12 The one who always seeks you out will not neglect the good, 13 you make the foundation permanent for the one who trusted in you (var.: trusts in you [Ms C]), 14 you quickly provide the one who cannot bear a child (with one) (var.: you let the one who cannot move take the lead [Mss E & F]), 15 you put the powerless on top (var.: [you help] the powerles[s on the way to pow]er [Ms A]), 16 you have mercy towards the one who has turned to you (var.: you ra[i]se the head of the one who has turned to you [Ms C]), 17 you bring together the living quarters (var.: the brazier [Mss D & F]) of the one who is dispersed! 18 You absolve the guilt of the one who feels guilt, 19 you bring reconciliation (var.: you quickly bring reconciliation [Mss D, E & F]) (to) the one whose personal god is angry with him!

V.3. “Sîn 3”

20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

471

When my god became angry with me (and) my goddess distant from me (var.: my goddess became angry with me [Ms C]; my goddess became offended with me [Ms D & E?]), since that moment I have endured grief, you have brought corruption? upon me (var.: since that moment I have persevered, the gods have brought reduction of strength upon me [Mss D, E & F]), 22a I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so, whose god is so-and-so, whose goddess is so-and-so, loss, deficit, shortfall, reduction have been exceedingly brought upon me and therefore my heart has become distressed, my life force has become diminished! I call to you, lord (var.: my lord [Ms C]; lord Sîn [Ms D]), in the midst of pure heavens! Look faithfully at me and hear my prayer! You are merciful, Sîn, (therefore) I am turning (to you) among the gods! You are a saviour, Sîn, save my life! You show mercy, Sîn, (be the one) among the gods (to) do me a favour! (var.: You show mercy, Sîn, do me a favour! [Ms E])

30

32 33

(You,) who do(es) not forget, Sîn, do not forget me, be at peace with me! My god and goddess (who are) offended, turned away in anger and very displeased, reconcile (them) with me through your great divinity and (then) let me declare your greatness and proclaim your glory!

34

Wording of a šu’ila-prayer to Sîn.

31

Commentary 6 Ms A appears to use the more poetic expression abrāt[i sapḫāti], “scattered mankind” instead of nišī sapḫāti, “scattered people”. The meaning of the variant in Ms E remains unclear. 14 The line in Ms A is rendered as [l]a ⌈a⌉-li[t-tam uppula/arḫiš tu-šá-aṣ]⌈bat⌉, “Diejenige, die nicht gebären kann [läßt du spät/schleunigst (...) (?)] nehmen” in Ambos 2013a, 206–207 (line 50). The question of reconstructing either the sign ḫiš(UD) or the signs pu and la in the damaged part cannot be definitively resolved, since the traces in Ms C can be interpreted to fit both options. However, the space in the damaged part is, in my opinion, not large enough to have contained two signs and therefore I am inclined to read it as ár-[ḫi]š?. As to the textual variants from Ḫuzirīna, we can assume that Ms D contained the same formulation as Mss E and F “you let the one who cannot move take the lead”. This variant is thematically tied to the fol-

472

15

17

22

25

V. Text Editions

lowing line, whereas the line in Mss A and C relates to the theme of fertility treated in lines 10–11. In this line, Ms A differs from the other manuscripts. The translation of this variant line here follows the suggestion given in Ambos 2013a, 206–207. The variant kinūnu, “brazier” (KI.NE), that appears in the two manuscripts from Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe), was perhaps employed because of its resemblance to the noun ganūnu, “living quarters” that is attested in Mss A and C (noted in Mayer 1976, 502). According to the attestations in CAD K, 393–395, kinūnu is otherwise not attested in a meaning relating to the household or family, but two Old Babylonian attestations of “extinguished brazier” (CAD K, 394–395) that connote extinguished progeny should perhaps be taken into consideration here. The manuscripts clearly reflect two different versions of this line: one present in Nineveh and Assur, the other found in Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe). The variations are seen in the use of the expression nissata šadādu, “to endure grief” (see CAD N/2, 274–275) and the form of misfortune brought upon the suffering individual. In the first case, Mss A and C refer to the grief (nissatu) endured by the patient. In the latest edition of the prayer in Ambos 2013a, 206–207 this line in Ms A is read differently: ul-tu ⌈ul⌉-[la-a a-šad-da]-ad né-er-tú ṭ[a-a’-tú emūqi iškunu(GA]R) elī(UGU)-ja “[ziehe] ich mir seit langem (die folgenden Übel) zu: (Meine Götter) [haben] Mord, Be[stechung und Gewalttaten] gegen mich fest[gesetzt]” It is true that in Ms A either ni-sa-tú or né-er-tú can be read, since the crucial sign sa/er is not distinct in the tablet (as acknowledged in Ambos 2013a, 207). The reading ni-sa-tú is, however, supported by the collation of Ms C in which the sign sa at the end of the line r. 3 is very clear (cf. ni-sa(copy: ir)-tu in CAD N/2, 274).

The three manuscripts from Ḫuzirīna leave out nissatu and include only the verbal form ašaddad, which results in the translation “I have persevered”. Second, both the manuscripts from Nineveh and Assur appear to include the noun ṭā’tu, “gift; bribe” (CAD Ṭ, 62–66) in the latter part of the line. The manuscripts from Ḫuzirīna attest to the formulation built around the noun tamṭītu, “reduction; loss” (CAD T, 158–159) in its plural form. As noted in Mayer 1976, 499, the two fragments that form Ms C are in-

V.3. “Sîn 3”

473

correctly joined in the copy of the tablet (LKA 52): the first preserved signs of the lower fragment ([al-s]i-ka) should be aligned with the line r. 10 in the copy, not line r. 9. An approximation of the correct position is:

474

V. Text Editions

V.4. “Sîn 9” The prayer “Sîn 9” is only partially preserved and therefore it is difficult to understand its function within a ritual context. Its use of an expulsion motif combined with the corresponding act of discarding the ritual material in a river, the wording of the prayer suggests that its purpose was to drive negative influence away from the client. The nature of this negative influence remains unknown, but it could plausibly have been an illness, since similar actions are attested to have taken place in a therapy aimed to heal leprosy (BAM 6 no. 580, V’ 17’–20’//, see p. 284 above). Manuscripts2466 A: VAT 9823, III 1’–20’ (KAR 25) B: VAT 13688 (LKA 55) Editions: Ebeling 1953a, 18–21 Literature: Mayer 1976, 409 (“Sîn 9”); Frechette 2012, 270 Score transliteration (beginning not preserved)

1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’

12’

2466

A III 1’ A III 2’ A III 3’ A III 4’ A III 5’ A III 6’ B 1’ A III 7’ B 2’ A III 8’ B 3’ A III 9’ B 4’ A III 10’ B 5’ A III 11’ B 6’

šá ina A.MEŠ [ ] ina qim-ma-te gi x [ ] ku-uṣ-ṣu ḫur-ba-šu u mìm-ma l[a? ṭābu?] ša ana? DAB.MEŠ-ma UŠ.MEŠ-š[u?] GIN7 ti-ik AN-e ana KI-šú NU GUR.RU [(x x)] GIN7 A pi-sa-ni ana EGIR-šú NU GUR.RU [(x x)] [ ] KI.MIN [ ] GIN7 ⌈A⌉ qid-da-tim ana ma-ḫir-tim NU GUR.RU [ ma-ḫi]r-te NU GUR.R[U] ina [SU] ⌈NENNI⌉ A NENNI ú-suḫ ta-bal [ ú]-⌈suḫ⌉ ta-ba[l] NU x [x x (x)] x a-di u4-um bal-ṭa-ku [ ] a-di u4-um ba[l-ṭa-ku] ⌈da⌉-[li-l]i-⌈ka⌉ lid-[lu]l ù ana-ku a-ši-pu [da-li-li]-ka lud-lul [ ] ÌR-[ka] da-li-⌈li⌉-ka lud-lul [ -k]a KA.TAR.MEŠ-ma lud-l[ul]

A III 12’ B 7’

KA.I[NIM].MA ŠU.ÍL.LA d30 [ ŠU.Í]L.LÁ d30-KÁMv

Collation of these tablets from photographs was kindly made possible by S. M. Maul.

V.4. “Sîn 9”

13’ 14’

A III 13’ A III 14’

15’ 16’ 17’ 18’

A III 15’ A III 16’ A III 17’ A III 18’

19’ 20’

A III 19’ A III 20’

475

DÙ.DÙ.BI ina GI6 IGI d30 ÙR SAR A KÙ S[ÙD] ab-r[u t]e-ṣe-en ana UGU ab-ri 7 NINDA ZÍZ.A.AN tara-⌈kás⌉ udu SILA4 KÙ ša NU GI6 tu-pa-ra-as 3 SÌLA [ZÌ].DA šá NITA i-ṭé-nu 1 SÌLA MUN Š[IM D]Ù.A.BI 7 la-ḫa-an-ni LÀL Ì.NUN.NA GEŠTIN [KA]Š A.MEŠ SA5(copy: NIR)-ma ina UGU ⌈ab⌉-ri te-⌈ṣe⌉-⌈en⌉ mi-iḫ-ḫa BAL-qí [t]u?-⌈uš⌉-kén qí-⌈lu⌉-tu a-na ÌD ŠUB-di

Translation (beginning not preserved)

1’ 2’ 3’ 4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’

that in the waters [ ], in the top of [ ]. Chills, shivers and everything u[npleasant?] that keep haunting h[im?] in order to? seize (him): just as the rain shower does not return to its place, just as the water of a drainpipe does not return back, just as the water flowing downstream does not return upstream, root (them) out of [the body of] so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and take (them) away! ... […]! As long as I shall live may he(var.: I [Ms B]) proclaim your glory and I, āšipu, your servant – let me proclaim your glory (var.: let me pr[oclaim] the glory [Ms B])!

12’

Wor[din]g of a šuila-prayer to Sîn.

13’

Its ritual: In the night, before Sîn, you sweep the roof and sp[rinkle] pure water. You pile up brus[hw]ood, you arrange seven loaves of emmer-bread above the brush pile. You separate a pure lamb that does not have black spots. Three qû of flour that a man has ground, one qû of salt, all the ar[omatics], seven laḫannu-bottles of syrup, ghee, wine, [bee]r (and) water you fill and then on top of the brush pile you pile. You libate miḫḫu-beer, you prostrate yourself, you throw the burnt materials into the river.

14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’

476

V. Text Editions

Commentary 2’ The restoration in Ebeling 1953a, 18 is GI.PAD, i.e. giŠUTUG (Akk. šutukku), “reed hut”. However, such a restoration remains implausible since no parallels to the expression “top of the reed hut” (qimmat šutukki) are attested according to CAD Q, 252–254. 3’ The tentative restoration l[a? ṭābu?] here follows the suggestion made in Ebeling 1953a, 18. For the pairing of chills (kuṣṣu) and shivers (ḫurbāšu) see CAD Ḫ, 248–249. 4’ Since this prayer is spoken by the āšipu (see line 10’), it is plausible that the patient who suffers from the described ailments is referred to in this line. Collation of Ms A shows that the second sign in this line indeed is DIŠ as it is copied in KAR 25. Although no parallel expressions are known to me, my tentative suggestion is to read this sign as the preposition ana attached to the following logographically written verbal form. 5’–7’ These lines describe the inability of the banished forces to return to the patient. A similar formulation is also attested in other contexts (see CAD T, 404), e.g. in the therapy for difficult childbirth (BAM 3 no. 248, II 57–59; see the overview of this therapy in Couto-Ferreira 2014, 289–315). 11’ Collation of Ms B from a photograph shows that the sign following KA.TAR.MEŠ is indeed ma as it is copied in LKA 55. Therefore the reading KA.TAR.MEŠ-ZU! suggested in CAD D, 51 is not correct. 13’–20’ The ritual instruction in these lines is similar to, but not exactly the same as, the description in BAM 6 no. 580, V’ 17’–20’// (see the transliteration on p. 284 above). 18’ The reading SA5 instead of the copied NIR was already noted in Maul & Strauß 2011, 91, and it is confirmed by the collation of the tablet. 20’ The similar formulation in BAM 6 no. 580, V’ 20’// is qilûta(GÍBIL) ana nāri tanaddi, “you throw the burnt materials into the river” (see p. 284 above). A collation of the tablet from a photograph (drawing below) reveals that the copy of the first three signs in this line in KAR 25 is essentially correct, but not clear enough to allow the signs to be confidently identified.

V.5. “Sîn 11”

477

V.5. “Sîn 11” The prayer “Sîn 11” (Mayer 1976, 409) is preserved in a single manuscript from Assur. The tablet in question contains a therapeutic procedure for releasing the patient from an illness that has been caused by an oath (nam-érim-búr-ru-da) and a new edition of the complete text is provided in KAL 10 no. 11. Despite this recent edition a transliteration and translation of the prayer are given here for the convenience of the readers, but no further comments on the individual lines are provided. Manuscript: VAT 10067, r. 2’–24’ (KAR 74; KAL 10 no. 11)2467 Editions: Ebeling 1920, 183–185; KAL 10 no. 11) Literature: Landsberger 1920, 442–443 Transliteration 1 r. 2’ 2 r. 3’ 3 r. 4’ 4 r. 5’ 5 r. 6’ 6 r. 7’ 7 r. 8’ 8 r. 9’ 9 r. 10’ 10 r. 11’ 11 r. 12’ 12 r. 13’ 13 r. 14’ 14 r. 15’ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

2467

r. 16’ r. 17’ r. 18’ r. 19’ r. 20’ r. 21’ r. 22’ r. 23’ r. 24’

[ÉN d3]0 DINGIR ⌈KÙ⌉ šá ⌈šá⌉-[me-e] KÙ.ME[Š] [d30 x (x)] x x x [x (x)] DINGIR[.MEŠ] [d30 x] ti? x x [l]um?-[ni] [d30] ⌈na⌉-⌈din⌉ [gi]šGIDRU a-na DÙ-šú-nu LUGAL.ME[Š] ⌈d⌉[30] na-din [IB]ILA u NUMUN d ⌈30⌉ ⌈i⌉-⌈de⌉-⌈šu⌉-u ša bu-⌈ul⌉-lu-ṭu i-ra-mu d 30 DINGIR réme-nu-⌈u⌉ ⌈šá⌉ ⌈na⌉-⌈ás⌉-⌈ḫur⌉-šú DU10.GA d 30 na-din ⌈ḪÉ⌉.⌈GÁL⌉-[li ù] maš-re-e d 30 na-din ḪÉ.NUN ⌈a⌉-⌈na⌉ ⌈UN⌉.MEŠ DAGAL.MEŠ d 30 na-si-ḫi GIG NÍG.BA TI.LA d 30 ZI ḪUL.GIG GAR-nu šùl-me d 30 ša ina pu-uḫ-ri BAR.MEŠ šá bad (erasure) [k]a? ⌈ig⌉? d 30 ša ina ba-lu-uš-šú EŠ.BAR-e la KU5-su d 30 mu-ḫal-liq Á.MEŠ GISKIM.MEŠ ḪUL.MEŠ NU DU10.GA.MEŠ d 30 mu-na-mir AN-e u KI-tim.MEŠ d 30 ZI GIG šá ina SU-ia5 DÙ-u d 30 ZI GIG TI.LA NÍG.BA DINGIR-ut-ka GAL-tú qur-di-ka lu-IGI ina GIG an-ne-e šu-zi-ba-ni-ma la ÚŠ la-ḫa-bíl a-na UZU a-sak-ki ⌈lu⌉ la ŠID-nu ZI GIG ša SU-ia5 TI.LA qi-⌈šá⌉ qur-di DINGIR-ti(erasure)-ka EN u4-me TI.LA-ku a-na UN.M[EŠ D]AGAL.MEŠ lud-lul

Collation of this tablet from a photograph was kindly made possible by S. M. Maul.

478

V. Text Editions

Translation 1 [Incantation: O Sî]n, radiant god of the radiant heav[ens]! 2 [O Sîn, ...] … the g[ods]! 3 [O Sîn, ... ] ... [e]v[il?]! 4 [O Sîn,] the giver of the sceptre to every single one of the king[s]! 5 O [Sîn], the giver of [an h]eir and offspring! 6 O Sîn, the one who continually renews himself, the one who loves to revive! 7 O Sîn, the merciful god whose attention is good! 8 O Sîn, the giver of abundan[ce and] wealth! 9 O Sîn, the giver of prosperity to the wide-spread people! 10 O Sîn, the one who roots out the sickness, the one who endows health! 11 O Sîn, the one who roots out hate, the one who equips with wellness! 12 O Sîn, the one who in the assembly ...! 13 O Sîn, in whose absence decisions cannot be made! 14 O Sîn, the destroyer of the evil (and) bad portents and signs! 15 O Sîn, the illuminator of the heaven and the earth! 16 O Sîn, root out the illness that has been created in my body! 17 O Sîn, root out illness, equip with life! 18 May I see your great divinity, your heroic powers! 19 Save me from this illness so that I will not die, 20 so that I will not be treated unjustly, so that I will not be reckoned as belonging to the asakku-demon! 21 Root this illness out of my body, equip with life! 22–23 May I praise the heroic powers of your divinity to the broad mankind as long as I will live!

V.6. “Sîn 14”

479

V.6. “Sîn 14” The prayer “Sîn 14” (Mayer 1976, 409) is attested as a part of therapeutic procedures against epilepsy. Two of the manuscripts (Mss A and B) derive from Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe) and they differ from the two other manuscripts that are Babylonian (Mss C and D). Mss A and B also contain the longer prayer “Sîn 3” (see the edition on p. 464ff. above). In the Late Babylonian Ms D, the newly identified prayer “Sîn 15” is also found (see the overview of incantation prayers to Sîn on p. 14 above). Ms C from Uruk is a part of a larger tablet that most likely contained a variety of texts concerning small children (Farber 1989, 21). In Mayer 1976, 409 Ms C (LKU 32, 1’–6’) is taken to contain a separate prayer that was designated “Sîn 13”. Because that manuscript has been shown to, in fact, contain “Sîn 14”, the label “Sîn 13” can be discarded. In the following the edition, Ms B with its organisation of the lines has been taken as the lead text. Manuscripts A: SU 51/85, 36–42 (STT 57+263) B: SU 51/49, r.! 8–18 (STT 58) C: VAT 14505, 1’–6’ (LKU 32) D: BM 47509+BM 48370+81-11-3, 214, r. 1–13 (Schuster-Brandis 2008, Tf. 8) Editions: Falkenstein 1931, 5–8 (VAT 14505); Farber 1989, 118–121; SchusterBrandis 2008, 265–269 (BM 47509+) Literature: Stol 1993, 131–132 Score transliteration 1 A 36 ÉN d30 IBILA a-šá-⌈red⌉ ⌈at⌉-⌈ta⌉ ⌈d⌉[3]0 TI.[L]A at-t[a] B r. 8 [ÉN] ⌈d⌉30 IBILA SAG.KAL at-⌈ta⌉ [d3]0 TI.⌈LA⌉ ⌈at⌉-⌈ta⌉ D r. 1 [ÉN d30 IBILA] a-šá-re-du at-⌈ta⌉ d30 EN GAL-ú at-⌈ta⌉ 2

A 36–37 B r. 9 D r. 2

d

30 M[U MU] at-ta / d30 ÁG-im TI.LA at-⌈ta⌉ [d3]0 ⌈MU⌉ MU at-⌈ta⌉ [d30] ra-i[m] TI.⌈LA⌉ ⌈at⌉-⌈ta⌉ [ a]t-ta d30 ra-a’-im ŠE.NUMUN at-ta

3

A 37 B r. 10 C 1’ D r. 3–5

] ⌈at⌉-[t]a d30 [SU]M [NUMU]N at-ta ⌈d⌉[30 d [ 3]0 EN NUMUN ⌈at⌉-⌈ta⌉ [d3]0 na-[din] ⌈NUMUN⌉ a[t-ta] [ ] d30 ⌈SUM⌉ NU[MUN at-ta] d [ 3]0 na-[di]n ŠE.NUMUN at-ta / [d3]0 na-d[i]n šu-lum atta / [d]30 ḫe-⌈pí⌉ eš-šú at-ta

480

4

V. Text Editions

A 38 B r. 11 D r. 6

5

A 38 B r. 12 C 2’ D r. 7

6

A 39 B r. 13 C 2’–3’ D r. 7–8

7

A 39–40 B r. 14 C 3’ D r. 9

8

9

d

30 SUM NUMUN ⌈ne⌉-š[e] DAGAL.⌈MEŠ⌉ at-ta [d]30 na-din NUMUN UN.MEŠ D[AGAL.MEŠ a]t-⌈ta⌉ ] [d3]0 [ ⌈d⌉30 na-di[n] šu-lum u ŠE.NUMUN a-na KUR DAGALtim at-t[a] ⌈d⌉[3]0 [EN U]N.MEŠ D[AGAL.ME]Š a[t-t]a ⌈d⌉[30 ina qíb]iti-ka ] ⌈d⌉30 EN UN.MEŠ DAGAL.MEŠ [at-t]a [d30 ⌈qí⌉-⌈biti⌉-k[a] [ U]N.⌈ME⌉ DAGAL.ME MIN d30 ina qí-b[i-ti-ka] [d]30 ina qí-bi-ti-ka ṣir-ti šá NU ⌈KÚR⌉.KÚR-ru u ⌈an⌉-na-k[a? ki-n]im šá NU BA[L x] ṣir-ti šá NU! KÚR.KÚR-ru u an-na-k[a?] ⌈ki⌉-⌈nim⌉ [š]á [NU] B[A]L-u [ ] / ⌈u⌉ a[n-na]-⌈ka⌉ ki-nim šá NU BAL-ú ṣir-⌈ti⌉ šá la ⌈KÚR⌉-⌈ru⌉ / ⌈ù⌉ an-ni-ka ki-nim [šá] l[a BALu] [a]na-[k]u [NEN]NI ⌈A⌉ [NENNI x x] ÌR-k[a] / šá DINGIRšú dAMAR.⌈UTU⌉ ana-⌈ku⌉ NENNI A NENNI ⌈lú⌉MAŠ.MAŠ ÌR-⌈ka⌉ šá [DINGIR-šú] ⌈d⌉[AMAR.]UTU ana-ku NENNI A NEN[NI ] ⌈ana⌉-[k]u NENNI A NENNI ⌈lú⌉⌈MAŠ⌉.[MAŠ ÌR-ka]

⌈šá⌉ 15-šú ⌈d⌉⌈Zar⌉-pa-n[i-tu]m šip-ri an-⌈na⌉-a [D]Ù-uš iš8-tár-šú dZer-pa-ni-tum šip-⌈ri⌉ an-n[a-a (x x)] ⌈e⌉?-pu-šú ana NENNI A NENNI ÌR-ka šá DINGIR-šú NENNI d ] +INNIN-šú NENNI-tú ši-p[ir D r. 10–11 a-na NENNI A NENNI šá DINGIR-šú NENNI d15-⌈šú⌉ [NENNI-tú] / ⌈ši⌉-⌈ip⌉-ru an-na-a e-pu-šú A 40 B r. 15 C 4’

A 40–41 B r. 16 C 5’

d

be!-[e?-ni? š]a? DAB-[ ] / NU TE-ḫi d30 ina SU-MU u[k-k]iš be!?-e!?-ni ša!? DA[B]!?-šú NU TE-šú d30 ina SU-š[u?] ⌈uk⌉kiš d 30 be-en-nu šá DAB-šú a-a TE-šú ina SU-šú uk-k[iš (x x x)]

V.6. “Sîn 14”

10

481

D r. 11

d

A 41 B r. 17 C 6’

a-[a GU]R-ma ⌈a⌉-[a] DIB-su a-a ⌈TE⌉-ḫi ⌈a⌉-⌈a⌉ [ ] ⌈a⌉-a GUR.RA-ma a-a iṣ-ṣa-bat-šú a-a DI[M4]-šú ⌈a⌉-[a] iq-rib-šú a-a GUR-ma a-a is-sa-ḫir-šú a-a GUR-ma [ ]

D r. 12

⌈a⌉-⌈a⌉ i-tur-šú a-a TE-šú a-a DIM4-šú TU6.ÉN (single

30 be-en-⌈nu⌉ ⌈šá⌉ D[AB-šú]

(single ruling) ruling)

11

A 42 B r. 18

a-a ⌈i⌉-KU.-šú [(x)] ⌈a⌉-a i-ḫi-[ ] [a]-a i-KU.NU-šú ⌈a⌉-⌈a⌉ i-x-zu-šú [(x x)]

12

D r. 13

⌈KA⌉.INIM.MA ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d+SUEN.NA.KE4

Translation 1 Incantation: O Sîn, you are the foremost heir! O Sîn, you are life! (var.: you are the great lord! [Ms D])

2 3

O Sîn, you are the one who gives a name! O Sîn, you are the one who loves life! (var.: O Sîn, you are the one who loves offspring! [Ms D]) O Sîn, you are the lord of offspring! O Sîn, you are the giver of offspring! (var.: O [S]în, you are the gi[v]er of offspring! O [S]în, you are the gi[v]er of well-being! O Sîn, you are new break! [Ms D])

4

O Sîn, you are the giver of offspring to the wide-spread people! (var.: O Sîn, you are the giv[er] of well-being and offspring to the wide land! [Ms D])

5 6 7 8 9 10

O Sîn [...]! O Sîn, y[ou are] the lord of the wide-spread people! O Sîn, by your exalted command that cannot be changed and by your reliable word of consent that cannot be altered I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so, mašmaššu, your servant, (Mss A & B add: whose personal god is Marduk and personal goddess Zarpanītum) I am performing this task (Mss C & D: I am performing this task for so-andso, son of so-and so (your servant [Ms C]), whose personal god is so-and-so, whose personal goddess is so-and-so) (O Sîn [Mss C & D]), may Bennu that has seized him not approach him; (O Sîn, [Mss A & B]) drive it away from his body!

May it not return and may it not hold him fast, may it not reach him, may it not come close to him! (var.: may it not return and may it not hold him fast, may it not approach him, may it not [...] [Ms A]; may it not return and may it not come back to him, may it not return to him [...] [Ms C]; may it not return to him, may it not approach him, may it not reach him [Ms D])

482

V. Text Editions

11

May it not come close to him, may it not ... him.

12

Wording of a šu’ila-prayer to Sîn.

Commentary 7 The differences in this line perhaps reflect two different traditions of transmission. The manuscripts from Ḫuzirīna contain an introduction of the mašmaššu together with his personal deities: “I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so, mašmaššu, your servant, whose personal god is Marduk and personal goddess Zarpanītum”. The Babylonian manuscripts, in turn, include the identification of the patient by name, family and personal deities: “I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so, mašmaššu, your servant; I am performing this task for so-and-so, son of so-and so (your servant [Ms C]), whose personal god is so-and-so, whose personal goddess is soand-so”. 9 A similar correction for Ms B has already been suggested in Farber 1989, 120 (e-en!-ni ša! D[I]B?-šú). 10 Each of the manuscripts contains a slightly different version of this line using different verbs to command the disease to not return to the patient. Ms A: ai itūrma ai iṣṣabassu ai iṭḫi ai [...] Ms B: ai itūrma ai iṣṣabassu ai isniqšu ai iqribšu Ms C: ai itūrma ai issaḫiršu ai itūrma [...] Ms D: ai itūršu ai iṭḫišu ai isniqšu For the translation “hold fast” for Gt-stem of ṣabātu, see AHw, 1069. 11 This line, which is included only in the manuscripts from Ḫuzirīna, proves difficult to interpret, as noted already in Farber 1989, 121. The first verbal form in both manuscripts is iqribšu, written with the logogram KU.NU (Ms A: KU.) accompanied by i- as the verbal prefix. The use of the expression ai iṭḫâ(TE-a) ai isniqa(DIM4) ai iqriba(KU.NU) ai ikšudanni(KUR-an-ni) is well-attested in procedures for protecting the patient from evil forces (see e.g. K. 2782//, 130 in Maul 1994, 139). Therefore, a vetitive form of the verb kašādu is expected after a-a i-KU.NU-šú in Mss A and B. This, however, is not supported by the traces of signs in the copies, and thus the final verbal form in both of the manuscripts remains unclear.

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//)

483

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//) The ikrib-prayers to Sîn are known only from two manuscripts that both derive from Nineveh. Together they form a significant source for the role of the moon god in the divine council that convened to decree the verdict which was made manifest in the liver of the sacrificial animal (see the discussion on p. 181ff. above). The preserved prayers share many characteristics with each other – for example, the veneration of Sîn as a celestial light and the request to him to step forth in the heavens – but they also show variations that may have been subject to the particular day of performance and/or the specific extispicy case in question. The text edition here follows Ms A, the two-column tablet that appears to have contained a collection of ikrib-prayers to Sîn. The nature of this tablet as a collection is suggested by the absence of prayers to other deities in its preserved parts and by the rubrics that specify the dates on which the individual prayers should be performed. Unfortunately, approximately a half of this collection is missing since the obverse of the tablet is almost completely destroyed. The fragments of Ms A were joined by W. G. Lambert, but has remained partly unpublished. The second manuscript, Ms B, presents what appears to be a sequence of prayers performed during the extispicy ritual: the deities addressed here are Adad, Sîn, Šulpae (i.e. Jupiter), and possibly Ištar (i.e. Venus). Manuscripts A: K. 2751+K. 2792+K. 7973+K. 9242+K. 10011+K. 13785 (Perry 1907, Taf. II [K. 2792+K. 7973]; CDLI P394650; Pls. 1–5) B: K. 3794+Ki. 1904-10-9, 157 (Perry 1907, Taf. I [K. 3794]; Langdon 1915, 190 [Ki. 1904-10-9, 157]; CDLI P395234; Pls. 6–8) Editions: Perry 1907, no. 5b (K. 3794); Perry 1907, no. 5c (K. 2792+K. 7973); Langdon 1915, 191–192 (Ki. 1904-10-9, 157); Schwemer 2001, 683 (K. 3794+, 1–6: prayer to Adad) Translations: Seux 1976, 478–480 (ll. 23’–58’); Foster 2005, 758–759 (ll. 23’– 58’) In addition to the separate editions of the manuscripts, E. G. Perry combined them into a composite text (Perry 1907, no. 5a) that was further translated in Combe 1908, no. 9; Tallqvist 1938b, 120; Tallqvist 1947, 329; Tallqvist 1953, 103 and Leibovici 1962, 110–111.

484

V. Text Editions

Score transliteration 1’ A II 1’ 2’ A II 2’

[ [

] m[i? ] x an [

] ]

3’

A II 3’

[

r]u i diš [

]

4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’ 13’ 14’

A II 4’ A II 5’ A II 6’ A II 7’ A II 8’ A II 9’ A II 10’ A III 1 A III 2 A III 3 A III 4

15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’

A III 5 A III 6 A III 7 A III 8 A III 9 A III 10 A III 11

[d30? DINGIR? nam?-ru?] šu-pu-ú e-[tel-lu ] d ]30 NU i ri ⌈šú⌉? [ ] [ [ a?-lik? m]aḫ-ri DINGIR.MEŠ G[AL.MEŠ (x x)] [ru-bu-u šu-pu]-ú šá qí-bit-su la uta-⌈ka⌉-r[u] [ù ṭè-en-š]ú DINGIR ma-am-man la i-lam-ma-d[u] [(x x) ina na-p]a-ḫi šá d30 DINGIR.MEŠ paḫ-ru [ ] x su na-šu-ú SÍSKUR-šú-nu KÙ (edge) ap-pa-šú-n[u ilabbinū ana mātāti šūšubi] šu-⌈ud⌉-⌈di⌉-⌈i⌉ ⌈šu⌉-⌈tam⌉-ḫ[u-ṣi šukkuri] d Na-an-na-ra-ma d3[0 uqa’’û d30 tattaṣâ] ina na4GUG KÙ-ti na4ZA.GÌ[N ana nanmuri ša d30 elṣū kakkabū] mu-ši-tum [ḫa-da-at] i-ziz-za-am-ma d30 [ina qereb? AN-e KÙ.MEŠ] KI-ka GUB.MEŠ-zu DINGIR.ME[Š GAL.MEŠ (x x)] KI-ka li-iz-z[i-zu DINGIR.MEŠ DI.KU5.MEŠ] d LÀL SUKKAL-ka l[i-še-da-ak di-nu] lib-lak-ku ta-mītu DUMU lúḪ[AL maḫarka liškun] d 30 KÙ ina SÍS[KUR an-né-e? i-ziz-za-am?]

22’

A III 12

ik-rib [d30

23’

A III 13 B7 A III 14 B7 A III 15 B8 A III 16

d

24’ 25’ 26’

27’ 28’ 29’

B 8–9 A III 17 B9 A III 18 B 9–10 A III 19

]

30 DINGIR KÙ nam-r[u ]x[ ] 30 DINGIR KÙ nam-ru d⌈Nanna⌉-r[u ] d ? ? ? IBILA +En-líl [šu -pu ]-⌈u ⌉ ⌈šá⌉ É-[kur] [ ] LUGAL-⌈ut⌉ k[iš-šá-ti ta]-bé-el KUR.[KUR] LUGAL-ut kiš-šá-ti ta-be-e[l ] taša-[kan ] ⌈AN⌉ [ ] x ⌈ina⌉? ⌈giš⌉GU.ZA GADA.[MAḪ] [ ] / GADA.MAḪ [ a]-ga-[a (x)] šá be-lu-ti [x x] taša-kan a-ga-a [ ] d ? [ 30 m]u-uḫ-ta-⌈an⌉-bu šu-pu-ú e-tel-[lu] [ ] / e-tel-lu [d3]0 nu-ri-šú šá UN.MEŠ a-lik m[aḫ-ri] d

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//)

30’ 31’ 32’

B 10 A III 20 B 10–11 A III 21 B 11 A III 22 B 12

33’ 34’ 35’ 36’

A III 23 B 12 A III 24 B 13–14 A III 25 B 14 A III 26 B 14–15

37’ 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’ 43’ 44’

45’ 46’

A III 27 B 15 A III 28 B 16 A III 29 B 17 A III 30 B 17 A III 31 B 18 A III 32 B 19 A III 33 B 19 A III 34 B 20 A III 35 B 21 A III 36

d

30 nu-ri-šú š[á ] [r]u-bu-ú šu-pu-ú šá qí-bit-su la ut-tak-k[a-ru] [ ] / šá qí-bit-su la ut-tak-k[a-ru] ⌈ù⌉ ṭè-en-šú DINGIR ma-am-man la i-du-⌈ú⌉ [ ] d 30 ina IGI.DU8.A-ka DINGIR.MEŠ paḫ-ru LUGAL.MEŠ-ni D[Ù-šú-nu] d 30 ina IGI.DU8-⌈ka⌉ ⌈DINGIR⌉.⌈MEŠ⌉ pa[ḫ-ru] → [ ] ap-pa-šú-nu i-lab-bi-nu dNANNA d30 ú-q[a-a-a-ú] [ ] / dŠEŠ-ru d30 ⌈ú⌉-[qa-a-a-ú] d 30 ta-at-ta-ṣa-a ina na4GUG KÙ u n[a4ZA.GÌN] [ ] / u na4ZA.GÌN d a-na na-an-mu-ri šá 30 el-ṣu MU[L.MEŠ] a-na na-a[n-mu-ri ] mu-ši-tu ḫa-da-at a-šib-ma d30 ina qé-⌈reb⌉ [AN-e KÙ.MEŠ?] [ ] / a-šib-ma d30 ina qé-reb AN-e ? ⌈KÙ⌉ .[MEŠ] d 30 IBILA kun-nu-u DUMU ra-a-[mu] [ ] ] NUN muš-ta-lu IBILA d+En-líl a-⌈šá⌉-[red NUN muš-ta-lu IBILA [ ] ⌈na⌉-⌈nàr⌉ ⌈AN⌉-⌈e⌉ EN K[UR.KUR.MEŠ] na-nàr AN-e EN KUR.KUR.MEŠ ] šá ina É-kur šá-q[u?-u? šá i[na ] ] ina Eriduki INIM-su ma-a[g-ra-at ] ina Eriduki INIM-su ma-ag-rat x [ ] ta-ad-di Úriki i[na ] ta-ad-di Úri(“ŠEŠ.MÚRU”)ki ina pa-r[ak-ki ] taš-ši re-š[i?-šú? ] [ r]e-ši-[šú? d d 30 NA[NNA ] ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉ ⌈d⌉⌈NANNA⌉ ⌈AN⌉-⌈e⌉ ⌈AN⌉.⌈DÙL⌉ [da-ad-me]] ⌈e⌉? DINGIR KÙ x [ EN a-[lik ] ⌈a⌉-lik maḫ-ri d30 ina IGI.DU8-ka gišIG.MEŠ ] (rest of the A[N-e? column destroyed)

47’

B 21 B 22

485

AN-e t[u-uš-pa-la-ka] ⌈ina⌉ IGI.DU8-ka UN.MEŠ ḫa-da-a ṣal-mat SAG.DU DÙ-ši-na i-r[i-iš-šá]

486

V. Text Editions

48’

B 23

49’

B 24

50’

B 25

51’

B 26

52’

B 27

53’

B 28

54’

B 29

55’

A IV 1 B 30

ú-sap-pa-ka UN.MEŠ te-né-še-tum pa-aḫ-ra-nik-ka gi-m[ir-ši-na] ⌈pa⌉-⌈ḫi⌉-ir-ku na-maš-šu-u šá EDIN ka-liš pa-aḫ-rani[k-ka] it-ta-ṣa-a d30 EN qar-ni su-pu-ri muš-te-šir ri-ti maš-[qíti] i-ziz-za-am-ma d30 ina qé-? AN-⌈e⌉ KÙ.MEŠ KI-ka li-iz-zi-zu DINGIR.ME[Š GAL.MEŠ] KI-ka li-iz-zi-zu DINGIR.MEŠ DI.KU5.MEŠ KI-ka li-izziz ⌈DUMU⌉.M[UNUS??-ka? dDil-bat??] ⌈d⌉⌈LÀL⌉ [S]UKKAL-ka li-še-da-ak di-nu lib-lak-ka t[amītu] [DUMU] lúḪAL m[a]-⌈ḫar⌉-[k]a liš-kun d30 DINGIR ⌈KÙ⌉ ina uduSISKUR an-⌈né⌉-⌈e⌉ ⌈i⌉-⌈ziz⌉-[za-am-ma] [ DÙ-š]ú ⌈ta⌉-mītu a-k[a]r-ra-bu kit-tú lib-ši [ina IN]IM-MU MU ⌈ŠUII⌉-MU ina mim-ma ma-la DÙšú ta-mītu a-kar-r[a-bu k]it-ta li[b]-⌈ši⌉

56’

A IV 2 B 31

[ikrib d30] ka-a-a-[m]a-nu-ti [i]k-rib d30 ka-a-a-[ma]-nu-⌈ti⌉

57’ 58’

A IV 3 A IV 4

59’ 60’ 61’

A IV 5 A IV 6 A IV 7

62’ 63’ 64’ 65’ 66’

A IV 8 A IV 9 A IV 10 A IV 11 A IV 12

67’ 68’ 69’ 70’ 71’ 72’ 73’

A IV 13 A IV 14 A IV 15 A IV 16 A IV 17 A IV 18 A IV 19

[d30 na]-⌈an⌉-na-ru ⌈šá⌉ AN-e ⌈d⌉[DILI].⌈IM5⌉.BABBAR EN a-gi-i DINGIR šu-pu-ú a-lik maḫ-ri d A-nu-um GAL-⌈ú⌉ šá qí-bit-su la [i]n-net-ti-qu d 30 ina MÚ-ka gišIG.MEŠ AN-e ina ⌈šu⌉-pal-ki-ka ana MÚ-ka LÚ.M[E]Š ḫa-da-a-ka ṣal-mat S[A]G.DU DÙ-ši-na ri-šá-ka : ú-sa-ap-pa-ka UN.MEŠ te-né-še-e-ti šá šèr-ra zu-⌈um⌉-mu-u šu-ma ⌈tu⌉-šar-šá kal e-du ú-⌈sa⌉-ap-pa-ka ta-n[a]m-din NUNUZ-a ú zu-um-mu-u ⌈ú⌉-sa-ap-pa-ka ta-[n]am-din-šú IBILA [t]a-nam-bi MU-šú ma-ḫ[a]r-ka nam-maš-še-e ED[I]N DÙ-ši-na paḫ-rak-ka [ ] x-[n]ik-ka z[i]-in-ši-na te-né-te-e-tum ? d [ittaṣâ ] ⌈ ⌉30 EN qar-ni u ⌈su⌉-pu-ri [muš-te-šir ri]-⌈i⌉-ti u maš-⌈qí⌉-i-ti [ BABBA]R?.MEŠ na-šu-ka ⌈ši⌉-iz-bu [ ] i li [ ] [KI-ka GUB.MEŠ-z]u? DINGIR.MEŠ [GAL.MEŠ] [KI-ka GUB.MEŠ-z]u? DINGIR.MEŠ [DI.KU5.MEŠ]

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//)

487

74’ 75’ 76’

A IV 20 A IV 21 A IV 22

77’

A IV 23

[KI-ka li-iz-zi]z? dDil-ba[t? ] ⌈tum⌉ ] ni ma [ ] l[i?/su? lú [ ta-mītu DUMU ḪAL ma-ḫar]-ka liškun [ ] x a am

78’

A IV 24

[ik-rib d30] UD.15.KÁM

79’ 80’ 81’ 82’ 83’ 84’ 85’ 86’ 87’

A IV 25 A IV 26 A IV 27 A IV 28 A IV 29 A IV 30 A IV 31 A IV 32 A IV 33

[d30 [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

na-n]ar AN-e ] ⌈É⌉-kur k]a ] ]x K]UR?.MEŠ M]AḪ ] ka ]x

(rest of the column destroyed)

Translation 1’–2’ too fragmentary for a translation 3’

[Ikrib-prayer to Sîn] ... [

4’ 5’ 6’ 7’ 8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’

[O Sîn, the bright?,] splendid [god?] p[rince ] [ ] Sîn ... [ ] [ ] fore[runner?] of the g[reat] gods, [splendi]d [prince] whose command cannot be ch[anged] [and who]se [mind] no other god can lear[n]! [ at the ri]sing of Sîn the gods are convened, [ ] ... carry their pure offering, they [beg] humbly. For repopulating the lands,] for letting fall into ruins, for causing constant ani[mosity, for causing enmity], [they wait] only for Nannāru, Sî[n! O Sîn, you come out] in radiant carnelian and lapis l[azuli! At the sight of Sîn the stars are elated,] the night [rejoices!] Step forth, Sîn, [from the midst? of radiant heavens]! May the [great] god[s] stand with you, may [the divine judges] stan[d] with you! May Alamuš, your vizier [inform you, the case]

13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’

].

488

V. Text Editions

20’ 21’

may he bring to you! May the divi[ner pose] the query before you! O radiant Sîn, [stand by me] in [this] offe[ring]!

22’

Ikrib-prayer to [Sîn

23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’

O Sîn, the radiant shining god, the luminar[y ], first-born of Enlil, [splendid on]e of E[kur]! As the king of the universe you reign all the land[s], you set up [...] heaven? [...] on? the throne, a fine linen garment you place, the crown of kingship [you? ...] [O Sîn, the w]axing one, splendid prince, Sîn, his light belongs to the people! The fore[runner], the splendid [pr]ince whose command cannot be chan[ged] and whose mind no other god knows! O Sîn, at your appearance the gods are convened; a[ll] the kings beg humbly, they w[ait for] Nannāru, Sîn! O Sîn, you come out in radiant carnelian and lapis lazuli! At the sight of Sîn the st[ars] are elated, the night rejoices! Indeed dwells Sîn dwell in the midst of [radiant?] heavens! O Sîn, the legitimate heir, the belov[ed] son, the circumspect ruler, the heir of Enlil, the foremo[st of ], the luminary of the heavens, the lord of all the lands, who [holds his head?] h[igh?] in Ekur, in Eridu his word is agreed to [ ]. You founded Ur on a [ ] dais, ? ? ]. you raise [its ] top [ O Sîn, the luminary of the heavens, the protection of [the inhabited ], worl]d?, the radiant god [ O lord, forerunner, Sîn, at your appearance the doors of heaven you [open wide]! At your appearance the people rejoice, all the black-headed people are jo[yful]! The people, the humankind, pray to you, [they] all are convened before you, the animals of the steppe are gathered before you – they all are gathered be[fore you]! Step forth, Sîn, lord of horns and the sheepfold, the one who keeps the pasture and the drin[king place] in order! Step forth, Sîn, from the midst? of radiant heavens! May the [great] gods stand with you, may the divine judges stand with you, may [your?] daugh[ter?? Dilbat??]

37’ 38’ 39’ 40’ 41’ 42’ 43’ 44’ 45’ 46’ 47’ 48’ 49’ 50’ 51’ 52’

].

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//)

53’ 54’ 55’

489

stand with you! May Alamuš, your vizier, inform you, may he bring you the case, may the [di]viner pose the query b[e]fore you! O Sîn, radiant god, [stand by me] in this offering! [In my wo]rd, in my prayer, in everything I do, in the query I pres[ent], may there be truth!

56’

Reg[u]lar [i]krib-prayers to Sîn.

57’ 58’ 59’ 60’ 61’

67’ 68’ 69’ 70’ 71’ 72’ 73’ 74’ 75’ 76’ 77’

[O Sîn, the lu]minary of the heavens, [N]amraṣīt, lord of the crown, splendid god, the forerunner, great Anu, whose command cannot be [t]ransgressed! O Sîn, as you light up, as you open wide the doors of heaven, the people are rejoicing over your glow; all the black-headed people are cheering because of you, the people, the mankind, are praying to you! You let the one who is deprived of a child to have a name, to every single one, who prays to you, you [g]ive a descendant and to the one, who is deprived (but) who prays to you, you [g]ive an heir, [yo]u call out his name! All the animals of the steppe are gathered before you, the faces of the mankind are [turned] to you! [Step forth,] Sîn, lord of horns and the sheepfold, [the one who keeps the pas]ture and the drinking place [in order]! ] are bearing milk for you! The w[hite? [ ] ... [ ] [May the great] gods [stan]d [with you], [may the] divine [judges stand with you], [may] Dilb[at?, the] ... [stan]d [with you]! [ ] ... [ ] ... [ ] may [the diviner] pose [the query before] you! [ ] ...

78’

[Ikrib-prayer] of the 15th day [to Sîn].

79’

[O Sîn heavens! [

62’ 63’ 64’ 65’ 66’

80’ 81’–87’ too fragmentary for a translation

the

lumi]nary ] Ekur

of

the

490

V. Text Editions

Commentary 3’ This line is separated from the main text by horizontal lines, which indicates that it is the rubric of the preceding prayer. Since the rubrics on the reverse (ll. 22’ and 56’) refer to ikrib-prayers to Sîn, one would also expect to find a similar rubric here. The preserved signs, however, do not support such a reconstruction, and, therefore, the content of this rubric remains unknown. It is plausible that the sign [r]u is what is left of the appellation Nannāru and that the epithet eddēšû (see e.g. “Sîn 11”, 6) should be reconstructed here, but due to the lack of parallel rubrics no reconstruction is given here. 4’–7’ These lines contain many features that are found in a prayer to Sîn in KBo I no. 12. KBo I no. 12, o.! 9–13 9 ⌈d⌉EN.ZU dA-nu ša ša-me-e IBILA ra-bu-ú ša dEn-líl 10 [d]Si-in nu-ri-i-šu ša ša-me-e ù er-ṣe-tim 11 [a]-li-ik pa-an i-li aḫ-ḫi-šu ru-bu-ú ša qí-bi-is-s[u] 12 [l]a-a ut-ta-ka-ru i-lu nam-rum šu-pu-ú e-tel-lum [x x] 13 [mu-ad-di] ⌈mi⌉-na-at u4-mi ITI 1.KAMv MU 1.KAMv [x x] Sîn, Anu of heaven, great heir of Enlil! O Sîn, his light is of heaven and earth, [f]orerunner of the gods, his brothers, ruler who[se] command [can]not be changed, bright, splendid god, prince [...], [the one who marks] the length of the month and the year [...]! Note that in the edition of the passage in Ebeling 1954a, 213–216 the line 10 is read [(d)]Si-in-nu ri-i-šu ša ša-me-e ù er-ṣe-tim, “Sîn, head of the heaven and the earth”. 4’ Cf. KBo I no. 12, o.! 12: i-lu nam-rum šu-pu-ú e-tel-lum [x x]. 5’ Although this line resembles KBo I no. 12, o.! 10 as well as line 29’ later in this collection of ikrib-prayers, the presence of the sign i indicates that something else is expressed here. One possibility is to read here the verbal form ul iriššū, “they do not rejoice”, but such an expression does not find parallels in the other ikrib-prayer or other sources. 6’ The formulation in KBo I no. 12, o.! 11 (“forerunner of the gods, his brothers”) is similar to this line. See also the further use of ālik maḫri in the lines 29’, 45’ and 58’ later in this text. 7’ Cf. KBo I no. 12, o.! 11–12 as well as the line 30’ later in this text. For the sign value uta(UD) see MZL no. 596. 9’–13’ A similar passage can be found in KAR 19, which contains prayers to the gods Šamaš and Sîn (see Ebeling 1954a, 210–212 and Seux 1976, 68). KAR 19, o.! 6–10 6 [ina t]a-mar-ti šá d+EN.ZU DINGIR.MEŠ pa-aḫ-ru LUGAL.M[EŠ]

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//)

9’–11’

11’–13’

13’–15’ 14’

16’–21’ 23’

491

7 na-šu-ú-ma ni-qá-šu-nu el-la ap-pa-šu-nu i-lab-bi-[nu] 8 a-na ma-ta-a-ti šu-šu-bi šu-ud-di-i 9 šu-uk-ku-ri šu-tam-ḫu-ṣi 10 na-an-na-ra-am-ma d+EN.ZU ú-qá-a-a-ú [At the ap]pearance of Sîn the gods are gathered, the king[s] are carrying their pure offering and pray[ing] humbly. To settle the lands, to bring (them) to ruins, to cause enmity (and) constant animosity, they wait only for the luminary, Sîn. Although these lines resemble KAR 19, o.! 6–7 the first two preserved signs in line 10’ do not allow the restoration “[kin]gs” and therefore the subject of the verb “to carry” remains unknown. Cf. KAR 19, o.! 8–10. It should be noted that the signs that here are read as the infinitive šuddû, “to cause to be in ruins”, (CAD N/1, 97) were read as šu-par-di-i, “to brighten” (for šu-UD-di-i) in the earlier edition of this prayer (Perry 1907, no. 5c, line II 2). The actions that are listed here in infinitive forms (to wage war, to destroy, and also to repopulate the land or the cities) are all related to the domain of the king due to their connotations of military conflicts. In other sources, the control over such powers is given to Nabû and Marduk were closely connected to kingship in Mesopotamia (see Goetze 1965, 129). Likewise, a similar role is attested for the god Aššur, as is exemplified by an inscription of Esarhaddon. RINAP 4 no. 1, II 30–31 30 dAš-šur AD DINGIR.MEŠ šu-ud-du-ú ù šu-šu-bu 31 mi-ṣir KUR Aš-šurki ru-up-pu-šú ú-ma-al-la-a ŠUII-u-a The god Aššur, the father of the gods, gave me (the power) to let (cities) fall into ruins and to (re)populate (them, and) to enlarge Assyrian territory. The presence of these lines in a prayer addressed to the moon god underlines his importance not only as a god, who is able to grant royal power, but more specifically as a god whose decisions concerning the future of the land and of the king are made visible in lunar omens (see the discussion on p. 150ff. above). See lines 33’–36’ for the same passage. For the reasons for choosing here the translation “radiant” for ellu in connection with carnelian and lapis lazuli, see the discussion in Feder 2014, 87–113. It is very likely that the passage from lines 51’–54’ should be reconstructed here. The latter part of this incipit remains unknown due to the lack of parallels. See, however, the use of the expression ilu ellu ša šamê ellūti in the prayer “Sîn 11”, 1 (see p. 477 above): perhaps a similar reference to

492

V. Text Editions

the heavens existed also here. The restoration [šūpû] ša Ekur was suggested in Combe 1908, 91 on the basis of its attestation in the šu’ila-prayer ”Sîn 1”, 14 (see p. 452ff. above). This is supported by the traces on the tablet. 25’ Perry 1907, no. 5a (line 2) renders the end of the line as māt[āti], and this suggestion was accepted in Seux 1976, 478 note 3. The epithet bēl mātāti for Sîn is otherwise attested only in the stone slab inscription of Sargon II found at Nebi Yunus (Frahm 2013a, 46, line 16: dEN.ZU LUGAL DINGIR.MEŠ be-el KUR.KUR). 26’ The restoration taš[kan ina] šamê [ellūti] suggested in Perry 1907, no. 5a (line 2) has been accepted in both Seux 1976, 478 and Foster 2005, 758. However, due to the lack of parallels, this has not been included in the present edition. 26’–27’ The fragmentary state of these lines, together with the different arrangement of the text between the two manuscripts, complicates the reconstruction of this passage. The elusiveness of the object of the verb tašakkan, “you place”, at the beginning of line 27’ is especially fundamental: whereas Ms A separates this verb from gadamāḫu – making it implausible that this linen garment is the thing that is placed – Ms B has a different line division. For this reason, it remains unclear whether the crown (agû) in line 27’ should be understood as the object of the verb šakānu or not. A reconstruction agâ ša belūti [tappir] is given in Perry 1907, no. 5a (line 3). Since the verb apāru, “to cover the head”, is commonly used with the different nouns for headdresses (see CAD A/2, 166–168) this suggestion is not entirely without justification, but on the other hand, this formulation finds no parallels in other sources. The spacing in Ms A suggests that no more than two signs can be missing at the end of line 27’. 28’ In Foster 2005, 758 the participle muḫtanbu is attached to agâ bēlūti and translated “You set out a superb linen, you [don] the resplendent tiara of lordship whose waxing never fails.” Here muḫtanbu is understood to be an epithet of the moon god (so also in Perry 1907, no. 5a [line 3]). There is sufficient space in Ms A for the signs d30. For brief remarks on muḫtanbu see p. 236 above. 29’ The expression nūrīšu ša nišī alik m[aḫri] is structurally strange, as noted already in Seux 1976, 478 note 6. A restoration maḫ-[ri-ši-na] is given in Perry 1907, no. 5a (line 4) and further used in Combe 1908, 130, but there is not enough space for three signs at the end of the line. 29’–31’ Similar lines are found in KBo I no. 12, o.! 10–12 (see p. 490 above). See also the lines 5’–8’ above. 32’–33’ In the previous edition (Perry 1907, no. 5c) and also in the translations of this prayer (Seux 1976, 478 and Foster 2005, 758), no attempts to re24’

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//)

493

store the end of the line were made. Reconstruction is, however, possible on the basis of the similar passage in KAR 19, 6–10 (see p. 490 above) and the lines 10’–13’ in the present text. For the different spellings for the appellation Nannāru – here dNANNA and dŠEŠ-ru – see the discussion on p. 31ff. above. 34’–36’ Cf. lines 13’–15’ above. 38’ The end of this line remains unclear. The two possibilities for reconstruction are aša[rēd Ekur] and aša[rēd ilānī]. The former option was suggested in Seux 1976, 479 note 13, and in this context it is very plausible, due to the pronounced father-son relationship between Enlil and Sîn. Still, the latter possibility, which is attested e.g. in ”Sîn 1”, 1 (see the edition p. 452ff. above), may also have been used here. 40’ Damage to both manuscripts and the lack of parallel expressions in other contexts prevent a definitive reconstruction of this line. A translation “whose [head?] is [high?] in Ekur” is suggested in Foster 2005, 758, and this suggestion is followed here. For attestations of the verb šaqû used with rēšu, “head”, see CAD Š/2, 18. 42’ It is plausible that an adjective attribute followed the noun parakku, “dais”, but no direct parallels are known to me. One possibility for such an attribute could be dārû, ”everlasting”, which is used with concrete objects, e.g. buildings, as well as with abstract phenomenona such as kingship (CAD D, 115–118). Another, not as widely used, adjective could be rašdu, “firmly founded” (see CAD R, 192). 43’ A translation “[and raised its] head(?) [on high]” for this line is given in Foster 2005, 758. This suggestion is followed here since it appears to fit well with the preserved traces of signs in the line. For the expressions for raising a building’s top see CAD R, 281–282. 44’ In accordance with the suggestion in Seux 1976, 479 note 18, the reconstruction andul [dadm]ē is adopted here: it is supported by the traces of the sign e that precede DINGIR KÙ. For attestations of andul dadmē see CAD A/2, 115. 46’ In Langdon 1915, 191 the verb in Ms B was considered to be t[u-patti]. This may be correct, but on the other hand, the reference to the doors of heaven in line 60’ in this text uses the verb šupalkû, “to open wide” (see CAD N/1, 270–271). On this basis, the tentative suggestion here is the verbal form t[u-uš-pa-la-ka]. For descriptions of the moon god opening the heaven’s doors as he rises, see p. 82ff. above. 47’ As noted in Seux 1976, 479 note 20, a form of the verb riāšu should most likely be reconstructed at the end of this line. This is suggested both by the use of the verb ḫadû and riāšu together (see CAD R, 211) and by the similar formulation that is found in line 61’ in the present text. However, in line 61’ the stative form rīšāka, “they are cheering be-

494

49’

50’

51’

52’

V. Text Editions

cause of you”, is used instead of the indicative G-stem form (shown by the preserved verbal prefix i-) in this line. Seux’s suggestion is to reconstruct the verbal form i-r[i-šú], but the form i-r[i-iš-šá] would be grammatically correct and allowed by the spacing of the line. For an additional use of the verb riāšu to describe the joy of the rising moon and the sun, see the prayer ”Sîn & Šamaš 1” in CBS 1516, r. 13: ⌈a⌉-⌈na⌉ ⌈ta⌉-⌈mar⌉-ti-ku-nu i-ri-iš-šú KUR.KUR (see edition on p. 520 below). The first signs in this line were interpreted as MÁŠ.ANŠE! ir-ku in Langdon 1915, 191. This reading has since been cited in CAD B, 315 and followed also in the later translations: “Le bétail, les animaux de la steppe se rassemblent en totalité devant toi” (Seux 1976, 479) and “Sheep, goats, and cattle, creatures of the steppe all convene before [you]” (Foster 2005, 759). The traces on the tablet, however, suggest the reading ⌈pa⌉-⌈ḫi⌉-ir-ku instead, thus resulting in a stative form with an appended dative suffix. For a similar formulation see line 66’ later in the present text. The same epithet is repeated in line 69’ later in this same text. In other sources, the role described by this epithet is attributed to Marduk as he is given the name Enbilulu (Enūma eliš VII, 59: šá ri-i-ta maš-qí-ta ušte-eš-še-ru, “who keeps the pasture and the watering place in order; see Lambert 2013, 126–127). The formulation i-ziz-za-am-ma d30 ina KI AN-⌈e⌉ KÙ.MEŠ in this line is problematic due to the use of the sign KI: no satisfactory reading for this sign as a logogram can be found. Two options for solving the problem have been suggested in the earlier treatments of the text. First, this has been taken to be a scribal mistake for ina qé- AN-e KÙ.MEŠ (Seux 1976, 479 note 24 and Foster 2005, 759; see also the use of ina qereb šamê ellūti in line 36’ in this same text). The second suggestion is to take the sign to be DU6 instead of KI (Langdon 1915, 191: til šami-e; Mayer 1976, 212: izizzamma dSîn ina DU6? šamê ellūti, “tritt her, o Sin, aus der Höhe? des heiligen Himmels”). The latter option seems less plausible, since the formulation “height of pure heavens” is not attested (see CAD M/2, 193). Moreover, the sign in question does not show any considerable differences in comparison to other KI signs in Ms B. For these reasons, the former option that emends the line is accepted here. It was proposed in Langdon 1915, 191 that the end of this line should be read bâb [šami-e] (i.e. KÁ [AN-e]). Although this solution is consistent with the traces visible in the tablet, it is less satisfactory when its meaning is considered. Doors or gates of heaven certainly existed on the horizon according to Mesopotamian cosmology, but as the other sources show, these doors do not “stand” with the moon god in the sky, rather the gods Sîn and Šamaš open them by rising from below the hori-

V.7. Ikrib-prayers to Sîn (K. 2751+//)

495

zon to the sky (see the discussion on p. 82ff. above). Undoubtedly due to this problem, the end of the line was left without a translation both in Seux 1976, 479 and Foster 2005, 759. The suggestion here is based on the traces preserved in the line (more likely ⌈DUMU⌉.M[UNUS] than KÁ), and further developed by the apparent reference to Dilbat (the planet Venus) in the corresponding passage later in this same text (line 74’). Therefore, possibly, the moon god is beseeched to appear in the sky together with his daughter Ištar (Venus). In this respect, note also the possibility that the fragmentary ikrib-prayer on the reverse of Ms B was addressed to Venus (see the comments on line 56’ below). For the role of Ištar as the daughter of Sîn see the discussion on p. 309ff. above. 54’–55’ See the parallel expression in an ikrib-prayer to Ninurta (K. 128, 31–32 in Mayer 2005, 53). 56’ For the use of the form kayyamānu instead of kayyānu (“regular”) in the 1st millennium BCE see the overview in Gabbay 2016, 191 note 95. The designation here most likely means that this particular prayer was not associated with any specific lunar phase, but could be performed at any time during the month. After this rubric, an ikrib-prayer to Šulpae (Jupiter) and to an unidentified female deity – most likely Ištar as Venus (see Langdon 1915, 189 and Reiner 1995, 74) – are written in Ms B. Since no significant improvements to the previous edition by Langdon can be made, no new transliteration is given here. Note, however, that the expression [ṣi-i]t-ka na[m-r]at, “your [emergen]ce is bright”, can be reconstructed for the beginning of the line 33 (second line in the ikrib to Šulpae). 57’–69’ This passage contains very similar epithets and motifs as the newly identified prayer to Sîn in IM 148516, 1–r. 1 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). For the correspondences, see the comments on the individual lines below. The similarity between the ikrib-prayer and the prayer in IM 148516 raises questions about why the specific qualities of the moon god in these two two different contexts are brought forth. Despite the differences in the ritual context and performance itself, the temporal setting of these rituals is a connecting factor between them because it is likely that both of them were performed at the time of the full moon. The time of performance is explicitly indicated in the rubric of the ikrib-prayer, in which the 15th day of the month is mentioned (see line 78’). Although no similar direct evidence is available for the anti-witchcraft ritual in IM 148516, it is, nevertheless, plausible that the procedure took place on the day of the full moon (see the discussion on the connection between the full moon and witchcraft on p. 109 above). 58’ The epithets present in this line – except the appellation Dilimbabbar – are also found in IM 148516, 2 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198).

496

V. Text Editions

59’ For Sîn’s association with the sky god Anu see p. 136ff. above. 60’–63’ A similar passage is also found in the text IM 148516, 6–10 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). 63’ A parallel formulation is used in the prayer to Marduk in KAR 26, (KAL 2 no. 21), 27 (see Mayer 1999, 150 and Schwemer 2007b, 57). See also šu’ila-prayer ”Sîn 3”, 8: šá IBILA la i-šu-ú tu-šar-šá-a IBILA (p. 464ff. above). For a discussion on the power of the moon god over fertility, see p. 229ff. above. 66’ See the lines in IM 148516, 12–14 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). 67’ No parallel formulations are known to me, and, therefore, the specific verb at the beginning of the line remains unclear. 68’–69’ Cf. line 50’ previously in this same text. A similar phrase can be found also in IM 148516, 15–r. 1 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198). 70’ Due to the association of milk with the colour white, as well as the white glow of the full moon, I suggest that the logogram for which only traces of a vertical wedge are preserved could possibly be BABBAR. This would produce a line in which white animals, most likely white cows, produce milk for Sîn. For the connection of the moon god with cattle, see the discussion on p. 240ff. above. 71’ One would expect that this line parallels lines 16’ and 51’ in the present text. However, the preserved signs i and li neither support such a reconstruction nor give any clues about the content of this line. 72’–73’ Cf. lines 17’–18’ and 51’–52’. 74’ Cf. line 52’ and the comments on it above. The sign tum at the end of the line supports the reading Dilbat for the fragmentary divine name in this line: it must have been a part of an epithet of a female deity. 75’ The preserved signs in this line do not allow similar formulation as in lines 19’ and 53’ to be reconstructed here. 76’ Cf. lines 20’ and 54’. 77’ Similar expression as in lines 21’ and 54’ is expected here, but the first of the preserved signs does not support such a reconstruction: the remains of three horizontal wedges and the completely preserved vertical wedge cannot have belonged to a sign with the value /ziz/ or /za/. Therefore, this line remains unclear to me. 78’ For the significance of the full moon in Mesopotamia see the discussion on p. 106ff. above. See also the discussion on the association of the moon god with the gods Anu, Ea, and Enlil in different lunar phases (p. 136ff. above). 79’–87’ Very little of this prayer, which is presumably the last in Ms A, is preserved. The few signs that are preserved suggest that, like the preceding prayers, this ikrib-prayer also employed the motif of the moon god as the heir of the god Enlil.

V.8. Making the Unpropitious Appearance of Sîn Good (K. 6018+//)

497

V.8. Making the Unpropitious Appearance of Sîn Good (K. 6018+//) The text K. 6018+// includes ritual instructions for transforming an unpropitious appearance of the moon (see the discussion on p. 163ff. above). This procedure is known from two manuscripts: K. 6018+ from Nineveh (Ms A); and CBS 1695 (Ms B) which is Neo-Babylonian.2468 Also included in this edition are other manuscripts that include either the prayer “Sîn 6a” (Ms E) or the prayer “Sîn 6” (Mss C, D, and F). The contexts of these manuscripts differ from that of Mss A and B, but they reflect the same conceptions that are at play in this procedure: the reconstruction of the relationship between the human petitioner and the divine figure who has become angry with him. The specific context of Ms F remains unclear, but it was certainly connected with averting the consequences of evil omens, as well. Following the classification in Mayer 1976, 408–409, this ritual contains the prayers “Sîn 5” (1’–4’), “Sîn 6a” (8’–13’), “Sîn 6b” (x+36’–x+44’), and “Sîn 7” (x+27’–x+33’). The new manuscript CBS 1695 reveals the previously unknown incipit and the full extent of “Sîn 7”. Manuscripts A: K. 6018+K. 8958+K. 12922+K. 13296+K. 14704, 1’–r. 23’ (AOAT 34 no. 59; CDLI P396319) B: CBS 1695, 1’–r. 10’ (Pls. 9–10; CDLI P259027)2469 C: VAT 13608+ o. A. 13759, VI 14’–23’ (BAM 3 no. 316)2470 D: VAT 13630, 1.S II 3’–10’ (LKA 25) E: K. 8183, 8’–12’ (Abusch & Schwemer 2016, pl. 68; CDLI P397530)2471 F: Si. 849, r. 5’–11’ (Geers Ac 38) Editions: Mayer 1976, 529–532; Lambert 1974, 294–297 (“Sîn 6a-b”); Jaques 2015, 231–238 (“Sîn 6a–b”); Abusch & Schwemer 2016, no. 8.37 (Ms E) Literature: Hunger 1968, no. 319 (colophon, Ms A); Pedersén 1986, N 4 nos. 533 and 549 (Mss C & D); Reiner 1995, 135–136; Lambert 2008, 96– 97; Frechette 2012, 148 and 270

2468

A further manuscript, the unpublished tablet BM 46590, came to my attention too late to be fully included in the present edition and it will be edited in a forthcoming article. 2469 This tablet was brought to my attention by E. Jimenéz. 2470 A collation of VAT 13608+ and VAT 13630 from a photograph was kindly made possible by S. M. Maul. 2471 This fragment is listed in Abusch & Schwemer 2011, 15 with the designation “fragmentary anti-witchcraft rituals addressed to Sîn”, and it appears to form a partial duplicate to IM 148516 (Fadhil 2018, 197–198).

498

V. Text Editions

Score transliteration 1’ A 1’ 2’ A 2’ 3’ A 3’

[ ] x x x ⌈lu⌉ ⌈ḫi⌉ ⌈im⌉ [ ] d ] [ina qí-b]it iq-bu-ú ⌈ ⌉[ [ina qibīt?] šar-ra-ti ra-bi-ti ⌈d⌉TIR.[AN.NA TU6?.ÉN?]

4’

A 4’

[KA].INIM.MA ŠU.ÍL.LÁ [dEN?.ZU?.KAM]

5’

A 5’

6’

A 6’

7’

A 7’

[KÌD.K]ÌD.BI e-nu-ma d30 in-nam-ma-ru NÍG.NA [šimLI GAR-an ] [KAŠ] SAG B[A]L-qí ana IGI d30 DUR SÍK BABBAR ⌈NU⌉.[NU ] [e-m]a KEŠDA ÉN ⌈ŠID⌉-⌈nu⌉ [ina] ⌈IZI⌉ GARan-ma a[n-nam DÙ-uš-ma ŠÀ.BI DU10.GA]

8’

A 8’ E 8’ A 9’ E 9’ A10’ E 9’ A 11’ E 10’ A 12’ E 11’

[É]N EN U4.SAKAR kul-l[a-ti?/at? ] [ bi-n]u-ut dA-sar [a]-šar Ú.ḪI.A er-ṣe-⌈tum⌉ a-⌈dir⌉-[ti ] [ ] [k]i-ma ḫi-ri-ti ⌈ana⌉ AB[Z]U a-dir-t[i ] [ ] ⌈ana⌉ ABZU a-dir-ti ⌈liš⌉-⌈du⌉-u[d] la-ši-ru-tum ⌈lim⌉-ḫu-ra a-di-⌈ra⌉-⌈ti⌉-[ia] [ a]-di-ra-ti-ia [an]a-ku ana sul-l[i]-⌈ka⌉ ⌈ak⌉-ta-mis ma-ḫar-ka lu-b[iib] [ ] lu-bi-i[b]

13’

A 13’

KA.INIM.MA ŠU.ÍL.LÁ d+EN.ZU.[KAM]

14’

A 14’

15’

A 15’

16’

A 16’

17’

A 17’

18’ 19’ 20’ 21’

A 18’ A 19’ A 20’ A 21’

[D]Ù.DÙ.BI ina Ú.SAL ÍD ⌈NÍG⌉.NA GAR-an [m]i-iḫḫa BAL-qí IM Ú.SAL ÍD T[I-qé] [ZA].⌈NA⌉ MUNUS DÙ-uš ina ŠU-ka ÍL-ma EN U4.SAKAR kul-la-ti 3-šú ŠID-[nu-ma] [ZA.NA ana] ⌈ÍD⌉ ⌈ŠUB⌉-⌈di⌉-ma KI.ZA.⌈ZA⌉-ma KEŠDA DU8-⌈ár⌉ ⌈šam⌉-⌈šá⌉-ni KÙ.GI 7 [x x] [ ] x ⌈UGU⌉? ki-a-am DU11.GA kid ⌈ma⌉ x x x [ ] [ ]-⌈ú⌉-ti ša ŠU.TAG.GA lal ti [ ] [ t]i UN.MEŠ [ ] [ d]i-lip-ti ma [ ] ? ] [ ] x ša sa ru t[i

x+22’

B 1’

9’ 10’ 11’ 12’

(gap of unknown lenght)

[

] ⌈an⌉? ⌈na⌉? [

]

V.8. Making the Unpropitious Appearance of Sîn Good (K. 6018+//)

x+23’

B 2’

[KA.INIM.MA šá IGI.DU8].⌈A⌉ ⌈d⌉⌈30⌉ ḪUL SIG5.[GA.KAM]

x+24’

B 3’

x+25’

B 4’

x+26’

B 5’

[DÙ.DÙ.BI u4-mi d]⌈30⌉ [I]GI.LÁ ana I[G]I ⌈d⌉30 NÍG.NA ⌈šim⌉[LI GAR] [DUR SÍK] ba-⌈ru⌉-⌈un⌉-du NU.NU 7 KA.KEŠDA KEŠDA-ár [ÉN ana IGI] ⌈d⌉30 ŠID-ma ina MUD Á ⌈GÙB⌉ KA.K[E]ŠDA ⌈DUL⌉ SILIM-im

x+27’ x+28’ x+29’ x+30’

B 6’ B 7’ B 8’ A r. 1’

x+31’ x+32’

x+33’

B 9’ A r. 2’ B 10’ A r. 3’ B 11’ A r. 4’ B 12’

]

A r. 7’ B 15’ C VI 14’ D II 3’ F r. 5’ A r. 8’ C VI 15’ D II 4’ F r. 6’ A r. 9’

[É]N ⌈EN⌉ na-an-na-ru kul-lat bi-ni-ti ] [ U4.SA]KAR? ⌈kul⌉-[ ? ] ⌈ÉN⌉ [at -t]a? [b]e-lum n[a-nà]r? ⌈kul⌉-⌈la⌉-⌈ti⌉ [ [ÉN at?-t]a? be-lum U4.SAKAR kul-la-⌈tú⌉ ⌈bi⌉-⌈nu⌉-⌈ti⌉? [ ] kul-lat b[i?-nu-ti/tu] [a]-šar it-ti Ú.ḪI.A KI-tim a-dir-ti ul-du a-šar ki-i šam-mi er-[ṣe-tu ] [a-šar K]I šam-mi KI-ti a-dir-tú ul-du [ ] a-dir-t[i ] [KI]-t[i]m ma-ḫi-rat ana ABZU a-dir-ti liš-du-u[d]

x+35’

B 13’ A r. 6’

x+38’

[KA].⌈INIM⌉.MA šá IGI.DU8.A d30 ḪUL S[I]G5.GA.K[AM] [ ] šá IGI.DU8.A d30 [

B 14’

A r. 5’

x+37’

[ÉN ta-t]ap-ḫa d30 ABGAL DINGIR.MEŠ DÙ.A.BI [ ] ka EN šu-kun ⌈za⌉-[ku-t]i [x e?-t]i?-qu i-ta-a ú-ka-[bi-su an-zil-l]a [ ] x ⌈kit⌉?-⌈ti⌉ ⌈it⌉-⌈ti⌉ ⌈tap⌉-⌈pe⌉-⌈e⌉ ⌈la⌉ ⌈ad⌉⌈bu⌉-⌈bu⌉ x x [ ] [ k]it-ti it-ti tap-pe-⌈e⌉ [la ad-bu-b]u? [ ]-am-ma šu-kun za-ku-t[i] [ ] šu-kun za-ku-[ti] [la-le]-e ba-la-ṭi lu-uš-bi TU6.É[N] [ b]a-la-ṭi lu-u[š]-[bi ]

[DÙ.DÙ].BI u4-mi d30 IGI.LÁ síkGA.RÍG.AK.A ta-matt[aḫ] ] [ ] d30 IGI.LÁ síkG[A.RÍG.AK.A [É]N 7-[š]ú ana UGU ŠID-nu-ma ina GÚ-šú GAR-anma ḪUL pa-ši-i[r] [ mu]ḫ-ḫi ŠID-ma [ ]

x+34’

x+36’

499

500

V. Text Editions

C VI 16’ D II 5’–6’

x+39’

x+40’

x+41’

x+42’

x+43’

x+44’

er-ṣe-tu ma-ḫi-rat ana ap-s[i ] ⌈er⌉-⌈ṣe⌉-tum ma-ḫi-ra-at ana ABZU a-dir-t[i] / li-il-duud F r. 7’ [ ] ABZU a-dir-t[i ] A r. 10’ [e]š-ru-⌈tu⌉ lim-ḫu-ru a-di-ra-ti-i[a5] B r. 1’ [ a]-d]i-r[a-ti-ia] C VI 17’ la eš-ru-ti lim-ḫu-[ru ] D II 6’–7’ la eš-ru-tu[m] / lim-ḫu-ru a-⌈di⌉-ra-te-⌈ia⌉ F r. 8’ [ lim]-ḫu-ru a-di-r[a-ti-ia] A r. 11’ [i?]-⌈šá⌉-ru-tu lim-ḫu-ru-in-[ni] B r. 2’ [ lim]-⌈ḫu⌉-ru-[nin?-ni] ] C VI 18’ i-šá-ru-ti lim-ḫu-[ru-nin?-ni A r. 12’ [š]u?-⌈šá⌉-ru-tu li-tén-nu-ú it-ti-[ia5] B r. 3’ [ ] ⌈li⌉-ten-nu-⌈ú⌉ [ ] C VI 19’ šu-šu-⌈ru⌉-ti li-ten-n[u-ú] it-⌈ti⌉-[i]a F r. 9’ [ li-t]en-nu-ú it!-[ti-ia] A r. 13’ [liš-d]u-ud ár-ni la pa-li-ḫu ma-ḫar-ka lil-[qú] B r. 4’ [ l]a pa-li-ḫi ⌈ma⌉-[ḫar-ka ] C VI 20’ liš-du-ud ar-ni la pa-li-⌈ḫu⌉? ma-ḫar-⌈ka⌉ ⌈lil⌉-qú F r. 10’ [ pa]-li-ḫu IGI-[ka ] A r. 14’ ⌈EN⌉ [a-n]a-ku a-na sul-li-ka ak-ta-mis ma-ḫar-ka lub[i-ib] B r. 5’ [ s]ul-⌈li⌉-ka ak-⌈ta⌉-⌈mis⌉ ⌈ma⌉-[ḫar-ka ] C VI 21’–22’ ana-ku ana su-ul-li-ka ak-ta-mis ma-ḫa[r-ka] / [lu]-⌈še⌉⌈er⌉ D II 8’–9’ ana-ku a-na su-⌈li⌉-ka ⌈ak⌉-ta-mi-is / ma-ḫar-ka lu-ši-⌈ir⌉ F r. 11’ [ ] IGI-ka [ ] A r. 15’ B r. 6’

x+45’

A r. 16’

K[A.IN]IM.MA šá IGI.DU8.A d30 ḪUL SIG5.GA.[KAM] [ ] šá IGI.DU8.A d30 ⌈ḪUL⌉ ⌈SIG5⌉.G[A.KAM] DÙ.[DÙ.BI] u4-mi d30 IGI.LÁ ana IGI ⌈d⌉30 NÍG.NA LI GAR-a[n] [ u]4-mi d30 IGI.LÁ ana IGI d3[0 NÍG.N]A ] ⌈šim⌉[LI ⌈KAŠ⌉.[SAG BA]L-qí-[m]a IM ú-šal-li ÍD TI-qé [ BA]L-qí IM Ú.SAL ⌈ÍD⌉ TI-⌈qé⌉ [Z]A.[NA DÙ-u]š ÉN 3-šú ana IGI d30 ŠID-ma [ZA].N[A] ⌈DÙ⌉-⌈uš⌉ / [ ] ana IGI d30 ŠID-ma [ku-tal-la]-nik-ka ina ÍD ŠUB-ma ḪUL BÚR šim

B r. 7’ x+46’ x+47’ x+48’

A r. 17’ B r. 8’ A r. 18’ B r. 8’–9’ A r. 19’

V.8. Making the Unpropitious Appearance of Sîn Good (K. 6018+//)

B r. 9’

x+49a’ A r. 20’ x+49b’ B r. 10’ B r. 11’

501

⌈ku⌉-⌈tal⌉-la-⌈nik⌉-⌈ka⌉ ana ⌈ÍD⌉ ⌈ŠUB⌉-ma ⌈ḪUL⌉ ⌈BÚR⌉ [ÉN EN g]a-aš-ru ti-iz-qa-ru bu-kúr dNun-nam-ni[r] ] x ti Á.MEŠ [ ] ⌈u4⌉-⌈mi⌉? x [ ⌈GISKIM⌉.MEŠ ḪUL.⌈MEŠ⌉ ] NU DU10.⌈GA⌉?.⌈MEŠ⌉ [(empty?) (rest of Ms B too fragmentary for a transliteration)

Colophon (Ms A) A r. 21’ [É.GAL I.dAš-šur–D]Ù–A LUGAL ŠÚ LUGAL KUR AN.ŠÁRki A r. 22’ [šá ana Aššur] ù [d]NIN.LÍL tak-lu A r. 23’ [šá Nabû u Tašmetu GEŠTUGII ra-pa-áš]-⌈tum⌉ [i]š-ru-k[u-uš] (rest of the tablet destroyed)

Translation 1’ [ ] ... [ ] 2’ [By the com]mand given by [ ] 3’ [by the command?] of the great queen Man[zât! Incantation-formula?.] 4’

[Wo]rding of a šu’ila-prayer [to Sîn?.]

5’

Its ri[tual]: When Sîn becomes visible, [you set] an incense burner [with juniper in place ...], you li[ba]te first-class [beer]. If front of Sîn you s[pin] white wool into yarn [ ]. [Every ti]me you bind (it), you recite the incantation and place (it) [in] fire; [you do] t[his and he will be happy].

6’ 7’

8’ 9’ 10’ 11’ 12’

[Incan]tation: O Lord, the luminary of al[l creations of Asar]! [W]here the earth [bore] my fear along plants, may it draw away my fear to Apsû [l]ike a canal may the turbulent (waters) take my fear upon themselves! I, I have kneeled in order to pr[a]y to you, may I be cleansed before you!

13’

Wording of šu’ila-prayer [to] Sîn.

14’

Its [r]itual: In the meadow of a river you set in place an incense burner and you libate [m]iḫḫu-beer. You ta[ke] clay of the river meadow (and) make a female [pu]ppet. By lifting your hands you reci[te] (the incantation) “O Lord, the luminary of all” three times [and] you throw [the puppet into the river] and you prostrate yourself and

15’ 16’

502

17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’

V. Text Editions

then clear away the ritual arrangement. Seven golden sun discs [...] [ ] you speak thus over? [ ] ... [ [ ] ... of undertaking ... [ [ ] ... (of) the people [ [ a]nxiety ... [ [ ] ... [

] ] ] ] ]

(gap of unknown lenght)

x+22’

[

x+23’

[It is a wording for] making [an unpropitious appearan]ce of Sîn go[od].

x+24’

[Its ritual: When] Sîn becomes [v]isible [you set] an incense burner with [juniper in place] before Sîn. You spin multi-coloured [wool into yarn], you tie seven knots. You recite [the incantation before] Sîn and then cover the knots with the heel of the left side: it will be well.

x+25’ x+26’

] ... [

]

x+27’ x+28’ x+29’ x+30’ x+31’ x+32’

[Incantation: You have ri]sen, Sîn, sage of all the gods! [ ] ... lord, provide with cl[eansin]g! [I?, who transg]ressed the limits, com[mitted sacrileg]e? [ ] ... who did not speak the truth with the comrade ... [...] [ ] me and provide with cleansin[g!] May I find [happin]ess in life! Incantation-for[mula.]

x+33’

[It i]s a [wo]rding for making an unpropitious appearance of Sîn g[oo]d.

x+34’ x+35’

Its [ritual]: When Sîn becomes visible you pick [up] combed wool, you recite the [incan]tation seven ti[m]es over it and then place it on his neck and the evil will be undo[ne].

x+36’

Incantation: O Lord, the luminary, all creation! (var.(?): [Yo]u?, the luminary of all creation! [Mss C and D])

x+37’ x+38’ x+39’ x+40’ x+41’ x+42’ x+43’

Where the earth bore my fear along plants, the earth takes (it) upon itself, may it drag my fear to Apsû, may [the s]mooth (waters) (var.: [the turbulent (waters) [Mss C and D]) take my fear upon themselves, may the smooth (waters) receive (them from) m[e], may the well-ordered (waters) serve as my substitute! May it draw away my sin, may the irreverent take it in front of you! O lord – I, I have kneeled in order to pray to you, may I get well before you!

V.8. Making the Unpropitious Appearance of Sîn Good (K. 6018+//)

503

x+44’

[It is] a wo[rd]ing for making an unpropitious appearance of Sîn good.

x+45’

Its ritual: When Sîn becomes visible you set an incense burner with juniper in place before Sîn, [you lib]ate [first-class] beer [and t]hen take clay from the river meadow. You fashion [a pu]ppe[t]. You recite the incantation three times before Sîn and then throw it in the river behind your back and then the evil will be undone.

x+46’ x+47’ x+48’

x+49a’ [Incantation: O po]werful, outstanding lord, son of Nunamni[r]. (Ms A, catchline )

x+49b’ [ ] when? [ ] ... evil portents and signs, [(empty)] not good ones (rest of Ms B too fragmentary for a translation) Colophon (Ms A) A r. 21’ [The palace of Assurba]nipal, king of the world, king of Assyria, A r. 22’ [who trusts in Aššur] and Mullissu, A r. 23’ [whom Nabû and Tašmētu] have [gr]anted [a wid]e [understanding], (rest of the tablet destroyed)

Commentary 3’ It is plausible that this line relates to Ištar’s role in pacifying her father Sîn (for this function of Ištar’s in cases of lunar eclipse see Koch-Westenholz 2001, 74). 4’ The name of the addressee is not preserved in this rubric, but since the following ritual instruction concerns performance before the moon, and because all the other sections in Ms A involve Sîn, it can be assumed that his name should be restored here. 6’–7’ The instruction to spin white wool into yarn and make knots in it mirrors line x+25’. The beginning and the end of line 7 are reconstructed on the basis of BM 46590, 14–15 (unpublished duplicate; see p. 497 above). 8’ Since the prayer in Ms E parallels the prayer “Sîn 6a” here in lines 8’– 12’, it is plausible that the incipit should be reconstructed according to Ms E. 13’ The same incipit appears to have followed the prayer “Sîn 6” in Ms E (line 12’: [KA.INIM.MA dS]U[EN?].⌈NA⌉.K[ÁMv]. x+23’ The translation given to this rubric in Reiner 1995, 135 is “Incantation to recite in order to turn the evil into good at the first visibility of the moon”. IGI.DU8.A d30 ḪUL has to be understood, however, as an “unpropitious appearance of Sîn” – a translation adopted in Mayer 1976,

504

x+26’

x+27’

x+29’

x+36’

V. Text Editions

531 and Jaques 2015, 235. For further discussion see also p. 163ff. above. Unfortunately, no similar instructions involving covering knots with the heel are known to me (see the attestations of eqbu, “heel”, in CAD E, 248–249 and AHw, 231 as well as the attestations of the verb katāmu, “to cover” in CAD K, 298–303). The purpose of covering the knots must be similar to burning the white wool in the previous section (lines 6’–7’) although no instruction for actual disposal is given here. A plausible interpretation is the subjugation (of the ill influence?) by treading on the knots. For the use of the verb napāḫu to describe the rising of celestial bodies see CAD N/1, 265–267. The form tattapḫa is attested with a similar meaning in the incipit of the incantation ta-tap-ḫa GIN7 MUL.MEŠ, “You have risen like the stars” (K. 2453 [CT 23, pl. 10], III 13). What is preserved of this line points toward transgressions committed by the supplicant. For the use of itâ etēqu, “crossing the border”, as a metaphor for transgression see CAD I–J, 314 and van der Toorn 1985, 52–53. See also Šurpu III, 56: ma-mit i-te-e DINGIR e-te-qu, “the oath: to transgress the commands of god” (Reiner 1958, 20 and Borger 2000, 43). For the expression anzilla kubbusu with the meaning “to commit a sacrilege”, see CAD K, 10. Note the use of the pair etēqu and kubbusu in the 5th house of Bīt rimki, 93–94 (Læssøe 1955, 59; see also Jaques 2015, 237). The reconstruction here – transgressions against the divine – is the counterpart of the next line which involves breaches against the society. The spacing of the line in Mss C and D suggests that these manuscripts included an additional address to Sîn before the epithets bēlu and nannāru. The suggestion in Lambert 1974, 295 is that this lacuna may have contained the 2. Sg. independent pronoun [at-t]a, and this same suggestion is included in Jaques 2015, 232–233. Whether this is true or not cannot be decided on the basis of available evidence: the only clues to the possible missing part are the minute remains of a vertical wedge in both manuscripts. The citation of the incipit in Ms D II 17’ does not include any additional element before be-lum U4.SAKAR. Moreover, the collation of Ms C (drawing below) shows that the section read a[s-ka-ru] in Lambert 1974, 295 and Jaques 2015, 232 should more plausibly be read as n[a-nar(or:-nàr)]. This is supported by the preserved traces of na (including traces of the vertical wedge not copied in BAM 3 no. 316), and by the fact that there is enough space for only one sign in the destroyed section.

V.8. Making the Unpropitious Appearance of Sîn Good (K. 6018+//)

x+38’

x+40’

x+41’ x+43’

505

The fact that the logogram U4.SAKAR here must stand for the epithet nannāru, “luminary”, is made clear not only by the syllabic spelling in Ms A, but also by its use in other contexts (see the discussion on p. 31ff. above). The variation between the different manuscripts for this incipit led Wilfred Lambert to deem it corrupt and without meaning (Lambert 1976, 296: “[...], whichever interpretation is adopted, the resultant meaning is very poor. ‘Crescent (or: Nannaru) of all creation’ can hardly be what the first author intended since it is almost meaningless.”). However, if the manuscripts are divided into two different prayers – “Sîn 6a” and “Sîn 6b” – the problems regarding textual variation become much more manageable. This is illustrated by the lines 9’–10’ and x+37’–38’ in Ms A, which despite their similarities differ from each other to a great enough extent that they can be interpreted as parts of two different recensions of the prayer. The beginning of the line in Ms D is read [ki-m]a šam-mi KI-ti in Lambert 1974, 295 and in Jaques 2015, 233. There is, however, enough space in the damaged part at the beginning of the line to restore a-šar. As transliterated in Lambert 1974, 295 and Mayer 1976, 530, the verbal form in Ms A is lim-ḫu-ru-in-[ni] (rendered incorrectly as lim-ḫu-ru-ni[ni] in Jaques 2015, 234). The use of the suffix -inni together with the plural ending -ū is grammatically problematic, but since the parallel line in the 5th house of Bīt rimki (Læssøe 1955, 62 [line 93]) shows the correct verbal forms lim-ḫu-ru-nin-ni and lim-ḫu-ru-ni-ni, we have to assume that also here the spelling -in-ni must stand for the 1. Sg. accusative suffix -ninni. Cf. 5th house of Bīt rimki, 94 (see Læssøe 1955, 59; Jaques 2015, 237 and CAD E, 176). Collation of the Ms D (drawing below) reveals that the sign copied as uk in LKA 25 is in fact ak.

After this line Ms C adds two more lines to the prayer: VI 22’ ⌈lu⌉-uš-lim-ma lu-ut-⌈ta⌉-⌈’i⌉-id DINGIR-ut-⌈ka⌉ VI 23’ [(empty) dà-l]í-lí-ka lud-l[ul] May I become healthy and may I heed your divinity! May I proclaim your glory! x+44’ The incipit for the prayer “Sîn 6b” in found in Ms D, II 10’: KA.INIM.⌈MA⌉ DINGIR.ŠÀ.DAB.⌈BA⌉ GUR.RU.D[A.KAM]. x+45’ff. A similar ritual instruction is attested in Mss C and D. As pointed out above, the underlying principle in both of these cases is the appeasement of an angry god – this is stated explicitly in Ms D in the rubric given to “Sîn 6b”. For the sake of comparison, a transliteration of the instructions in both Ms C and D is given here.

506

V. Text Editions

Ms C (BAM 3 no. 316) VI 24’ [DÙ.DÙ.B]I e-nu-ma d+EN.ZU in-[n]am-ma-⌈ru⌉ VI 25’ [ana IGI] d+EN.ZU NÍG.NA šimLI GAR-an ⌈KAŠ⌉.SAG BAL-[qí] VI 26’ [IM] ú-šal-lì ÍD TI-qé ZA.NA NITA DÙ-[uš] VI 27’ [É]N 3-šú ana IGI d+EN.ZU ana UGU ŠI[D-nu] VI 28’ [ZA.N]A NI[T]A ku-tal-la-nik-ka ana ÍD ŠUB-di-ma [x x (x)] Ms D (LKA 25) II 11’ DÙ.DÙ.BI ina GI6 ana IGI d30 ⌈ina⌉ ⌈ú⌉-⌈šal⌉-li Í[D] II 12’ NÍG.NA šimLI [GAR- an] II 13’ u mi-iḫ-ḫa [BAL-q]í II 14’ IM ú-šal-li ⌈ÍD⌉ T[I]-⌈qé⌉ II 15’ pa-sa NITA D[Ù]-⌈uš⌉ II 16’ ina GÙB-ka ÍL-š[i]-⌈ma⌉ II 17’ be-lum U4.SAKAR kul-la-tum bi-n[u-t]u[m?] II 18’ 3-šú ŠID-nu-ma pa-⌈sa⌉ [ina Í]D ŠUB-di II 19’ tuš-ki-in-ma DU8-ár x+49a’ This is the incipit of the prayer “Nergal 2” (see the edition in Mayer 1976, 478–481), which is also attested elsewhere in connection with unpropitious omens: one of the manuscripts of this prayer contains an attalû-formula naming Assurbanipal, and another manuscript has a formula against unpropitious omens naming Šamaš-šumu-ukīn. The prayer also stresses the reconciliation of the deity with the individual and the release from the transgressions that had caused the divine anger, which makes its association with the present ritual understandable. x+49b’ Ms B clearly progresses in a different direction than Ms A. Unfortunately, the section is very poorly preserved in Ms B, making it impossible to ascertain what the ending in that manuscript contained. Still, the few preserved words show that a reference to unpropitious omens and signs is made.

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//)

507

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//) According to the menology Iqqur īpuš, the birth of a child during the first month of the year, Nisannu, was an inauspicious omen: this child will disperse the house of his father (Labat 1965, 132–133; see also Stol 2000, 93–95). The evil that resulted from the ill-timed birth could be warded off by the means of a namburbi-ritual, as attested in several manuscripts deriving from Assur, Nineveh, Kalḫu, and Ḫuzirīna (Maul 1994, 400–408). In the case that the expected time of the birth coincided with Nisannu, countermeasures could be taken before the child was born, and the procedure for this is known to us from two manuscripts. The manuscript from Assur, VAT 8004, derives from the private tablet collection of the āšipu-family (Pedersén 1986, N 4 [no. 99]; see also Maul 2010, 189–228). The colophon at the end of the tablet states that it was written by Kiṣir-Nabû, son of Šamaš-ibni. This manuscript was copied and published by Erich Ebeling already at the beginning of 1900s, but due to the damaged state of the tablet, important parts of the text remained obscure. New information is provided by the manuscript K. 8666, a tablet with Neo-Babylonian script from Nineveh, which for a long time remained unpublished although it had already been identified as a duplicate of VAT 8004 50 years ago (see Reiner 1967, 191 note 15 and Stol 2000, 94 note 21). Furthermore, the fragmentary manuscripts recently published by H. Stadhouders and U. Steinert (BM 68458+K. 11550+; 79-7-8, 95 and K. 13315; see Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 64–65) provide elements much needed to fill the gaps.2472 The procedure described in VAT 8004// involves the manufacture of an object, presumably a belt, out of 60 spindle heads made of tamarisk and musukkannu-wood strung in multi-coloured wool, 30 kernels of musukkanu-wood strung in red wool, 14 cuttings of ēru-wood strung in red wool, and amulet stones (lines 2–5). The belt was most likely tied around the woman, who consequently cut off one (or two) spindle head(s) each day until the inauspicious time to give birth had passed (line 6–7). The manufacture of the belt is followed by a plea to Sîn made from the roof of a house and a plea to Šamaš made on the ground (lines 8–27). These two deities were implored to allow the month of Nisannu to pass by before the birth. The tablet from Assur, VAT 8004, has deteriorated since the copy KAR 223 was made by Erich Ebeling. The signs in the parts of the tablet that we available to him, but have since broken away, are marked in the transliteration in bold text. These readings are confirmed by the excavation photograph Ph. Ass. S. 3954.2473

2472

U. Steinert has announced the publication of copies of these fragments in her forthcoming book Women’s Healthcare in Ancient Mesopotamia: An Edition of the Textual Sources. 2473 Access to this photograph was kindly made possible by S. M. Maul.

508

V. Text Editions

Manuscripts A: VAT 8004 (KAR 223; Pls. 11–12) B: K. 8666 (CDLI P238752; Pls. 13–14) C: BM 68458+K. 11550 (BM 68458: Lambert Folio 10259, Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 76; K. 11550: Geers N 95, CDLI P239012; copy of the joined pieces: Hätinen 2019, 139)2474 D: 79-7-8, 95 (Geers Ab 54; CDLI P236879) E: K. 13315 (Geers M 117; CDLI P239201) Editions: Ebeling 1931a, 3–8; Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 64–73 Translations: Stol 2000, 93–95 (ll. 2–15); Hunger 1968, no. 208 (colophon, Ms A) Literature: Mayer 1976, 409 (“Sîn 12”); Mayer 1976, 417 (“Šamaš 55”) Score transliteration 1 A1 [e-nu-ma] ⌈ITI⌉ šá Ù.⌈TU⌉-šá KU4-ma [(empty)] itiBÁRA šu[tu-qí] B1 [e-n]u-ma ⌈ITI⌉ šá Ù.TU-šá ⌈i⌉-ru-ba-am-ma itiBÁRA ⌈šu⌉⌈tu⌉-⌈qí⌉ (single ruling) D 0’ [ ] (single ruling)

2

A2 B 2–3

D 1’ 3

A3

4

B3 D 2’ A4

2474

[DÙ.DÙ.B]I 1 šu-ši SAG.DU ⌈giš⌉⌈BAL⌉ 30 ša ⌈giš⌉[Š]INIG 30 šá gišMES.MÁ.KA[N.NA ] DÙ.DÙ.BI DIŠ+⌈ŠU⌉ SAG.DU gišBAL 30 SAG.DU gišBAL ŠINIG / ⌈30⌉ SAG.DU gišBAL ⌈giš⌉⌈MES⌉.MÁ.⌈KAN⌉.NA DÙ-uš [ ]→ giš ? [ ] M]ES.MÁ.⌈KAN⌉.⌈NA⌉ ⌈DÙ⌉ -[uš] [ ba-r]u-un-di È-⌈ak⌉ 1 šu-ši KA.KEŠDA KEŠDA 30 ⌈ŠE⌉ gišMES.MÁ.KAN.NA ina SÍK SA5.A [È-ak] ina SÍK ba-ru-un-du È-ak [ ] [30 KA.K]EŠDA KEŠDA 14 GIG gišMA.NU ina [S]ÍK SA5.A È-[ak]

K. 11550 was identified as a manuscript of this text by G. Van Buylaere, and it was published as Ms F in Stadhouders & Steinert 2018. However, a recent collation (see Hätinen 2019) of the manuscripts at the British Museum proved that this fragment is in fact a direct join to BM 68458 (Ms D in Stadhouders & Steinert 2018). Since the records of the British Museum appear to be incorrect regarding the origin of these two fragments – the other belonging to the Kuyunjik collection and the other to the tablets excavated by Hormuzd Rassam at Sippar (see Leichty & Grayson 1987, 234) – the actual place of origin of the tablet remains unclear.

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//)

5

A5

6

A6

B 4–6

D 2’ 7

8

A7 B 6–7 D 3’–4’ A8 B 7–8 D 4’ E 1’–2’

9

A9 B 8–10

D 4’–6’ E 3’–4’ 10

A 10 B 11–13

C 1’–2’ D 6’–9’

E 4’–5’

509

[ KEŠ]DA? NA4.MEŠ MURUB4.MEŠ šá MUNUS NU SI.SÁ ⌈it⌉-ti-šú-nu ta-ṣa-m[id] [(x) x MURUB4.MEŠ šá] KEŠDA-si ul-te UD.1.KÁM šá iti BÁRA EN UD.⌈30⌉.⌈KÁM⌉ šá itiGU4 u4-mu 1-en SAG.DU giš ⌈BAL⌉ [ina? MURUB4-ša?] KEŠDA x x x tú? UD.1.KAMv šá ⌈iti⌉BÁRA EN UD.30.KAMv / [UD?] ⌈1+en⌉ SAG.⌈DU⌉ giš ⌈BAL⌉ g[iš]ŠI[NIG] ù 1-en SAG.DU giš⌈BAL⌉ / [giš]M[ES?].⌈MÁ⌉.⌈KAN⌉.⌈NA⌉ [ UD.1].KAM šá itiBÁRA EN UD.30.[KAM] [ ] x-tum i-bat-⌈taq⌉-ma i-na-suk ina x x x x i-bat-⌈taq⌉-ma / [(x) i?-na?]-⌈suk⌉? [ i-ba]t-taq-m[a] / [ ] ? d [ illi-m]a ana IGI 30 GI.DU8 tara-kás NÍG.NA ⌈šim⌉⌈LI⌉ GAR-an KAS BAL-qí-ma ⌈a⌉?-na ú-⌈ri⌉ ⌈il⌉-li-ma ana IGI ⌈d⌉30 G[I.DU]8 KEŠDA-as / [NÍG.NA šimLI GAR-an] ⌈KAŠ⌉.[SA]G BAL-qí-ma [ illi-m]a ana IGI d30 GI.DU8 KEŠDA / [ BA]L-⌈qí⌉-⌈ma⌉ ? ]/ ⌈i⌉ -[ NÍG.⌈NA⌉ [ ] túg MA.AN.DU]L ul-tú KI ÍL-ma i-šad-da-ad-⌈ma⌉ [ ⌈TA⌉ É sim-mil-⌈tum⌉ ana ÙR ⌈E11⌉ ] Í[L]-ma la? tuš?-ken t[úg]⌈MA⌉.⌈AN⌉.[D]UL / ⌈ul⌉?-⌈tu⌉? [ ⌈i⌉-šad-⌈da⌉-ad-ma ul-⌈tu⌉ É / ⌈a⌉-di Ù[R ú-še]l-⌈li⌉ ⌈a⌉?-⌈na⌉? [ú?-r]i? ⌈il⌉-⌈li⌉-ma ] ⌈i⌉-⌈šad⌉-da-ad-ma tuš?-ken? túg?MA.AN.DUL / [ TA É sim-mil-ti / [ Ù]R ú-šel-li ana ÙR E11-ma TA ⌈qaq⌉-[qa-ri ] / a-di ⌈ú⌉-[ri ] [ ] i-ma-ga-⌈ag⌉-⌈ma⌉? [ana IG]I d30 ŠUII-šá LUḪ-⌈si⌉ ana d30 kam ⌈DU11⌉.GA túg MA.AN.DUL i-⌈ma⌉-⌈ak⌉-⌈ka⌉-ak [ina mu]ḫ-ḫi i-qé-ri / iteb-bi-ma iz-za-⌈az⌉-ma ana IG[I d30 Š]UII-šú LUḪ-si / ana d 30 ki-a-am i-⌈qab⌉-bi ⌈GUB⌉-⌈az⌉ ⌈ana⌉ [ ] / a-na d30 ⌈kam⌉ [ ] (single ruling) túg MA.AN.DUL / ⌈i⌉-ma-ak-ka-ak-ma ina muḫ-ḫi i-qé-er-⌈ri⌉ / i-teb-bé-e-ma GUB-az-ma ana IGI d30 ŠUII-šá LUḪ-si / ana IGI d30 UR5.GIN7 DU11.GA ] [ ] / ⌈i⌉?-[ma-ak-ka-ak-ma (the rest broken away)

510

11

V. Text Editions

A 11

[

UD].1.⌈KÁM⌉ šá ⌈iti⌉BÁRA EN ⌈UD⌉.30.KÁM šá

iti

12

13

14

15

GU4 B 13–14 É[N na-a]n?-na-⌈ra⌉ AN-[e u] KI-tim / ⌈ul⌉-tu UD.1.KAMv ⌈šá⌉ ⌈iti⌉BÁRA ana UD.1.⌈KAMv⌉ ⌈šá⌉ ⌈iti⌉GU4 C 3’–4’ ÉN 30 d+Nanna-ra A[N-e ]/ v iti it i UD.1.KAM šá BÁRA ⌈a⌉-na UD.1.KAM šá [ ] ⌈GU4⌉ D 9’ TA UD.1.KAM šá itiBÁRA EN UD.1.KAM šá itiGU4 A 12 [piq-dan-ni-m]a [l]u-u[š]-⌈te⌉-⌈šir⌉ B 14 piq-[dan]-⌈ni⌉ C 5’ piq-dan-ni-ma lu-uš-lim lu-ši-r[a?] D 10’ piq-dan-ni A 12–13 IGI-ka / [ l]i-⌈mur⌉ nu-u-ru ⌈nàr⌉-bi-ka ⌈lu⌉-⌈šá⌉-⌈pí⌉ dà-lí-lí-⌈ka⌉ lud-lul C 6’–7’ ⌈IGI⌉-ka ⌈šèr⌉-ri li-mu-ra nu-ru [(x)] / [nar]-⌈bi⌉-ka lu-šá-pi dà-lí-lí-ka lid-lul (single ruling) A 14 [ DU11.G]A-ma ina qaq-[qa-ri ur-ra]-⌈dam⌉-⌈ma⌉ ú ⌈AK⌉.TAM úIGI-lim ina Ì+GIŠ ŠÉŠ B 15–16 3-šú ⌈i⌉-qab-bi ana ⌈qaq⌉-qa-⌈ra⌉ ur-ra-dam-ma úAK.TAM / ⌈ú⌉[IGI.LIM ina Ì.G]IŠ i-nam-⌈di⌉ ip-pa-áš-ši-⌈iš⌉ C 8’–10’ [ ] DU11.GA-ma ana qaq-qa-ru ur-ra-dam-ma / ú [ A]K⌉.TAM úIGI.LIM a-na Ì.GIŠ ŠUB-di-ma / [ip-p]a-šiiš!(tablet: KA) D 10’–11’ 3-šú DU11.GA-ma ana qaq-qa-ri ur-ra-dam-ma / ⌈ú⌉AK.TAM ana Ì.GIŠ ŠUB-ma ŠÉŠ A 15 [ ] ⌈šàḫ⌉-⌈lé⌉-⌈e⌉ [mu-šá-ṭa NUMUN GADA a-d]i Ù.⌈TU⌉ ina ⌈DÈ⌉ SAR-ši (single ruling) B 17–18 [ ]sar ⌈ZÀ⌉?.⌈ḪI⌉.LIsar [mu]-šá-⌈ṭi⌉ N[UMUN GADA] / [adi (u-)ul-l]a-⌈du⌉ ina DÈ ⌈SAR⌉-[ši] ]→ C 10’–11’ kal GÚR.GÚR GAZIsar ZÀ.ḪI.L[I] / [ [a-d]i? ⌈ul⌉-⌈la⌉-d[u

D 11’–12’ 16

A 16 B 19 D r. 1

17

A 17 B 20 D r. 2

šim

] (rest broken away) sar

GÚR.GÚR GAZI / [ša]ḫ-lé-e mu-šá-ṭi NUMUN GADA a-di Ù.TU ina DÈ SAR-[ši] (single ruling) [ana IGI dUTU GI.DU8 KEŠDA-as? NÍG.N]A šimLI GARan KAŠ.SAG ⌈BAL⌉-q[í] [ ] dUTU ⌈GI⌉.[D]U8 ⌈KEŠDA⌉-⌈as⌉ [NÍG.N]A š[imLI GAR-an] DIŠ KI.MIN ina še-rim ana IGI GI.DU8 KEŠDA-as NÍG.NA šimLI GAR KAŠ BAL-qí [ina UGU šuk-bu-si GUB-ma ÉN dUTU EN š]ur-bu-u 3-šú ŠID-⌈nu⌉ only few traces of signs visible, rest broken away

ina UGU šuk-bu-si GUB-az-ma ÉN dUTU EN šur-bu-ú 3-šú

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//)

511

[ŠID-nu] 18

A 18 D r. 3

19

E r. 1’ A 19

20

C r. 1’ D r. 3 A 20 C r. 2’–3’ D r. 4

21

E r. 2’ A r. 1 C r. 3’–4’ D r. 4–5

22

E r. 2’–3’ A r. 2 B r. 1’ C r. 5’ D r. 5–6

23

E r. 3’–4’ A r. 3 B r. 2’–3’ C r. 6’–7’ D r. 6 E r. 4’–5’

[ÉN dUTU EN šur-bu-u ZÁLAG AN.TA] u KI.T[A.MEŠ] [ÉN] ⌈d⌉UTU ⌈EN⌉ šur-bu-ú ZÁLAG AN.TA.MEŠ u KI.TA.MEŠ ] ⌈ÉN⌉ ⌈d⌉[UTU d Í-gì-gì dA-nun-na-ki NUN pa-ri-is EŠ.BAR] [ ⌈AN⌉-⌈e⌉ [u KI-tim] [ ] ⌈pa⌉-⌈ri⌉-is EŠ.B[AR ] ] DI.KUD dÍ-gì-gì NUN pa-ri-is ⌈EŠ⌉.⌈BAR⌉ [ [mu-šim NAM.MEŠ x x x x] ⌈ka⌉-⌈su⌉-u i-⌈še⌉-⌈su⌉-[ka-ašá] [ NA]M.MEŠ ṣab-tu šal-la u ka-⌈su⌉-[u] / [i-ša]su-ka ka-a-šá [ NAM.ME]Š ṣab-ta šal-la ù ka-su-ú i-šá-as-si-ka ka-šá-a-šú mu-šim ⌈NAM⌉.[MEŠ ] munus N[ENNI-tum [šá-pal-ka ak-mis] ana-ku DUMU.MUNUS NENNI] šá-pal-ka ak-mis / [a]-⌈na⌉-[k]u al-si-ka munusNENNI-tú DUMU.MUNUS NENNI-tum šá-pal-ka ak-m[is] / [ NEN]NI-tum DUMU.MUNUS NENNI-tum [ ] / ana-ku al-si-ka [ ] [šá DINGIR-šá NENNI d15-šá] ⌈NENNI⌉-tum gi[šM]Á mali-tú ana-ku [ ] d 15-š]a N[ENNI-tu]m giš⌈MÁ⌉ m[a-li-tú ] [ [šá] DINGIR-šú ⌈NENNI⌉ ⌈d⌉[15-š]a NENNI-tum gišMÁ mali-ti ana-ku šá DINGIR-šú NENNI d15-šú NENNI-t[um] / [ ] [ ] / gišMÁ ma-lītu ana-k[i ] [ ši-man-ni]-⌈ma⌉ mu-gur tés-⌈li⌉-[t]i MU šu-tu-qí [ ] [ši-man]-⌈ni⌉-ma ⌈mu⌉-gur tés-li-t[um ]/ [IT]I-⌈ia⌉? ⌈iti⌉⌈BÁRA⌉? ⌈d⌉UTU ši-man-ni [r]e-man-né-e-ma mu-gur tés-li-tú / áš-šú šu-tu-qí ⌈ITI⌉-⌈ia⌉ itiBÁRA [dU]TU ši-man-⌈ni⌉ ⌈re⌉-man-ni mu-gur tés-l[iti] / [ ] [ ] / áš-šú šu-tu-qí ITI [ ]

512

24

25

26

27

V. Text Editions

A r. 4 B r. 3’ C r. 7’–8’ D r. 7 E r. 5’ A r. 5

[asḫur-k]a a-⌈še⌉-[e]-ka TÚG.SÍ[K-ka aṣ-bat] ⌈as⌉-ḫur-ka ⌈eš⌉-e-k[a TÚG].⌈SÍK⌉-⌈ka⌉ [ ] as-ḫur-ka eš-⌈e⌉-⌈ka⌉ / TÚG.SÍK-ka aṣ-bat [ ] eš-e-ka TÚG.SÍK-ka aṣ-[bat] [ ] [ Ḫ]UL-tim šu-tu-⌈qu⌉ [ki]-ṣir lum-ni pa-⌈ṭa⌉-r[i] → [ ] B r. 4’–5’ ⌈GISKIM⌉ Ḫ[U]L-⌈tim⌉ šu-⌈tu⌉-⌈qu⌉ ki-ṣir lum-ni pa-ṭ[a-r]i / ⌈KI⌉-[ka] ⌈ba⌉-⌈šu⌉-ú C r. 8’–9’ áš-⌈šú⌉ GISKIM ḪUL-tim šu-t[u-qu] / ki-ṣir lum-ni pa-ṭ[ar]i ⌈KI⌉-ka ba-šu-⌈u⌉ (rest of the reverse broken away) D r. 8 [ ] lum-ni ⌈DU8⌉ KI-ka ba-šú-⌈ú⌉ E r. 6’ GISKIM ḪUL-tim [ ] A r. 6 [ ] ⌈Ù⌉.⌈TU⌉-⌈ia5⌉ ⌈an⌉-ne-⌈e⌉ ⌈šu⌉-ti-q[a-an-ni] B r. 5’ ITI ⌈Ù⌉.⌈TU⌉-ia ⌈an⌉-ni-i šu-ti-qa-an-⌈ni⌉ D r. 9 [ ] E r. 7’ ITI Ù.T[U-ia ] A r. 7 [nar-bi-k]a lu-šá-pi dà-lí-l[í-k]a lud-lul TU[6 ÉN] B r. 6’ ⌈nar⌉-⌈bi⌉-ka lu-šá-[p]i dà-lí-lí-⌈ka⌉ ⌈lud⌉-⌈lul⌉ T[U6.ÉN] D r. 9 [na]r-⌈bi⌉-ka lu-šá-pi dà-lí-lí-ka ⌈lud⌉-⌈lul⌉ E r. 7’ [ ]

28

[ÉN an-n]i-tam 3-šú t[u-ša]d-bab-šú MUNUS BI uš4?-kenma ⌈tu⌉-še-eš-šeb-⌈ši⌉ B r. 7’–8’ [É]N ⌈an⌉-ni-ti 3-šú ⌈tu⌉-šad-bab-ši MUNUS BI uš4?-kenm[a (x x)] / [t]u-še-šeb-ši-ma D r. 10 [ ] ⌈uš4⌉?-ken-ma E r. 8’ ⌈ÉN⌉ an-n[i-ti ]

29

A r. 9 B r. 8’ D r. 11 A r. 10

30

31

32

A r. 8

(traces of few signs visible in the next line; the rest broken away) [síkḪÉ.ME.D]A [(empty)] GEŠTUGII.ME-šá SA5-ma sík

ḪÉ.ME.DA GEŠTUG⌈II⌉-šú SA5[(-ma)] [ ] [ M]U4.⌈MU4⌉-si Ì.GIŠ sír-di úTAR.MUŠ NUMUN gišŠINIG B r. 9’-10’ [tú]g⌉MA.AN.⌈DUL⌉ MU4.MU4-si Ì.GIŠ ⌈sír⌉-⌈di⌉ / ⌈ú⌉⌈TAR⌉.MUŠ NUMUN gišŠINIG ⌈Ì⌉.GIŠ sí[r-d]i D r. 11 [ MU4.MU4-s]i ú TAR.[MU]Š / [ ] A r. 11 [ ŠÉ]Š-si a-di ITI šá Ù.TU ú-še-et-te-qu-⌈ma⌉ B r. 10’-11’ina Ì.GIŠ BUR ŠÉŠ-[s]i / [E]N ITI šá Ù.TU-šá ú-še-ti-iq D r. 12 [ ] A r. 12 [ ]-šá la i-da-’i-ip itiBÁRA ú-qa-ta-ma ⌈Ù⌉.TU

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//)

B r. 12’ D r. 12

513

⌈ra⌉-man-šá la ⌈ú⌉-⌈da⌉-a’-ap ⌈ra⌉-⌈man⌉-⌈šá⌉ ⌈la⌉ ú-[da]-⌈a’⌉-[a]p (rest of the reverse broken away)

Colophon (Ms A) A r. 13 [i]na ZAG la-bi-ri-šú SAR-ma IGI.KÁR A r. 14 [a-na] ⌈ṣa⌉-bat DÙ-ši IKi-ṣir–d+AG šá d+AG NIR-su A r. 15 [A I].⌈d⌉UTU–ib-ni lúMAŠ.[M]AŠ ⌈É⌉ AN.ŠÁR Colophon (Ms B) B r. 13’ ⌈i⌉-na itiBÁRA UD.1.KAMv EN UD.30.KAMv ⌈lú⌉?⌈TUR⌉? Ù.TU B r. 14’ x ⌈ki⌉-⌈ma⌉ la-bi-ri-šú ‹ša›-ṭir-ma Br. 15’ IGI.[KÁ]R IM.GÍD.DA (erasure) Translation 1 [Wh]en the month of her birth-giving has come and (in order) to let Nisannu pass by. (single ruling [Mss B and D]) 2 Its ritual: You make 60 spindle heads – 30 (var.: 30 spindle heads [Ms B]) out of tamarisk wood, 30 (var.: 30 spindle heads [Ms B]) out of musukkannu-wood. 3 You string (them) in a multi-coloured yarn; you make 60 knots. [You string] 30 kernels of musukkannu-wood in red wool; 4 you make [30 kn]ots. You st[ring] 14 cuttings of ēru-wood in red [wo]ol; 5 [... you bi]nd. You ti[e] the amulet stones for the hips of a woman, who cannot give birth easily together with them; 6 you gird her. From the 1st of Nisannu until the 30th of Ayyāru, one spindle head per day (var.: [from] the 1st of Nisannu until the 30th, one spindle head of tama[risk] wood, one spindle head of [mus]ukkannu-wood [per day][Ms B])

7 8 9

10

[...] ... she cuts off and throws away. She goes up to the roof and you set up a portable altar before Sîn. You place an incense burner with juniper there, you libate beer, you prostrate yourself (var. you should? not? prostrate yourself [Ms B]). She picks up MA.AN.DUL-garment from the ground and drags (it along) while going up to the roof from the staircase. She spreads out a MA.AN.DUL-garment and then (var.: She spreads out a MA.AN.DUL-garment, extends an invitation (while being) on it, gets up and stands and [Mss B, C & D]) washes her hands [befor]e of Sîn. She speaks

11

to Sîn thus: “O Sîn, luminary of the heav[en and] the earth! ([O lum]inary of the heave[n and] the earth! [Ms B]) From the 1st of Nisannu to the 30th of

514

12 13 14

V. Text Editions

Ayyāru (var.: From the 1st of Nisannu to the 1st of Ayyāru [Ms B and C]) look after me so that I may be well (and) I may be set aright! May my baby see the light before you! Let me declare your greatness, let me proclaim your glory!” She says (this) three times and descends to the ground, and then she will be anointed with aktam-plant and imḫurlim-plant (that are) in oil (var.: she will put aktam-plant and imḫurlim-plant in oil and then she will be anointed (with it) [Mss B, C, and D]).

15

You fumigate her with kukru-aromatic, mustard, cress, combings, (and) flax seed (that are put) on charcoals until she gives birth. (single ruling [Mss A and D])

16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31 32

You set up a portable altar before Šamaš, you place an incense burner with juniper there, you libate beer. She? stands on a step and recites the incantation ”O Šamaš, mighty Lord” three times. Incantation: “O Šamaš, mighty Lord, the light of upper and lower world, judge of the Igigū (and the Anunnakū; Ms A) gods, decision-maker of the heaven [and the earth], decider of fates! It is you that the seized, the captives, and the bound appeal to! I have bowed down in front of you, I (have invoked you [Mss C and E]), so-and-so, daughter of so-and-so, whose god is so-and-so and whose [goddess is so-and-so: I am a fully laden boat! Šamaš, hear me(, have mercy on me [Mss C and D]) and accept my supplication! Because of making my month, Nisannu, pass by I have appealed to you, I have sought you out, I have grasped your hem! Because it is within your powers to make the evil sign pass by, to undo the knots of evil, allow this month of my labour pass by me! Let me declare your greatness, let me proclaim your glory!” Incantatio[n-formula] Your let her pronounce this incantation three times. The said woman prostrates herself? and after that you have her sit down. You fill her ears with red wool, you clothe her with the MA.AN.DUL-garment. With olive oil, lupin, and tamarisk seeds in pūru-oil you anoint her. Until the month of her labour has been allowed to elapse she should avoid pushing herself. She will complete the month Nisannu

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//)

515

and (only then) give birth.

Colophon (Ms A) A r. 13 Written [i]n accordance with its old original and collated. A r. 14 [For] the preparation of the performance. Kiṣir-Nabû, whose protection is Nabû, A r. 15 [son] of Šamaš-ibni, the mašmaššu of the Aššur temple. Colophon (Ms B) B r. 13’ (If) in the month Nisannu, 1st day to the 30th, a child? is born. B r. 14’ Written according to its old original, B r. 15’ collated. Long-tablet (erasure) Commentary 1 The preposition ana is expected before the infinitive šūtuqu, “to avert; to make pass by” (see CAD E, 394–395), but as the other similar structures with infinitive in this text show (ll. 23 and 25), its absence here appears not to be a scribal mistake. 2 Spinning was associated with femininity and womanhood in Mesopotamia (see the overview in Waetzoldt 2011, 1–3). This is exemplified by the way female children are given a spindle, according to Sumerian birth incantations (see Stol 2000, 60–63). Moreover, a spindle, along with women’s clothing, women’s speech, and hair clasps, is one of the feminine attributes that can be given to men by the goddess Inanna/Ištar (Sjöberg 1975, 224–225). Therefore, it is plausible that by using spindle heads to manufacture a therapeutic object, the femininity of the patient was stressed. Any further conceptual connotations of using spindle heads in this procedure remain unclear. 5 Amulet stones for therapeutic purposes in the context of childbirth are known from other Neo-Assyrian or Late Babylonian texts (see Stol 2000, 132–133). Amulet chains intended for women who cannot give birth easily are listed in the text STT 241 (Schuster-Brandis 2008, 149), according to which the stones for the waist are šubû and lodestone (STT 241, 5: na4šu-bu-u na4KUR-nu DAB.BA ina MURUB4.MEŠ-šá). Amulet stones also play a role in a ritual for ensuring a safe pregnancy, preserved in a Late Babylonian manuscript from Uruk (see Couto-Ferreira 2013, 97–116). 6 The beginning of this line undoubtedly refers to binding the belt-like object around the woman. In Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 65 this part of Ms B is read ⌈ina MURUB4.MEŠ-ša KÉŠ⌉. The traces in the tablet are, in my opinion, too indistinct for reading, but, nevertheless, this in-

516

7

10

V. Text Editions

terpretation is supported by the excavation photo (Ph. Ass. S. 3954) of Ms A that reveals the remains of the signs MURUB4.MEŠ-šá. The instructions for this section in Ms A are in Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 59 note 20 taken to be evidence of a corrupted manuscript. In Ms A from Assur, the belt made out of spindle heads is worn for 60 days (cf. line 11 where the same length time is named), encompassing both Nisannu and Ayyāru. During this time one spindle head is discarded each day. In Mss B and D, the time span is only one month (30 days), and the instruction specifies that two spindle heads – one made of tamarisk and one made of musukkannu-wood – should be simultaneously discarded each day. The entry for Ayyāru in Iqqur īpuš is not fully preserved (see Labat 1965, 132–133), but the endeavour to avoid childbirth in that month in Ms A indicates that it was also perceived as unpropitious for birth. The beginning of this line in Ms B is read ina ⌈É⌉ sim-⌈mi⌉-il-ti i-battaq-ma in Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 65. The signs in question are badly preserved, which makes their interpretation difficult. This reading of the first two signs seems to be correct, but sim-mi-il-ti does not correspond to the traces visible in the tablet nor fit into the damaged part of the line. An alternative possible reading is ina ⌈ṭú⌉-⌈ri⌉ ⌈1+niš⌉ i-bat-taqma, but it cannot be corroborated by any other attestations. For this reason, it is best to leave this part of the line without a reconstruction. In Ms A, reconstruction with either [sim-mi]l-tum or [sin-ni-i]š-tum is possible. In their edition of this text, Stadhouders and Steinert read the name of the garment as túgBA.AN.DUL (which would have the Akkadian equivalent zibnu or ib/pšu (Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 60 note 28). This logogram is, however, attested only with the determinative gi for objects made out of reed (see CAD I–J, 171 and CAD Z, 104), not textiles. Even more problematic is the fact that in all the pertinent lines in the manuscripts the name of the textile is clearly written túgMA.AN.DUL, not túgBA.AN.DUL. This can be observed especially reliably by comparing the signs MA and BA in Ms D 4’ and r. 8. For this reason, the name of the textile must be as it is given in the text. Such a textile is almost completely unattested outside of the present text, but one other attestation can be found in a Middle Babylonian list HS 157, 89–90 (Aro 1970, 16) amongst the pieces of clothing that were distributed on the occasion of a wedding. In this text the garment túgMAN.DUL belongs to the last and the largest group (44 pieces of garments) that was given to the bride. The number of the túgMAN.DUL-clothes is seemingly high in comparison to the number of other garments in the group: on average only one or two pieces of a particular type of clothing are listed, in con-

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//)

11

12

14

17

17 21

517

trast to the six pieces of túgMAN.DUL. In the list, this type of textile is preceded by two nargītu-headdresses (2 túgnar-gì-tum TAG) and followed by two taktīmu-blankets (2 túgAN.TA.DUL). This reference to the túg MAN.DUL as a piece of clothing given to the bride suggests that it was used by women, but otherwise its nature or function remains elusive. The use of the Sumerian verb dul, “to cover”, in the logogram together with the verb makāku, “to spread out” (written magāgu in Ms A) suggests that the textile in question was large enough to be used as a covering and to be spread out. The verb after ina muḫḫi must be a G-stem present form of qerû, “to invite” (CAD Q, 242–243). Despite the lack of an object, this interpretation seems more likely than the suggested ikerri from the the verb karû, “to be short” (Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 71–72). For an example of qerû used in a ritual context see the attestation in BM 78076, 39 George 2000, 283. Corresponding with the varying information about the spindle heads in the two manuscripts (see the comments to line 6–7), Ms A speaks of a span of time encompassing both Nisannu and Ayyāru, whereas Ms B refers only to the month of Nisannu. As to the wish expressed in the latter part of this line, it is translated here in its literal meaning “may I be set aright” (see AHw, 255). The other option would be to translate “may I thrive before you” (see Stol 2000, 94 and CAD E, 359), but since the basic premise of the ritual is to ensure divine protection and guidance for the pregnant woman during this potentially dangerous period, the notion of her being set aright is relevant here. The translation “may I give birth easily” is not suitable here (so in Mayer 1976, 295), since going into labour is exactly what should not happen during the months Nisannu and Ayyāru. The spelling [ip-p]a-ši-KA in Ms C is clear, but no explanation apart from a mistake (due to the similarity of the signs KA and IŠ) can be found (see also Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 72). The reconstruction is based on the assumption that the female patient stands on the step (šukbušu) and recites the prayer to Šamaš. Only few attestations of the use of šukbušu, “step; rung”, are available (see CAD Š/3, 214 and AHw, 1263), and, therefore, its precise character remains unclear. Since the staircase separates the ritual actions on the roof and on the ground, it is possible that the lowest step of the stairs is meant here instead of a separate object. The prayer with the incipit Šamaš bēlu šurbû nūr elâti u šaplâti (“Šamaš 55”) is attested only here according to Mayer 1976, 417. The end of the line is read ana-ku (sinništum)[annannītum mârat annanna] in Ebeling 1931a, 6. The traces at the end of the line, however,

518

22

23 28

31

32

V. Text Editions

suggest the sign G[EME] instead of MUNUS N[ENNI]. Boat metaphors are common both in Sumerian and Akkadian birth incantations (see the overview in Stol 2000, 62–63). The statement of the pregnant woman here differs from most of the other attestations, since it emphasises that the woman herself is the boat: this contradicts the widespread interpretation of the foetus as a boat. I have argued elsewhere (Hätinen 2017, 169–186) that it is indeed the woman who is the boat in Mesopotamian birth incantations: she is metaphorically described as a boat that needs to be guided by the gods through this dangerous time in her life (i.e. while in labour). In this text, the metaphor is used to obtain divine guidance through the potentially dangerous period of time (during Nisannu or Nisannu and Ayyāru), when the baby should not be born. See the similar lack of the preposition ana in the infinitive form in line 1. It is plausible that the month Nisannu is mentioned in the lacuna. The form of the verb šukênu in this line is problematic. The normal reading of the signs used here would be tuš-ken-ma, but this is incongruent with the subject sinništu šī, “that woman”. In previous sections of the text, the predicate verbs with “the woman” as the subject have forms with the prefix i- while the verbs with the āšipu as the subject have the prefix ta- or tu-. Therefore I tentatively suggest the value uš4 for the sign KU (or TÚG) here (see MZL no. 809). This reading results in more logical sinništu šī uškênma tušeššebši, “the said woman prostrates herself and after that you have her sit down”. šaman pūri is explained as “high-quality oil used in ritual anointing” in CAD P, 527. It should be noted that this type of oil has a prominent role in childbirth in the incantation Cow of Sîn: šaman pūri is brought from heaven by a lamassu who descends from heaven in order to assist the cow with her difficult labour (see the further interpretation involving a pun pūru–būru in Veldhuis 1991, 50). The reconstruction [ša libbi-]šá la i-da-’-ib, “she will not push off her [foetus]” in Ebeling 1931a, 6 is proven incorrect by Ms B. The principal meaning of da’āpu is “to push; to knock over” (CAD D, 1), and consequently the translation in Stadhouders & Steinert 2018, 70 is “she must avoid bumping herself”. However, the attestations of the verb together with ramānu (CAD R, 119) suggest that at least in an astrological-astronomical context this verb denotes the act of moving after a stationary phase. An example of this can be found in SAA 10 no. 8, 25–26: d UDU.IDIM.SAG.UŠ ITI-ma an-ni-ú ra-man-šú i-da-’i-ip, “Saturn ‘will push itself’ this very month” (see the comments on this line in Parpola 1983, 18–19). This leads to the question of whether a similar meaning involving the woman remaining stationary and not setting her-

V.9. Avoiding Childbirth during the Month Nisannu (VAT 8004//)

519

self in motion during the dangerous time period is intended in our text. If the negation used with the verb were ul (“she will not set herself in motion”), it would be reasonable to see this as an expression for the unwanted labour. Because the prohibitive (both in G- and D-stems) is used here (“she should avoid ...”), the basic meaning of the verb da’āpu seems to fit better with it. Colophons B r. 13’ This catch-line appears to derive from the menology Iqqur īpuš § 64, 1 (Labat 1965, 132). In the composite edition of the text, the format of the entry is DIŠ ina itiBÁRA lúTUR Ù.TU, but a few of the manuscripts of the text include a fuller form, e.g. K. 7938, 4–5: [DIŠ ina iti]NE TA UD.1.KÁM EN UD.30.KÁM lúTUR [Ù.TU] / GENNA BI uq-ta-at-tar; see Virolleaud 1906a, 194 and Labat 1965, 132–133 note 5). This latter, longer format is found also in the first line of the namburbi that aimed to ward off the evil caused by a childbirth in Nisannu (see Maul 1994, 401–402).

520

V. Text Editions

V.10. A War Ritual before the Moon and the Sun (CBS 1516) The tablet CBS 1516 contains a royal war ritual to obtain divine support, which takes place before the moon and the sun. The obverse of the tablet is poorly preserved, but it is clear that it involves a ritual in which a substitute image is drawn on the ground with flour. This is followed by an offering to the gods Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk and the prayer “Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk 11” (Mayer 1976, 383). No separate offering to Sîn and Šamaš is included in the instruction, but the prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 1” (Mayer 1976, 409) immediately follows on the reverse. Performing the latter prayer to Sîn and Šamaš must have been linked to the performance of the ritual before the moon and the sun, referred to in the prayer “Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk 11” (CBS 1516, 27: “Pro[vide] with [li]fe before the moon and the sun!”). The script in CBS 1516 is Neo-Assyrian, but the tablet has also been identified as Neo-Babylonian (CDLI P258850) or even Old Babylonian (Jean 2013, 110). This is understandable since its copy (PBS 1/2 no. 106) is misleading in respect to the overall appearance of the script. No provenance for the tablet is available because it was purchased in January 1889 from the antiquities market. The transliteration provided here is based on the collation of the tablet from photographs provided to me by E. Jiménez. The tablet has deteriorated after it was copied by H. Lutz, and for this reason the parts that were visible at that time but have since disappeared are marked in bold text. Manuscript: CBS 1516 (PBS 1/2, no. 106; CDLI P258850) Editions: Ebeling 1949, 178–183; Elat 1982, 5–8 Translations: Falkenstein & von Soden 1953, no. 68 (“Sîn & Šamaš 1”); Seux 1976, 489–491 (“Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk 11”; “Sîn & Šamaš 1”); Foster 2005, 762 (“Sîn & Šamaš 1”) Literature: Rochberg 1996, 476–477; Jean 2006, 92 Transliteration 1’ [ ] x x x [x] x x [ 2’ [ ] x giš [x] ⌈ḫu⌉? u [ 3’ [ ]xx[ ] nu [x] x x x [ 4’ [ ] x x pu x x x [ 5’ [NU šá ZÌ].⌈DA⌉ IGI d[UTU ina qaqqari teṣṣir] 6’ [LUGAL t]il-le-⌈e⌉ [ ]xx[ ]xx[ 7’ [ina UGU] LUGAL pu-uḫ(i) ⌈šá⌉ ZÌ?.[DA? 8’ [giŠUTU]G ana dÉ-a dUTU ⌈u⌉ [d]AMAR.UTU [ŠUB-d]i 9’ [KEŠDA] ana dÉ-a dUTU ⌈u⌉? dAMAR.⌈UTU⌉ [tara]-⌈kás⌉ 10’ [NÍG.N]A šim⌈LI⌉ [(x x x)] GAR-an 11’ [uduS]ÍSKUR BAL mi-i[ḫ-ḫa] ⌈BAL⌉-qí

] ] ] ] ] ]

V.10. A War Ritual before the Moon and the Sun (CBS 1516)

521

12’

[ina IG]I dÉ-⌈a⌉ dUTU u dAMAR.UTU ⌈ki⌉-⌈a⌉-[am?] D[U11.GA]

13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’ 26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ r. 1 r. 2

⌈ÉN⌉ dÉ-⌈a⌉ d⌈UTU⌉ u ⌈d⌉⌈AMAR⌉.⌈UTU⌉ D[INGIR.ME]Š G[AL.M]EŠ e-piš mim-[m]a ⌈šum⌉-šú x ⌈nu⌉ ⌈man⌉? DÙ.A.BI ba-nu-ú ⌈ṣa⌉-bat ki-⌈ik⌉-k[i-š]i x ⌈ba⌉? a lim mu-tu u ba-[l]a-[ṭu i]na ŠU-ku-nu-ma ul-la-nu-⌈uk⌉-⌈ku⌉-⌈nu⌉ x x [ ] ARALI ] ana? UD? šá KU5-su x x x x [x] x x [ tu-tar-ra-⌈ni⌉ t[a? ] x x x [ x x] ḫi šú ⌈a⌉-⌈ma⌉-⌈tu⌉-⌈ku⌉-⌈nu⌉ [ ] ⌈DINGIR⌉?.⌈MEŠ⌉? ⌈šá⌉ šak-nu BAL-šú [ ni? ḫa] ku un] kal? reš pu-ḫi-ia ⌈a⌉?-⌈na⌉? x [ ana ṣu-mi-rat lìb-⌈bi⌉-⌈ia⌉ [u?] ⌈mim⌉?-[ma ma-la ep?-pu-šú] ki-ma NU lab?-šá-ku [x] x x ki x [( ) ŠUII-a-a] qí-ba-a-ma ina qí-bi-[ti]-⌈ku⌉-nu ut? x [pu šú šá-ni-na] GISKIM.MEŠ-⌈ia⌉ ḪUL.M[EŠ] šu-me-da k[ar-as-su] ina IGI 30 u 20 [(x) T]I ⌈šuk⌉-[na] us-ḫa ḪUL.ME-⌈ia⌉ šuk-na du-un-q[a] at-tu-nu-ma taš-ku-⌈na⌉? a-lak u ta-a-r[i] šu-zi-ba ZI-ti ina KI.KAL iṭ-⌈ra⌉ ina qab-rì ina e-peš MURUB4 u MÈ šá-ni[n] a-a ár-ši d É-a dUTU u dAMAR.UTU šuk-na-ni ri-ṣa ÁII-a-a lil-li-ku gišTUKUL.MEŠ-ku-nu GAL.⌈MEŠ⌉ [šá t]a-a-ri u ⌈sa⌉-⌈ka⌉-pu šu-kun gišTUKUL.[MEŠ-ia] [e]p-šet ep-pu-⌈uš⌉ ⌈li⌉-ṭib UGU-k[u-nu] [mi]m-ma ep-pu-[šú] liš-[lim] [I]GI.BAR.MEŠ ⌈NUN⌉ šá ⌈is⌉-⌈ḫur(u)⌉ q[í-bit-ku-un] ⌈šur⌉-⌈ka⌉-⌈ni⌉ DU10.GA lìb-b[i b]a-lá-ṭa [qí-šá-a-ni]

r. 3 r. 4 r. 5 r. 6 r. 7 r. 8 r. 9 r. 10 r. 11 r. 12 r. 13 r. 14 r. 15

ÉN d30 u dUTU DINGIR.MEŠ [ki-lal-la-an] 30 šá GI6 dUTU [šá kal u4]-mi EŠ.BAR AN-e u KI-tim [at-tu-nu]-ma mìn-da-at u4-mi ITI u MU IGI.BAR-s[a u4-mi]-šam ta-šim-tú KUR.KUR 30 u 20 at-tu-nu-m[a ta-ši]m-ma DINGIR.MEŠ ru-qu-tu a[t-tu-nu-ma] šá u4-mi-šam KA UN.MEŠ ta-[ḫi]-⌈ir⌉-[ra] ba-lu-uk-ku-nu ina dÍ-gì-gì ul uk-ta-ni SÁ.DU[G4] d A-nun-na-ki ka-li-šú-nu tu-nam-ma-ra ki-⌈ma⌉ u4-m[e] NIDBA.MEŠ-šú-nu ta-ḫir-ra-ma ta-paq-⌈qí⌉-da AGRUN-⌈šú⌉-u[n] ⌈a⌉-⌈na⌉ ⌈ta⌉-⌈mar⌉-ti-ku-nu i-ri-iš-š[ú KUR.KUR] [ ] x šá i-paq-qí-⌈da⌉ [BAR.MEŠ-ši-in] ⌈a⌉-⌈na⌉ ⌈šup⌉-⌈ṭu⌉-⌈ur⌉ ⌈GIŠKIM⌉.MEŠ šá AN-⌈e⌉ [u KI-ti]

522

V. Text Editions

r. 16 r. 17 r. 18 r. 19 r. 20 r. 21 r. 22 r. 23 r. 24 r. 25

⌈at⌉-tu-nu-ma ta-az-[zi-za] ⌈a⌉-na-ku ÌR-ku-nu na-ṣi[r-ku-nu] šá u4-mi-šam-⌈ma⌉ ⌈a⌉-⌈nam⌉-⌈ṭa⌉-lu p[a-ni-ku-un] a-na ta-mar-ti-⌈ku⌉-⌈nu⌉ ba-ša-a [G]EŠTUGII-a-⌈a⌉ GIŠKIM.MEŠ-MU ḪUL.MEŠ a-ḫi-tam-ma šu-bi-’a-a Á.MEŠ SIG5 u tèš-me-e šu-uk-na ana SU-MU šá kun-nu BALA-e-a qí-ba-ma nap-li-sa a-ḫa-meš [UD].⌈MEŠ⌉-⌈ku⌉-nu ZÁLAG.MEŠ-[ti?] šur-ka-ni ia-a-ši [ur]-ri u GI6 lu-uk-tar-rab-ku-nu-ši ⌈ù⌉ ana-ku ana ⌈e⌉-là-tú nar-bi-ku-nu lu-šá-pi

r. 26 r. 27 r. 28 r. 29

[an-n]a-a DU11.GA-ma LUGAL UDU(“KU”) pu-uḫ(i) KU5.MEŠ-ma [ana UG]U NU šá ZÌ.DA šá ina KI eṣ-ru ŠUB-ma ⌈TU5⌉ ana muḫ-ḫi DÙ-uš EGIR-šú áš-⌈ḫu⌉-uṭ MIN DÙ-ma ana KUR KI.BAL iz-zib

r. 30

a-na ⌈KA⌉ UM.ME.A šá-⌈ṭir⌉ gaba-ru-u la-bi-ru ul a-⌈mur⌉

Translation 1’–4’ too fragmentary for a translation 5’ [You draw an image of flo]ur [on the ground] before [Šamaš], 6’ [the king ...] a [t]illû-garment [...] 7’ [on top] of the substitute king (made) of flo[ur ...] ... [...], 8’ [you set u]p [a reed shelte]r for Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk, 9’ [you set] out [an offering (arrangement)] for Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk, 10’ you set out [an incense b]urner with juniper [(...)], 11’ you make a [sheep off]ering, you libate mi[ḫḫu-beer], 12’ [you] s[peak] thu[s] [in fro]nt of Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk: 13’ 14’ 15’ 16’ 17’ 18’ 19’ 20’ 21’ 22’ 23’ 24’ 25’

Incantation: Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk, the g[reat god]s, makers of everything, ... of all, creators of ‘seizing the reed-hut’ for? us?, li[fe] and death are indeed in your hands! Without you [...] the Underworld, what you decide ... [...] for the day?, you return to me [...] ... your words [...] the gods?, who will bring about his retreat [...]. The whole? head of my substitute for? [...] for the wishes of my heart and? what[ever? I do?]! I am clothed like the image ... [... my hands] Give a command and through your command ... [... a rival]!

V.10. A War Ritual before the Moon and the Sun (CBS 1516)

523

26’ 27’ 28’ 29’ 30’ 31’ 32’ 33’ 34’ 35’ 36’ r. 1 r. 2

Assign my bad omens [to his military camp]! Pro[vide] with [li]fe in front of the moon and the sun! Take away my misfortune, provide with goodnes[s]! It is you – you bring about my advancement and retre[at]! Save my life in difficulties, rescue from the grave! May I have no riva[l] in battle and combat! Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk, provide me with assistance! May your great weapons go beside me! Make [my] weapon[s] cause retreat and defeat! May may [ac]tions be pleasing to [you], [wh]atever I do, may it be completed! [Lo]ok favourably at the prince, who has sought your c[ommand]! Bestow happine[ss] upon me, [grant me l]ife!

r. 3 r. 4 r. 5 r. 6 r. 7 r. 8 r. 9 r. 10 r. 11 r. 12 r. 13 r. 14 r. 15 r. 16 r. 17 r. 18 r. 19 r. 20 r. 21 r. 22 r. 23 r. 24 r. 25

Incantation: Sîn and Šamaš, [the pair of gods], Sîn of the night, Šamaš [of every d]ay, it is [you] (who) are the decision(s) of the heaven and earth! You inspec[t dai]ly the measure of the day, the month, and the year, it is you (who) [dec]ree the destiny of the lands! You indeed are the distant gods, who daily have people’s interest at [he]art. Without you the regular offeri[ng] is not arranged among the Igigūgods, you illuminate the Anunnakū-gods like the da[y]light, you prepare their provisions and you take care of their living quarters! At your appearance [all the lands] rejoice, [ ] ... they provide (to you) [their gazes]! For allowing the signs of heaven [and earth] to be undone you are the[re]! I, your servant, [your] obser[ver], who daily gazes at [your] f[aces], my [at]tention is directed to your appearances! Let my unpropitious portents pass aside, place auspicious signs and compliance in my body! Command permanence to my reign and look (at me) together, bestow your bright days upon me! May I pray to you [d]ay and night, and may I make your great deeds glorius to the people!

r. 26 r. 27 r. 28

You say [th]is and then the king slaughters the substitute sheep, throws it on the image that is drawn with flour on the ground and performs the washing above it.

524

V. Text Editions

r. 29

Afterwards he performs ‘I have stripped away, I have stripped away’ and leaves (it) in the enemy land.

r. 30

Written according to the spoken word of the specialist; I have not seen the old copy.

Commentary 6’ The traces of signs (collation below) in the tablet support the reading [t]il-le-⌈e⌉ for this line.

15’

19’

21’ 22’

23’

According to the overview concerning the definition of a tillû, this term appears to have been used to describe the proper attire of a person (e.g. the king), and therefore it is not a designation of a specific garment but pertains to the function of clothing (Wiggermann 1992, 53–54). For the attestations of tillû, see also CAD T, 412. It is plausible that this instruction is connected to the statement concerned with being clothed in the following prayer (line 24’). If my reading of the traces (collation below) is correct, this line refers to kikkišu, “reed fence; wall” (CAD K, 352).

This is the reed wall through which Ea speaks to Atraḫasīs in the flood myth. The use of the word in this prayer must be related to the presence of a reed shelter (šutukku) in the present ritual (see line 8’). Note that kikkišu is named in connection with the substitute king ritual in letter SAA 10 no. 210: the “farmer” (i.e. the king) enters kikkišu on the 13th of Du’ūzu (see also SAA 10 no. 211). Collation of the tablet confirms that the reconstruction tu-tar-ra ḫ[a]a[b-ta u šal-la ana aḫ-]ḫi-šú offered in Ebeling 1949, 178 and cited in CAD T, 263 should be discarded (see already Elat 1982, 6). For the use of the expression nabalkatta šakānu to mean “to bring about retreat”, see CAD N/1, 10. The suggested reading in Elat 1982, 6 is: KAL(?) SAG pu-ḫi(?)-ia(?) x x x [...]. The translation here remains uncertain since no parallel expressions can be found. The reading of this line is not certain. Collation (drawing below) shows that traces of lìb-⌈bi⌉-⌈ia⌉ can be seen after the signs ana ṣu-mi-rat.

For a similar formulation see BBR 82, r. 23: ana ŠÀ.SÌ.SÌ.KE.MEŠ u mim-ma ma-la [teppušu], “for an enterprise an whatever you [do]”. The noun ṣummirātu receives the translation “enterprise” in CAD Ṣ, 245–

V.10. A War Ritual before the Moon and the Sun (CBS 1516)

29’

35’

r. 1

r. 3

r. 4

r. 9 r. 14

525

246; see also AHw, 1112 with the translation “wish; goal”. The verbs alāku, “to go”, and târu, “to turn back”, are here most likely used in a military sense, i.e. “to advance” and “to retreat”, respectively (see CAD T, 257). The beginning of this line is read [t]e-rit eppuš in Ebeling 1949, 178. The possibility that the first sign on this line was ep has been noted in Elat 1982, 6, and this view finds support in the collation of the tablet from a photograph. Contrary to the results of the collation in Elat 1982, 6, the signs at the beginning of this line are not ÉN.MEŠ, but clearly [I]GI.BAR.MEŠ, as shown here. This logogram must be the predicate verb (naplisā) of the main clause. Since the following signs GIŠ and ḪUR do not provide much sense as a logogram, I suggest that they should be regarded as the predicate (isḫuru) of the relative clause attached to rubû(NUN). The epithet ilū kilallān can be found also as a part of the prayer “Sîn & Šamaš 2” in BAM 4 no. 323//, 101 (see the citation on p. 108 above). It is also used to refer to Sîn and Šamaš in a Late Babylonian manuscript for the New Year ritual from Uruk, BRM 4 no. 7, 34: DINGIR.MEŠ kilal-la-an d30 u dUTU ina IGI.DU8.ÀM-šú-nu lik-ru-bu-ka, “May the pair of gods, Sîn and Šamaš, greet you in their appearances!” (see the edition in Linssen 2004, 209–214). This expression is found also in K. 1939+, r. 3: d+EN.ZU ša mu-ši d [UTU ša kal ūmi]. For the concept that the night and day were divided between Sîn and Šamaš see the discussion on p. 96ff. above. The translation of the idiom pî nišī ḫiāru is here according to CDA, 115 (cf. AHw, 343: “sich der Menschen annehmen”). The beginning of the line was reconstructed [ur-ra u mu]-šá in Ebeling 1949, 179. However, traces of a single horizontal wedge before the sign šá (collation below) show that another solution should be sought.

Since no duplicate of this prayer is preserved, the matter remains unsolved. The reading niṭlu, “ability to see; view; gaze” for BAR.MEŠ was suggested in Ebeling 1949, 179. This interpretation was adopted also in Rochberg 1996, 476 where this line is translated: “Day and night they entrust (to you) their ability to see”. Unfortunately, no other instances of niṭla paqādu are attested, which means that the translation is uncertain.

526

r. 19

r. 23

r. 25

r. 29

V. Text Editions

Read as na-ša-a IGIII-a-a in Rochberg 1996, 477 according to the doubts about the copied sign GEŠTUGII expressed in Ebeling 1949, 182. Collation of the tablet shows that the copied sign GEŠTUGII is, however, correct. For the use of the noun uznu, in this context “attention”, with the verb bašû see CAD U–W, 368–369. It should be noted that the signs ba and na look very similar in this tablet: they can be distinguished by the fact that the upper Winkelhaken in ba is written more to the right than the upper Winkelhaken in na. According to Elat 1982, 6 the broken sign at the beginning of the line should be UD, not MÚ as Ebeling suggests (Ebeling 1949, 179). This must be so because the available space is too small for the sign MÚ. The noun elâtu, “the upper parts”, is used here to refer to the people living in the upper part of the world (as opposed to the Netherworld; see AHw, 202). In Mayer 1976, 62 the line is translated “auch ich will den auf (der Erde) Lebenden eure Grosstaten verkünden”. For the procedure ašḫuṭ ašḫuṭ, “I have stripped away, I have stripped away”, which involves the purification of the body against harmful powers see Maul 1994, 72–73. The logogram KI.BAL is read nukurtu, “hostility; enmity” in Ebeling 1949, 179 and Elat 1982, 6–7. Although the reading of the logogram KI.BAL is nabalkattu, “crossing; uprising”, in MZL no. 737, the meaning “enemy land” for KUR KI.BAL appears, indeed, to be more fitting in this context. For the correspondence of the Sumerian ki-bal and Akkadian māt nukurti in bilingual sources see CAD N/2, 329. Apotropaic procedures similar to the one prescribed here are known from other texts in which materials or persons that have been in contact with the king are deposited in enemy land (see Schwemer 2007c, 31). As an example, in a ritual taking place before the moon (Ki. 1904-10-9, 18 [BM 98989], r. 11’–27’), a pig’s skin stuffed with a figurine and the dagger used for its slaughter is taken to the border of an enemy land after a purification procedure similar to the one described in the present text.

Abbreviations 1R 3R 4 R2 5R AbB AbB 1 ABL ABRT I ACh ADD AHw AOAT AOAT 34 ARM ARM 26/1 ARM 27 BA BA 10 BAM BAM 3 BAM 4 BAM 5 BAM 6 BATSH BATSH 6 BBR

Rawlinson, H. C. & Norris, E. (1861) A Selection from the Historical Inscriptions of Chaldæa, Assyria, & Babylonia Rawlinson, H. C. & Smith, G. (1870) A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria Rawlinson, H. C. & Pinches, Th. G. (1891) A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria, Second edition Rawlinson, H. C. & Pinches, Th. G. (1909) A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria and Babylonia Altbabylonische Briefe Kraus, F. R. (1964) Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 und 44) Harper, R. F. (1892–1914) Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Volumes 1–14 Craig, J. A. (1895) Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts. Vol. I Virolleaud, C. (1908–1912) L’astrologie chaldéenne Johns, C. H. W. (1898–1923) Assyrian Deeds and Documents, Volumes 1–4 von Soden, W. (1965–1981) Akkadisches Handwörterbuch Alter Orient und Altes Testament Loretz, O. & Mayer, W. R. (1978) Šu-ila-Gebete. Supplement zu L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery Archives royales des Mari Durand (1988) Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1 Birot, M. (1993) Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qaṭṭunân Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft Meek, T. J. (1913) Cuneiform Bilingual Hymns, Prayers and Penitential Psalms Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen Köcher, F. (1964) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur 3 Köcher, F. (1971) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur 4; Babylon, Nippur, Sippar, Uruk und unbekannter Herkunft Köcher, F. (1980a) Keilschrifttexte aus Ninive 1 Köcher, F. (1980b) Keilschrifttexte aus Ninive 2 Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šāḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu Radner, K. (2002) Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šāḫ Ḥamad Zimmern (1901) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion

528

BE BE 6/2

BL BMS BRM BRM 4 CAD CCP CDA CDLI

CH CLBT CT CT 4

CT 8 CT 13 CT 15 CT 21 CT 23 CT 24 CT 25 CT 29 CT 36 CT 37 CT 40 CT 46

Abbreviations

The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania Poebel, A. (1909) Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon chiefly from Nippur Langdon (1913) Babylonian Liturgies King (1896) Babylonian Magic and Sorcery Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan Clay (1923) Epics, Hymns, Omens, and Other Texts The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Volumes 1–21 (1956–2010) Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Yale University. URL: ccp.yale.edu) Black, J., George, A. & Postgate, J. N. (2000) A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd (corrected) printing Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (University of California, Los Angeles; University of Oxford; Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin. URL: cdli.ucla.edu) Codex Hammurapi Thompson, R. C. (1927) A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Pinches, T. G. (1898) Commercial Documents from the Period of the First Dynasty of Babylonia until the Seleucid Period, Late Babylonian Prayers and Incantations Pinches, T. G. (1899) Commercial Documents from the Period of the First Dynasty of Babylon King, L. W. (1901) Mythological Texts (En. el.), Legends of Early Kings King, L. W. (1902a) God-hymns, Fables, Myths (Anzu, Inanna’s Descent, Ea and Atrahasis) King, L. W. (1905) Royal Inscriptions (from Sargon to Samsuiluna) Thompson, R. C. (1906) Medical Prayers and Incantations King, L. W. (1908) God Lists (AN = Anum) King, L. W. (1909) God Lists (AN = Anum) II King, L. W. (1910) Old Babylonian Letters, God Lists Gadd, C. J. (1921) Royal Inscriptions, Sumerian Hymns Smith, S. (1923) Royal Inscriptions, Chronicals, Lexical Texts, Omens Gadd, C. J. (1927) Šumma alu III Lambert, W. G. & Millard, A. R. (1965) Babylonian Literary

Abbreviations

CT 51 CT 54 CT 55 CT 57 CT 58 CTH CTMMA CTMMA 2 CTN CTN 2 CTN 4 EAE ETCSL GAG HES IAS KAI KAL KAL 2 KAL 4 KAL 5 KAL 10

KAR KAV KBo KBo I

529

Texts Walker, C. (1972) Miscellaneous Texts Dietrich, M. (1979) Neo-Babylonian Letters from the Kuyunjik Collection Pinches, T. G. (1982a) Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Economic Texts Pinches, T. G. (1982b) Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Economic Texts Alster, B. & Geller, M. J. (1990) Sumerian Literary Texts Laroche, E. (1971) Catalogue des textes Hittites Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art Spar, I. & Lambert, W. G. (eds.) (2005) Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B. C. Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud Postgate, J. N. (1973) The Governor’s Palace Archive Wiseman, D. J. & Black, J. A. (1996) Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû Enūma Anu Enlil The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (University of Oxford. URL: etcsl.ox.ac.uk) von Soden, W. (1995) Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3., ergänzte Auflage Heidelberger Emesal-Studien Biggs, R. D. (1974) Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh Donner, H. & Röllig, W. (1966) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literatischen Inhalts Schwemer, D. (2007) Ritual und Beschwörungen gegen Schadenzauber Maul, S. M. & Strauß, R. (2011) Ritualbeschreibungen und Gebete I Heeßel, N.P. (2012) Divinatorische Texte II. OpferschauOmina Maul, S. M. (2019) Bannlösung (nam-érim-búr-ru-da). Die Therapie eines auf eidliche Falschaussage zurückgeführten Leidens Ebeling, E. (1915 & 1923) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts 1 & 2 Schröder, O. (1920) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi Figulla, H. H. & Weidner, E. F. (1916) Keilschrifttexte aus

530

LKA LKU MDP MDP 2 MDP 6 MSL MSL 5 MZL OECT OECT 11 OIP OIP 38 PBS PBS 1/2 PNA RIMA RIMA 1 RIMA 2 RIMA 3 RIMB RIME RIME 1 RIME 3/2 RINAP RINAP 1

RINAP 3 RINAP 4 RINAP 5/I

Abbreviations

Boghazköi. Erstes Heft Ebeling, E. (ed.) (1953) Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur Falkenstein, A. (1931) Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk Mémoires, Délégation en Perse Scheil, V. (1900) Textes Élamites-Sémitiques Scheil, V. (1905) Textes Élamites-Sémitiques Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon Landsberger, B. (1957) The Series ḪAR-ra » ḫubullu. Tablets I–IV Borger, R. (2010) Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Zweite, revidierte und aktualisierte Auflage Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts Gurney, O. R. (1989) Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum Oriental Institute Publications Loud, G. (1936) Khorsabad. Part I. Excavations in the Palace and the City Gate University of Pennsylvania, Publications of the Babylonian Section Lutz, H. F. (1919) Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods Grayson, A. K. (1987) Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millenia BC (to 1115 BC) Grayson, A. K. (1991) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC) Grayson, A. K. (1996) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC) Frame, G. (1995) Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC) The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods Frayne, D. R. (2008) Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC) Frayne, D. R. (1997) Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC) The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period Tadmor, H. & Yamada, S. (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC), and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria Grayson, A. K. & Novotny, J. (2012 &2014) The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC) Leichty, E. (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC) Novotny, J. & Jeffers, J. (2018) The Royal Inscriptions of

Abbreviations

RlA RT SAA SAA 1 SAA 2 SAA 3 SAA 4 SAA 6 SAA 7 SAA 8 SAA 9 SAA 10 SAA 11 SAA 12 SAA 13 SAA 14 SBH SLTNi SpTU SpTU 2 SpTU 3 StAT StAT 2 STC STT

531

Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part I Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archeologie égyptiennes et assyriennes State Archives of Assyria Parpola, S. (1987) Letters from Assyria and the West Parpola, S. & Watanabe, K. (1988) Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths Livingstone, A. (1989) Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea Starr, I. (1990) Queries to the Sungod. Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria Kwasman, T. (1991) Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-pileser III through Esarhaddon Fales, F. M. & Postgate, J. N. (1992) Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple Administration Hunger, H. (1992) Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings Parpola, S. (1997) Assyrian Prophecies Parpola, S. (1993) Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars Fales, F. M. & Postgate, J. N. (1995) Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military Administration Kataja, L. & Whiting, R. (1995) Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period Cole, S. W. & Machinist, P. (1998) Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal Mattila, R. (2002) Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II: Assurbanipal through Sîn-šarru-iškun Reisner, G. (1896) Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit Kramer, S. N, (1944) Sumerian Literary Texts from Nippur in the Museum of the Ancient Orient at Istanbul Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk von Weiher, E. (1983) Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil II von Weiher, E. (1988) Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil III Studien zu den Assur-Texten Donbaz, V. & Parpola, S. (2001) Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul King, L. W. (1902b) The Seven Tablets of Creation The Sultantepe Tablets

532

STT I STT II TCL TCL 3 TCL 9 TCL 12 TCL 15 TIM TIM 9 TuM NF

TuM NF 4

UET UET 1 UET 2 UET 4 UET 5 UET 6/1 UET 6/2 UET 6/3 UET 7 VS

VS 1 VS 2

Abbreviations

Gurney, O. R. & Finkelstein, J. J. (1957) The Sultantepe Tablets I Gurney, O. R. & Hulin, P. (1964) The Sultantepe Tablets II Textes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre Thureau-Dangin, F. (1912) Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.) Contenau, G. (1926) Contrats et lettres d’Assyrie et de Babylonie Contenau, G. (1927) Contrats néo-babyloniens: de Téglathphalasar III à Nabonide de Genouillac, H. (1930) Textes religieux sumériens du Louvre I Texts in the Iraq Museum van Dijk, J. (1976) Cuneiform Texts of Varying Content Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung Vorderasiatischen Altertümer im Eigentum der FriedrichSchiller-Universität Jena, Neue Folge Kramer, S. N. & Bernhardt, I. (1967) Sumerischer literarische Texte aus Nippur. Band II: Hymnen, Klagelieder, Weisheitstexte und andere Literaturgattungen Ur Excavations, Texts Gadd, C. J. & Legrain, L. (1928) Royal Inscriptions Burrows, E. (1935) Archaic Texts Figulla, H. H. (1949) Business Documents of the New-Babylonian Period Figulla, H. H. (1953) Letters and Documents of the Old-Babylonian Period Gadd, C. J. & Kramer, S. N. (1963) Literary and Religious Texts. Part One Gadd, C. J. & Kramer, S. N. (1966) Literary and Religious Texts. Part Two Shaffer, A. & Ludwig, M.-C. (2006) Literary and Religious Texts. Part Three Gurney, O. R. (1974) Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin / Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin Messerschmidt, L. & Ungnad, A. (1907) Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Heft I Zimmern, H. (1912) Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit

Abbreviations

VS 17 VS 24 YOS YOS 1 YOS 7 YOS 11 YOS 12

533

van Dijk, J. (1971) Nicht-kanonische Beschwörungen und sonstige literarische Texte van Dijk, J. (1987) Literarische Texte aus Babylon Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts Clay, A. T. (1915) Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection Tremayne, A. (1925) Records from Erech, Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (538–521 B.C.) van Dijk, J., Goetze, A. & Hussey, M. I. (1985) Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals Feigin, S. I. (1979) Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-iluna

Bibliography Abusch, T. (2016) The Magical Ceremony Maqlû. A Critical Edition. Ancient Magic and Divination 10. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Abusch, T. & Schwemer, D. (2011) Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals Volume 1. Ancient Magic and Divination 8/1. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ——— (2016) Corpus of Mesopotamian Anti-Witchcraft Rituals Volume 2. Ancient Magic and Divination 8/2. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Afanasieva, V. (1980) “Vom Gleichgewicht der Toten und der Lebenden. Die Formel sag-AŠ sag-a-na in der sumerischen mythologischen Dichtung.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 70, 161–169. Al-Rawi, F.N.H. & George, A.R. (1991–1992) “Enūma Anu Enlil XIV and Other Early Astronomical Tablets.” Archiv für Orientforschung 38–39, 52–73. Albani, M. (2000) Der eine Gott und die himmlischen Heerscharen. Zur Begründung der Monotheismus im Horizont der Astralisierung der Gottesverständnisses im Alten Orient. Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte 1. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt. Albenda, P. (2008) “Assyrian Royal Hunts: Antlered and Horned Animals from Distant Lands.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 349, 61–78. Allinger-Csollich, W. (2013) “Gedanken über das Aussehen und Funktion einer Ziqqurrat”, in Kaniuth, K., Löhnert, A., Miller, J.L., Otto, A. & Roaf, M. (eds) Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.–13 Oktober 2009, München, 1–18. Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Alster, B. (2004) “Exit Ašimbabbar? The Reading of dAŠ/dili-ím-barbar.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 56, 1–3. ——— (2005) Wisdom of Ancient Sumer. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. Alster, B. & Geller, M.J. (1990) Sumerian Literary Texts. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 58. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Ambos, C. (2013a) Der König im Gefängnis und das Neujahrsfest im Herbst. Mechanismen der Legitimation des babylonischen Herrschers im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. und ihre Geschichte. Dresden: Islet Verlag. ——— (2013b) “Rites of Passage in Ancient Mesopotamia: Changing Status by Moving Through Space: bīt rimki and the Ritual of the Substitute King”, in Ambos, C. & Verderame, L. (eds) Approaching Rituals in Ancient Cultures. Questioni di rito: Rituali come fonte di conoscenza delle religioni e delle concezioni del mondo nelle culture antiche. Proceedings of the Conference, November 28–30, 2011, Roma, 39–54. Rivista degli Studi Orientali Nuova Serie Vol. 86 Supplemento No 2. Pisa; Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. Andersson, J. (2012) Kingship in the Early Mesopotamian Onomasticon 2800– 2200 BCE. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 28. Uppsala: Uppsala Universitet.

Bibliography

535

Andrae, W. (1930) Das Gotteshaus und die Urformen des Bauens im Alten Orient. Cornelius Gurlitt, dem achtzigjährigen Meister der Baukunst-Forschung zum 1. Januar 1930. Studien zur Bauforschung 2. Berlin: Schoetz. ——— (1977) Das wiedererstandene Assur. Zweite, durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. München: C. H. Beck. Archi, A. (1988) “Harran in the III Millenium B.C.” Ugarit-Forschungen 20, 1– 8. ——— (2007) “Transmission of Recitative Literature by the Hittites.” Altorientalische Forschungen 34, 185–203. Aro, J. (1970) Mittelbabylonische Kleidertexte der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena. Sitzungsberichte der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig Philologisch-historische Klasse 115/2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Assmann, J. (1986) “Arbeit am Polytheismus. Die Idee der Einheit Gottes und die Entfaltung des theologischen Diskurses in Ägypten”, in Von Stietencron, H. (ed.) Theologen und Theologien in verschiedenen Kulturkreisen, 46–69. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag. ——— (1991) Ägypten – Theologie und Frömmigkeit einer frühen Hochkultur. 2. Auflage. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Avalos, H. (1995) Illness and Health Care in the Ancient Near East. The Role of the Temple in Greece, Mesopotamia, and Israel. Harvard Semitic Monographs 54. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Avanzini, A. (2005) “Some thoughts on ibex on plinths in early South Arabian art.” Arabian archaeology and epigraphy 16, 144–153. Azarpay, G. & Kilmer, A.D. (1978) “The Eclipse Dragon on an Arabic Frontispiece-Miniature With a Note on the Babylonian Mythological Explanation of the Lunar Eclipse.” Journal of the Amerian Oriental Society 98, 363–374. Bauer, T. (1933) Das Inscriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Keilschrifttexte. Assyriologische Bibliothek Neue Folge 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1936) “Eine Sammlung von Himmelsvorzeichen.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 43, 308–314. Beaulieu, P.-A. (1989) The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. Yale Near Eastern Researches 10. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. ——— (1991) “Neo-Babylonian Larsa: A Preliminary Study.” Orientalia Nova Series 60, 58–81. ——— (1992) “Kissik, Dūru and Udannu.” Orientalia Nova Series 61, 400– 424. ——— (1993a) “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52, 241–261. ——— (1993b) “Prébendiers d’Uruk à Larsa.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 87, 137–152. ——— (1993c) “The Impact of Month-lengths on the Neo-Babylonian Cultic

536

Bibliography

Calendar.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 83, 66–87. ——— (1999) “The Babylonian Man in the Moon.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 51, 91–99. ——— (2003) The Pantheon of Uruk during the Neo-Babylonian Period. Cuneiform Monographs 23. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ——— (2007) “Nabonidus the Mad King: A Reconstruction of His Steles from Harran and Babylon”, in Heinz, M. & Feldman, M.H. (eds) Representations of Political Power. Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East, 137–166. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. Beaulieu, P.-A. & Britton, J.P. (1994) “Rituals for an Eclipse Possibility in the 8th Year of Cyrus.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 46, 73–86. Beckman, G. (1996) Hittite Diplomatic Texts. SBL Writings from the Ancient World Series 7. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Beckman, G. & Foster, B.R. (1988) “Assyrian Scholarly Texts in the Yale Babylonian Collection”, in Leichty, E., Dejong Ellis, M. & Gerardi, P. (eds) A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, 1–26. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. Behrens, H. (1978) Enlil und Ninlil. Ein sumerischer Mythos aus Nippur. Studia Pohl : Series Maior 8. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Berger, P.-R. (1973) Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches (626–539 a. Chr.). Alter Orient und Altes Testament 4/1. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1993) “Imaginäre Astrologie in spätbabylonischer Propaganda”, in Galter, H.D. (ed.) Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens. Beiträge zum 3. Grazer Morgenländischen Symposion (23.–27. September 1991), 275–289. Grazer Morgenländische Studien 3. Graz: rm-Druck- & Verlagsgesellschaft. Berlejung, A. (1998) Die Theologie der Bilder. Herstellung und Einweihung von Kultbildern in Mesopotamien und die alttestamentliche Bilderpolemik. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 162. Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ——— (2004) “Theologie in Babylon? – Theologien in Babylonien!”, in Oeming, M., Schmid, K. & Schüle, A. (eds) Theologie in Israel und in den Nachbarkulturen. Beiträge des Symposiums »Das Alte Testament und die Kultur der Moderne« anlässlich des 100. Geburtstags Gerhard von Rads (1901–1971) Heidelberg, 18.–21. Oktober 2001, 105–124. Altes Testament und Moderne 9. Münster: Lit Verlag. Bernett, M. & Keel, O. (1998) Mond, Stier und Kult am Stadtor. Die Stele von Betsaida (et-Tell). Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 161. Freiburg Schweiz; Göt-

Bibliography

537

tingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bernhardt, I. & Kramer, S.N. (1975) “Die Tempel und Götterschreine von Nippur (Tab. VII–VIII).” Orientalia Nova Series 44, 96–102. Bezold, C. (1888) “Eine assyrische ‘Hemerologie’.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 3, 243–248. ——— (1896) Catalogue of the Cuneiform Tablets in the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. IV. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Bidmead, J. (2004) The Akītu Festival. Religious Continuity and Royal Legitimation in Mesopotamia. Gorgias Dissertations Near Eastern Studies 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. Biggs, R.D. (1967) ŠÀ.ZI.GA. Ancient Mesopotamian Potency Incantations. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 2. Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin Publisher. ——— (1974) Inscriptions from Tell Abū Ṣalābīkh. Oriental Institute Publications 99. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Birot, M. (1993) Correspondance des gouverneurs de Qaṭṭunân. Archives Royales de Mari 27. Paris: Editions Recherce sur les Civilisations. Bisi, A.M. (1963) “Un bassorilievo di Aleppo e l’iconografia del dio Sin.” Oriens Antiquus 2, 215–221. Black, J. (1987) “Sumerian Balag Compositions.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 44, 32–79. Black, J., George, A.R. & Postgate, J.N. (2000) A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. 2nd (corrected) printing. SANTAG 5. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Blocher, F. (2001) “Nachlese zur Ikonographie des Mongottes. Nabonids Stele aus Harran (H1B)”, in Boehmer, R.M. & Maran, J. (eds) Lux Orientis. Archäologie zwischen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann zum 65. Geburtstag, 45–50. Internationale Archäologie Studia honoraria 12. Rahden/Westfalen: M. Leidorf. Böck, B. (2000) Die babylonisch-assyrische Morphoskopie. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 27. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. ——— (2007) Das Handbuch Muššu’u “Einreibung”. Eine Serie sumerischer und akkadischer Beschwörungen aus dem 1. Jt. vor Chr. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 3. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Boehmer, R.M. (1975) “Die neuassyrischen Felsreliefs von Maltai (Nord-Irak).” Jahrbuch des deutschen Archäologischen Instituts und Archäologischen Anzeiger 90, 42–84. ——— (1980–1983) “Kopfbedeckung. B. In der Bildkunst.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6, 203–210. Bongenaar, A.C.V.M. (1997) The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its Prosopography. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 80. Leiden: Nederlands histo-

538

Bibliography

risch-archaeologisch instituut te Istanbul. Bordreuil, P. (1986) Catalogue des sceaux oues-sémitiques inscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, du Musée du Louvre et du Musée biblique de Bible et Terre Sainte. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. Borger, R. (1956) Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 9. Graz: ——— (1965) “Der Aufstieg des neubabylonischen Reiches.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 19, 59–78. ——— (1965) “Marduk-zākir-šumi I. und der Kodex Ḫammurapi.” Orientalia Nova Series 34, 168–169. ——— (1970) “Vier Grenzsteinurkunden Merodachbaladans I. von Babylonien. Der Teheran-Kudurru, SB 33, SB 169 und SB 26.” Archiv für Orientforschung 23, 1–26. ——— (1971) “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten. Zwei prophetische Texte.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 28, 3–24. ——— (1985) “Einige Texte religiösen Inhalts.” Orientalia Nova Series 54, 14– 26. ——— (1990) “Schlüssel zu M. E. Cohen, CLAM.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 47, 5–39. ——— (1991) “Ein Brief Sîn-iddinams von Larsa an den Sonnengott sowie Bemerkungen über ‘Joins’ und das ‘Joinen’.” Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen I. Philologisch-historische Klasse Nr. 2, 39–81. ——— (1996) Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals. Die Prismenklassen A, B, C = K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ——— (1998) “Zum Emesal-Vokabular”, in Dietrich, M. & Loretz, O. (eds) Dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, 17–37. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 253. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2000) “Šurpu II, III, IV und VIII in ‘Partitur’”, in George, A.R. & Finkel, I.L. (eds) Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, 15–90. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2010) Mesopotamisches Zeichenlexikon. Zweite, revidierte und aktualisierte Auflage. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 305. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Börker-Klähn, J. (1982) Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs. Baghdader Forschungen 4. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Bram, J.R. (1987) “Moon”, in Eliade, M. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Religion 10, 83– 91. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Braun-Holzinger, E.A. (1993) “Die Ikonographie des Mondgottes in der Glyptik der III. Jahrtausends v. Chr.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasi-

Bibliography

539

atische Archäologie 83, 119–135. Brinkman, J.A. (1965) “Ur: 721–605 B.C.” Orientalia Nova Series 34, 241–258. ——— (1969) “Ur: “The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings”.” Orientalia Nova Series 38, 310–348. ——— (1984) Prelude to Empire. Babylonian Society and Politics, 747–626 B.C. Occasional Publications of the Babylonian Fund 7. Philadelphia: The Babylonian Fund. Britton, J.P. & Walker, C. (1996) “Astronomy and Astrology in Mesopotamia”, in Walker, C. (ed.) Astronomy before the Telescope, 42–67. London: British Museum Press. Brown, D. (2000) Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology. Cuneiform Monographs 18. Groningen: Styx Publications. Brown, D. & Linssen, M. (1997) “BM 134701=1965-10-14,1 and the Hellenistic Period Eclipse Ritual from Uruk.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 91, 147–166. Buchanan, B. (1966) Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Volume I. Cylinder Seals. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Burrows, E. (1924) “Hymn to Ninurta as Sirius (K 128).” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Centenary Supplement, 33–40. ——— (1935) Archaic Texts. Ur Excavations, Texts 2. London: Trustees of the Two Museums. Butler, S.A.L. (1998) Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 258. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Cagni, L. (1969) L’epopea di Erra. Studi semitici 34. Roma: Istituto di studi del Vicino Oriente Università di Roma. ——— (1977) The Poem of Erra. Sources and Monographs on the Ancient Near East 1/3. Malibu: Undena Publications. Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. (1995) “Konzeption und Legitimation von Herrschaft in neuassyrischer Zeit. Mythos und Ritual in VS 24, 92.” Die Welt des Orients 26, 5–20. Caplice, R. (1973) “É.NUN in Mesopotamian Literature.” Orientalia Nova Series 42, 299–305. Casaburi, M.C. (2002–2005) “Early Evidences of Astrological Aspects in a NeoAssyrian Medical Hemerology.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 15, 63– 88. ——— (2003) Ūmē ṭābūti “I giorni favorevoli”. History of the Ancient Near East Studies 8. Padova: S.a.r.g.o.n. Editrice e Libreria. Cassin, E. (1968) La splendeur divine : introduction à l’étude de la mentalité mésopotamienne. Civilisations et sociétés 8. Paris; La Haye: Mouton. ——— (1987) Le semblable et le différent. Symbolismes du pouvoir dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Textes à l’appui Paris: Éditions la découverte. Castellino, G.R. (1972) Two Šulgi Hymns (BC). Studi semitici 42. Roma: Istituto

540

Bibliography

di studi del vicino Oriente Università di Roma. Cavigneaux, A. (1981) Textes scolaires du temple de Nabû ša harê. Texts from Babylon 1. Baghdad: State Organization of Antiquities & Heritage. ——— (1987) “Aux sources du Midrash: l’herméneutique babylonienne.” Aula Orientalis 5, 243–255. ——— (1995) “Máš-ḫul-dúb-ba”, in Finkbeiner, U., Dittmann, R. & Hauptmann, H. (eds) Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, 53–67. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. Cavigneaux, A. & Al-Rawi, F.N.H. (1994) “Charmes de Sippar et de Nippur”, in Gasche, H., Tanret, M., Janssen, C. & Degraeve, A. (eds) Cinquante-deux reflexions sur le Proche-orient ancien offertes an hommage à Léon De Meyer, 73–89. Mesopotamian History and Environment Occasional Publications 2. Leuven: Peeters. ——— (1995) “Textes Magiques de Tell Haddad (Textes de Tell Haddad II). Troisième partie.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 85, 169–220. Cavigneaux, A. & Krebernik, M. (2000a) “Nin-e’igara.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 348. ——— (2000b) “Nin-gublaga.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 374–376. ——— (2001) “Nin-Urima.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 511. Charpin, D. (1978) “Recherces sur la « Dynastie de Mananâ » (I) : Essai de localisation et de chronologie.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 72, 13–40. ——— (1986) Le clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe–XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.). Hautes études orientales 22. Genève; Paris: Librairie Droz. Civil, M. (1974) “Medical Commentaries from Nippur.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, 329–338. Clay, A.T. (1915) Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection. Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts 1. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. ——— (1923) Epics, Hymns, Omens, and Other Texts. Babylonian Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan 4. New Haven, Conneticut: Yale University Press. Cohen, M.E. (1981) Sumerian Hymnology: The Eršemma. Hebrew Union College Annual Supplements 2. Cincinnati: ——— (1988) The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. Potomac, Maryland: Capital Decisions Limited. ——— (1993) The Cultic Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. ——— (1996) “The Sun, the Moon and the City of Ur”, in Berlin, A. (ed.) Reli-

Bibliography

541

gion and Politics in the Ancient Near East, 19–37. Studies in Jewish History and Culture. Bethesda: University Press of Maryland. ——— (2015) Festivals and Calendars of the Ancient Near East. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. ——— (2017) New Treasures of Sumerian Literature. “When the Moon Fell from the Sky” and Other Works. Bethesda, Md.: CDL Press. Cohen, M.E. & Krebernik, M. (2007) “Sadar(a)nunna, Sadir(i)nuna.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11, 481–483. Colbow, G. (1997) “More Insights into Representations of the Moon God in the Third and Second Millennium B.C.”, in Finkel, I.L. & Geller, M.J. (eds) Sumerian Gods and their Representations, 19–31. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen: Styx Publications. Cole, S.W. & Machinist, P. (1998) Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. State Archives of Assyria 13. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Collon, D. (1992) “The Near Eastern Moon God”, in Meijer, D.J.W. (ed.) Natural Phenomena. Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East, 19–37. Amsterdam; Oxford; New York; Tokio: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. ——— (1995) “Mondgott. B. In der Bildkunst.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, 371–376. ——— (1997) “Moon, Boats and Battle”, in Finkel, I.L. & Geller, M.J. (eds) Sumerian Gods and their Representations, 11–17. Cuneiform Monographs 7. Groningen: Styx Publications. ——— (2001) Cylinder Seals V. Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Periods. Catalogue of Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum London: The British Museum Press. ——— (2007) “Iconographic Evidence for Some Mesopotamian Cult Statues”, in Groneberg, B. & Spieckermann, H. (eds) Die Welt der Götterbilder, 57– 84. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 376. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter. Combe, E. (1908) Histoire du culte de Sin en Babylonie et en Assyrie. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Contenau, G. (1926) Contrats et lettres d’Assyrie et de Babylonie: contrats de Kerkouk, contrats kassites, contrats et lettres d’Assyrie, lettres néo-babyloniennes. Textes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre 9. Paris: Paul Geuthner. ——— (1927) Contrats néo-babyloniens: de Téglath-phalasar III à Nabonide. Textes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre 12. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Cooley, J.L. (2013) Poetic Astronomy in the Ancient Near East. The Reflexes of Celestial Science in Ancient Mesopotamian, Ugaritic, and Israelite Narrative. History, Archaeology, and Culture of the Levant 5. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

542

Bibliography

Cooper, J.S. (1972) “Bilinguals from Boghazköi II.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 62, 62–81. ——— (1978) The Return of Ninurta to Nippur (an-gim dím-ma). Analecta Orientalia 52. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. ——— (1980) “Review of Hermann Behrens, Enlil und Ninlil: Ein sumerischer Mythos aus Nippur.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 32, 175–188. Couto-Ferreira, M.E. (2013) “The River, the Oven, the Garden: the Female Body and Fertility in a Late Babylonian Ritual Text”, in Ambos, C. & Verderame, L. (eds) Approaching Rituals in Ancient Cultures. Questioni di rito: Rituali come fonte di conoscenza delle religioni e delle concezioni del mondo nelle culture antiche. Proceedings of the Conference, November 28– 30, 2011, Roma, 97–116. Rivista degli Studi Orientali Nuova Serie Vol. 86 Supplemento No 2. Pisa; Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. ——— (2014) “She will give birth easily: therapeutic approaches to childbirth in 1st millennium BCE cuneiform sources.” Dynamis 34, 289–315. Craig, J.A. (1895) Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts. Vol. I. Assyriologische Bibliothek 13/1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1897) Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts. Vol. II. Assyriologische Bibliothek 13/2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Crawford, H. (2015) Ur. The City of the Moon God. Archeological Histories London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury. Curtis, J.E. & Reade, J.E. (eds) (1995) Art and Empire. Treasures from Assyria in the British Museum. London: British Museum Press. Cutler, W.B., Schleidt, W.M., Friedmann, E., Preti, G. & Stine, R. (1987) “Lunar Influences on the Reproductive Cycle in Women.” Human Biology 59, 959– 972. D’agostino, F. (1994) Nabonedo, Adda Guppi, il deserto e il dio Luna. Storia, ideologia e propaganda nella Babilonia del VI sec. a.C. Quaderni di orientalistica 2. Pisa: Giardini. Da Riva, R. (2008) The Neo-Babylonian Royal Inscriptions. An Introduction. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 4. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2010) “Dynastic Gods and Favourite Gods in the Neo-Babylonian Period”, in Lanfranchi, G.B. & Rollinger, R. (eds) Concepts of Kingship in Antiquity. Proceedings of the European Science Foundation Exploratory Workshop held in Padova, November 28th–December 1st, 2007, 45–61. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 11. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria. ——— (2012) The Twin Inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar at Brisa (Wadi eshSharbin, Lebanon). A Historical and Philological Study. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 32. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. ——— (2013) The Inscriptions of Nabopolassar, Amēl-Marduk and Neriglissar. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 3. Boston; Berlin: de Gruyter.

Bibliography

543

Dahl, J.L. (2011) “The Statue of Nin-e’iga”, in Barjamovic, G., Dahl, J.L., Koch, U.S., Sommerfeld, W. & Westenholz, J.G. (eds) Akkade is King. A Collection of Papers by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday 15th of May 2009, 55–65. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten 118. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Dalley, S. (1997) “Statues of Marduk and the date of Enūma eliš.” Altorientalische Forschungen 24, 163–171. De Genouillac, H. (1930) Textes religieux sumériens du Louvre I. Textes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre 15. Paris: Paul Geuthner. De Graeve, M.-C. (1981) The Ships of the Ancient Mesopotamia (c. 2000–500 B.C.). Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 7. Leuven: Departement oriëtalistiek. De Meyer, L. (1982) “Deux prières ikribu du temps d’Ammī-ṣaduqa”, in Van Driel, G., Krispijn, T.J.H., Stol, M. & Veenhof, K.R. (eds) Zikir šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 271–278. Leiden: E. J. Brill. De Zorzi, N. (2014) La serie teratomantica šumma izbu. Testo, tradizione, orizzonti culturali. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 15/1–2. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria. Dekiere, L. (1994) Old Babylonian Real Estate Documents. Mesopotamian History and Environment Texts 2. Ghent: University of Ghent. Deller, K. (1965) “Review of de Vaux, O. P.: Les Sacrifices de l’Ancien Testament.” Orientalia Nova Series 34, 382–386. Deller, K., Fales, F.M. & Jakob-Rost, L. (1995) “Neo-Assyrian Texts from Assur. Private Archives in the Vorderasiatisches Museum of Berlin.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 9, 3–137. Dhorme, É.P. (1908) “Recension: Pognon, Inscriptions sémitiques de la Syrie, de la Mésopotamie et se la région de Mossoul.” Revue biblique 5, 130–135. ——— (1928a) “Abraham dans le cadre de l’histoire.” Revue biblique 37, 367– 385; 481. ——— (1928b) “Les tablettes babyloniennes de Neirab.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 25, 53–82. ——— (1947) “La mère de Nabonide.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 41, 1–21. Dietrich, M. (1970) Die Aramäer Südbabyloniens in der Sargonidenzeit (700– 648). Alter Orient und Altes Testament 7. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1979) Neo-Babylonian Letters from the Kuyunjik Collection. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 54. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Dole, G.F. & Moran, W.L. (1991) “A Bowl of alallu-stone.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 81, 268–273.

544

Bibliography

Dombardi, E. (1996) Die Darstellung des Rechtsaustrags in den altbabylonischen Prozessurkunden. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 20/1–2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Donbaz, V. (1987) “Deux nouvelles Inscriptions de Nabonide, roi de Babylone.” Anatolia Antiqua Eski Anadolu 1, 15–21. ——— (1990) “Two Neo-Assyrian Stelae in the Antakya and Kahramanmaraș Museums.” Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 8, 5–24. ——— (1993) “Writing of SUEN in OA.” N.A.B.U. 1993, 4–5. Donbaz, V. & Parpola, S. (2001) Neo-Assyrian Legal Texts in Istanbul. Studien zu den Assur-Texten 2. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Donner, H. & Röllig, W. (1966) Kanaanäische und aramäische Inschriften. Band I: Texte. Zweite, durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Dossin, G. (1939) “Benjaminites dans les textes de Mari”, in Mélanges Syriens offerts a monsieur René Dussaud, 981–996. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Drewnowska-Rymarz, O. (2008) Mesopotamian goddess Nanāja. Warszawa: Agade. Drijvers, H.J.W. (1980) Cults and Beliefs at Edessa. Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire Romain 82. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Dunham, S. (1985) “The Monkey in the Middle.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 75, 234–264. Durand, J.-M. (1982) Documents cunéiformes de la IVe Section de l’Ecole pratique des Hautes Études. Tome I. Catalogue et copies cunéiformes. Genève; Paris: Librairie Droz. ——— (1988) Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. Archives royales de Mari 26/1. Paris: Ed. Recherche sur les Civilisations. Ebeling, E. (1915) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts 1. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 28. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1918) Quellen zur Kenntnis des babylonischen Religion I. Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft 23 (1). Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1920) “Religiöse Texte aus Assur.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 74, 175–191. ——— (1923) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts 2. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 34. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1923) “Keilschrifttexte medizinischen Inhalts IV.” Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 14, 65–78. ——— (1931a) Aus dem Tagewerk eines assyrischen Zauberpriesters. Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft 5 (3). Leipzig: Harrassowitz. ——— (1931b) Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier. Berlin;

Bibliography

545

Leipzig: De Gruyter. ——— (1932) “Annunitu.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1, 110–111. ——— (1938a) “Egipar.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2, 279. ——— (1938b) “Ekišširgal.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2, 322. ——— (1948) “Ein Gebet an einen ‘verfinsterten Gott’ aus neuassyrischer Zeit.” Orientalia Nova Series 17, 416–422. ——— (1949) “Beschwörungen gegen den Feind und den bösen Blick aus dem Zweistromlande.” Archiv orientální 17, 171–211. ——— (1952) “Kultische Texte aus Assur (Fortsetzung).” Orientalia Nova Series 21, 129–148. ——— (1953a) Die akkadische Gebetsserie “Handerhebung”. Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin Institut für Orientforschung Veröffentlichung 20. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ——— (1953b) “Sammlungen von Beschwörungsformeln teils in sumerischakkadischer, teils in sumerischer oder akkadischer Sprache.” Archiv orientální 21, 357–423. ——— (1954a) “Ein Hymnus auf Suprematie des Sonnengottes in Exemplaren aus Assur und Boghazköi.” Orientalia Nova Series 23, 209–216. ——— (1954b) “Kultische Texte aus Assur (Fortsetzung).” Orientalia Nova Series 23, 114–128. Ebeling, E., Köcher, F. & Rost, L. (1953) Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Assur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Edzard, D.O. (1976–1980) “Ki’abrig.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5, 586. ——— (2000) “Nindar(a).” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 338. Edzard, D.O. (1965) “Mesopotamien. Die Mythologie der Sumerer und Akkader”, in Haussig, H.W. (ed.) Götter und Mythen im Vorderen Orient, 17–140. Wörterbuch der Mythologie 1. Stuttgart: Ernst Klett. Elat, M. (1982) “Mesopotamische Kriegsrituale.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 39, 5– 25. Ellis, R.S. (1968) Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. Yale Near Eastern Researches 2. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Fadhil, A. (2018) “IM 148516 – Ein neues Abwehrzauberritual vor dem Mondgott.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 108, 192–202. Faist, B. (2012) “Zur Funktion von Strafe und Strafandrohung in den neuassyrischen Rechtsurkunden”, in Rollinger, R., Lang, M. & Barta, H. (eds) Strafe und Strafrecht in den antiken Welten. Unter Berücksichtigung von Todes-

546

Bibliography

strafe, Hinrichtung und peinlicher Befragung, 203–213. Philippika 51. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ——— (2015) “Der Eid im neuassyrischen Gerichtsverfahren”, in Barta, H., Lang, M. & Rollinger, R. (eds) Prozessrecht und Eid. Recht und Rechtsfindung in antiken Kulturen. Teil 1, 63–78. Philippika 86,1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Fales, F.M. (1973) Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assira. Studi economici e tecnologici 2. Roma: Centro per le antichità e la storia dell’arte del Vicino Oriente. ——— (1979) “Harran: fonti e problematica per l’età preamorrea”, in Fales, F.M. (ed.) Studi su Harran, 12–41. Quaderni del Seminario di Iranistica, Uralo-Altaistica e Caucasologie dell’Università degli Studi di Venezia 6. ——— (1998) “Templi e luoghi di culto del dio lunare in alta Mesopotamia”, in Archeoastronomia, credenze e religioni nel mondo antico (Roma, 14–15 maggio 1997), 215–237. Atti dei convegni Lincei 141. Roma: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Fales, F.M. & Postgate, J.N. (1992) Imperial Administrative Records, Part I: Palace and Temple Administration. State Archives of Assyria 7. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ——— (1995) Imperial Administrative Records, Part II: Provincial and Military Administration. State Archives of Assyria 11. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Fales, F.M., Radner, K., Pappi, C. & Attardo, E. (2005) “The Assyrian and Aramaic Texts from Tell Shiukh Fawqani”, in Bachelot, L. & Fales, F.M. (eds) Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994–1998, 595–694. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 6/2. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e libreria. Falkenstein, A. (1931) Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Falkenstein, A. & Von Soden, W. (1953) Sumerische und akkadische Hymnen und Gebete. Die Bibliothek der alten Welt Zürich; Stuttgart: Artemis Verlag. Farber, W. (1977) Beschörungsrituale an Ištar und Dumuzi. Attī Ištar ša ḫarmaša Dumuzi. Akademie der Wisseschaften und der Literatur Veröffentlichungen der orientalischen Komission 30. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. ——— (1980–1983) “Lamaštu.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6, 439–446. ——— (1987) “Ritual und Beschwörungen in akkadischer Sprache”, in Farber, W., Kümmel, H.M. & Römer, W.H.P. (eds) Religiöse Texte. Ritual und Beschwörungen I, 212–281. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments 2. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn. ——— (1989) Schlaf, Kindchen, schlaf! Mesopotamische Baby-Beschwörungen und -Rituale. Mesopotamian Civilizations 2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2007) “Lamaštu — Agent of a Specific Disease or a Generic Destroyer

Bibliography

547

of Health?”, in Finkel, I.L. & Geller, M.J. (eds) Disease in Babylonia, 137– 145. Cuneiform Monographs 36. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ——— (2014) Lamaštu. An Edition of the Canonical Series of Lamaštu Incantations and Rituals and Related Texts from the Second and First Millennia B.C. Mesopotamian Civilizations 17. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Feder, Y. (2014) “The Semantics of Purity in the Ancient Near East: Lexical Meaning as a Projection of Embodied Experience.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 14, 87–113. Feigin, S.I. (1979) Legal and Administrative Texts of the Reign of Samsu-iluna. Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts 12. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Feliu, L. (2006) “Concerning the Etymology of Enlil: the An=Anum Approach”, in Del Olmo Lete, G., Feliu, L. & Albà, A.M. (eds) Šapal tibnim mû illakū. Studies Presented to Joaquín Sanmartín on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, 229–246. Aula Orientalis Supplementa. Barcelona: Editorial Ausa. Ferrara, A.J. (1973) Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nippur. Studia Pohl : Series Maior 2. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Figulla, H.H. (1949) Business Documents of the New-Babylonian Period. Ur Excavations, Texts 4. London: Trustees of the Two Museums. ——— (1953) Letters and Documents of the Old-Babylonian Period. Ur Excavations, Texts 5. London: Trustees of the Two Museums. ——— (1953a) “Accounts concerning Allocation of Provisions for Offerings in the Ningal-Temple at Ur.” Iraq 15, 88–122. ——— (1953b) “Accounts concerning Allocations of Provisions for Offerings in the Ningal-Temple at Ur (Continued).” Iraq 15, 171–192. Figulla, H.H. & Weidner, E.F. (1916) Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi. Erstes Heft. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 30. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Fincke, J.C. (2000) Augenleiden nach keilschriftlichen Quellen. Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Medizin. Würzburger medizinhistorische Forschungen 70. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. ——— (2009) “Ist die mesopotamische Opferschau ein nächtlisches Ritual?” Bibliotheca Orientalis 66, 519–558. Finkel, I.L. (1988) “Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kīn-apli, and the Series SA.GIG”, in Leichty, E., Dejong Ellis, M. & Gerardi, P. (eds) A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, 143–159. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 9. Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. ——— (2014) The Ark before Noah. Decoding the Story of the Flood. New York; London; Toronto; Sydney; Auckland: Nan A. Talese; Doubleday. Finkelstein, J.J. (1957) “Assyrian Contracts from Sultantepe.” Anatolian Studies 7, 137–145.

548

Bibliography

Flückiger-Hawker, E. (1999) Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 166. Fribourg; Göttingen: University Fribourg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Focke, K. (1999–2000) “Die Göttin Ninimma.” Archiv für Orientforschung 46– 47, 92–110. ——— (2000) “Nin-imma.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 384–386. Foster, B.R. (2005) Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd Edition. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. Foster, R.G. & Roenneberg, T. (2008) “Human Responses to the Geophysical Daily, Annual and Lunar Cycles. Review.” Current Biology 18, R784–R794. Frahm, E. (1997) Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 26. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. ——— (1998) “Sanherib und die Tempel von Kuyunjik”, in Maul, S.M. (ed.) tikip santakki mala bašmu… Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994, 107–121. Cuneiform Monographs 10. Groningen: Styx Publications. ——— (2000–2001) “Wie ‘christlich’ war die assyrische Religion? Anmerkungen zu Simo Parpolas Edition der assyrischen Prophetien.” Die Welt des Orients 31, 31–45. ——— (2005) “Observations on the Name and Age of Sargon II and on Some Patterns of Assyrian Royal Onomastics.” N.A.B.U. 2005, 46–50. ——— (2009) “Sanherib.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, 12–22. ——— (2010a) “Hochverrat in Assur”, in Maul, S.M. & Heeßel, N.P. (eds) Assur-Forschungen. Arbeiten aus der Forschungstelle »Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur« der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 89–137. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——— (2011) Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpretation. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5. Münster: UgaritVerlag. ——— (2013a) “A Sculpted Slab with an Inscription of Sargon II Mentioning the Rebellion of Yau-bi’di of Hamath.” Altorientalische Forschungen 40, 42–54. ——— (2013b) “Rising Suns and Falling Stars: Assyrian Kings and the Cosmos”, in Hill, J.A. (ed.) Experiencing Power, Generating Authority. Cosmos, Politics, and the Ideology of Kingship in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, 97–120. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. ——— (2014) “Family Matters: Psychohistorical Reflections on Sennacherib and His Times”, in Kalimi, I. & Richardson, S. (eds) Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem. Story, History and Historiography, 163–222. Culture

Bibliography

549

and History of the Ancient Near East 71. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Frahm, E., Frazer, M. & Jiménez, E. (2013) “Commentary on Enūma Anu Enlil 63(64)–64(65) (CCP 3.1.63.E).” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., Frazer, M. & Wagensonner, K.); accessed 22.08.2018, at https://ccp.yale.edu/P238193. DOI: 10079/6q57411. Frame, G. (1992) Babylonia 689–627 B.C. A Political History. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 69. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. ——— (1995) Rulers of Babylonia from the Second Dynasty of Isin to the End of Assyrian Domination (1157–612 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Babylonian Periods. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Frank, C. (1933) “Die Anu-Hymne AO 6494 (TU Nr. 53).” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 41, 193–199. Frankena, R. (1954) Tākultu, de sacrale maaltijd in het assyrische ritueel : met een overzicht over de in Assur vereerde goden. Commentationes orientales 2. Leiden: Brill. ——— (1957–1971) “Gula. A. Nach Texten.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 695–697. ——— (1973) “Einige Bemerkungen zu den Hauptpersonen der LagabaTafeln”, in Beek, M.A., Kampman, A.A., Nijland, C. & Ryckmans, J. (eds) Symbolae biblicae et mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl dedicatae, 149–160. Leiden: Brill. Franklin, J.C. (2015) Kinyras. The Divine Lyre. Hellenic Studies 70. Washington, D. C.: Center for Hellenic Studies. Frayne, D.R. (1997) Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods 3/2. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. ——— (2008) Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods 1. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Frechette, C.G. (2008) “Reconsidering ŠU.IL2.LA(2) as a Classifier of the āšipu in Light of the Iconography of Reciprocal Hand-lifting Gestures”, in Biggs, R.D., Myers, J. & Roth, M.T. (eds) Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique International Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005, 41–47. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62. Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ——— (2012) Mesopotamian Ritual-prayers of “Hand-lifting” (Akkadian Šuillas). An Investigation of Function in Light of the Idiomatic Meaning of the Rubric. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 379. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Freedman, S. (2006) “BM 129092: A Commentary on Snake Omens”, in Guinan, A.K., Ellis, M.D., Ferrara, A.J., Freedman, S.M., Rutz, M.T., Sassmannshausen, L., Tinney, S. & Waters, M.W. (eds) If a Man Builds a Joyful House:

550

Bibliography

Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty, 149–166. Cuneiform Monographs 31. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Friberg, J., Hunger, H. & Al-Rawi, F.N.H. (1990) “‘Seeds and Reeds’. A Metromathematical Topic Text from Late Babylonian Uruk.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 21, 483–557. Fuchs, A. (1994) Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad. Göttingen: Cuvillier. Gabbay, U. (2014a) Pacifying the Hearts of the Gods. Sumerian Emesal Prayers of the First Millennium BCE. Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ——— (2014b) “The kalû Priest and kalûtu Literature in Assyria.” Orient 49, 115–144. ——— (2015a) The Eršema Prayers of the First Millennium BC. Heidelberger Emesal-Studien 2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ——— (2015b) “Commentary on Therapeutic (én munus ù-tu-ud-da-a-ni) (CCP 4.2.A.b).” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., Frazer, M. & Wagensonner, K.); accessed 22.08.2018, at https://ccp.yale.edu/ P346934. DOI: 10079/d2547s7. ——— (2016) The Exegetical Terminology of Akkadian Commentaries. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 82. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Gadd, C.J. (1921) Royal Inscriptions, Sumerian Hymns. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 36. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1927) Šumma alu III. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 40. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1929) History and Monuments of Ur. London: Chatto & Windus. ——— (1958) “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus.” Anatolian Studies 8, 35–92. Gadd, C.J. & Kramer, S.N. (1963) Literary and Religious Texts. Part One. Ur Excavations, Texts 6/1. London: Trustees of the Two Museums. ——— (1966) Literary and Religious Texts. Part Two. Ur Excavations, Texts 6/2. London: Trustees of the Two Museums. Gadd, C.J. & Legrain, L. (1928) Royal Inscriptions. Ur Excavations, Texts 1. London: Trustees of the Two Museums. Galter, H.D. (1983) Der Gott Ea/Enki in der akkadischen Überlieferung. Eine Bestandsaufnahme des vorhandenen Materials. Dissertationen der KarlFranzens-Universität Graz 58. Graz: dbv-Verlag. Gansten, M. (2009) “Navagrahas”, in Jacobsen, K.A. (ed.) Regions, Pilgrimage, Deities, 647–653. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism 1. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Gaspa, S. (2012) Alimenti e pratiche alimentari in Assiria: le materie alimentari nel culto ufficiale dell’Assiria del primo millennio a.C. History of the Ancient Near East Monographs 13. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice e Libreria.

Bibliography

551

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books. Geller, M.J. (2000) “Fragments of Magic, Medicine, and Mythology from Nimrud.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 63, 331–339. ——— (2005) “Nos. 25–29: Documents of the Incantation Priest”, in Spar, I. & Lambert, W.G. (eds) Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B. C, 134–154. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art. ——— (2007) Evil Demons. Canonical Utukkū Lemnūtu Incantations. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 5. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. ——— (2012) “Tabu.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 13, 394–395. ——— (2016) Healing Magic and Evil Demons. Canonical Udug-hul Incantations. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 8. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter. George, A.R. (1987) “A Neo-Assyrian Literary Text.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 1, 31–41. ——— (1990) “Review of Gurney, O. R. Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 80, 155–160. ——— (1992) Babylonian Topographical Texts. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40. Leuven: Departement oriëntalistiek; Peeters. ——— (1993) House Most High. The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. Mesopotamian Civilizations 5. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (1995) “The Bricks of E-sagil.” Iraq 57, 173–197. ——— (1997) “Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur in Babylon.” Orientalia Nova Series 66, 65–70. ——— (2000) “Four Temple Rituals from Babylon”, in George, A.R. & Finkel, I.L. (eds) Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W. G. Lambert, 259–299. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2003) The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2009) Babylonian Literary Texts in the Schøyen Collection. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 10. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. ——— (2015) “The Gods Išum and Ḫendursanga: Night Watchmen and Streetlighting in Babylonia.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 74, 1–8. Gödecken, K.B. (1973) “Bemerkungen zur Göttin Annunītum.” UgaritForschungen 5, 141–163. Goetze, A. (1948) “Texts and Fragments.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2, 305– 308.

552

Bibliography

——— (1965) “An Inscription of Simbar-Šīḫu.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 19, 121–135. ——— (1968) “An Old Babylonian Prayer of the Divination Priest.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 22, 25–29. Gordon, C.H. (1952) Smith College Tablets. 110 Cuneiform Texts Selected from the College Collection. Smith College Studies in History 38. Northhampton, Massachusetts: Department of History of Smith College. Grayson, A.K. (1972) “Cylinder C of Sîn-šarra-iškun, a New Text from Baghdad”, in Wevers, J.W. & Redford, D.B. (eds) Studies on the Ancient Palestinian World. Presented to Professor F. V. Winnet on the occasion of his retirement 1 July 1971, 157–168. Toronto Semitic Texts and Studies. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ——— (1975) Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5. Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin. ——— (1980–1983) “Königslisten und Chroniken. B. Akkadisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 6, 86–135. ——— (1981) “Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: Literary Characteristics”, in Fales, F.M. (ed.) Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in literary, ideological, and historical analysis. Papers of a Symposium held in Cetona (Siena) June 26–28, 1980, 35–47. Orientis antiqvi collectio 17. Roma: Istituto per l’Oriente. ——— (1987) Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millenia BC (to 1115 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 1. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. ——— (1991) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 2. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. ——— (1996) Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC II (858–745 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Assyrian Periods 3. Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press. Grayson, A.K. & Novotny, J.R. (2012) The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1. The Royal Inscriptions of the NeoAssyrian Period 3/1. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2014) The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 2. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/2. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Green, T.M. (1992) The City of the Moon God. Religious Traditions of Harran. Religions of the Graeco-Roman World 114. Leiden; New York; Köln: E. J. Brill. ——— (1996) “The Presence of the Goddess in Harran”, in Lane, E.N. (ed.) Cybele, Attis and Related Cults. Essays in Memory of M. J. Vermaseren, 87– 100. Religions of the Graeco-Roman World 131. Leiden; New York; Köln: E.

Bibliography

553

J. Brill. Groneberg, B. (1987) Syntax, Morphologie und Stil der jungbabylonischen “hymnischen” Literatur. Teil 2. Belegesammlung und Textkatalog. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 14/2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Groß, M. (2014) “Ḫarrān als kulturelles Zentrum in der altorientalischen Gesichte und sein Weiterleben”, in Müller-Funk, L., Procházka, S., Selz, G.J. & Telič, A. (eds) Kulturelle Schnittstelle. Mesopotamien, Anatolien, Kurdistan. Geschichte, Sprachen, Gegenwart, 139–154. Vienna: Institut für Orientalistik. Guinan, A.K. (2002) “A Severed Head Laughed: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation”, in Ciraolo, L. & Seidel, J. (eds) Magic and Divination in the Ancient World, 7–40. Ancient Magic and Divination 2. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill; Styx. Gurney, O.R. (1953) “The Sultantepe Tablets.” Anatolian Studies 3, 15–25. ——— (1974) Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts. Ur Excavations, Texts 7. London: British Museum Publications. ——— (1989) Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 11. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Gurney, O.R. & Finkelstein, J.J. (1957) The Sultantepe Tablets I. Occasional Publications of the British Institute at Ankara 3. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. Gurney, O.R. & Hulin, P. (1964) The Sultantepe Tablets II. Occasional Publications of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara 7. London: The British Institute of Archaeology. Gurney, O.R., Meier, G. & Weidner, E.F. (1936–1937) “Keilschrifttexte nach Kopien von T. G. Pinches. Aus dem Nachlass veröffentlicht und bearbeitet.” Archiv für Orientforschung 11, 358–369. Hall, H.R. & Woolley, C.L. (1927) Al-‘Ubaid. Ur Excavations 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hall, M.G. (1985) A Study of the Sumerian Moon-god, Nanna/Suen. PhD Dissertation, Oriental Studies. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania. ——— (1986) “A Hymn to the Moon-God, Nanna.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38, 152–166. Haller, A. & Andrae, W. (1955) Die Heiligtümer des Gottes Assur und der SinŠamaš-Tempel in Assur. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 67. Berlin: Verlag Gebr. Mann. Hallo, W.W. (1977) “New Moons and Sabbaths: A Case-study in the Contrastive Approach.” Hebrew Union College Annual 48, 1–18. ——— (1982) “The Royal Correspondence of Larsa: II. The Appeal to Utu”, in Van Driel, G., Krispijn, T.J.H., Stol, M. & Veenhof, K.R. (eds) Zikir šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday, 95–109. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

554

Bibliography

Harper, R.F. (1892–1914) Assyrian and Babylonian Letters, Volumes 1–14. London; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Harrak, A. (1987) Assyria and Hanigalbat. A Historical Reconstruction of Bilateral Relations from the Middle of the Fourteenth to the End of the Twelft Centuries B. C. Texte und Studien zur Orientalistik 4. Hildesheim; Zürich; New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Harris, R. (1975) Ancient Sippar. A Demographic Study of an Old Babylonian City (1894–1595 B.C.). Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 36. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Hätinen, A. (2017) “‘I am a fully laden boat!’ A Mesopotamian Metaphor Revisited.” Kaskal. Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 14, 169–186. ——— (2019) “Sippar meets Kuyunjik: Join of BM 68458 and K. 11550.” N.A.B.U. 2019, no. 76. ——— (2020) “Fragmente des Kompendiums MUL.APIN und ein astrologischastronomischer Kommentar aus Assur”, in Maul, S.M. (ed.) Assur-Forschungen 2. Arbeiten aus der Forschungstelle »Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur« der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 109–169. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hätinen, A. & Schaudig, H. (forthcoming) Literarische Keilschrifttexte verschiedenen Inhalts. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts. Heeßel, N.P. (2000) Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 43. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2004) “Diagnosis, Divination and Disease: Towards an Understanding of the Rationale behind the Babylonian Diagnostic Handbook”, in Horstmanshoff, H.F.J. & Stol, M. (eds) Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine, 97–116. Studies in Ancient Medicine. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ——— (2007) “The Hands of the Gods: Disease Names, and Divine Anger”, in Finkel, I.L. & Geller, M.J. (eds) Disease in Babylonia, 120–130. Cuneiform Monographs 36. Leiden: Boston: Brill. ——— (2010) “Neues von Esagil-kīn-apli. Die ältere Version der physiognomischen Omenserie alamdimmû”, in Maul, S.M. & Heeßel, N.P. (eds) Assur-Forschungen. Arbeiten aus der Forschungstelle »Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur« der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 139–187. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——— (2012) Divinatorische Texte II. Opferschau-Omina. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 5; Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 139. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Heimpel, W. (1986) “The Sun at Night and the Doors of Heaven in Babylonian Texts.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 38, 127–151.

Bibliography

555

——— (1989) “The Babylonian Background of the Term ‘Milky Way’”, in Behrens, H., Loding, D. & Roth, M.T. (eds) DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, 249–252. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadephia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. ——— (1998) “Nanše. A. Philologisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 152–160. Heinrich, E. (1982) Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im alten Mesopotamien. Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte. Denkmäler antiker Architektur 14. Berlin: De Gruyter. Herbordt, S. (1992) Neuassyrische Glyptik des 8.–7. Jh. v. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Siegelungen auf Tafeln und Tonverschlüssen. State Archives of Assyria Studies 1. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Hibbert, P. (1982) “Review of C. B. F. Walker, Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, the City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery.” Oriens Antiquus 21, 255–259. Hillers, D.R. (1964) Treaty-curses and the Old Testament Prophets. Biblica et orientalia 16. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. Holloway, S.W. (1995) “Harran: Cultic Geography in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and its Implications for Sennacherib’s ‘Letter to Hezekiah’ in 2 Kings”, in Holloway, S.W. & Handy, L.K. (eds) The Pitcher is Broken. Memorial Essays for Gösta W. Ahlström, 276–314. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series 190. ——— (2002) Aššur is king! Aššur is king! Religion in the Exercise of Power in the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 10. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill. Horowitz, W. (2011) Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. Second Printing, with Corrections and Addenda. Mesopotamian Civilizations 8. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2012) “Sunday in Mesopotamia”, in Ben-Dov, J., Horowitz, W. & Steele, J.M. (eds) Living the Lunar Calendar, 9–18. Oxford; Oakville: Oxbow Books. ——— (2014) The Three Stars Each: The Astrolabes and Related Texts. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 33. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Horsnell, M.J.A. (1999) The Year-Names of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Volume 2: The Year-Names Reconstructed and Critically Annotated in Light of their Exemplars. s.l.: McMaster University Press. Hrůša, I. (2010) Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru. Eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 50. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.

556

Bibliography

Hruška, B. (1969) “Das spätbabylonische Lehrgedicht ‘Inannas Erhöhung’.” Archiv Orientální 37, 473–522. Hundley, M.B. (2013) “Here a God, There a God: An Examination of the Divine in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Altorientalische Forschungen 40, 68–107. Hunger, H. (1968) Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 2. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1992) Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings. State Archives of Assyria 8. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ——— (1995) “Mondfinsternis.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, 358–359. Hunger, H. & Pingree, D. (1989) MUL.APIN. An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 24. Horn: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne. ——— (1999) Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia. Handbuch der Orientalistik 44. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill. Hurowitz, V.A. (2010) “Name Midrashim and Word Plays on Names in Akkadian Historical Writings”, in Horowitz, W., Gabbay, U. & Vukosavović, F. (eds) A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz, 87–104. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 8. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Hussein, M.M. (2016) Nimrud. The Queens’ Tombs. Oriental Institute Miscellaneous Publications Chicago: Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage; The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Imparati, F. (2000) “Ningal. A. II. Bei den Hethitern und Hurritern.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 356–357. Isma’el, K.S. & George, A.R. (2002) “Tablets from the Sippar Library XI. The Babylonian Almanac.” Iraq 64, 249–258. Iwaniszewski, S. (2012) “Telling Time with the Moon: An American Overview”, in Ben-Dov, J., Horowitz, W. & Steele, J.M. (eds) Living the Lunar Calendar, 311–329. Oxford; Oakville: Oxbow Books. Jacobsen, T. (1957) “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 52, 91–140. ——— (1976) The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Jaques, M. (2015) Mon dieu qu’ai-je fait? Les diĝir-šà-dab(5)-ba et la piété privée en Mesopotamie. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 273. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jean, C. (2006) La magie néo-assyrienne. Recherces sur le métier d’exorciste et le concept d’āšipūtu. State Archives of Assyria Studies 17. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. ——— (2013) “Magie et Histoire: les rituels en temps de guerre”, in Feliu, L.,

Bibliography

557

Llop, J., Millet Albà, A. & Sanmartín, J. (eds) Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26—30 July 2010, 107–112. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Jensen, P. (1890) Die Kosmologie der Babylonier. Studien und Materialien. Strassburg: Trübner. ——— (1915) Texte zur assyrisch-babylonischen Religion. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek 6, 2. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard. Jeremias, A. (1906) Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients. Handbuch zur biblisch-orientalischen Altertumskunde. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung. ——— (1929) Handbuch der altorientalischen Geisteskultur. Berlin; Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co. Jeyes, U. (1991–1992) “Divination as Science in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 32, 23– 41. Jiménez, E. (2013a) La imagen de los vientos en la literatura babilónica. Doctorado en Ciencias de las Religiones, Departamento de Estudios Hebreos y Arameos. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. ——— (2013b) “‘The Creation of the King’: A Reappraisal.” Kaskal. Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 10, 235–254. ——— (2014a) “New Fragments of Gilgameš and Other Literary Texts from Kuyunjik.” Iraq 76, 99–121. ——— (2014b) “Commentary on Enūma Anu Enlil 1 (CCP 3.1.1.C).” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., Frazer, M. & Wagensonner, K.); accessed 17.08.2018, at https://ccp.yale.edu/P461268. DOI: 10079/5mkkww1. ——— (2014c) “Commentary on Therapeutic (én munus ù-tu-ud-da-a-ni) (CCP 4.2.A.a).” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., Frazer, M. & Wagensonner, K.); accessed 22.08.2018, at https://ccp.yale.edu/ P459066. DOI: 10079/ht76hsq. ——— (2014d) “Commentary on Ālu 22–23 (CCP 3.5.22.A.b).” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., Frazer, M. & Wagensonner, K.); accessed 22.08.2018, at https://ccp.yale.edu/P461301. DOI: 10079/ zgmsbr9. ——— (2015a) “Commentary on Alamdimmû (CCP 3.7.2.K).” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., Frazer, M. & Wagensonner, K.); accessed 22.08.2018, at https://ccp.yale.edu/P461206. DOI: 10079/ 41ns24j. ——— (2015b) “Commentary on Izbu 17 (CCP 3.6.3.B).” Cuneiform Commentaries Project (Frahm, E., Jiménez, E., Frazer, M. & Wagensonner, K.); accessed 22.08.2018, at https://ccp.yale.edu/P348643. DOI: 10079/nvx0kkb.

558

Bibliography

——— (2016) “Loose Threads of Tradition: Two Late Hemerological Compilations.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 68, 197–227. Jiménez, E. & Adalı, S.F. (2015) “The ‘Prostration Hemerology’ Revisited: An Everyman’s Manual at the King’s Court.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 105, 154–191. Joannès, F. (2006) “Traitement des malades et bit hilṣi en Babylonie recente”, in Battini, L. & Villard, P. (eds) Médecine et médecins au Proche-Orient ancien. Actes du Colloque International organisé à Lyon les 8 et 9 novembre 2002, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 73–90. BAR International Series. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Johns, C.H.W. (1898–1923) Assyrian Deeds and Documents, Volumes 1–4. Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co. Jursa, M. (1995) Die Landwirtschaft in Sippar in neubabylonischer Zeit. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 25. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. ——— (1999) Das Archiv des Bēl-rēmanni. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 86. Leiden: Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. ——— (2005) Neo-Babylonian Legal and Administrative Documents. Typology, Contents and Archives. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 1. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2007) “The Transition of Babylonia from the Neo-Babylonian Empire to the Achaemenid Rule”, in Crawford, H. (eds) Regime Change in the Ancient Near East and Egypt. From Sargon of Agade to Saddam Hussein, 73– 94. Proceedings of the British Academy 136. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2010) Aspects of the Economic History of Babylonia in the First Millennium BC. Economic Geography, Economic Mentalities, Agriculture, the Use of Money and the Problem of Economic Growth. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 377. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Kämmerer, T.R. & Metzler, K.A. (2012) Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma elîš. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 375. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Kataja, L. & Whiting, R. (1995) Grants, Decrees and Gifts of the Neo-Assyrian Period. State Archives of Assyria 12. Helsinki University Press: Helsinki. Keel, O. (1994) “Das Mondemblem von Harran auf Stelen und Siegelamuletten und der Kult der nächtlichen Gestirne bei den Aramäern”, in Keel, O. (ed.) Studien zu den Stempelsiegeln aus Palästina/Israel. Band IV. Mit Registern zu den Bänden I-IV, 135–202. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 135. Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kessler, K. (1999) “Der vergessene spätbabylonische Königspalast neben Eanna.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 30, 165–173. Kienast, B. (1965) “Igigū und Anunnakkū nach den akkadischen Quellen”, in

Bibliography

559

Güterbock, H.G. & Jacobsen, T. (eds) Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, 141–158. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. ——— (1976–1980) “Igigū, Anunnakkū und. B. Nach akk. Quellen.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5, 40–44. King, L.W. (1896) Babylonian Magic and Sorcery being “the Prayers of the Lifting of the Hand”. London: Luzac and Co. ——— (1901) Mythological Texts (En. el.), Legends of Early Kings. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 13. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1902a) God-hymns, Fables, Myths (Anzu, Inanna’s Descent, Ea and Atrahasis). Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 15. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1902b) The Seven Tablets of Creation, or the Babylonian and Assyrian Legends concerning the Creation of the World and of Mankind. Luzac’s Semitic Text and Translation Series 12–13. London: Luzac and Co. ——— (1905) Royal Inscriptions (from Sargon to Samsuiluna). Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 21. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1908) God Lists (AN = Anum). Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 24. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1909) God Lists (AN = Anum) II. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 25. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1910) Old Babylonian Letters, God Lists. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 29. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1912) Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum. Kinnier Wilson, J.V. (1966) “Leprosy in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 60, 47–58. ——— (2007) “Infantile and Childhood Convulsions, and SA.GIG XXIX”, in Finkel, I.L. & Geller, M.J. (eds) Disease in Babylonia, 62–66. Cuneiform Monographs 36. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Kinnier Wilson, J.V. & Reynolds, E.H. (2007) “On Stroke and Facial Palsy in Babylonian Texts”, in Finkel, I.L. & Geller, M.J. (eds) Disease in Babylonia, 67–99. Cuneiform Monographs 36. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Kitz, A.M. (2014) Cursed are you! The Phenomenology of Cursing in Cuneiform and Hebrew Texts. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Klein, J. (1971) “Sum. ga-raš = Akk. purussû.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 23, 118–122. ——— (1981) Three Šulgi Hymns. Sumerian Royal Hymns Glorifying King

560

Bibliography

Šulgi of Ur. Bar-ilan Studies in Near Eastern Languages and Culture Ramatgan, Israel: Bar-ilan University Press. ——— (2001) “The Genealogy of Nanna-Suen and Its Historical Background”, in Abusch, T., Beaulieu, P.-A., Huehnergard, J., Machinist, P. & Steinkeller, P. (eds) Historiography in the Cuneiform World. Part I, 279–301. Proceedings of the XLVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. Koch-Westenholz, U. (1995) Mesopotamian Astrology. An Introduction to Babylonian and Assyrian Celestial Divination. CNI Publications 19. Copenhagen: The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Near Eastern Studies. ——— (1999) “The Astrological Commentary Šumma Sîn ina tāmārtīšu Tablet 1”, in Gyselen, R. & Caiozzo, A. (eds) La science des cieux. Sages, mages, astrologues, 149–165. Res orientales 12. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient. ——— (2001) “Babylonian Views of Eclipses”, in Gyselen, R. (ed.) Démons et merveilles d’Orient, 71–84. Res Orientales 13. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l’Étude de la Civilisation du Moyen-Orient. Koch, U.S. (2015) Mesopotamian Divination Texts: Conversing with the Gods. Sources from the First Millennium BCE. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 7. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Köcher, F. (1964) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur 3. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 3. Berlin: De Gruyter. ——— (1971) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur 4; Babylon, Nippur, Sippar, Uruk und unbekannter Herkunft. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 4. Berlin: De Gruyter. ——— (1980a) Keilschriftexte aus Ninive 1. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 5. Berlin: De Gruyter. ——— (1980b) Keilschriftexte aus Ninive 2. Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen 6. Berlin: De Gruyter. Kohler, J. & Ungnad, A. (1913) Assyrische Rechtsurkunden. Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer. Kohlmeyer, K. (1992) “Drei Stelen mit Sin-Symbol aus Nordsyrien”, in Hrouda, B., Kroll, S. & Spanos, P.Z. (eds) Von Uruk nach Tuttul: eine Festschrift für Eva Strommenger. Studien und Aufsätze von Kollegen und Freunden, 91– 100. München: Profil Verlag. Komoróczy, G. (1976) “Das Pantheon im Kult, in den Götterlisten und in der Mythologie.” Orientalia Nova Series 45, 80–86. Köroğlu, K. & Yumruk, Ş. (2014) “Ergani/Gisgis (Kesentaş) Yeni Assur Kabartması.” Türk Eskiçağ Bilimleri Enstitüsü Haberler 38, 2–8. Kramer, S.N. (1944) Sumerian Literary Texts from Nippur in the Museum of the Ancient Orient at Istanbul. The Annual of the Amerian Schools of Oriental Research 23. New Haven, Connecticut: American Schools of Oriental Re-

Bibliography

561

search. ——— (1960) Two Elegies on a Pushkin Museum Tablet: A New Sumerian Literary Genre. Moscow: Oriental Literature Publishing House. Kramer, S.N. & Bernhardt, I. (1967) Sumerische literarische Texte aus Nippur. Band II: Hymnen, Klagelieder, Weisheitstexte und andere Literaturgattungen. Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht-Sammlung Vorderasiatischer Altertümer im Eigentum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Neue Folge 4. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Kraus, F.R. (1964) Briefe aus dem British Museum (CT 43 und 44). Altbabylonische Briefe 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Krebernik, M. (1995) “Mondgott. A. I. In Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, 360–369. ——— (1997) “Muttergöttin. A. In Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8, 502–516. ——— (1998) “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ”, in Bauer, J., Englund, R.K. & Krebernik, M. (eds) Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit, 237–427. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/1. Freiburg Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ——— (2000) “Nin-kasi und Siraš/Siris.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 442–444. ——— (2006) “Qaštum.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11, 157. ——— (2008) “‘Wo einer in Wut ist, kann kein anderer ihm raten.’ Zum göttlichen Zorn im Alten Orient”, in Kratz, R.G. & Spieckermann, H. (eds) Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity, 44–66. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe 33. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ——— (2011) “Sonnengott. A. I. In Mesopotamien. Philologisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, 599–611. ——— (2012) “Šuzi-ana.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 13, 377–379. ——— (2012) “Tambāja, Tabbāja.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 13, 431. Kugler, F.X. (1909) “Auf den Trümmern des Panbabylonismus.” Anthropos 4, 477–499. ——— (1910) Im Bannkreis Babels. Panbabylonische Konstruktionen und Religionsgeschichtliche Tatsachen. Münster i. W.: Verlag der Aschendorffschen Buchhandlung. Kühne, H. (1997) “Der Gott in der Mondsichel.” Altorientalische Forschungen 24, 375–382. Kühne, H. & Radner, K. (2008) “Das Siegel des Išme-ilu, Eunuch des Nergalēreš, aus Dūr-Katlimmu.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 98, 26–44.

562

Bibliography

Kuhrt, A. (1990) “Nabonidus and the Babylonian Priesthood”, in Beard, M. & North, J. (eds) Pagan Priests. Religion and Power in the Ancient World, 119– 155. London: Duckworth. Kümmel, H.M. (1979) Familie, Beruf und Amt im spätbabylonischen Uruk. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zu Berufsgruppen des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Uruk. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 20. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Kutscher, R. (1976) “Utu Prepares for Judgement”, in Eichler, B., Heimerdinger, J.W. & Sjöberg, Å.W. (eds) Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer, 305–309. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 25. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. Kwasman, T. (1991) Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part I: Tiglath-pileser III through Esarhaddon. State Archives of Assyria 6. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Labat, R. (1939) Hémérologies et ménologies d’Assur. Etudes d’assyriologie Paris: ——— (1951) Traité akkadien de diagnostics et prognostics médicaux. I. Transcription et traduction. Paris; Leiden: Academie international d’histoire des sciences; E. J. Brill. ——— (1957) “Nouveaux textes hémérologiques d’Assur.” Mitteilungen des Instituts für Orientforschung 5, 299–345. ——— (1961) “Tabous de tešrit et autres prescriptions.” Iraq 23, 88–93. ——— (1965) Un calendrier babylonien des travaux des signes et des mois (séries iqqur îpuš). Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion, Éditeur. ——— (1970) Les religions du Proche-Orient asiatique. Le trésor spirituel de l’humanité Paris: Fayard & Denoël. Læssøe, J. (1955) Studies on the Assyrian Ritual and Series bît rimki. København: Ejnar Munksgaard. Lambert, M. (1962) “La lune chez les Sumériens”, in Bernot, D. (ed.) La lune. Mythes er rites, 69–91. Sources orientales 5. Paris: Du Seuil. Lambert, W.G. (1957) “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 11, 1–14. ——— (1957–1958) “A Part of the Ritual for the Substitute King.” Archiv für Orientforschung 18, 109–112. ——— (1962) “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 16, 59–77. ——— (1963) “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year. The Conflict in the Akītu House (A Summary).” Iraq 25, 189–190. ——— (1964) “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion”, in Mccullough, W.S. (ed.) The Seed of Wisdom. Essays in Honour of T. J. Meek, 3–13. Toronto: University of

Bibliography

563

Toronto Press. ——— (1969) “A Middle Assyrian Medical Text.” Iraq 31, 28–39. ——— (1974) “Dingir.šà.dib.ba Incantations.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, 267–322. ——— (1976) “Review of Mayer, W. Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen ‘Gebetsbeschwörungen’.” Archiv für Orientforschung 25, 197–199. ——— (1979) “Near Eastern Seals in the Gulbenkian Museum of Oriental Art, University of Durham.” Iraq 41, 1–45. ——— (1981) “Studies in UD.GAL.NUN.” Oriens Antiquus 20, 81–97. ——— (1983) “The God Aššur.” Iraq 45, 82–86. ——— (1987a) “Devotion: The Languages of Religion and Love”, in Mindlin, M., Geller, M.J. & Wansbrough, J.E. (eds) Figurative Language in the Ancient Near East, 25–39. London: School of Asian and African Studies. ——— (1987b) “Lugal-irra and Meslamta-ea.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7, 143–145. ——— (1987c) “Lugal-kalamma-utud.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7, 145. ——— (1987d) “Lugal-kisurra.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7, 147. ——— (1989) “A Late Babylonian Copy of an Expository Text.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48, 215–221. ——— (1990) “Ancient Mesopotamian Gods: Superstition, Philosophy, Theology.” Revue de l’histoire des religions 207, 115–130. ——— (1997) “Syncretism and Religious Controversy in Babylonia.” Altorientalische Forschungen 24, 158–162. ——— (2003–2004) “A Syncretistic Hymn to Ištar.” Archiv für Orientforschung 50, 21–27. ——— (2004) “Ištar of Nineveh.” Iraq 66, 35–39. ——— (2007) Babylonian Oracle Questions. Mesopotamian Civilizations 13. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2008) “The Classification of Incantations”, in Biggs, R.D., Myers, J. & Roth, M.T. (eds) Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique International Held at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, July 18–22, 2005, 93–97. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 62. Chicago, Illinois: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ——— (2013) Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations 16. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2014) “The Babylonian ikribs”, in Fincke, J.C. (ed.) Divination in the Ancient Near East. A Workshop on Divination Conducted during the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Würzburg, 2008, 53–55. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

564

Bibliography

Lambert, W.G. & Millard, A.R. (1965) Babylonian Literary Texts. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 46. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Landsberger, B. (1915) Der kultische Kalender der Babylonier und Assyrier. Leipziger Semitistische Studien 5/1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1920) “Zu den Übersetzungen Ebeling’s ZDMG. 74, 175ff.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 74, 439–445. ——— (1957) The Series ḪAR-ra » ḫubullu. Tablets I–IV. Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon 5. Roma: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum. Lanfranchi, G.B. (1995) “Astronomia e politica in età neo-assira”, in Archeologia e astronomia: esperienze e prospettive future (Roma, 26 novembre 1994), 131–152. Atti dei convegni Lincei 121. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Langdon, S. (1912) Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1913) Babylonian Liturgies. Sumerian Texts from the Early Period and from the Library of Ashurbanipal, for the Most Part Transliterated and Translated, with Introduction and Index. Paris: Paul Geuthner. ——— (1915) “A Fragment of a Series of Ritualistic Prayers to Astral Deities in the Ceremonies of Divination.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 12, 189–192. ——— (1918) “A Hymn to the Moon-God, Adapted for the Use of Shamashshum-ukin, Viceroy of Babylon.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 40, 104–110. ——— (1919) “Inscriptions on Cassite Seals.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 16, 69–95. ——— (1919) Sumerian Liturgies and Psalms. The University Museum, Publications of the Babylonian Section 10/4. Philadelphia: The University Museum. ——— (1927) Babylonian Penitential Psalms to Which Are Added Fragments of the Epic of Creation from Kish in the Weld Collection of the Ashmolean Museum Excavated by the Oxford-Field Museum Expedition. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 4. Paris: Paul Geuthner. ——— (1935) Babylonian Menologies and the Semitic Calendar. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy London: Milford. Lapinkivi, P. (2010) The Neo-Assyrian Myth of Ištar’s Descent and Resurrection. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 6. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Laroche, E. (1955) “Le bilingue accado-hourrite: Version hourrite”, in Nougayrol, J. (eds) Le palais royal d’Ugarit III. Textes accadiens et hourrites des archives est, ouest et centrales, 313–324. Mission de Ras Shamra 6. Paris: Imprimerie nationale; Librairie C. Klincksieck.

Bibliography

565

——— (1971) Catalogue des textes Hittites. Études et commentaires 75. Paris: Klincksieck. Lauinger, J. (2012) “Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty at Tell Tayinat: Text and Commentary.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 64, 87–123. Law, S.P. (1986) “The Regulation of Menstrual Cycle and Its Relationship to the Moon.” Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 65, 45–48. Layard, A.H. (1867) Nineveh and Babylon. A Narrative of a Second Expedition to Assyria during the Years 1849, 1850, & 1851. London: John Murray. Lee, T.G. (1993) “The Jasper Cylinder Seal of Aššurpanipal and Nabonidus’ Making of Sîn’s Statue.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archeologie orientale 87, 131–136. Leibovici, M. (1962) “La Lune en Babylonie”, in Bernot, D. (ed.) La Lune. Mythes et Rites, 93–116. Sources orientales 5. Paris: Du Seuil. Leichty, E. (2007) “Esarhaddon’s Exile: Some Speculative History”, in Roth, M.T., Farber, W., Stolper, M.W. & Von Bechtolsheim, P. (eds) Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs, June 4, 2004, 189–191. From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary 2. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. ——— (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Leichty, E. & Grayson, A.K. (1987) Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum Volume VII: Tablets from Sippar 2. London: British Museum Publications. Lenzi, A. (2008) Secrecy and the Gods. Secret Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical Israel. State Archives of Assyria Studies 19. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Lewis, T.J. (1996) “CT 13.33–34 and Ezekiel 32: Lion-Dragon Myths.” Journal of the Amerian Oriental Society 116, 28–47. Lewy, H. (1949) “The Babylonian Background of the Kay Kâûs Legend.” Archiv Orientální 17/2, 28–109. Lewy, H. & Lewy, J. (1948) “The God Nusku.” Orientalia Nova Series 17, 146– 159. Lewy, J. (1945–1946) “The Late Assyro-Babylonian Cult of the Moon and its Culmination at the Time of Nabonidus.” Hebrew Union College Annual 19, 405–489. Lieberman, S.J. (1977) The Sumerian Loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian. Volume One: Prolegomena and Evidence. Harvard Semitic Series 22. Harvard: Scholars Press. ——— (1992) “Nippur: City of Decisions”, in Dejong Ellis, M. (ed.) Nippur at the Centennial. Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988, 127–136. Occasional Publications of the Samuel

566

Bibliography

Noah Kramer Fund 14. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. Linssen, M.J.H. (2004) The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice. Cuneiform Monographs 25. Leiden; Boston: Brill; Styx. Lipiński, E. (1975) Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics I. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 1. Leuven: Leuven University Press. ——— (1988) “Sacrifices d’enfants à Carthage et dans le monde sémitique oriental”, in Lipiński, E. (ed.) Studies Phoenicia VI. Carthago. Acta Colloquii Bruxellensis habiti diebus 2 et 3 mensis Maii anni 1986, 151–185. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 26. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters. ——— (1994) Studies in Aramaic Inscriptions and Onomastics II. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 57. Leuven: Peeters; Departement oriëntalistiek. ——— (2000) The Arameans: their Ancient History, Culture, Religion. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 100. Leuven; Paris; Sterling, Virginia: Peeters; Departement Oosterse Studies. Litke, R.L. (1998) A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An : A-nu-um and An : Anu šá amēli. Texts from the Babylonian Collection 3. New Haven: Yale Babylonian Collection. Livingstone, A. (1986) Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (1989) Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. State Archives of Assyria 3. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ——— (1990) “Recently published mystical/mythological explanatory works.” N.A.B.U. 1990, 68–69. ——— (1993) “The Case of Hemerologies: Official Cult, Learned Formulation and Popular Practice”, in Matsushima, E. (ed.) 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 (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–22, 1992, 97–113. Heidelberg: Universitätverlag C. Winter. ——— (1997) “New Dimensions in the Study of Assyrian Religion”, in Parpola, S. & Whiting, R.M. (eds) Assyria 1995. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, 165–177. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. ——— (1999) “Agriculture in Literary Calendar Texts”, in Klengel, H. & Renger, J. (eds) Landwirtschaft im Alten Orient. Ausgewählte Vorträge der XLI. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin, 4.–8.7.1994, 375–379. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. ——— (2013) Hemerologies of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology 25. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press.

Bibliography

567

Lloyd, S. & Brice, W. (1951) “Harran.” Anatolian Studies 1, 77–111. Lloyd, S. & Gokçe, N. (1953) “Sultantepe. Anglo-Turkish Joint Excavations, 1952.” Anatolian Studies 3, 27–51. Loretz, O. & Mayer, W.R. (1978) Šu-ila-Gebete. Supplement zu L. W. King, Babylonian Magic and Sorcery. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 34. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. Loud, G. (1936) Khorsabad. Part I. Excavations in the Palace and at the City Gate. Oriental Institute Publications 38. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. Luckenbill, D.D. (1927) Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Volume II. Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press. Lutz, H.F. (1919) Selected Sumerian and Babylonian Texts. Publications of the Babylonian Section 1. Philadelphia: The University Museum. Macginnis, J. (1995a) Letter Orders from Sippar and the Administration of the Ebabbara in the Late-Babylonian Period. Poznań: Bonami. ——— (1995b) “Statue Manufacture in Sippar.” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 85, 181–185. Machinist, P. & Tadmor, H. (1993) “Heavenly Wisdom”, in Cohen, M.E., Snell, D.C. & Weisberg, D.B. (eds) The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, 146–151. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. Macmillan, D. (1906) Some Cuneiform Tablets Bearing on the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 5/5. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Magen, U. (1986) Assyrische Königsdarstellungen – Aspekte der Herrschaft. Eine Typologie. Baghdader Forschungen 9. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Mallowan, M.E.L. (1964) “Noah’s Flood Reconsidered.” Iraq 26, 62–82. Marchand, S.L. (2009) German Orientalism in the Age of the Empire. Religion, Race, and Scholarship. Washington D.C.; Cambridge: German Historical Institute; Cambridge University Press. Marti, L. (2014) “Chroniques bibliographiques 16. Les hémérologies mésopotamiennes.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 108, 161–199. Matsushima, E. (1987) “Le ritual hiérogamique de Nabû.” Acta Sumerologica 9, 131–175. Mattila, R. (1990) “Balancing the Accounts of the Royal New Year’s Reception.” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 4, 7–22. Mattila, R. (ed.) (1995) Nineveh 612 BC. The Glory and Fall of the Assyrian Empire. Ninive 612 eKr. Assyrian imperiumin loisto ja tuho. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ——— (2000) The King’s Magnates. A Study of the Highest Officials of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. State Archives of Assyria Studies 11. Helsinki: The

568

Bibliography

Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. ——— (2002) Legal Transactions of the Royal Court of Nineveh, Part II: Assurbanipal through Sîn-šarru-iškun. State Archives of Assyria 14. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Maul, S.M. (1988) ‘Herzberuhigunsklagen’. Die sumerisch-akkadischen Eršaḫunga-Gebete. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——— (1991) “Zwei neue «Herzberuhigungsklagen».” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 85, 67–74. ——— (1992) “‘Auf meinen Rechtsfall werde doch aufmerksam!’ Wie sich die Babylonier und Assyrer vor Unheil schützten, das sich durch ein Vorzeichen angekündigt hatte.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 124, 77–86. ——— (1994) Zukunftsbewältigung. Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi). Baghdader Forschungen 18. Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern. ——— (1998) “Marduk, Nabû und der assyrische Enlil. Die Geschichte eines sumerischen Šu’ilas”, in Maul, S.M. (ed.) tikip santakki mala bašmu … Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994, Cuneiform Monographs 10. Groningen: Styx Publications. ——— (1999a) “Der assyrische König – Hüter der Weltordnung”, in Watanabe, K. (ed.) Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996, 201–214. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. ——— (1999b) “Gottesdienst im Sonnenheiligtum zu Sippar”, in Böck, B., Cancik-Kirschbaum, E. & Richter, T. (eds) Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger, 285–316. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 267. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (1999c) “How the Babylonians Protected Themselves against Calamities Announced by Omens”, in Abusch, T. & Van Der Toorn, K. (ed.) Mesopotamian Magic. Textual, Historical, and Interpretative Perspectives, 123–129. Ancient Magic and Divination 1. Groningen: Styx Publications. ——— (2003a) “Bildhafte Orthographie in der assyrisch-babylonischen Keilschrift. Orthographie und Etymologie als hermeneutische Verfahren babylonischer Gelehrter”, in Assmann, A. & Assmann, J. (eds) Hieroglyphen. Stationen einer anderen abendländischen Grammatologie, 65–76. Archäologie der literarischen Kommunikation. München: Fink. ——— (2003b) “Omina und Orakel. A. Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10, 45–88. ——— (2004) “Die ‘Lösung vom Bann’: Überlegungen zu altorientalischen Konzeptionen von Krankheit und Heilkunst”, in Horstmanshoff, H.F.J. & Stol, M. (eds) Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-

Bibliography

569

Roman Medicine, 79–95. Studies in Ancient Medicine. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ——— (2008) Das Gilgamesch-Epos. Vierte Auflage. München: C. H. Beck. ——— (2010) “Die Tontafelbibliothek aus dem sogenannaten »Haus des Beschwörungspriesters«”, in Maul, S.M. & Heeßel, N.P. (eds) AssurForschungen. Arbeiten aus der Forschungstelle »Edition literarischer Keilschrifttexte aus Assur« der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, 189– 228. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——— (2013a) Die Wahrsagekunst im Alten Orient. Zeichen des Himmels und der Erde. Historische Bibliothek der Gerda Henkel Stiftung München: C. H. Beck. ——— (2013b) “Ein altorientalischer Pferdesegen – Seuchenprophylaxe in der assyrischen Armee.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 103, 16–37. ——— (2019) Bannlösung (nam-érim-búr-ru-da). Die Therapie eines auf eidliche Falschaussage zurückgeführten Leidens. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 10; Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 155/1–2. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Maul, S.M. & Strauß, R. (2011) Ritualbeschreibungen und Gebete I. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 4; Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 133. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. May, N.N. (2014) “Gates and Their Functions in Mesopotamia and Ancient Israel”, in May, N.N. & Steinert, U. (eds) The Fabric of Cities. Aspects of Urbanism, Urban Topography and Society in Mesopotamia, Greece and Rome, 77–121. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ——— (2017) “The Vizier and the Brother: Sargon II’s Brother and Vizier Sīnaḫu-uṣur and the Neo-Assyrian Collateral Branches.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 74, 491–527. Mayer, W. & Sallaberger, W. (2003) “Opfer. A. I. Nach schriftlichen Quellen. Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10, 93–102. Mayer, W. (1983) “Sargons Feldzug gegen Urartu – 714 v. Chr. Text und Übersetzung.” Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 115, 65– 132. ——— (1995) Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 9. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (1998) “Nabonids Herkunft”, in Dietrich, M. & Loretz, O. (eds) Dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik. Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen, 245–261. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 253. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Mayer, W.R. (1976) Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen “Gebetsbeschwörungen”. Studia Pohl : Series Maior 5. Rome: Biblical Insti-

570

Bibliography

tute Press. ——— (1978) “Seleukidische Rituale aus Warka mit Emesal-Gebeten.” Orientalia Nova Series 47, 431–458. ——— (1987) “Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschens und des Königs.” Orientalia Nova Series 56, 55–68. ——— (1993) “Das Ritual BMS 12 mit dem Gebet “Marduk 5”.” Orientalia Nova Series 62, 313–337. ——— (1999) “Das Ritual KAR 26 mit dem Gebet “Marduk 24”.” Orientalia Nova Series 68, 145–163. ——— (2005) “Das Gebet des Eingeweideschauers an Ninurta.” Orientalia Nova Series 74, 51–56. Mcewan, G.J.P. (1981) Priest and Temple in Hellenistic Babylonia. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag. ——— (1983) “Distribution of Meat in Eanna.” Iraq 45, 187–198. Meek, T.J. (1913) Cuneiform Bilingual Hymns, Prayers and Penitential Psalms. Autographed, transliterated and translated with notes from the original tablets in the British Museum. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 10/1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1918) “A Votive Inscription of Ashurbanipal (Bu. 89-4-26, 209).” Journal of the Amerian Oriental Society 38, 167–175. ——— (1920) “Some Explanatory Lists and Grammatical Texts.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 17, 117–206. Meier, G. (1937) Die assyrische Beschwörungsserie Maqlû. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 2. Berlin: ——— (1941–1944) “Die zweite Tafel der Serie bīt mēseri.” Archiv für Orientforschung 14, 139–152. ——— (1966) “Studien zur Beschwörungsserie Maqlû.” Archiv für Orientforschung 21, 70–81. Meinhold, W. (2009) Ištar in Aššur. Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 v. Chr. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 367. Münster: UgaritVerlag. ——— (2013) “Tempel, Kult und Mythos: Zum Verhältnis von Haupt- und Nebengottheiten in Heiligtümern der Stadt Aššur”, in Kaniuth, K., Löhnert, A., Miller, J.L., Otto, A., Roaf, M. & Sallaberger, W. (eds) Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquim der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 11.– 13. Oktober 2009, München, 325–334. Colloquien der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Meissner, B. (1930–1931) “Eine Beschwörung durch den Gott (Nin)ḫarru.” Archiv für Orientforschung 6, 110–111. Melville, S.C. (1999) The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics. State Archives of Assyria Studies 9. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project.

Bibliography

571

Menzel, B. (1981) Assyrische Tempel. Studia Pohl : Series Maior 10/1–2. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. Messerschmidt, L. & Ungnad, A. (1907) Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin. Heft I. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung. Meyer, J.-W. (2001) “Zur Bedeutung der Bootsmodelle aus dem Alten Orient”, in Richter, T., Prechel, D. & Klinger, J. (eds) Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalische Studien für Volkert Haas zum 65. Geburtstag, 268–283. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. Michalowski, P. (1989) The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Mesopotamian Civilizations 1. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (1993) “The Torch and the Censer”, in Cohen, M.E., Snell, D.C. & Weisberg, D.B. (eds) The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo, 152–162. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. ——— (2003) “The Doors of the Past.” Eretz-Israel 27, 136–152. ——— (2014) “Biography of a Sentence, Assurbanipal, Nabonidus, and Cyrus”, in Kozuh, M., Henkelman, W., Jones, C.E. & Woods, C. (eds) Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper, 203–210. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Michel, C. (2011) “Sîn-namir.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, 522. Mieth, D. (2001) “Symbol”, in Cancik, H., Gladigow, B. & Kohl, K.-H. (eds) Bd. 5. Säkularisierung – Zwischenwesen, 134–143. Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Miglus, P. (2013) “Tempel. B. Archäologisch. In Mesopotamien, Levante, Anatolien und Iran.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 13, 530–576. Millard, A.R. (1968) “Fragments of Historical Texts from Nineveh: Ashurbanipal.” Iraq 30, 98–111. Millard, A.R. (1994) The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC. State Archives of Assyria Studies 2. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Müller-Kessler, C. (2002) “A Charm Against Demons of Time”, in Wunsch, C. (ed.) Mining the Archives. Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, 183–189. Babylonische Archive 1. Dresden: ISLET. Myers, J. (2002) The Sippar Pantheon: A Diachronic Study. PhD dissertation, The Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Nielsen, D. (1927) “Zur altarabischen Religion”, in Nielsen, D. (ed.) Handbuch

572

Bibliography

der altarabischen Altertumskunde. Band I. Die altarabische Kultur, 177– 250. Kopenhagen: Nyt nordisk forlag. Nielsen, J.P. (2009) “Trading on Knowledge: the Iddin-Papsukkal Kin Group in Southern Babylonia in the 7th and 6th Centuries B.C.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 9, 171–182. Nilsson, M.P. (1920) Primitive Time Reckoning. A Study in the Origins and First Development of the Art of Counting Time Among the Primitive and Early Culture Peoples. Skrifter utgivna av Humanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund 1. Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup. Nissinen, M. (1998) References to Prophecy in Neo-Assyrian Sources. State Archives of Assyria Studies 7. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Nougayrol, J. (1947) “Un texte inédit du genre šurpu.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 1, 329–336. Novotny, J.R. & Jeffers, J. (2018) The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668– 631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part I. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 5/I. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Novotny, J.R. (2002) “A Note on the Akītu-House at Ḫarrān”, in Wunsch, C. (ed.) Mining the Archives. Festschrift for Christopher Walker on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, 191–199. Babylonische Archive 1. Dresden: ISLET. ——— (2003) Eḫulḫul, Egipar, Emelamana, and Sîn’s Akītu-House: A Study of Assyrian Building Activities at Ḫarrān. PhD dissertation, Graduate Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations. Toronto: University of Toronto. ——— (2014) Selected Inscriptions of Assurbanipal. L3, L4, LET, Prism I, Prism T, and Related Texts. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts 10. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Novotny, J.R. & Singletary, J. (2009) “Family Ties: Assurbanipal’s Family Revisited”, in Luukko, M., Mattila, R. & Svärd, S. (eds) Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola, 167–177. Studia Orientalia 106. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Oelsner, J. (1993) “Review of Van Dijk, Jan: Literarische Texte aus Babylon.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 83, 144–147. Onasch, H.-U. (1994) Die Assyrischen Eroberungen Ägyptens. Teil 1: Kommentare und Anmerkungen. Ägypten und Altes Testament 27/1. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Opitz, D. (1933) “Altorientalische Gussformen”, in Weidner, E. (ed.) Aus fünf Jahrtausenden morgenländischer Kultur. Festschrift Max Freiherrn von Oppenheim zum 70. Geburtstage gewidmet von Freunden und Mitarbeitern, 179–215. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 1. Berlin: Selbstverlag d. Hrsg.

Bibliography

573

Oppenheim, A.L. (1954) “The Seafaring Merchants of Ur.” Journal of the Amerian Oriental Society 74, 6–17. ——— (1954–1956) “Sumerian: inim.gar, Akkadian: egirrû = Greek: kledon.” Archiv für Orientforschung 17, 49–55. ——— (1956) “The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East. With a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 46, 179–373. ——— (1959) “A New Prayer to the ‘Gods of the Night’.” Oriens Antiquus 3, 282–301. ——— (1960) “The City of Assur in 714 B.C.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19, 133–147. ——— (1977) Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ornan, T. (2001) “The Bull and its Two Masters: Moon and Storm Deities in Relation to the Bull in Ancient Near Eastern Art.” Israel Exploration Journal 51, 1–26. ——— (2005a) “A Complex System of Religious Symbols: The Case of the Winged Disc in Near Eastern Imagery of the First Millennium BCE”, in Suter, C.E. & Uehlinger, C. (eds) Crafts and Images in Contact. Studies on Eastern Mediterranean Art of the First Millennium BCE, 207–241. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 210. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ——— (2005b) The Triumph of the Symbol. Pictorial Representation of Deities in Mesopotamia and the Biblical Image Ban. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 213. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ——— (2009) “In the Likeness of Man. Reflections on the Anthropocentric Perception of the Divine in Mesopotamian Art”, in Porter, B.N. (ed.) What is a God? Anthropomorphic and Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia, 93–151. Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Orthmann, W. (1971) Untersuchungen zur späthethitischen Kunst. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 8. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt Verlag. Oshima, T. (2011) Babylonian Prayers to Marduk. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. ——— (2014) Babylonian Poems of Pious Sufferers. Ludlul Bēl Nēmeqi and the Babylonian Theodicy. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 14. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Ossendrijver, M. (2015) “Compendia and Procedures in the Mesopotamian Astral Sciences”, in Johnson, J.C. (ed.) In the Wake of the Compendia. Infrastructural Contexts and the Licensing of Empiricism in Ancient and Medieval Mesopotamia, 47–57. Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cul-

574

Bibliography

tures. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter. Özgüç, N. (1987) “Samsat Mühürleri.” Belleten 51, 429–439. Parker, B. (1961) “Administrative Tablets from the North-West Palace, Nimrud.” Iraq 23, 15–67. Parpola, S. (1971) Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II A: Introduction and Appendixes. PhD Dissertation, Section of History and Philology of the Philosophical Faculty. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. ——— (1974) “A Note on the Neo-Assyrian Census Lists.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 64, 96–115. ——— (1983) Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 5/2. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1987a) Letters from Assyria and the West. State Archives of Assyria 1. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ——— (1987b) “Neo-Assyrian Treaties from the Royal Archives of Nineveh.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 39, 161–189. ——— (1993a) Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. State Archives of Assyria 10. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ——— (1993b) “Mesopotamian Astrology and Astronomy as Domains of the Mesopotamian ‘Wisdom’”, in Galter, H.D. (ed.) Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens. Beiträge zum 3. Grazer Morgenländischen Symposion (23.–27. September 1991), 47–59. Grazer Morgenländische Studien 3. Graz: rm-Druck- & Verlagsgesellschaft. ——— (1993c) “The Assyrian Tree of Life: Tracing the Origins of Jewish Monotheism and Greek Philosophy.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 52, 161–208. ——— (1995a) “The Assyrian Cabinet”, in Dietrich, M. & Loretz, O. (eds) Vom Alten Orient Zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993, 379–401. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 240. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1995b) “The Construction of Dur-Šarrukin in the Assyrian Royal Correspondence”, in Caubet, A. (ed.) Khorsabad, le palais de Sargon II, roi d’Assyrie. Actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 21 et 22 janvier 1994, 47–77. Louvre Conférences et colloques. Paris: La Documentation française. ——— (1997) Assyrian Prophecies. State Archives of Assyria 9. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. ——— (2003) “Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries and Its LongTerm Repercussions in the West”, in Dever, W.G. & Gitin, S. (eds) Symbio-

Bibliography

575

sis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past. Canaan, Ancient Israel, and Their Neighbors from the Late Bronze Age through Roman Palaestina, 99–111. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2007) “The Neo-Assyrian Ruling Class”, in Kämmerer, T.R. (ed.) Studien zu Ritual und Sozialgeschichte im Alten Orient / Studies on Ritual and Society in the Ancient Near East. Tartuer Symposien 1998–2004, 257–274. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 374. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. Parpola, S. & Watanabe, K. (1988) Neo-Assyrian Treaties and Loyalty Oaths. State Archives of Assyria 2. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Parrot, A. (1958) Le palais. Peintures murales. Mission archéologique de Mari 2. Paris: Librairie orientaliste Paul Geuthner. Paulus, S. (2014) Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit. Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 51. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Pedersén, O. (1986) Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur. A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 6. Uppsala: ——— (1998) Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East 1500–300 B.C. Bethesda, Maryland: CDL Press. ——— (2005) Archive und Bibliotheken in Babylon. Die Tontafeln der Grabung Robert Koldeweys 1899–1917. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 25. Saarbrücken: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag. Perry, E.G. (1907) Hymnen und Gebete an Sin. Leipziger Semitische Studien 2/4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Pinches, T.G. (1898) Commercial Documents from the Period of the First Dynasty of Babylon until the Seleucid Period, Late Babylonian Prayers and Incantations. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 4. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1899) Commercial Documents from the Period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 8. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1904) “Sapattu, the Babylonian Sabbath. Additional Note.” Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 26, 162. ——— (1982a) Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Economic Texts. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 55. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1982b) Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid Economic Texts. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 57. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Pizzimenti, S. (2013) “The Other Face of the Moon: Some Hints on the Visual

576

Bibliography

Representation of the Moon on Third-Millennium B.C.E. Mesopotamian Glyptic”, in Feliu, L., Llop, J., Millet Albà, A. & Sanmartín, J. (eds) Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona 26—30 July 2010, 265–272. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Poebel, A. (1909) Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon chiefly from Nippur. The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts 6/2. Philadelphia: Department of Archaeology, University of Pennsylvania. Polonsky, J. (2002) The Rise of the Sun God and the Determination of Destiny in Ancient Mesopotamia. PhD dissertation, Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. University of Pennsylvania. Pomponio, F. (1978) Nabû. Il culto e la figura di un dio del Pantheon babilonese ed assiro. Studi semitici 51. Roma: Istituto di Studi del Vicino Oriente Università di Roma. Pongratz-Leisten, B. (1992) “Mesopotamische Standarten in literarischen Zeugnissen.” Baghdader Forschungen 23, 299–340. ——— (1994) Ina šulmi īrub. Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylon und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Baghdader Forschungen 16. Mainz am Rhein: von Zabern. ——— (1995) “Anzû-Vögel für das É.ḪÚL.ḪÚL in Ḫarrān”, in Finkbeiner, U., Dittmann, R. & Hauptmann, H. (eds) Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für Rainer Michael Boehmer, 549–557. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern. ——— (1997) “The Interplay of Military Strategy and Cultic Practice in Assyrian Politics”, in Parpola, S. & Whiting, R.M. (eds) Assyria 1995. Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki, September 7–11, 1995, 245–252. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. ——— (1999) Herrschaftswissen in Mesopotamien. Formen der Kommunikation zwischen Gott und König im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. State Archives of Assyria Studies 10. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. ——— (2009) “Reflections on the Translatability of the Notion of Holiness”, in Luukko, M., Svärd, S. & Mattila, R. (eds) Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola, 409–427. Studia Orientalia 106. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. ——— (2011) “Divine Agency and Astralization of the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in Pongratz-Leisten, B. (ed.) Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, 137–187. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2015) Religion and Ideology in Assyria. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter. Postgate, J.N. (1969) Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees. Studia Pohl :

Bibliography

577

Series Maior 1. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute. ——— (1972–1975) “Ḫarrān.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 4, 122–125. ——— (1973) The Governor’s Palace Archive. Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 2. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. ——— (1974) Taxation and Conscription in the Assyrian Empire. Studia Pohl : Series Maior 3. Rome: Biblical Institute Press. ——— (1974) “The bīt akīti in Assyrian Nabû Temples.” Sumer 30, 51–74. Powell, M.A. (1991) “Narām-Sîn, Son of Sargon: Ancient History, Famous Names, and a Famous Babylonian Forgery.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 81, 20–30. Prag, K. (1970) “The 1959 Deep Sounding at Harran in Turkey.” Levant 2, 63– 94. Prechel, D. (1996) Die Göttin Išḫara. Ein Beitrag zur altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Abhandlungen zur Literatur Alt-Syrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 11. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Radner, K. (1997a) Die neuassyrischen Privatrechtsurkunden als Quelle für Mensch und Umwelt. State Archives of Assyria Studies 6. Helsinki: The NeoAssyrian Text Corpus Project. ——— (1997b) “Vier neuassyrische Privatrechtsurkunden aus dem Vorderasiatischen Museum, Berlin.” Altorientalische Forschungen 24, 115–134. ——— (1998) “Der Gott Salmānu (‘Šulmānu’) und seine Beziehung zur Stadt Dūr-Katlimmu.” Die Welt des Orients 29, 33–51. ——— (1999) Ein neuassyrisches Privatarchiv der Tempelgoldschmiede von Assur. Studien zu den Assur-Texten 1. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag. ——— (2002) Die neuassyrischen Texte aus Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Šēḫ Ḥamad / Dūr-Katlimmu 6. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. ——— (2003) “The Trials of Esarhaddon: The Conspiracy of 670 BC.” Isimu. Revista sobre Oriente Próximo y Egipto an la antigüedad 6 [published 2007], 165–184. ——— (2005) Die Macht des Namens. Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung. SANTAG 8. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ——— (2006) “Provinz. C. Assyrien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11, 42–68. Rawlinson, H.C. & Norris, E. (1861) A Selection from the Historical Inscriptions of Chaldæa, Assyria, & Babylonia. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia 1. London: R. E. Bowler. Rawlinson, H.C. & Pinches, T.G. (1891) A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria. Second edition. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia 4. London: s. n. ——— (1909) A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria and

578

Bibliography

Babylonia. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia 5. London: Harrison & Sons. Rawlinson, H.C. & Smith, G. (1870) A Selection from the Miscellaneous Inscriptions of Assyria. The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia 3. London: R. E. Bowler. Reade, J.E. (1989) “Shalmaneser or Ashunasirpal in Ararat?” State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 3, 93–97. ——— (1998) “Assyrian eponyms, kings and pretenders, 648–605 BC.” Orientalia Nova Series 67, 255–265. ——— (2000) “Ninive (Nineveh).” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 388–433. ——— (2002) “The Ziggurrat and Temples of Nimrud.” Iraq 64, 135–216. ——— (2008) “Disappearance and rediscovery”, in Finkel, I.L. & Seymour, M.J. (eds) Babylon. Myth and Reality, 13–32. London: The British Museum Press. Recipieoli, M. (1999) “Una nuova interpretatione dell’inscrizione cuneiforme du Citera a 150 anni dal suo ritrovamento.” N.A.B.U. 1999, 19–20. Reiner, E. (1958) Šurpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 11. Graz: Selbstverlag des Herausgebers. ——— (1967) “Another Volume of Sultantepe Tablets.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26, 177–211. ——— (1974) “A Sumero-Akkadian Hymn to Nanâ.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 33, 221–236. ——— (1985) Your Thwarts in Pieces, Your Mooring Rope Cut. Poetry from Babylonia and Assyria. Michigan Studies in Humanities 5. s.l.: Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan. ——— (1995) Astral Magic in Babylonia. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 85/4. Philadephia: The American Philosophical Society. Reiner, E. & Güterbock, H.G. (1967) “The Great Prayer to Ishtar and Its Two Versions from Boǧazköy.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 21, 255–266. Reiner, E. & Pingree, D. (1981) Enūma Anu Enlil Tablets 50–51. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 2. Malibu: Undena Publications. ——— (2005) Babylonian Planetary Omens Part Four. Cuneiform Monographs 30. Leiden; Boston: Brill; Styx. Reisner, G. (1896) Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit. Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen 10. Berlin: W. Spemann. Rendu Loisel, A.-C. (2015) “The Voice of Mighty Copper in a Mesopotamian Exorcistic Ritual”, in Pongratz-Leisten, B. & Sonik, K. (eds) The Materiality of Divine Agency, 211–227. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 8. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter. Renger, J. (1967) “Götternamen in der altbabylonischen Zeit”, in Edzard, D.O.

Bibliography

579

(ed.) Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966, 137–171. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 3. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——— (1972–1975) “Hofstaat.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4, 435–446. Reynolds, E.H. & Kinnier Wilson, J.V. (2004) “Stroke in Babylonia.” Archives of Neurology 61, 597–601. Rich, C.J. (1839) Narrative of a Journey to the Site of Babylon in 1811. London: Duncan and Malcolm. Richter, T. (2004) Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit (2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage). Alter Orient und Altes Testament 257. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Roberts, J.J.M. (1972) The Earliest Semitic Pantheon. A Study of the Semitic Deities Attested in Mesopotamia before Ur III. Baltimore; London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Robin, C. (1997) “Les religions de l’Arabie du Sud préislamique”, in Calver, Y. & Robin, C. (eds) Arabie heureuse Arabie déserte. Les antiquités arabiques du musée du Louvre, 60–76. Notes et documents des musées de France 31. Paris: Editions de la Réunion des musées nationaux. Robson, E. (1999) Mesopotamian Mathematics, 2100–1600 BC. Technical Constants in Bureaucracy and Education. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 14. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ——— (2004) “Scholarly Conceptions and Quantifications of Time in Assyria and Babylonia, c. 750–250 BCE”, in Rosen, R.M. (ed.) Time and Temporality in the Ancient World, 45–90. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Rochberg-Halton, F. (1983) “Stellar Distances in Early Babylonian Astronomy: A New Perspective on the Hilprecht Text (HS 229).” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 42, 209–217. ——— (1988) Aspects of Babylonian Celestial Divination: The Lunar Eclipse Tablets of Enūma Anu Enlil. Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 22. Horn: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne. Rochberg, F. (1996) “Personifications and Metaphors in Babylonian Celestial Omina.” Journal of the Amerian Oriental Society 116, 475–485. ——— (2004) The Heavenly Writing. Divination, Horoscopy, and Astronomy in Mesopotamian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— (2009) “‘The Stars Their Likenesses’. Perspectives on the Relation Between Celestial Bodies and Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in Porter, B.N. (ed.) What Is a God? Anthropomorphic nad Non-Anthropomorphic Aspects of Deity in Ancient Mesopotamia, 41–91. Transactions of the Casco Bay Assyriological Institute 2. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2010) “Sheep and Cattle, Cows and Calves: The Sumero-Akkadian Astral Gods as Livestock”, in Melville, S.C. & Slotsky, A.L. (eds) Opening the

580

Bibliography

Tablet Box. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster, 347–359. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 42. Leiden; Boston: Brill. ——— (2011) “The Heavens and the Gods in Ancient Mesopotamia: The View from a Polytheistic Cosmology”, in Pongratz-Leisten, B. (ed.) Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, 117–137. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2015) “The Babylonians and the Rational. Reasoning in Cuneiform Scribal Scholarship”, in Johnson, J.C. (ed.) In the Wake of the Compendia. Infrastructural Contexts and the Licensing of Empiricism in Ancient and Medieval Mesopotamia, 209–246. Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter. ——— (2016) Before Nature. Cuneiform Knowledge and the History of Science. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. ——— (2018) “Ina lumun attalî Sîn: On Evil and Lunar Eclipses”, in Van Buylaere, G., Luukko, M., Schwemer, D. & Mertens-Wagschal, A. (eds) Sources of Evil. Studies in Mesopotamian Exorcistic Lore, 287–315. Ancient Magic and Divination 15. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Röllig, W. (1957–1971) “Götterzahlen.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 499–500. ——— (1976–1980) “Kisiga, Kissig.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5, 620–622. Röllig, W. (1985) “Der Mondgott und die Kuh. Ein Lehrstück zur Problematik der Textüberlieferung im Alten Orient.” Orientalia Nova Series 54, 260–273. Römer, W.H.P. (1965) Sumerische ‘Königshymnen’ der Isin-Zeit. Documenta et monumenta orientis antiqui 13. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ——— (1966) “Studien zu altbabylonischen hymnisch-epischen Texten (2). Ein Lied über die Jugendjahre der Götter Sîn uns Išum.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 86, 138–147. ——— (2001) Hymnen und Klagelieder in sumerischer Sprache. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 276. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Rudolph, K. (2001) “Theologie”, in Cancik, H., Gladigow, B. & Kohl, K.-H. (eds) Säkularisierung – Zwischenwesen, 190–198. Handbuch religionswissenschaftlicher Grundbegriffe 5. Stuttgart; Berlin; Köln: Verlag W. Kohlhammer. Ryckmans, J. (1987) “Die Altsüdarabische Religion”, in Daum, W. (ed.) Jemen. 3000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur des glücklichen Arabien, 111–115. Innsbruck; Frankfurt/Main: Pinguin-Verlag; Umschau-Verlag. Sachs, A.J. & Hunger, H. (1988) Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia Volume I. Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosopisch-historische Klasse, Denkschriften 195. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Saggs, H.W.F. (1969) “Neo-Babylonian Fragments from Harran.” Iraq 31, 166–

Bibliography

581

169. ——— (1975) “Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria. I. The “Aššur Charter”.” Iraq 37, 11–20. ——— (2000) “A Hymn”, in Graziani, S. (ed.) Studi sul vicino oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Volume II, 905–912. Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici, Series minor LXI. Napoli: ——— (2001) The Nimrud Letters, 1952. Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 5. s.l.: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Sallaberger, W. (1993) Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter. ——— (1997) “Nippur als religiöses Zentrum Mesopotamiens im historischen Wandel”, in Wilhelm, G. (ed.) Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch, 147–168. Colloquien der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 1. Saarbrücken: SDV. ——— (2001) “Nin-MAR.KI.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 463–468. ——— (2007) “Reinheit. A. Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 11, 295–299. Sallaberger, W. & Huber Vulliet, F. (2005) “Priester. A. I. Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10, 617– 640. Salonen, A. (1939) Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien nach šumerisch-akkadischen Quellen (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der 4. Tafel der Serie ḪARra = ḫubullu). Studia Orientalia 8/4. Helsingforsiae: Societas Orientalis Fennica. ——— (1957–1971) “Götterboot. A. Nach sumerischen und akkadischen Quellen.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 463–464. Samet, N. (2014) The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur. Mesopotamian Civilizations 18. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Sandowicz, M. (2012) Oaths and Curses. A Study in Neo- and Late Babylonian Legal Formulary. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 398. Münster: UgaritVerlag. Schaudig, H. (2001) Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Großen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 256. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2002) “Nabonid, der “Gelehrte auf dem Königsthron”. Omina, Synkretismen und die Ausdeutung von Tempel- und Götternamen als Mittel zur Wahrheitsfindung spätbabylonischer Religionspolitik”, in Loretz, O., Metzler, K.A. & Schaudig, H. (eds) Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für

582

Bibliography

Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, 619–645. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 281. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2003) “Nabonid, der ‘Archäologe auf dem Königsthron’. Zum Geschichtsbild des ausgehenden neubabylonischen Reiches”, in Selz, G.J. (ed.) Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast zu seinem 70. Geburtstage, 445–497. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 274. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2010) “The Restoration of Temples in the Neo- and Late Babylonian Periods. A Royal Prerogative as the Setting for Political Argument”, in Boda, M.J. & Novotny, J. (eds) From the Foundations to the Crenellations. Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible, 141–164. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 366. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2011) “Sîn-šarru-iškun.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, 522–524. ——— (2019) Explaining Disaster. Tradition and Transformation of the “Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn” in Babylonian Literature. dubsar 13. Münster: Zaphon. ——— (forthcoming) “Section 1: Cuneiform Texts from the Saudi-German Excavations at Taymāʾ Seasons 2004–2015”, in Hausleiter, A., Eichmann, R. & Al-Najem, M. (eds) Tayma II. Inscriptions from the Saudi-German Excavations Part 1, 3–19. Riyadh: Saudi Commission for Tourism and National Heritage. Scheil, V. (1900) Textes Élamites-Sémitiques. Mémoires, Délégation en Perse 2. Paris: Leroux. ——— (1902) Une saison de fouilles à Sippar. Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire Le Caire: L’Institut français d’archéologie orientale. ——— (1905) Textes Élamites-Sémitiques. Mémoires, Délégation en Perse 6. Paris: Leroux. ——— (1914) “Nouvelles notes d’épigraphie et d’archéologie assyriennes.” Recueil de travaux relatifs à la philologie et à l’archeologie éqyptiennes et assyriennes 36, 179–192. Schollmeyer, A. (1912) Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen und Gebete an Šamaš. Studien zur Gesichte und Kultur des Altertums 1. Paderborn: Schöningh. Schott, A. (1934) “Das Werden der babylonisch-assyrischen Positions-Astronomie und einige seiner Bedingungen.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 88, 302–337. Schramm, W. (1975–1976) “Assyrische Königsinschriften.” Die Welt des Orients 8, 37–48. Schröder, O. (1920) Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 35. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Schuster-Brandis, A. (2008) Steine als Schutz- und Heilmittel. Untersuchung zu ihrer Verwendung in der Beschwörungskunst Mesopotamiens im 1. Jt. v. Chr.

Bibliography

583

Alter Orient und Altes Testament 46. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Schwemer, D. (2001) Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen. Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——— (2007a) Abwehrzauber und Behexung. Studien zum Schadenzauberglauben im alten Mesopotamien. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. ——— (2007b) Rituale und Beschwörungen gegen Schadenzauber. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 2; Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 117. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ——— (2007c) “Witchcraft and War: The Ritual Fragment Ki 1904-10-9, 18 (BM 98989).” Iraq 69, 29–42. ——— (2010) “Fighting Witchcraft before the Moon and Sun: a Therapeutic Ritual from Neo-Babylonian Sippar.” Orientalia Nova Series 79, 480–504. ——— (2015) “Secret Knowledge of Lu-Nanna, the Sage of Ur: Six Astral Rituals for Gaining Power and Success (BM 38599)”, in Müller-Karpe, H., Rieken, E. & Sommerfeld, W. (eds) Saeculum. Gedenkschrift für Heinrich Otten anlässlich seines 100. Geburtstags, 211–228. Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 58. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Scigliuzzo, E. (2003) “A South Arabian Ivory Vessel from Hama Reconsidered.” Ugarit-Forschungen 35, 629–647. Scurlock, J. (1991) “Baby-snatching Demons, Restless Souls and the Dangers of Childbirth: Medico-magical Means of Dealing with Some of the Perils of Motherhood in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Incognita 2, 135–183. ——— (2002) “Animals in Ancient Mesopotamian Religion”, in Collins, B.J. (ed.) A History of the Animal World in the Ancient Near East, 361–387. Handbuch der Orientalistik 64. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill. ——— (2005–2006) “Sorcery in the Stars: STT 300, BRM 4.19–20 and the Mandaic Book of the Zodiac.” Archiv für Orientforschung 51, 125–146. ——— (2006) Magico-medical Means of Treating Ghost-induced Illnesses in Ancient Mesopotamia. Ancient Magic and Divination 3. Leiden: Brill. ——— (2009) “Not Just Housewives: Goddesses After the Old Babylonian Period”, in Holloway, S.W., Scurlock, J. & Beal, R. (eds) In the Wake of Tikva Frymer-Kensky, 59–70. Gorgias Précis Portfolios 4. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. ——— (2014) Sourcebook for Ancient Mesopotamian Medicine. Writings from the Ancient World 36. Atlanta, Georgia: SBL Press. Scurlock, J. & Andersen, B.R. (2005) Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine. Ancient Sources, Translations, and Modern Medical Analyses. Urbana; Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Seidl, U. (1957–1971) “Göttersymbole und -attribute.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 483–490. ——— (1989) Die babylonischen kudurru-Reliefs. Symbole mesopotamischer

584

Bibliography

Gottheiten. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 87. Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ——— (1993) “Kleine Stele aus Til Barsip.” N.A.B.U. 1993, 72. ——— (1998) “Das Flut-Ungeheuer abūbu.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 88, 100–113. ——— (2000) “Babylonische und assyrische Kultbilder in den Massenmedien des 1. Jahrtausends v. Chr.”, in Uehlinger, C. (ed.) Images as Media. Sources for the cultural history of the Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (1st millennium BCE), 89–114. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 175. Fribourg Switzerland; Göttingen: University Press Fribourg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. ——— (2011) “Standarte. B. Archäologisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 13, 110–116. Seux, M.-J. (1967) Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes. Paris: Letouzey et Ané. ——— (1976) Hymnes et prieres aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie. Paris: Seymour, M. (2014) Legend, History and the Ancient City Babylon. London; New York: I. B. Tauris. Shaffer, A. & Ludwig, M.-C. (2006) Literary and Religious Texts. Third Part. Ur Excavations, Texts 6/3. London: The British Museum Press. Shibata, D. (2010) “Ritual Contexts and Mythological Explanations of the Emesal Šuilla-Prayers in Ancient Mesopotamia.” Orient 45, 67–85. ——— (forthcoming) Die Šu’ila Gebete im Emesal. Heidelberger EmesalStudien Siddall, L.R. (2013) The Reign of Adad-nīrārī III. An Historical and Ideological Analysis of An Assyrian King and His Times. Cuneiform Monographs 45. Leiden; Boston: Brill. Sidersky, M. (1920) “Tablet of Prayers for a King (?) (K. 2279).” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1920, 565–572. Simons, F. (2016) “The God Alammuš dLÀL / d.mùšLÀL.” N.A.B.U. 2016, 8–10. Sjöberg, Å.W. (1960) Der Mondgott Nanna-Suen in der sumerischen Überlieferung. I. Teil: Texte. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksells. ——— (1973) “Miscellanous Sumerian Hymns.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 63, 1–55. ——— (1975) “in-nin šà-gur4-ra A Hymn to the Goddess Inanna by the enPriestess Enḫeduanna.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 65, 161–253. ——— (1977) “Miscellaneous Sumerian Texts, II.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 29, 3–45. ——— (2002) “In the Beginning”, in Abusch, T. (ed.) Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen, 229– 247. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns.

Bibliography

585

Sjöberg, Å.W. & Bergmann, E. (1969) The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. Texts from Cuneiform Sources 3. Locust Valley, N. Y.: Augustin. Slanski, K.E. (2003) The Babylonian Entitlement narûs (kudurrus). A Study in their Form and Function. ASOR Books 9. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. ——— (2003–2004) “Representation of the Divine on the Babylonian Entitlement Monuments (kudurrus): Part 1: Divine Symbols.” Archiv für Orientforschung 50, 309–323. Smith, S. (1923) Royal Inscriptions, Chronicals, Lexical Texts, Omens. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 37. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Sommerfeld, W. (1982) Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v. Chr. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 213. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vlyun: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1993) “Flüche und Fluchformeln als Quelle für die altorientalische Kulturgeschichte”, in Dietrich, M. & Loretz, O. (eds) Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992, 447–463. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 232. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (2011) “Altakkadische Duelle”, in Barjamovic, G., Dahl, J.L., Koch, U.S., Sommerfeld, W. & Westenholz, J.G. (eds) Akkade is King. A Collection of Papers by Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday 15th of May 2009, 287–299. Uitgaven van het Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten 118. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Spar, I. & Lambert, W.G. (ed.) (2005) Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B. C. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2. New York, NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Sperl, S. (1994) “The Literary Form of Prayer: Qur’ān sūra One, the Lord’s Prayer and a Babylonian Prayer to the Moon God.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 57, 213–227. Spycket, A. (1981) La statuaire du Proche-Orient ancien. Handbuch der Orientalistik Leiden; Köln: E. J. Brill. Stadhouders, H. (2011) “The Pharmacopoeial Handbook Šammu šikinšu — An Edition.” Le Journal des Médecines Cuneiformes 18, 3–51. ——— (2012) “The Pharmacopoeial Handbook Šammu šikinšu — A Translation.” Le Journal des Médecines Cuneiformes 19, 1–21. Stadhouders, H. & Steinert, U. (2018) “Two rituals to postpone an ill-omened childbirth: an edition of KAR 223 and duplicates.” Le Journal des Médecines Cuneiformes 32, 56–76. Stamm, J.J. (1939) Die Akkadische Namengebung. Mitteilungen der Vorderasi-

586

Bibliography

atisch-Aegyptischen Gesellschaft 44. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Stark, F. (1937) The Valleys of the Assassins and other Persian Travels. London: Penguin Books. Starr, I. (1983) The Rituals of the Diviner. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 12. Malibu: Undena Publications. ——— (1990) Queries to the Sungod. Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. State Archives of Assyria 4. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press. Steele, J.M. (2007) “The Lenght of the Month in Mesopotamian Calendars of the First Millennium BC”, in Steele, J.M. (ed.) Calendars and Years. Astronomy and Time in the Ancient Near East, 133–148. Oxford: Oxbow Books. ——— (2011) “Making Sense of Time: Observational and Theoretical Calendars”, in Radner, K. & Robson, E. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture, 470–485. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ——— (2012) “Living with a Lunar Calendar in Mesopotamia and China”, in Ben-Dov, J., Horowitz, W. & Steele, J.M. (eds) Living the Lunar Calendar, 373–387. Oxford; Oakville: Oxbow Books. Steible, H. (1982) Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Teil II: Kommentar zu den Inschriften aus ‘Lagaš’, Inschriften ausserhalb von ‘Lagaš’. Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 5/2. Wiesbaden: Franz Seiner Verlag. ——— (1991) Die neusumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften. Teil 2: Kommentar zu den Gudea-Statuen, Inschriften der III. Dynastie von Ur, Inschriften der IV. und “V.” Dynastie von Uruk, Varia. Freiburger altorientalische Studien 9/2. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag. Steinkeller, P. (2005) “Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy”, in Gianto, A. (ed.) Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran, 11–47. Biblica et orientalia 48. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico. ——— (2016) “Nanna/Suen, the Shining Bowl”, in Corò, P., Devecchi, E., De Zorzi, N. & Maiocchi, M. (eds) Libiamo ne’ lieci calici. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Presented to Lucio Milano on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends, 615–625. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 436. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. Stephens, F.J. (1950) “Sumero-Akkadian Hymns and Prayers”, in Pritchard, J.B. (ed.) Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 383–392. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Stol, M. (1986) “Blindness and Night-Blindness in Akkadian.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 45, 295–299. ——— (1987–1988) “Leprosy. New Light from Greek and Babylonian Sources.” Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 30, 22–31. ——— (1991–1992) “Diagnosis and Therapy in Babylonian Medicine.” Jaarbericht van het vooraziatisch-egyptisch genootschap Ex Oriente Lux 32, 42–

Bibliography

587

65. ——— (1992) “The Moon as Seen by the Babylonians”, in Meijer, D.J.W. (ed.) Natural Phenomena. Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East, 245–277. Amsterdam; Oxford; New York; Tokyo: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. ——— (1993) Epilepsy in Babylonia. Cuneiform Monographs 2. Groningen: Styx Publications. ——— (1998) “Nanaja.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 146–151. ——— (2000) Birth in Babylonia and the Bible. Its Mediterranean Setting. Cuneiform Monographs 14. Groningen: Styx Publications. ——— (2012) “Review of Roth, M. T. (ed.) The Assyrian Dictionary. Volume 20: U and W.” Bibliotheca Orientalis 69, 532–539. Strassmann, B.I. (1997) “The Biology of Menstruation in Homo Sapiens: Total Lifetime Menses, Fecundity, and Nonsynchrony in a Natural-Fertility Population.” Current Antropology 38, 123–129. Streck, M. (1916) Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergange Niniveh’s. Teile I–III. Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. Streck, M.P. (1998–2001) “Ninurta/Ninĝirsu. A. In Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 512–522. ——— (2001) “Nusku.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 629–633. ——— (2014) “Tierwelt (fauna).” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 14, 16–19. Strommenger, E. (1970) Die neuassyrische Rundskulptur. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 15. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Such-Gutiérrez, M. (2003) Beiträge zum Pantheon von Nippur im 3. Jahrtausend. Materiali SHUil vocabolario sumerico 9. Roma: Università degli stu GLGLRoma «La Sapienza» Dipartimento di studi orientali. Tadmor, H. (1965) “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement”, in Güterbock, H.G. & Jacobsen, T. (eds) Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday April 21, 1965, 351–363. Assyriological Studies 16. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Tadmor, H. & Yamada, S. (2011) The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III (744–727 BC), and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. Tallqvist, K. (1895) Assyrische Beschwörungsserie Maqlû. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae 20/6. Helsingfors: Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae. ——— (1905) Neobabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Šamaššumukîn bis Xerxes. Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicae

588

Bibliography

32/2. Helsingfors: Finska Vetenskapssocieteten. ——— (1932) Der assyrische Gott. Studia Orientalia 4/3. Helsingfors: Societas orientalis fennica. ——— (1938a) Akkadische Götterepitheta. Studia Orientalia 7. Helsinki: Societas orientalis fennica. ——— (1938b) Kuu ja ihminen. Kuu-uskomuksia ja kuunpalvontaa itämailla ja muualla. Suomen itämaisen seuran kansantajuisia julkaisuja n:o 9. Porvoo; Helsinki: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö. ——— (1947) Månen i myt och dikt, folktro och kult. Helsingfors: Söderström & C:o Förlagsaktiebolag. ——— (1953) Babyloniska hymner och böner. Populärvetenskapliga skrifter utgivna av Finska Orient-Sällskap, Svensk serie 5. Helsingfors: Finska Litteratursällskapets Tryckeri. Talon, P. (1993) “Le rituel comme moyen de légitimation politique au 1er millénaire en Mésopotamie”, in Quaegebeur, J. (ed.) Ritual and Sacrifice in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the International Conference organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the 17th to the 20th of April 1991, 421–433. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Leuven: Peeters; Departement oriëtalistiek. Tarasewicz, R. (2018) The Neo-Babylonian Records from Ur from the Hall Collection of the British Museum. dubsar 7. Münster: Zaphon. Theuer, G. (2000) Der Mondgott in den Religionen Syrien-Palästinas unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von KTU 1.24. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 173. Freiburg, Schweiz; Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Freiburg; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Thompson, R.C. (1906) Medical Prayers and Incantations. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 23. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. ——— (1927) A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. London: Luzac and Co. ——— (1940) “A Selection from the Cuneiform Historical Texts from Nineveh (1927–32).” Iraq 7, 85–131. Thureau-Dangin, F. (1912) Une relation de la huitième campagne de Sargon (714 av. J.-C.). Textes cunéiformes, Musées du Louvre 3. Paris: Paul Geuthner. ——— (1919) “Un acte de donation de Marduk-zâkir-šumi.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 16, 117–156. ——— (1921) Rituels accadiens. Paris: Ernest Leroux. ——— (1923) “La procession du nouvel an a Uruk.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 20, 107–112. ——— (1924) “Les sculptures rupestres de Maltaï.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 21, 185–197.

Bibliography

589

Thureau-Dangin, F. & Dunand, M. (1936) Til-Barsib. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 23. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Tremayne, A. (1925) Records from Erech, Time of Cyrus and Cambyses (538– 521 B.C.). Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts 7. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press. Tsukimoto, A. (1985) Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 216. Kevelaer; NeukirchenVluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1999) “‘By the Hand of Madi-Dagan, the Scribe and Apkallu-Priest’ – A Medical Text from the Middle Euphrates Region”, in Watanabe, K. (ed.) Priests and Officials in the Ancient Near East. Papers of the Second Colloquium on the Ancient Near East – The City and its Life held at the Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996, 187– 200. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Tubach, J. (1986) Im Schatten des Sonnengottes. Der Sonnenkult in Edessa, Ḥarrān und Ḥaṭrā am Vorabend der christlichen Mission. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Uehlinger, C. (1997) “Figurative Policy, Propaganda und Prophetie”, in Emerton, J.A. (ed.) Congress Volume, Cambridge 1995, 297–349. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum. Leiden; New York; Köln: Brill. ——— (2008) “Arbeit an altorientalischen Gottesnamen. Theonomastik im Spannungsfeld von Sprache, Schrift und Textpragmatik”, in Dalferth, I.U. & Stoellger, P. (eds) Gott Nennen. Gottes Namen und Gott als Name, 23–71. Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Unger, E. (1931) Babylon. Die heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier. Berlin; Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co. ——— (1932) “Barsippa.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 1, 402–429. Ungnad, A. (1938) “Datenlisten.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie 2, 131–194. Unsöld, A. & Baschek, B. (1999) Der neue Kosmos. Einführung in die Astronomie und Astrophysik. Sechste Auflage. Berlin; Heidelberg; New York: Springer-Verlag. Van Buren, E.D. (1939–1941) “The Seven Dots in Mesopotamian Art and their Meaning.” Archiv für Orientforschung 13, 277–289. Van De Mieroop, M. (1992) Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 12. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag. ——— (2015) Philosophy before the Greeks. The Pursuit of Truth in Ancient Babylonia. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Van Der Toorn, K. (1985) Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. A Comparative Study. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 22. Assen; Maastricht: van Gorcum. ——— (1996) Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria & Israel. Continuity &

590

Bibliography

Change in the Forms of Religious Life. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 7. Leiden; New York; Köln: E. J. Brill. Van Dijk, J. (1971) Nicht-kanonische Beschwörungen und sonstige literarische Texte. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 17. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. ——— (1972) “Une variante du thème de «l’Esclave de la Lune».” Orientalia Nova Series 41, 339–348. ——— (1975) “Incantations accompagnant la naissance de l’homme (Tab. V– VI).” Orientalia Nova Series 44, 52–79. ——— (1976) Cuneiform texts of Varying Content. Texts in the Iraq Museum 9. Leiden: E. J. Brill. ——— (1987) Literarische Texte aus Babylon. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der staatlichen Museen zu Berlin 24. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Van Dijk, J., Goetze, A. & Hussey, M.I. (1985) Early Mesopotamian Incantations and Rituals. Yale Oriental Series, Babylonian Texts 11. New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Van Driel, G. (1969) The Cult of Aššur. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 13. Assen: Van Gorcum. Vanderhooft, D.S. (1999) The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets. Harward Semitic Museum Monographs 59. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press. Veldhuis, N. (1989) “The New Assyrian Compendium for a Woman in Childbirth.” Acta Sumerologica 11, 239–260. ——— (1991) A Cow of Sîn. Library of Oriental Texts 2. Groningen: Styx Publications. Verderame, L. (2002a) “Enūma Anu Enlil Tablets 1–13”, in Steele, J. & Imhausen, A. (eds) Under One Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, 447–455. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 297. Münster: UgaritVerlag. ——— (2002b) Le tavole I-VI della serie astrologica Enūma Anu Enlil. Nisaba Roma: Di.Sc.A.M. ——— (2006–2008) “Le calendrier et la mesure du temps dans la pensée mythique suméro-akkadienne.” De Kêmi à Birīt nāri. Revue Internationale de l’Orient Ancien 3, 121–134. ——— (2013) “Means of Substitution. The Use of Figurines, Animals, and Human Beings as Substitutes in Assyrian Rituals”, in Ambos, C. & Verderame, L. (eds) Approaching Rituals in Ancient Cultures. Questioni di rito: Rituali come fonte di conoscenza delle religioni e delle concezioni del mondo nelle culture antiche. Proceedings of the Conference, November 28–30, 2011, Roma, 301–323. Rivista degli Studi Orientali Nuova Serie Vol. 86 Supplemento No 2. Pisa; Roma: Fabrizio Serra Editore. ——— (2014) “The Halo of the Moon”, in Fincke, J.C. (ed.) Divination in the

Bibliography

591

Ancient Near East. A Workshop on Divination Conducted during the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Würzburg, 2008, 91–104. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2017) “The King is the Moon: Power and Time Reckoning in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in Ben-Dov, J. & Doering, L. (eds) The Construction of Time in Antiquity: Ritual, Art, and Identity, 124–141. New York: Cambridge University Press. Virolleaud, C. (1906a) “Nouveaux fragments inédits du Musée Britannique.” Babyloniaca 1, 185–209. ——— (1906b) “Quelques textes cunéiformes inédits.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 19, 377–385. ——— (1908–1912) L’astrologie chaldéenne. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Volk, K. (2004) “Von Dunkel in die Helligkeit: Schwangerschaft, Geburt und frühe Kindheit in Babylonien und Assyrien”, in Dasen, V. (ed.) Naissance et petite enfance dans l’Antiquité, 71–92. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 203. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Von Soden, W. (1995) Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. 3., ergänzte Auflage. Analecta Orientalia 33. Romae: Pontificum institutum biblicum. Von Stietencron, H. (1986) “Gedanken zur Theologie”, in Von Stietencron, H. (ed.) Theologen und Theologien in verschiedenen Kulturkreisen, 9–24. Düsseldorf: Patmos Verlag. Waerzeggers, C. (2003–2004) “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’.” Archiv für Orientforschung 50, 150–173. ——— (2010) The Ezida Temple of Borsippa. Priesthood, Cult, Archives. Achaemenid History 15. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Waetzoldt, H. (1980–1983) “Kopfbedeckung. A. Philologisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6, 197–203. ——— (1990) “Zur Lesung und Aussprache von dEN.ZU am Ende des 3. Jahrtausends.” N.A.B.U. 1990, 73–74. ——— (2011) “Spinnen. A. Philologisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 13, 1–3. Walker, C.B.F. (1981) Cuneiform Brick Inscriptions in the British Museum, the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, the City of Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery, the City of Bristol Museum and Art Gallery. London: British Museum. Walker, C. (1972) Miscellaneous Texts. Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum 51. London: The Trustees of the British Museum. Walker, C. & Dick, M.B. (1999) “The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia: The Mesopotamian mīs pî Ritual”, in Dick, M.B. (ed.) Born in Heaven, Made on Earth. The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East, 55–121. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns. ——— (2001) The Induction of the Cult Image in Ancient Mesopotamia. The

592

Bibliography

Mesopotamian Mīs Pî Ritual. State Archives of Assyria Literary Texts 1. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Wasserman, N. (1992) ““CT 21, 40–42”: A Bilingual Report of an Oracle with a Royal Hymn of Hammurabi.” Revue d’Assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale 86, 1–18. Watanabe, C.E. (2002) Animal Symbolism in Mesopotamia. A Contextual Approach. Wiener Offene Orientalistik 1. Wien: Institut für Orientalistik der Universität Wien. Watanabe, K. (1984) “Die literarische Überlieferung eines babylonisch-assyrischen Fluchthemas mit Anrufung des Mongottes Sîn.” Acta Sumerologica 6, 99–119. ——— (1991) “Segenswünsche für den assyrischen König in der 2. Person Sg.” Acta Sumerologica 13, 347–387. Weadock, P.N. (1958) The Giparu at Ur: A Study of the Archaeological Remains and Related Textual Material. PhD dissertation, Oriental Languages and Literatures. Chicago: The University of Chicago. ——— (1975) “The Giparu at Ur.” Iraq 37, 101–128. Wee, J.Z. (2014) “Grieving with the Moon: Pantheon and Politics in The Lunar Eclipse.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 14, 29–67. ——— (2015) “Phenomena in Writing. Creating and Interpreting Variants of the Diagnostic Series Sa-gig”, in Johnson, J.C. (ed.) In the Wake of the Compendia. Infrastructural Contexts and the Licensing of Empiricism in Ancient and Medieval Mesopotamia, 247–287. Science, Technology, and Medicine in Ancient Cultures. Boston; Berlin: De Gruyter. Weichenhan, M. (2016) Der Panbabylonismus. Die Faszination des himmlischen Buches im Zeitalter der Zivilisation. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Weidner, E.F. (1911) Beiträge zur babylonischen Astronomie. Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft 8/4. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1915) Handbuch der babylonischen Astronomie I. Der babylonische Fixsternhimmel. Assyriologische Bibliothek 23/1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs. ——— (1921–1923) “Studien zur babylonischen Himmelskunde.” Rivista degli Studi Orientali 9, 287–300. ——— (1924–1925) “Altbabylonische Götterlisten.” Archiv für Keilschriftforschung 2, 1–18. ——— (1941–1944) “Die astrologische Serie Enûma Anu Enlil.” Archiv für Orientforschung 14, 172–195; 308. ——— (1957–1971) “Fixsterne.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 72–82. ——— (1959–1960) “Ein astrologischer Sammeltext aus der Sargonidenzeit.” Archiv für Orientforschung 19, 105–113. ——— (1967) Gestirn-Darstellungen auf babylonischen Tontafeln. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften Philosophisch-historische Klasse

Bibliography

593

254/2. Graz; Wien; Köln: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf. Weiher, E.V. (1983) Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil II. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 10. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. ——— (1988) Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil III. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 12. Berlin: Gebr. Mann Verlag. Weisberg, D.B. (2003) Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Oriental Institute Collection. Oriental Institute Publications 122. Chicago: The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Werner, P. (2009) Der Sîn-Šamaš-Tempel in Assur. Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 122. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Westenholz, J.G. (1989) “Enḫeduanna, En-Priestess, Hen of Nanna, Spouse of Nanna”, in Behrens, H., Loding, D. & Roth, M.T. (eds) DUMU-E2-DUB-BAA. Studies in Honor of Åke W. Sjöberg, 539–556. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11. Philadelphia: Samuel Noah Kramer Fund. ——— (2013) “Plethora of Female Deities”, in Asher-Greve, J.M. & Westenholz, J.G. (eds) Goddesses in Context. On Divine Powers, Roles, Relationships and Gender in Mesopotamian Textual and Visual Sources, 29–148. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 259. Fribourg; Göttingen: Academic Press; Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Weszeli, M. (2004) “Pferd. A. I. In Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10, 469–481. ——— (2009) “Schiff und Boot. B. In mesopotamischen Quellen des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, 160–171. Wiggermann, F.A.M. (1989) “Tišpak, his seal, and the dragon mušḫuššu”, in Haex, O.M.C., Curvers, H.H. & Akkermans, P.M.M.G. (eds) To the Euphrates and Beyond. Archaeological studies in honour of Maurits N. van Loon, 117–133. Rotterdam; Brookfield: A. A. Balkema. ——— (1992) Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The Ritual Texts. Cuneiform Monographs 1. Groningen: Styx & PP Publications. ——— (1992) “Mythological Foundations of Nature”, in Meijer, D.J.W. (ed.) Natural Phenomena. Their Meaning, Depiction and Description in the Ancient Near East, 279–306. Amsterdam; Oxford; New York; Tokyo: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. ——— (2001) “Nin-šubur.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 490–500. ——— (2010) “Siebengötter. A. Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 12, 459–466. Wilcke, C. (1971) “Review of Tabulae Cuneiformes a F. M. Th. de Liagre Böhl

594

Bibliography

collectae Leidae conservatae (TBL IV). Altbabylonische Briefe, kopiert von R. Frankena.” Orientalische Literaturzeitung 66, 543–555. ——— (1976–1980) “Inanna/Ištar (Mesopotamien). A. Philologisch.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5, 74–87. ——— (1983) “Nachlese zu A. Poebels Babylonian Legal and Business Documents from the Time of the First Dynasty of Babylon Chiefly From Nippur (BE 6/2) Teil 1.” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 73, 48–66. ——— (2007) “Das Recht: Grundlage des sozialen und politischen Diskurses im Alten Orient”, in Wilcke, C. (ed.) Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient. Sprache, Religion, Kultur and Gesellschaft, 209–244. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Wilhelm, G. (1982) Grundzüge der Geschichte und Kultur der Hurriter. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Wilson, E.J. (1994) “Holiness” and “Purity” in Mesopotamia. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 237. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. ——— (1996) The Cylinders of Gudea. Transliteration, Translation and Index. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 244. Kevelaer; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Butzon & Bercker; Neukirchener Verlag. Wilson, K.L. (1995) “Oriental Institute Discoveries at Khorsabad (1929–1935)”, in Caubet, A. (ed.) Khorsabad, le palais de Sargon II, roi d’Assyrie. Actes du colloque organisé au musée du Louvre par le Service culturel les 21 et 22 janvier 1994, 107–131. Louvre Conférences et colloques. Paris: La Documentation française. Winter, I.J. (1994) “Radiance as an Aesthetic Value in the Art of Mesopotamia (With some Indian Parallels)”, in Saraswati, B.N., Malik, S.C. & Khanna, M. (eds) Art: The Integral Vision. A Volume of Essay in Felicitation of Kapila Vatsyayan, 123–132. New Delhi: D. K. Printworld Ltd. Wiseman, D.J. & Black, J.A. (1996) Literary Texts from the Temple of Nabû. Cuneiform Texts from Nimrud 4. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Wiseman, D.T. (1953) “The Nimrud Tablets, 1953.” Iraq 15, 135–160. ——— (1969) “A Lipšur Litany from Nimrud.” Iraq 31, 175–183. Wolters, A. (1995) “Belshazzar’s Feast and the Cult of the Moon God Sîn.” Bulletin for Biblical Research 5, 199–206. Woods, C.E. (2004) “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited.” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 56, 23–103. Woolley, L. (1925) “Excavations at Ur, 1924–1925.” The Antiquaries Journal 5, 347–402. ——— (1931) “Excavations at Ur, 1930–1.” The Antiquaries Journal 11, 343– 381.

Bibliography

595

——— (1939) The Ziqqurrat and its Surroundings. Ur Excavations 5. London: The Trustees of the Two Museums. ——— (1962) The Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods. Ur Excavations 9. London: The Trustees of the Two Museums. ——— (1965) The Kassite Period and the Period of the Assyrian Kings. Ur Excavations 8. London: Trustees of the Two Museums. Wright, H.T. (1981) “The Southern Margins of Sumer. Archaeological Survey of the Area of Eridu and Ur”, in Adams, R.M. (ed.) Heartland of Cities. Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use of the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates, 215–345. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. Yamada, S. (2000) The Construction of the Assyrian Empire. A Historical Study of the Inscriptions of Shalmaneser III (859–824 BC) Relating to His Campaigns to the West. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 3. Leiden; Boston; Köln: Brill. Zadok, R. (1977) On West Semites in Babylonia during the Chaldean and Achaemenian Periods. An Onomastic Study. Jerusalem: H. J. & Z. Wanaarta; Tel-Aviv University. Zawadzki, S. (2013) Neo-Babylonian Documents from Sippar Pertaining to the Cult. Poznań: Instytut Historii UAM. Zgoll, A. (2000) “Ningal. A. I. In Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 9, 352–356. ——— (2003) “Audienz – Ein Modell zum Verständnis mesopotamischer Handerhebungsrituale. Mit einer Deutung der Novelle vom Armen Mann von Nippur.” Baghdader Mitteilungen 34, 181–203. ——— (2003) Die Kunst des Betens. Form und Funktion, Theologie und Psychagogik in babylonisch-assyrischen Handerhebungsgebeten zu Ištar. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 308. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2006) Traum und Welterleben im antiken Mesopotamien. Traumtheorie und Traumpraxis im 3.–1. Jahrtausend v. Chr. als Horizont einer Kulturgeschichte des Träumens. Alter Orient und Altes Testament 333. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag. ——— (2014) “Traum, Traumgottheiten. A. In Mesopotamien.” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 14, 114–118. Zimmern, H. (1901) Beiträge zur Kenntnis der babylonischen Religion. Die Beschwörungstafeln Šurpu. Ritualtafeln für den Wahrsager, Beschwörer und Sänger. Leipzig: Hinrichs. ——— (1912) Sumerische Kultlieder aus altbabylonischer Zeit. Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Königlichen Museen zu Berlin 2. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung.

Index Compositions Adda-guppi Stele; see Schaudig 2001, 3.2 a-gal-gal buru14 su-su, a+121: 61 n272 Alandimmû III, 86–88: 273 Amarsuen 12, 19–21: 359 n2023 An = Anum: 10, 30 n87, 34, 45–46, 60, 68, 71, 74, 77–78, 83, 127 n719, 138 n738, 150–151, 191, 197, 207, 236, 242–243, 248–249, 252, 290, 292–294, 297, 305, 314– 315, 317–318, 321–322, 324, 327– 329, 335, 327; I, 139–146: 355 n2003; I, 145: 127 n717, 316 n1795; I, 163: 294 n1653; I, 184: 354 n1992, 370 n2078; I, 201: 187 n1044; I, 252: 354 n1996, 314 n1786; I, 281: 370 n2079; I, 298: 354 n1994; I, 306: 354 n1998; I, 318–319: 354 n2000; I, 324: 354 n1994; II, 21: 305 n1716; II, 143– 147: 294 n1653; II, 178: 297 n1670; II, 295: 252 n1431; III, 1– 22: 34 n118; III, 1–26: 327; III, 1– 29: 327; III, 4: 78 n373, 305 n1720; III, 5: 83 n410; III, 6–7: 243 n1365; III, 8–11: 60; III, 9: 34 n118; III, 9–10: 248 n1404; III, 12: 93 n491; III, 14: 45 n188, 305 n1720; III, 15: 372 n2091; III, 15– 16: 293 n1636; III, 16: 293 n1640; III, 17–18: 197 n1102; III, 19: 236 n1326; III, 20: 243 n1369; III, 21– 22: 151 n792; III, 22: 34; III, 23– 25: 34, 74 n352, 327; III, 24–25: 46 n191; III, 26: 74 n351, 327; III, 27–29: 327; III, 28: 297 n1671; III, 30–35: 328; III, 30–57: 328; III, 31–35: 318 n1814; III, 36: 320 n1821, 322 n1829, 328; III, 37: 322 n1835, 328; III, 38: 322

n1834, 328; III, 39: 328; III, 40: 322 n1835, 328; III, 41–43: 324– 325 n1852, 328; III, 44–48: 328; III, 44–48: 328; III, 49–57: 328; III, 58: 329; III, 58–96: 329; III, 59–61: 329; III, 62–64: 329; III, 65: 243 n1373, 290 n1623, 329; III, 66: 329; III, 67: 329; III, 68: 329; III, 70: 329; III, 71–84: 329; III, 85: 329; III, 86–87: 329; III, 88–96: 329; III, 96: 78 n374; III, 100: 46 n189; III, 102: 78 n374, 305 n1721; III, 106: 46 n189, 305 n1721; III, 189: 191 n1072 An = Anu ša amēli: 137; 24: 37 n139; 25: 138 n737, 151 n798; 29: 78 n377; 32: 60 n267; 33: 83 n410; 34–35: 243; 36: 46 n192; 38: 74 n352 An-gin7 dím-ma, 69: 204 n1163; 131: 145 n766 an-na e-lum-e: 380 (see also SBH no. 24, 3) Antakya Stele: see RIMA 3, A.0.104.2 Assurbanipal Prism A, I 1–7: 214; I 3: 200 n1122; III 118–127: 193; IV 110: 152 n801; IV 110–111: 295 n1654 Assurbanipal Prism B, V 3–10: 58; V 9: 153 n811; V 78–79: 36, 37 n137, 88 n450 Assurbanipal Prism C, I 78–79: 398 n2266; I 71–98: 214 n1215, 403 n2291; VI 80–81: 36 n131, 37 n137, 88 n450; VII 115–121: 58 n259 Assurbanipal Prisms CND: 403 n2291 Assurbanipal Prism E: 225 Assurbanipal Prism F, III 33–34: 152 n801, 295 n1654 Assurbanipal Prism G: 403 n2291

Index

Assurbanipal Prism I: 403 n2291; II 28’–33’: 214 n1215 Assurbanipal Prism T: 214 n1215, 390, 436; II 29–35: 214; II 29–III 14: 403 n2291; II 39–40: 398 n2266; II 49–51: 404 n2302; III 18–35: 435 n2451; III 32–35: 435; V 33–34: 414 n2353 Assyrian King List: 82 n403, 226 Astrolabe B, I 5–6: 295 n1656; I 10– 11: 295 n1656 Aššur Charter, 16–19: 395 n2249; 21– 23: 203 n1157 Atraḫasīs: 289 n1619 Babylonian Almanac: 104 n559, 111, 113 n623, 114–115, 117–118, 126– 127, 326, 412 n2341 Babylon Stele: see Schaudig 2001, 3.3a Banquet Stele: see RIMA 2, A.0.101.30 Bīt mēseri, II 119: 321 n1825 Bīt rimki, 93–94: 504–505 Black Obelisk: see RIMA 3, A.0.102.14 Canonical Temple List, 271: 381 n2156 CH, I 13–15: 206 n1173; L 47–48: 257 n1455; L 47–51: 256 n1453 Coronation Hymn of Assurbanipal: 212–213 Cow of Sîn: 30 n87, 69 n319, 239 n1341, 241, 286, 288, 444, 518 Diri VII, 59: 317 n1803 e-lum di-da-ra: 35, 45 n187, 147–148, 244; b+86: 89 n466; b+86–89: 148; b+88: 353 n1986 e-lum gu4-sún, c+250: 335 n1895 EAE: 5, 33–34, 48, 50, 62, 125–126, 136–137, 150, 158–159 163–164, 167, 170–171, 244, 246 n1392, 361; 1, §0a: 94–95; 1, §0b: 95; 3,

597

text b, 13’: 59 n260; 16, § VII 12: 50 n218; 17, § VI 4: 361; 20, concluding paragraph: 169 n917; 22, concluding paragraph: 136 n730, 169–170; 51, Text X 24–35: 295 n1656 E’amaškuga Cylinder: see Schaudig 2001, 2.6 “Ea, Šamaš, and Marduk 11”: 520 Ebabbar-Ekurra Cylinder: see Schaudig 2001, 2.4 Eclipse Hemerology: see Bu. 88-5-12, 11 Eḫulḫul Cylinder: see Schaudig 2001, 2.12 E’igikalama Cylinder: see Schaudig 2001, 2.5 Elugalĝalgasisa Cylinder: see Schaudig 2001, 2.2 En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder: see Schaudig 2001, 2.7 “Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 1”: see K. 2529+, 48 “Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 2”: see K. 2529+, 49 “Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 3”: see 4 R2 9+// Enlil and Ninlil: 291 Enūma eliš: 62, 93–95, 137, 158, 244, 441; I, 11–16: 147 n780; I, 148– 162: 145; IV, 3–6: 145; V, 9–10: 83; V, 12: 31; V, 12–22: 93–94, 158 n847; V, 24: 125, 154; VII, 59: 494; VII, 66: 143 n758 Eponym Chronicle: 390 n2212 Eponym List: 390 n2212 Exaltation of Inanna, 49–56: 95–96; 55–56: 83; 87–88: 49–50, 67–68 Gilgameš III, 101–106: 212; VIII, 140: 71–72 n335; IX, 8–14: 247 n1400 Götteradressbuch, 1–2: 64 n294; 1– 18: 315 n1790; 16: 422 n2395; 20:

598

Index

421 n2390; 57: 421 n2394; 63–64: 421; 156: 397 n2259; 156–157: 420–421 Great Prayer to Ištar, 5: 312 n1769 Great Star List: 143; 281–287: 137; 288: 109 n592, 146 n777 Gudea Cyl A, XXI 18: 49 n212; XXIV 10: 60 n264 Ḫarrān Census: 389, 398 n2268 Ḫarrān Stele: see Schaudig 2001, 3.1 Ibbi-Suen A, 9–10: 204 n1160; 31: 204 n1160 IIT: 414; 40–41: 435 n2451; 60–69: 403 n2291; 62: 404 n2302; 64: 414 “ikrib to Sîn 1”: see K. 2751+//, 1’–3’ “ikrib to Sîn 2”: see K. 2751+//, 4’– 22’ “ikrib to Sîn 3”: see K. 2751+//, 23’– 56’ “ikrib to Sîn 4”: see K. 2751+//, 57’– 78’ “ikrib to Sîn 5”: see K. 2751+//, 79’– 87’ Imgur-Enlil Cylinder: see Schaudig 2001, 2.1 i-NAM-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a: 57–58, 62, 93 n488, 98 n519, 103, 121, 123, 137– 139, 152, 243, 460 (see also K. 170+, K. 2164+) Inbu bēl arḫi: 54–57, 59, 65–66, 97, 100–105, 110–113, 115–118, 122, 128 n722, 179 n989, 183, 248, 325–326, 447 (see also K. 2514+; K. 3269+; K. 4068+; K. 4093+; K. 4231+ & K. 7079+) Iqqur īpuš: 294–295, 325–326, 507, 516 Iqqur īpuš § 64, 1: 519 Iran Stele; see RINAP 1 no. 35 Išme-Dagan A+V, 72–75: 206 n1172 “Ištar 1”, 3–4: 310; 4: 308 “Ištar 2”, 5: 310

“Ištar 6”: 310 n1755 “Ištar 23”, 3: 310 n1757 “Ištar 31”, 7: 309 n1751 Ištar’s Descent to the Netherworld, 1– 3: 309; 81–84: 309 n1752 Kagal Bog F, I 14: 371–372 n2090 Labbu: 174 Lamaštu I, 82: 152 n806 Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur, 409: 322; 438: 359– 360; 438–440: 323; 477: 302 Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, 13–16: 349; 113: 349 LET, r. 43–69: 403 n2291 Ludlul bēl nēmeqi II, 67: 199 n1114 Luzag. 1, I 21–22: 368 n2067 má-gur8 kù an-na: see BM 13930 Malku III, 151–153: 125 n696; IV, 62–65: 282 n1581 Maqlû I, 122–124: 315 n1789; I, 123: 315 n1787; II, 19: 32 n103; II 20: 32 n103; III, 98: 70; III, 116–135: 48; III, 118–139: 48; IV, 52: 110 n596 Marduk Prophecy, I 15: 145 Mila Mergi rock inscription: see RINAP 1 no. 37 MUL.APIN: 20; I, i 1–ii 35: 136 n728; I, i 5: 434 n2444; I, i 6: 319 n1818, 324; I, i 28: 180 n992; I, ii 29: 180 n992; II, Gap A 8: 93 n487; II, i 9–21: 111 Muššu’u IV, 13: 308, 434 n2446; IV, 18: 98 mu-tin nu-nuz dím-ma, c+376: 335 n1895 Nanaya Hymn of Sargon II: see SAA 3 no. 4 Nanna A: 240 n1349 Nanna F: 240 n1349 Nanna H: 292 n1632 Nanna K, r. 26: 292 n1631

Index

Nanna O: see UM 29-15-570 Nanna-Suen’s Journey to Nippur: 46 n195, 71 n334; 259–318: 370 n2079 “Nergal 2”: 165 n890, 166, 506 Nimrud Monolith: see RIMA 2, A.0.101.17 Nippur Compendium: 296; § 6 ii 11’– 13’: 80–81; § 6 ii 14’: 357; § 13 iii 16’: 370–371; § 14 iv 14–18: 355; § 14 v 2–6: 355, 370; § 14 v 11– 13: 355, 370; § 14 v 7–8: 355, 370 Offering Bread Hemerology: 99, 102– 106, 111–113, 115, 117, 119–120, 122, 126, 128, 183, 248 (see also KAR 178//) Pazarcik Stele: see RIMA 3, A.0.104.3 Poem of Erra IIc, 14–15: 167 Prostration Hemerology: 219–220; 3– 4: 117; 6: 102; 10: 113; 14: 111; 21: 103; 25: 102; 26: 127 Psalm in Praise of Uruk: see SAA 3 no. 9 Rīm-Sîn G, 22: 206 n1171 Ritual vor Gottheiten Assyriens und Babylons: 431; 7–8: 422; 17–19: 422; 103–109: 421; b+204: 436; b+205–206: 435 n2450; c+234– 241: 435 n2449; c+242–248: 433– 434; c+250–252: 436; d+303: 424; i+487–516: 381; i+521: 381; k+537: 381 Royal Chronicle: see Schaudig 2001, P4 Sa-gig: 270; 3, 91–92: 283; 4, 24: 274–275 n1542; 9, 47: 283; 10, 6: 273 n1536; 12, 128: 285 n1599; 15, 10’: 284; 15, 23’: 273 n1531; 15, 41’: 285 n1599; 16, 56’: 278 n1559; 17, 90–94: 279; 18, 1: 279; 18, 22: 283, 284; 19/20, 9’: 279; 19/20, 11’: 278 n1559; 19/20, 12’–

599

13’: 279; 19/20, 45’: 277; 19/20, 112’–113’: 277; 22, 19: 274–275 n1542; 27, 11: 273–274; 27, 32–36: 277–278 n1555; 27, 34: 278 n1556; 27, 35–36: 278 n1557; 29, 5: 281 n1577; 29, 8–9: 281 n1577; 29, 19: 281 n1579; 33, 4: 274 n1540; 33, 114: 283; 40, 35: 276 n1547; 40, 42: 276 n1546; 40, 47– 48: 276; 40, 55–57: 276–277; 40, 56–57: 277–278 n1555; 40, 120– 122: 279 Shamash-shum-ukin Dream Ritual (SDR): 190–191, 452 “Sîn 1”: 11, 13, 35, 85–88, 176–177, 190–192, 295, 452–461, 462; 1: 31–32 n100, 32–33 n109, 35 n123, 88, 493; 1–10: 86; 2: 86 n426; 3: 86–87; 4: 87; 7: 87; 9: 146, 155; 10: 306; 11: 151; 11–13: 151; 11– 16: 125; 14: 293, 492; 16: 128; 17: 76, 155, 415 n2360; 19–25: 190; 21–24: 192 “Sîn 2”: 13, 462–463; 3: 88; 4: 82; 6: 87; 8: 142 n754 “Sîn 3”: 13, 238–239, 464–473, 479; 1: 36–37; 3: 81, 198, 235; 6: 151 n793; 7: 239; 8: 496; 10–11: 239; 14: 239 “Sîn 4”: 13 “Sîn 5”: 13, 497–506; see also K. 6018+//, 1’–4’ “Sîn 6a”: 13, 166–167, 497–506; see also K. 6018+//, 8’–13 “Sîn 6b”: 11, 13, 37, 166–167, 497– 506; see also K. 6018+//, x+36’– x+44’ “Sîn 7”: 13, 83, 155, 166, 497–506; see also K. 6018+//, x+27’–x+33’ “Sîn 8”: 13 “Sîn 9”: 13, 284 n1594, 474–476 “Sîn 10”: see BM 121037, r. 1–8

600

Index

“Sîn 11”: 13, 151 n793, 477–478; 1: 89, 491; 4: 211; 5: 238; 6: 490; 6– 7: 286–287; 8–9: 237; 10–11: 287; 13: 153; 14: 162–163; 15: 86; 16– 17: 287 “Sîn 12”: see VAT 8004//, 11–13 “Sîn 13”: 14, 479 “Sîn 14”: 14, 238–239, 280, 464, 479– 482; 1: 293; 2–4: 239; 9: 273, 287, 463 “Sîn 15”: 14, 280, 287–288, 479; 3: 288; 4: 288 “Sîn 16”: see KAL 4 no. 40, 11’–18’ “Sîn 17”: see IM 148516, 1–r. 3 “Sîn & Šamaš 1”: see CBS 1516 “Sîn & Šamaš 2”: see BAM 4 no. 323//, 99–102 “Sîn & Šamaš 3”: see Si. 34(+)//, 15– 30 Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder A: 200 n1128; 3–5: 210; 9–11: 211 n1196 Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder B: 210 n1195 Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder C, 3: 225 n1260; 11: 200 n1127; 11–12: 210 n1196 Sîn-šarru-iškun Cylinder D: 210 n1195 Stele of Vultures; see RIME 1, E1.9.3.1 Sumerian Flood Story: 48 n207 Sun God Tablet: 41 “Šamaš 1”, 1: 73, 306, 354–355 n2001 “Šamaš 7”: 307 “Šamaš 55”: 507–519 “Šamaš 78”, 7: 306 Šammu šikinšu: 272 Šulgi B, 193: 306 Šulgi X, 139: 302 Šumma izbu 17, 54’: 282 Šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu: 70, 170– 171; 1, 64–65: 220 Šurpu III, 56: 504; III, 104: 254; III,

154: 254; IV, 92: 97; VIII, 25: 323–324 Šu-Suen F, 8–12: 236–237 Tākultu-Ritual Aššur-etel-ilānīs, 1–5: 422 Tašrītu Hemerology: 103 The Temple Hymns, 101–118: 333; 103: 249 n1407; 110–111: 79; 153– 154: 321; 155: 317–318 Tintir II, 34: 381; IV, 8–9: 380–381; IV, 24: 379; V, 49–56: 207 n1181; V, 71–72: 207 u4-dam ki àm-ús, 195: 47; 197: 335 n1895 Udug-ḫul:, 174, 181, 206–207, 295, 443; 4, 94’: 302–303; 4, 95’: 322– 323; 4, 96’: 321; 4, 98’–99’: 325; 5, 59: 243–244; 5, 118: 29–30 n85, 294; 5, 162: 74–75; 12, 44: 326; 16, 29–30: 171; 16, 37–53: 171; 16, 39: 85; 16, 40: 198; 16, 54–78: 171; 16, 58: 293–294; 16, 66–69: 169; 16, 79–81: 171; 16, 82–84: 229 n1286; 16, 83–84: 33 n111, 172–173; 16, 84: 34; 16, 109’– 116’: 169; 16, 110’–112’: 173; 16, 120’: 172; 16, 147’: 172 umun-ĝu10 za-e, 13–15: 87 n437 unkin-ta eš-bar til-la: 394 Ur-Namma EF, 21–22: 360 Ur5-ra; see MSL 5 Verse Account: see Schaudig 2001, P1 Weidner God-list, I 15–16: 324 Zinçirli Stele; see RINAP 4 no. 98 Text publications and museum numbers of cuneiform sources 1 R 55, IV 25–28: 379; IV 61–62: 161; IV 61–65: 383 1 R 65, II 44–45: 342; II 45: 213 3 R 55 no. 3: 68 n315; see also K. 2074

Index

4 R2 9+// (“Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 3”): 15, 31, 137 n735, 148; 1: 197; 1–4: 147; 1–9: 33 n110; 2: 353; 5–9: 197–198; 7: 63; 7–14: 245; 10: 241 n1352, 245; 11: 54, 245; 12: 245; 12–13: 231–232; 14: 27–28 n75; 15–16: 197, 232; 16: 97 n514; 17: 153, 212; 18: 156; 20: 84, 87; 22: 152; 28–30: 237, 247; 35: 204 4 R 13 no. 2+: 75, 307 n1735 4 R 23 no. 3+: 307 n1735 4 R 32, II 8–9: 67 n311 4 R 46 no. 1, 4–5: 434 n2444 5 R 34, II 28–38: 340–341 5 R 44, II 25: 197 n1102 11N-T3: 293 n1638; 17–19: 69–70, 171; 21: 241; 22–23: 243–244 79.B.1./20, 7: 317 n1808 79-7-8, 95: 507–519 80-11-12, 484: 291 n1626 81-2-4, 251+, 6: 161 81-2-4, 256 (BBR 5)+, I 1’–16’: 184– 187 81-2-4, 306, r. 9’: 394; r. 10’–11’: 393–394 82-5-22, 528, 10’: 116 n643 82-7-14, 4005, 15–20: 33–34, 94 n493 AbB 1 no. 106, 17–19: 124 ABL 210, 3–7: 367 ABL 459, 4: 228 ABL 514: see SAA 13 no. 187 ABL 736, 3–6: 367 n2063 ABL 974, 3–5: 31; 6: 31 ABL 1000, 19: 368 ABL 1241+, r. 10–12: 339 ABL 1246+, 3’–11’: 339–340 ABRT I no. 58: see K. 2096 ACh Sin 3, 44: 219 ACh Supp. 2 Sin 6: see K. 7192 ACh Supp. 2 Sin 18: see K. 2181 ADD App. no. 2: see Sm. 55+ AO 4153: 141 n749

601

AO 6451, 41: 317–318, 372 AO 6461, 5–6: 63 n285, 68, 148 n786 AO 6471, III 13–14: 316 AO 6479, III 1–14: 355 n2003; III 14: 127 n717 AO 6494, 15–16: 148 n786 AO 6775: see KAL 10 no. 36 AO 21371, 25–29: 89–90 AOAT 34 no. 1: see K. 2832+ AOAT 34 no. 2: see Sm. 1382 AOAT 34 no. 17: see K. 16342 AOAT 34 no. 59: see K. 6018+ ARM 26/1 no. 24, 10–12: 251, 385 ARM 27 no. 80, 8: 385 n2174 Ash. 1922.256: 365 n2052 BA 10 no. 1, 1–6: 307–308 BAM 3 no. 202//, r. 5’–7’: 272 BAM 3 no. 244, r. 69: 464 BAM 3 no. 248: 241; II 57–59: 476; III 20–24: 288; III 21–22: 288 n1615 BAM 3 no. 248//, I 40–41: 69 n320 BAM 3 no. 311, 51’–52’: 272 n1527 BAM 3 no. 316, VI 14’–23’: 497–506; VI 22’–VI 23’: 505; VI 24’–VI 28’: 506; VI 29’: 166 BAM 4 no. 323//, 89–108: 108; 93: 108; 96–99: 108, 247; 99–100: 108–109; 99–102: 14 (“Sîn & Šamaš 2”); 100: 37; 101: 154, 525; 105: 78, 108 BAM 4 no. 379, II 51’: 272 n1528 BAM 4 no. 385//, I 15’–17’: 278 BAM 4 no. 401: 253 n1434 BAM 5 no. 449+//, 24’–28’: 110; 36’– 40’: 110 BAM 5 no. 471, II 21’–22’: 278 n1557 BAM 6 no. 516, II 30–31’: 285–286 BAM 6 no. 580, II’ 1’–28’: 283, 289; V’ 5’: 123, 283; V’ 17’–20’: 283– 284, 474, 476; V’ 20’: 476

602

Index

BAM 6 no. 584, II’ 25’–26’: 283 n1588 BATSH 6 no. 64, r. 7: 229 BBR 1–20: 184, 186 n1036; 41: 185 n1028; 41–53: 185 n1027; 51: 185 n1033; 215–216: 185 n1032 BBR 4: 185 n1029; 53: 186 n1034 BBR 6: 185 n1029 BBR 7: 185 n1029 BBR 26, III 53: 35, 452 BBR 82, r. 23: 524 BE 6/2 no. 111, 1–33: 125 BL 27, 7’: 359 n2022; 8’: 344 BL 158: see K. 3238 BM 13930 (CT 15, pls. 16–17)//: 12; 1: 35–36, 45; 2–4: 231; 9: 45; 18: 197 BM 15285: 49 n209 BM 22696, 22: 22 n56 BM 31076, 6–7: 254 BM 32516//, 1–9: 313 n1778, 384; 7: 380 BM 34030: 149 n790 BM 34584+: 127; IV 106–109: 219 BM 34602, r. 8: 103 BM 34850, 5’–6’: 79 BM 35046, 19: 372 BM 38599, 15–18: 235; r. 17–18: 235 n1315 BM 41237+, r. 21’: 383 BM 41623, 7’: 272–273 BM 42408, 4: 376 BM 45749: 42 n172 BM 46559 (CT 29, pl. 46), 26–28: 29– 30 BM 46562, VII! 18: 114 n632 BM 47406 (CT 24, pl. 50), 8: 86 BM 47509+, 7’–10’: 40, 280 n1567; 7’–21’: 280; r. 1–13: 479–482 (“Sîn 14”); r. 1–22: 280; r. 18–22: 14 (“Sîn 15”); r. 19: 86 BM 47860: 138–139 n739

BM 63751, 7’: 375 BM 64359, 4’: 118 BM 64882, 9: 376 n2124 BM 65454+: 310 n1753 BM 68458+: 507–519; see also “Sîn 12” BM 78076, 39: 517 BM 78432, 1’–r. 4: 452–461 (“Sîn 1”); r. 8: 192 BM 85965 (CT 37, pl. 13), II 42: 379 BM 87521 (CT 15, pls. 5–6), II 5–9: 297 BM 90842 (CT 21, pls. 40–42): 206 BM 92649 A (CT 8 no. 47 a): 373 BM 92690: 276 n1548 BM 96706 (CT 36, pl. 26), 15: 72 n338 BM 98989: see Ki. 1904-10-9, 18 BM 113927: 255 n1447 BM 113966+, 3’: 332 n1880 BM 114028+: 254 BM 114151, 1’: 332 n1880 BM 116230, 44–45: 262 BM 121037 (CT 51 no. 190), 4’–8’: 165–166, 177; 9’–14’: 177; r. 1–8 (“Sîn 10”): 13, 177; r. 3: 38; r. 13’: 452 BM 121206, V 7’: 418; VII 5’–7’: 102–103, 113, 116, 419; VIII 28’: 418 n2377; VIII 39’–42’: 418 n2377; VIII 55’: 396 BM 122614+, 6’: 399 BM 127940, I 6: 225 BM 130827: 255 n1447 BM 134701: 180–181 BMS 1: see K. 155 BMS 6: see K. 2106+ BMS 10: see K. 5780+ BMS 12, 102: 185 n1030 BRM 4 no. 6: 180–181; 33’: 371 BRM 4 no. 7, 34: 525 Bu. 88-5-12, 11 (CT 4, pl. 5): 178–180

Index

Bu. 89-4-26, 209, 1–11: 301–302, 309; 2: 234; 5: 37, 87, 203; 7: 37, 81 n392; 9: 76 n360; 10–11: 404; 23: 413; r. 19: 203; r. 19–21: 259–260 Camb 150, 3’: 376 n2124 CBS 1516: 14, 109, 520–526; r. 4: 96; r. 5: 154; r. 6: 96–97; r. 6–7: 154; r. 10–12: 98; r. 11: 81–82, 124; r. 13: 494; r. 17–25: 223 CBS 1695: 164, 166, 497–506 CLBT, pl. 1: 180 n995 CT 4, pl. 5–6: see Bu. 88-5-12, 11 CT 8 no. 47 a: see BM 92649 A CT 13, pls. 33–34: see Rm. 282 CT 15, pls. 5–6: see BM 87521 CT 15, pls. 16–17: see BM 13930// CT 21, pls. 40–42: see BM 90842 CT 23, pl. 10: see K. 2453 CT 24, pl. 50: see BM 47406 CT 25, pl. 28: see K. 2115 CT 25, pl. 32: see K. 2124 CT 25, pl. 42: see K. 4559 CT 25, pl. 49: see K. 1451 CT 29, pl. 46: see BM 46559 CT 36, pl. 26: see BM 96706 CT 37, pl. 13: see BM 85965 CT 40, pl. 49: see K. 4001+ CT 42 no. 9, I 26: 359 n2022 CT 51 no. 190: see BM 121037 CT 54 no. 93, 6: 82 CT 55 no. 469, 5: 375; 9: 102–103, 375; r. 19’: 113, 375; r. 19’–20’: 377 n2127 CT 57 no. 117, 8: 376 n2124 CT 57 no. 683, 1–4: 374 CT 58 no. 44, 4: 72 n339 CTH 51–52: 251, 285–386 CTMMA 2 no. 32//, 71g’–71h’: 247 CTN 2 no. 17: 265 CTN 3 no. 101, I 23: 229 CTN 4 no. 29: 159 CTN 4 no. 61+, 3: 459

603

CTN 4 no. 110, r. 25: 119 CTN 4 no. 116//, r. 10’–15’: 289 Cyr 40, 6: 376 n2124 Cyr 256, 14: 376 n2124 Da Riva 2012, WBC, VIII 14: 162; VIII 14–16: 342 Da Riva 2013, C22, II 27–30: 85 DT 161, 10: 59 Frahm 2013, l. 16: 203, 492; ll. 16–19: 395 Grayson 1975, no. 3, 58–65: 405 HS 157, 89–90: 516–517 HS 194: 369 IAS no. 114, I 14–16: 291 IAS no. 253: 29 n81 IAS no. 388, IV’ 3: 309 IM 48414: 234 n1310 IM 80213: 182 n1011 IM 80214: 182 n1007 IM 148516: 110 n597, 497 n2473; 1: 37 n137; 1– r. 1: 495; 1–r. 3: 14 (“Sîn 17”); 2: 495; 6–10: 84 n420, 496; 10–12: 238 n1337, 240; 12– 14: 496; 13–14: 248 n1401; 14: 246 n1388; 15–r. 1: 496; r. 1: 246 n1389 K. 20: 182 n1010 K. 63a+: 39 n149, 42 K. 128: 182 n1008; 31–32: 495 K. 155, 1–28// (BMS 1): see “Sîn 1” K. 170+, 1: 58; 1–5: 58 n255, 62, 103, 139–140, 149 n788; 2: 243; 9: 57 n252, 58, 152 K. 477; see SAA 13 no. 187 K. 891, 10–13: 401–402 K. 993, 1: 70 K. 1354: see SAA 3 no. 9 K. 1451 (CT 25, pl. 49), r. 4–5: 314 n1786; r. 6: 293; r. 6–7: 312–313 K. 1939+, r. 2–3: 96 n502; r. 3: 525 K. 2053a+, IV 18: 344 K. 2074, II 1’–13’: 137–138; II 7’–8’:

604

Index

66; II 9’: 143 K. 2096 (ABRT I no. 58), o.! 9: 381 K. 2106+, 36–70//: see “Sîn 3” K. 2115 (CT 25, pl. 28): 78 n373, 137 n735 K. 2124 (CT 25, pl. 32), 12’: 197, 232; 13’–14’: 127–128 K. 2164+: 138 n739; 11–13: 57; 20– 23: 121; r. 12’–14’: 460; r. 12’– 17’: 123; r. 14’: 295 K. 2181 (ACh Supp. 2 Sîn 18), 21: 70 K. 2279+, r. 12–15: 198–199 K. 2315+, 43–44: 136 n728 K. 2453 (CT 23, pl. 10), III 13: 504 K. 2514: 66 n302; 2: 100; 45: 111; 49– 50: 113 K. 2529+, 48: 15 (“Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 1”); 49: 15 (“Emesal šu’ila to Sîn 2”); 48–50: 12; 61–102: 12 n 33 K. 2564: see SAA 12 no. 90 K. 2600+, A 9–13: 175 K. 2664+, V 14–15: 414 K. 2670: 138 n739; 3’: 57–58 K. 2725: 294 n1650 K. 2751+//: 21–22, 443, 483–496; 1’– 3’: 16 (“ikrib to Sîn 1”); 4’: 88; 4’– 22’: 16 (“ikrib to Sîn 2”); 7’: 88, 189; 8’–9’: 155; 13’–15’: 85 n421; 14’–15’: 397; 19’: 323; 23’–56’: 16 (“ikrib to Sîn 3”); 23’: 89; 23’– 56’: 189, 293; 24’: 88, 293; 25’– 27’: 198; 28’: 88; 29’: 82; 30’: 88, 189; 30’–31’: 155; 32’–33’: 188; 33’: 32; 34’–36’: 85; 35’–36’: 397; 37’: 293; 39’: 203 n1156; 43’: 293 n1645; 45’–48’: 84 n420; 47’: 89, 397; 48’–49’: 247–248; 50’: 246; 53’: 323; 56’: 189; 57’: 37, 89; 58’: 88; 59’: 146; 61’: 397; 57’– 59’: 76–77; 58’: 88, 189; 58’–69’: 110 n597; 57’–78’: 16 (“ikrib to

Sîn 4”); 60’–62’: 84; 63’–66’: 238, 240; 68’: 246; 69’: 246; 70’: 247; 78’: 77, 110, 146, 189; 79’–87’: 16 (“ikrib to Sîn 5”) K. 2803+: 404; 11: 203 n1149; r. 9’: 260, 315–316 n1794 K. 2813+: 404; 11: 203 n1149; 18: 36 n129; 21: 233; r. 7: 73 n343, 315 K. 2822+: 404; r. 16’: 260 K. 2823+ (AOAT 34 no. 1), 1–r. 8: 452–461 (“Sîn 1”) K. 2876, II 11’–12’: 122 K. 2884, 10–18: 168–169; 12: 459 K. 3089+, 72: 207 n1179 K. 3238 (BL no. 158), r. 7’: 394 K. 3269, I 2–3: 55; I 14: 102; II 26– 27: 113; III 4’: 118 K. 3367: 42 K. 3457(+), 20: 15 (“eršaḫuĝa to Sîn 2”) K. 3597//, 3’: 56; 5’: 57; 6’: 57 K. 3653, 12: 15 K. 3654 (BBR 83): 187 n1043 K. 3794+: 182, 483–496; 13: 32–33 n109, 459 K. 3930: 182 n1010 K. 3933, 2: 312 K. 4001+ (CT 40, pl. 49), 41: 282–283 n1587 K. 4068+: 66 n302; I 48’: 104; II 17’– 18’: 113; II 25’: 115 K. 4093, II 11’–13’: 116; II 14’: 117; II 21’–22’: 117; II 23’: 118 K. 4231: 97; II 2–3: 56, 67, 103 n553; II 8–12: 67, 105, 325; III 12: 118; IV 13: 54 K. 4240, r. II 11’: 394 n2235 K. 4494+, 23’: 452 K. 4559 (CT 25, pl. 42), 1’–2’: 97; 3’: 68; 4’: 78 n377; 6’: 353 n1989 K. 4624, I 20’–23’: 224–225 K. 4940+, 3: 75; 7: 235

Index

K. 5645: 56 n246 K. 5780+ (BMS 10), 7’: 73–74, 354– 355 n2001 K. 6018+ (AOAT 34 no. 59)//: 35, 37, 164–167, 178 n985, 442; 1’–4’: 13 (“Sîn 5”); 5’–7’: 165; 8’–13: 13 (“Sîn 6a”); 14’–16’: 165; x+24’– x+26’: 165; x+27’: 83, 155; x+27’–x+32’: 166; x+27’–x+33’: 13 (“Sîn 7”); x+34’–x+35’: 165; x+36’–x+44’: 13 (“Sîn 6b”); x+45’: 21 n53; x+45’–x+48’: 165 K. 6993+: 182 K. 7079+, II 3’: 118 K. 7192 (ACh Supp. 2 Sin 6), 8’: 48 K. 7605, 1’–5’: 319 n1820 K. 7606, IV 5’–14’: 319 n1820 K. 7938, 4–5: 519 K. 7969 (BBR 89): 187 n1043 K. 8162+, 16’–17’: 70–71 K. 8183: 166 n902; 1’: 246; 8–12: 497–506 K. 8666: 507–519 K. 8759+: 395 n2245; 1: 37 n137; 1– 15: 141–144; 2: 144; 3: 97; 4: 161, 200; 5: 153; 7: 153; 8: 154; 9: 73 n343, 75, 81, 86; 11: 292 n1634, 463; 11–12: 415 n2360; 12: 154; 13: 144; 14: 208; 15: 153, 238; r. 2: 203; r. 4: 203; r. 5: 208; r. 7: 315 n1791; r. 13: 204, 261 K. 9143: 404; 11’: 203; r. 8’: 260 K. 9235+: 307 n1735 K. 9480, 3: 312 K. 9618, 1’–11’: 12 n34 K. 10151: see “Sîn 2” K. 10550 (BMS 26): see “Sîn 8” K. 11333: see SAA 8 no. 299 K. 12000R: 116–117 n645 K. 13277 (BMS 23): see “Sîn 4” K. 13315: 507–519 K. 13454: 15

605

K. 13774 (STC 1, p. 191): 137 K. 15161, II’ 1’: 117 K. 15528, r. 1–5: 452–461 K. 16342 (AOAT 34 no. 17), 1–6 : 464–473; see also “Sîn 3” K. 18725+, 2’–13’: 333–335; 10’: 334 n1889; 13’: 334 n1891 K. 19751: 71–72 n335 K. 21418: 182 n1010 KAI 225, 9: 392 KAL 2 no. 21: see KAR 26 KAL 3 no. 69: see VAT 11449 KAL 4 no. 40, r.? 11’–18’: 14 (“Sîn 16”); r.? 12’: 97; r.? 13’: 158; r.? 16: 86; r.? 17’: 211–212 n1200; r.? 18’: 238 KAL 4 no. 41, 1–8: 284 n1594 KAL 4 no. 66 (VAT 13854), 1’–r. 5: 452–461; see also “Sîn 1” KAL 5 no. 70: see KAR 151 KAL 10 no. 11 (KAR 74), r. 2’–24’: see “Sîn 11” KAL 10 no. 34–37, 4: 354 n2000; 87: 122–123 n685 KAL 10 no. 36 (AO 6775), r. 6’: 119; r. 14–15: 98 KAR 6: 174 KAR 19, o.! 6–10: 490–491 KAR 22, r. 4: 63 n287 KAR 25, III 1’–20’: 474–476 (“Sîn 9”) KAR 26 (KAL 2 no. 21), 19: 37 n134, 159–160; 27: 496 KAR 43, 24//, 22: 331 KAR 48,2: 6’–16’: 319 n1820 KAR 58, r. 9–10: 192 n1078 KAR 63: see KAR 43 KAR 69, 22: 87; r. 11–14: 331 KAR 74 (VAT 10067), r. 2’–24’: see “Sîn 11” KAR 91: see VAT 10035 KAR 109+: 297 n1671; 6–8: 80

606

Index

KAR 132: 324 KAR 142, I 1: 148 n782; IV 4–8: 187 n1041 KAR 151 (KAL 5 no. 70), r. 53–56: 183; r. 53–61: 183 KAR 176+: 106 n571, 117 n649 KAR 178//: 117 n649; I 29–30: 102; I 41: 102; I 54: 102; I 66: 103; I 84: 105; II 8–9: 106; II 10–11: 106; II 18: 111; II 36–39: 115; III 2–4: 120–121; III 8–10: 120; III 9–10: 248; III 22–24: 121, 126; III 30– 31: 126; III 37: 122; III 37–50: 126; III 43: 126; III 45–46: 126; III 58–60: 128; III 62–63: 128; V 31: 104; V 44–46: 113; VI 40: 113; r. III 79: 106; r. IV 6–7: 119; r. IV 62: 120; r. VI 64–69: 183 KAR 196: 241 n1351 KAR 211: see VAT 10235 KAR 223: see VAT 8004// KAR 307, r. 4: 305; r. 4–6: 174; r. 5: 141, 174 KAR 337, r.? 7’: 158–159; r.? 9: 463 KAV 51, 3: 30 n87; 21–26: 34–35 KAV 78, 14–15: 416–417 n2368 KAV 176: 416–417 n2368 KAV 218: see Astrolabe B KBo I no. 12, o.! 9–13: 146 n775, 490; o.! 10: 30 n86, 490; o.! 10–12: 490 Ki. 1904-10-9, 18 (BM 98989), r. 11’– 27’: 526 L4, I 13: 89, 162 Langdon 1912, Nr. 1: see 5 R 34 Langdon 1912, Nr. 9: see 1 R 65 Langdon 1912, Nr. 13, I 45: 378 n2137; II 59–71: 340 n1931 Langdon 1912, Nr. 15: see 1 R 55 Langdon 1912, Nr. 19: see Da Riva 2012, WBC Langdon 1912, Nr. 20, I 45: 378 n2137; III 4–22: 340 n1931

Langdon 1912, Nr. 35: see UET 1 no. 184 LKA 25 (VAT 13630): 21–22 n53; 166–167; 1.S II 3’–10’: 497–506; 1.S II 10’: 167; 1.S II 11’–19’: 506; see also “Sîn 6b” LKA 37, 2: 312 LKA 39 (VAT 14060), 1’–r. 1’: 452– 461; see also “Sîn 1” LKA 52 (VAT 13681), 1–r. 22: 464– 473; see also “Sîn 3” LKA 55 (VAT 13688): 474–476; see also “Sîn 9” LKA 77//, II 35–36: 294; II 35–47: 294 n1650; II 41–42: 296; II 51– 52: 303; V 8–46: 319–321; V 45– 46: 303 n1700 LKU 32 (VAT 14505), 1’–6’: 479– 482; see also “Sîn 14” LKU 43, 9: 81 n393; 9–11: 76; 10: 305; 11: 304 MDP 2 86, IV 10–11: 49 MDP 6 38, IV 4: 323 Meturan A, 35: 72 n339 Meturan B, 18’: 72 n339 MLC 2639: 283 n1588 MMA 86.11.379B+, 44: 326 n1866 MSL 5, 23, 193–200: 125 MSL 5, 177, IV 312: 46 MSL 13, 152, I 14: 372–373 n 2090; I 20: 335 n1894 MSL 14, 341, 168–171: 35 n126 MSL 15, Diri Nippur 195: 78 n373 N 2234: 291 n1626 NBC 7915, 9: 302, 306 NBC 11108: 141 n749 ND 2480, 1–r. 5: 299–300; 5: 235 ND 2758, 10’: 423 ND 2769, r. 2 & r. 6: 228 ND 4358+, r. 55–56: 383 OECT 11 nos. 69+70, I 17’–19’: 112, 204–205; I 25’–28’: 119, 205

Index

OIP 38, 130 no. 3: 428; 1–2: 89, 152, 160, 162, 217 OIP 38, 133 no. 7: 298 Paulus 2014, KuE 1, III 38: 259 n1464 Paulus 2014, MAI I 1, V 12–VI 26: 256 n1450 Paulus 2014, MNA 4, IV 12–23: 257 n1454 Paulus 2014, MŠ 1, VI 41–VII 1: 256 n1450 Paulus 2014, MŠ 3, ⑧ IV 15–19: 257 n1454 Paulus 2014, MŠZ 1, II 8–10: 257 n1454 Paulus 2014, MZŠ I 1, II 10–11: 373; r. IV 6–10: 256 n1449 Paulus 2014, NAI 3: 41 n164 Paulus 2014, NM 2: see MDP 2 86 Paulus 2014, ŠŠU 3: see BM 130827 Paulus 2014, U 10, I’ 15’–17’: 256 n1449 Paulus 2014, U 19: see UET 1 no. 165 Paulus 2014, U 40, IV 11–17: 256 n1449 PBS 1/2 no. 106 (CBS 1516): 520– 526 PBS 1/2 no. 115, I 11: 78 n374; I 11– 12: 96 RIMA 1, A.0.60.3: 416 RIMA 1, A.0.75.1: 416–417 n2368 RIMA 1, A.0.75.2: 416–417 n2368 RIMA 1, A.0.78.18, 29–43: 416–417 n2368 RIMA 2, A.0.87.1, I 5–6: 50–51 n221 RIMA 2, A.0.100.1, 5: 87, 200 RIMA 2, A.0.101.1, I 33: 213; II 135: 423; III 90: 89, 419; III 130: 213 RIMA 2, A.0.101.17 (Nimrud Monolith), I 1–12: 162 n874; I 4: 200; I 4–5: 87, 155; I 37–38: 213 RIMA 2, A.0.101.20, 5: 87, 200; 44–

607

45: 213 RIMA 2, A.0.101.26, 40–41: 213 RIMA 2, A.0.101.28, V 7–9: 424 RIMA 2, A.0.101.29, 13’–14’: 423 RIMA 2, A.0.101.30 (Banquet Stele), 55–59: 423; 59: 423 RIMA 2, A.0.101.32, 9–10: 423 RIMA 2, A.0.101.52, r. 7’–9’: 420 RIMA 2, A.0.101.67, 11–15: 420 RIMA 3, A.0.102.1, I 2: 37 n137 RIMA 3, A.0.102.4, I 6: 37 n137 RIMA 3, A.0.102.6, 4: 200; 6: 87 RIMA 3, A.0.102.10, 7: 87, 200 RIMA 3, A.0.102.14 (Black Obelisk), 6: 87, 155, 200 RIMA 3, A.0.104.2 (Antakya Stele): 251–252, 398; 11–13: 251; 17–19: 260 RIMA 3, A.0.104.3 (Pazarcik Stele): 251–252, 398; 19–23: 262 RIMA 3, A.0.105.1: 251–252, 398; 13–20: 262–263 RIMA 3, A.0.105.2: 391; 6: 32–33 n109, 87, 246, 459 RIMB, B.6.32.2001 (UET 1 no. 169): 346; 1: 372–373 n2097; 3: 347 n1958; 9: 338; 10–31: 358–359; 29: 348; 29–31: 358 n2019 RIMB, B.6.32.2002: 346–347; 1: 31, 372–373 n2097; 2: 204; 3: 347 n1958 RIMB, B.6.32.2003, 345; 1: 31, 347; 3–4: 338 n1916; 8: 338 RIMB, B.6.32.2004, 2–3: 338 n1916 RIMB, B.6.32.2005, 6–7: 353 RIMB, B.6.32.2006, 1: 347; 5: 338; 6– 7: 354 RIMB, B.6.32.2007, 1: 347; 6–7: 354 RIMB, B.6.32.2008, 1: 347; 6–7: 354 RIMB, B.6.32.2009, 1: 347; 6–7: 354 RIMB, B.6.32.2010, 1: 347; 6–7: 354 RIMB, B.6.32.2011, 1: 347; 1–8: 352–

608

Index

353; 6: 149 RIMB, B.6.32.2012: 355–356 n2009; 1: 347; 1–8: 353 RIMB, B.6.32.2013, 1: 347; 6: 74; 6– 7: 354 RIMB, B.6.32.2014: 304; 1–17: 350– 351; 7: 303 RIMB, B.6.32.2015, 1–3: 234; 4–6: 338 n1916 RIMB, B.6.32.2016, IV 29–38: 365; IV 32–33: 338 RIME 1, E1.9.3.1 (Stele of Vultures), xxi 17–xxii 6: 333 RIME 3/2, E3/2.1.3.10, 18–21: 296 RIME 4, E.4.1.2.1, 12–13: 359 RINAP 1 no. 35 (Iran Stele), I 8: 88, 208 RINAP 1 no. 37 (Mila Mergi rock inscription), 5: 88, 208 RINAP 3 no. 16, VII 55–62: 208 n1185; VII 59–60: 208 n1185 RINAP 3 no. 17, VII 91: 199, 208; VII 92–93: 208 RINAP 3 no. 18, VII 28’–29’: 208 RINAP 3 no. 36, 3–5: 160; 4: 89, 156; 5: 152; r. 3’–10’: 431 RINAP 3 no. 38, 33’: 36 n129 RINAP 3 no. 153, 7: 152, 246; 8: 153; 23–25: 213–214 n1212 RINAP 3 no. 160, r. 26–31: 419 RINAP 3 nos. 172–174: 419 RINAP 3 no. 1023, 8: 200 RINAP 4 no. 1, II 30–31: 491; II 32: 200 RINAP 4 no. 12, 12–23: 432–433; 24– 31: 221–222 RINAP 4 no. 43, r. 18’: 216 n1222 RINAP 4 no. 48, 5: 89, 152, 160; r. 59–60: 221 RINAP 4 no. 54, r. 20–32: 413 n2343 RINAP 4 no. 57, I 3’–10’: 157, 220– 221

RINAP 4 no. 98 (Zinçirli Stele), 5: 32, 88, 162; r. 21–22: 213 RINAP 4 no. 133, 2: 145 RINAP 4 no. 2003, II 15’–II 20’: 433 RINAP 5/I no. 2: see BM 127940+ RINAP 5/I no. 3: see Assurbanipal Prism B RINAP 5/I no. 5: see Assurbanipal Prism I RINAP 5/I no. 6: see Assurbanipal Prism C RINAP 5/I no. 8: see Assurbanipal Prism G RINAP 5/I no. 9: see Assurbanipal Prism F RINAP 5/I no. 10: see Assurbanipal Prism T RINAP 5/I no. 11: see Assurbanipal Prism A RINAP 5/I no. 23: see IIT Rm. 155//: 72 n340 Rm. 282 (CT 13, pls. 33–34): 174 Rm. 288: 141 n751, 142 n754 RT 36 no. 24, 11: 256 n1451 S 3, 6–8: 318 S 7/1600, 8: 72 n339 SAA 1 no. 50, 1–8: 44, 399–400 SAA 1 no. 66, r. 4–11: 430 SAA 1 no. 188: 114, 388; 7–r. 7: 410– 411 SAA 1 no. 189: 388 SAA 1 no. 190: 388 SAA 1 no. 191: 388 SAA 1 no. 192: 388 SAA 1 no. 193: 388 SAA 1 no. 195: 388 SAA 1 no. 196: 388 SAA 1 no. 198: 388 SAA 1 no. 200: 388 SAA 1 no. 201: 388 SAA 1 no. 202: 388, 400 SAA 1 no. 203: 400

Index

SAA 1 no. 210: 388 SAA 2 no. 1, r. 10–12: 257 SAA 2 no. 2, IV 1–16: 267 n1505; IV 4: 259; VI 8: 253 SAA 2 no. 3: see VAT 11449 SAA 2 no. 4, r. 24’–25’: 260 SAA 2 no. 6, 27: 253; 36: 253; 419– 421: 258 SAA 2 no. 8, 25–27: 264 SAA 2 no. 9, r. 11’: 37 n137; r. 11’– 12’: 258 n1460 SAA 2 no. 10, r. 8’–10’: 264 SAA 2 no. 11, r. 10’–14’: 258 SAA 3 no. 4 (Nanaya Hymn of Sargon II), r. 17’: 312 SAA 3 no. 5, 7: 217 SAA 3 no. 8, 20: 312 SAA 3 no. 9 (Psalm in Praise of Uruk), 17: 311 SAA 3 no. 11 (Coronation Hymn of Assurbanipal): 212–213 SAA 3 no. 39: see KAR 307 SAA 4 no. 137: 183 n1017 SAA 4 no. 149: 227 n1274 SAA 4 no. 307, r. 12: 437 SAA 4 no. 308: 437 SAA 4 no. 331: 183 n1017 SAA 4 no. 332: 183 n1017 SAA 6 no. 98, r. 1–4: 267 SAA 6 no. 101: 265 SAA 6 no. 102, r. 5–11: 265 SAA 6 no. 132, 1 & 6: 391 n2214 SAA 6 no. 140, 9’–11’: 266 SAA 6 no. 196, 1: 390 n2209 SAA 6 no. 254, r. 2: 391 n2214 SAA 6 no. 297, r. 5’: 391 n2214 SAA 6 no. 334, r. 15: 267 SAA 6 no. 342, 1’: 30 SAA 7 no. 1, r. I 1: 394 SAA 7 no. 5, I 51: 394 SAA 7 no. 151, r. I 5’–6’: 393 SAA 8 no. 15: 218–219

609

SAA 8 no. 19, 1: 106 SAA 8 no. 21, 1–5: 107 SAA 8 no. 23: 219 SAA 8 no. 63: 157 SAA 8 no. 65, 1: 106 SAA 8 no. 87, 5–6: 92 SAA 8 no. 109, 1: 106 SAA 8 no. 111: 219 SAA 8 no. 119, 5–9: 83–84 SAA 8 no. 204, 1–8: 239–240 SAA 8 no. 293, r. 1–9: 107 SAA 8 no. 294, 1–2: 107 SAA 8 no. 299: 137–138 n735 SAA 8 no. 320, r. 6–9: 163–164 SAA 8 no. 360: 219 SAA 8 no. 371, 3: 22 SAA 8 no. 494, 7–9: 246 SAA 8 no. 499, 1: 107 SAA 8 no. 513: 59 n260 SAA 9 no. 1, II 20’–26’: 224 SAA 10 no. 8, 25–26: 518 SAA 10 no. 13, r. 2’–17’: 157–158, 210, 401 SAA 10 no. 59: 10, 105, 191; 12–15: 66 SAA 10 no. 174, 10–16: 208–209, 302, 396, 401, 414 SAA 10 no. 179: 390; 12: 389; 14: 436; 21: 389 SAA 10 no. 197, r. 5–8: 222 SAA 10 no. 210: 524 SAA 10 no. 211: 524 SAA 10 no. 221, r. 7: 54 SAA 10 no. 222: 227 SAA 10 no. 223: 227 SAA 10 no. 240, r. 14–20: 175 SAA 10 no. 286, r. 5’–6’: 63–64 n288 SAA 10 no. 298: 113, 131, 190–191 SAA 10 no. 338: 393 n2233; 9–r. 2: 411–412 SAA 10 no. 339: 393 n2233, 411 SAA 10 no. 340: 393 n2233

610

Index

SAA 10 no. 341: 393 n2233 SAA 10 no. 342: 393 n2233 SAA 10 no. 343: 393 n2233, 411 SAA 10 no. 344: 393 n2233 SAA 10 no. 347, 9–10: 181; r. 17’– 19’: 176 SAA 10 no. 502, r. 10–11: 168 SAA 11 nos. 200–219; see Ḫarrān Census SAA 11 no. 214, 3’: 390 n2209 SAA 12 no. 19, 3’–6’: 426 SAA 12 no. 48, 6’: 392 n2224 SAA 12 no. 90: 262; 1–3: 415–416; 2: 142 n754, 463; 3: 143 n755, 203, 415; 8: 415; 12: 203; 20: 203; r. 3: 216–217; r. 11: 86, 203; r. 11–13: 261; r. 12: 261; r. 12–13: 162 SAA 12 no. 91: 406; 1–2: 392 SAA 12 no. 93, r. 6–8: 264 SAA 13 no. 28, r. 10–12: 44 SAA 13 no. 29: 44 SAA 13 no. 47, 9’–r. 9: 421 SAA 13 no. 58, r. 1–6: 425–426 SAA 13 no. 100, 7–13: 112 SAA 13 no. 102: 425 SAA 13 no. 187: 389, 396; 6–12: 64– 65; r. 10’–17’: 65 n299 SAA 13 no. 188: 401; 4–7: 391–392 SAA 14 no. 146, r. 1’–12’: 266 SAA 14 no. 155, 18–r. 5: 263 SAA 14 no. 193: 267 SAA 14 no. 220, r. 2–5: 269, 426 SAA 14 no. 213, 17’–18’: 268 SAA 14 no. 241, 7’–8’: 269–270 SAA 14 no. 344: 267 SBH no. VIII, II 16: 89–90 n472, 149 n789; II 17: 149 n789 SBH no. 24//: 249, 359 n2022; 3: 353 n1986; 3–14: 333–335; 8: 383; 12: 249 SBH no. 38: 12 n33 Schaudig 2001, 1.6.a: 304

Schaudig 2001, 1.7, 1–5: 345–346 Schaudig 2001, 1.8: 362 n2036 Schaudig 2001, 1.9: 404, 408 Schaudig 2001, 1.12.a: 363 n2045 Schaudig 2001, 2.1 (Imgur-Enlil Cylinder), I 8: 161, 200; I 13: 201; I 19: 201 Schaudig 2001, 2.2 (Elugalĝalgasisa Cylinder): 346; I 1–II 2: 344; I 1– 9: 346; I 28: 202; I 29: 201, 202; II 3: 201; II 4: 201; II 5: 202 Schaudig 2001, 2.4 (Ebabbar-Ekurra Cylinder), I 5: 225 Schaudig 2001, 2.5 (E’igikalama Cylinder), I 11: 213, 293; II 8: 201; II 8–12: 343; II 13–14: 360 Schaudig 2001, 2.6 (E’amaškuga Cylinder), I 21–23: 211; I 36–39: 367 Schaudig 2001, 2.7 (En-niĝaldi-Nanna Cylinder): 295, 363 n2045; I 1–3: 77; I 1–10: 360; I 2: 293; I 6: 161, 200; I 6–10: 59; I 10: 361; I 22: 201; I 39: 351 n1976; I 39–43: 361; II 7: 362; II 15–28: 363–364; II 29: 82, 89, 200; II 34–38: 211; II 37–38: 161 Schaudig 2001, 2.12 (Eḫulḫul Cylinder): 233–235, 313–315, 375, 408; I 1–5: 215; I 8: 201; I 15–20: 194, 407–408; I 39–40: 406; I 67’–69’: 194; II 3–5: 398; II 11: 90; II 16– 19: 316, 404; II 26: 201; II 30–32: 234; II 33: 201; II 33–36: 83, 162; II 37–38: 234–235; II 39–40: 233; II 40–41: 308; II 42: 316; III 12: 306; III 24: 314; III 35: 314; III 36–37: 194; III 38–55: 233; III 41–45: 314; III 43: 225; III 45: 314; III 55: 314 Schaudig 2001, 2.14: 308; I 11–13: 225; I 26’–27’: 233; I 31’–32’:

Index

201; I 42: 201; I 42’–43’: 202; II 17–18: 233; II 37–38: 215; II 38: 201; III 14–15: 233; III 27: 201; III 34: 233; III 33–34: 313; III 34: 201; III 70: 233; III 73: 201 Schaudig 2001, 2.19: 408 Schaudig 2001, 3.1 (Ḫarrān Stele): 10, 41, 114–115, 144, 149, 408, 442; I 5–6: 201; I 10–14: 194, 215–216; I 18: 201; I 29: 201; II 3–5: 233; II 5: 305; II 5–9: 194; II 13: 115, 412 n2341; II 14: 201; II 20: 201; II 22–28: 140–141; II 23– 32: 27; II 32–35: 233–234; III 21– 24: 404; III 30: 201; III 39: 201; III 41–42: 316 Schaudig 2001, 3.2 (Adda-guppi Stele): I 12: 201; I 17: 201; I 33: 201; I 39: 201; I 44: 201; II 5: 201; II 5–11: 407 n2320; II 11–12: 201; II 17–21: 405 n2312, 409; II 18– 21: 404; II 21: 201; II 23: 201; II 28: 201; II 34: 201; III 45: 201 Schaudig 2001, 3.3a (Babylon Stele): 149 n789; VI 1’–36’: 194; X 8’– 31’: 405; X 12’–51’: 409; X 25’: 200; X 32’–45’: 25–26, 409 n2327; XI 11’–21’: 223–224 Schaudig 2001, 3.4 (Tariff Stele), 2–3: 201; 14: 201 Schaudig 2001, 3.5, I’ 5: 201 Schaudig 2001, 4.1: 25; 1: 201 Schaudig 2001, 4.2: 41; I 1: 201; I 2– 4: 409 Schaudig 2001, 4.4: 408 n2322 Schaudig 2001, P1 (Verse Account): 409; I 20’–II 3’: 25–28; V 8’–13’: 195; V 18’–27’: 202 Schaudig 2001, P4 (Royal Chronicle), II 1’–III 16’: 365 Sg XIV, 5: 399 Sg Ann., 2: 398

611

Sg Bro. 13: 398 Sg R. 7: 398 Sg S4, 10: 398 Sg S5, 10: 399 Sg Stier, 9: 398; 57–59: 298–299 Sg Ziegel e: 428–429 Sg Ziegel f: 429 Sg Zyl, 6: 398–399; 57: 6, 32, 152, 160, 294–295 Si. 18, 1’–r. 5: 452–461 (“Sîn 1”); r. 10: 192 Si. 34(+)//, 2–3: 109, 146; 15–30: 14 (“Sîn & Šamaš 3”); 15: 81, 86; 18: 154; 23: 109 Si. 849, r. 5’–11’: 497–506 Si. 884, 1–7: 452–461 (“Sîn 1”) Si. 904, 1’–r. 4: 452–461 (“Sîn 1”) SLTNi 85, 25: 318 n1812 SLTNi 128, IV 4–5: 72–73 n342 Sm. 55+ (ADD App. no. 2), VI? 16: 391 n2214; VI? 17: 391 n2214 Sm. 80, 1’–2’: 394 n2235 Sm. 530+: 404; r. 12: 260 Sm. 669, 7’: 273 Sm. 671, 3’: 203; 9: 233, 237, 247; 10: 142 n753; 11: 223; 13: 144–145 n759; 18: 292; r. 3’–4’: 259; r. 5’: 413 Sm. 802, 6’–14’: 187; 8’: 63 n286 Sm. 948, 3’: 115 Sm. 1319: 187 n1043 Sm. 1382 (AOAT 34 no. 2), 1’–4’: 452–461 (“Sîn 1”) SpTU 2 no. 12, III 23–26: 100–101 n530 SpTU 2 no. 22+, II 9: 247 SpTU 2 no. 38, 21–22: 282 SpTU 3 no. 64, III 7–8: 321 n1826 SpTU 3 no. 80//, 11: 185 SpTU 3 no. 107+, 21: 34; 27: 317; 64– 76 & 80–87: 290–291 n1624 StAT 2 no. 53, 19–r. 3: 267

612

Index

StAT 2 no. 114, r. 2’: 422 STC 1, p. 191: see K. 13774 Streck 1916, 73–73, IX 9–10: 310 STT 48 (SU 52/331), r. 6–7: 393; l.e. 1: 393 STT 56 (SU 51/107), 19: 32–33 n109; 19–r. 7: 452–461 (“Sîn 1”) STT 57+ (SU 51/85+), 36–42: 14, 479–482 (“Sîn 14”); 57: 36; 57–84: 464–473 (“Sîn 3”) STT 58 (SU 51/49), o.! 1: 36; o.! 1–28: 464–473 (“Sîn 3”); r.! 8–18: 479– 482 (“Sîn 14”) STT 59 (SU 51/34), 1: 36; 1–29: 464– 473 (“Sîn 3”) STT 89, 159–166: 280; 205: 276, 279; 205–212: 274–275 STT 93, 40’–41’: 272 STT 95+, I 35–41: 271, 275 STT 197, 9–11: 306–307 STT 241, 5: 515 STT 300, 15: 281 STT 340, 13: 105–106; 16: 114 STT 400, 2: 243; r. 41–44: 140 n744 STT 406+: see SAA 12 no. 91 SU 51/34: see STT 59 SU 51/36, 5–6: 269–270 SU 51/44, 11–r. 2: 262 SU 51/49: see STT 58 SU 51/85+: see STT 57+ SU 51/107: see STT 56 SU 52/331: see STT 48 TCL 3, 317–319: 50–51; 318: 200 TCL 9 no. 57, r. 16: 30 n88 TCL 12 no. 13, 11: 256 n1451 TCL 15 no. 10, 87: 297; 148–150: 71 TCL 15 no. 30, 5: 204 TIM 9 no. 55: 199 n1113 TIM 9 no. 60, III 6’: 140 TSF 97 F 200/140(+), r. 2’: 390 n2209 Tsukimoto 1999, ll. 41–84: 283; l. 60: 283

TuM NF 4, 7 ii 7–iii 6: 297 UET 1 no. 30, II 4: 333 UET 1 no. 159: 356 UET 1 no. 165, II 23–27: 257 UET 1 no. 169: see RIMB, B.6.32.2001 UET 1 no. 178: 355–356 n2009; see also RIMB, B.6.32.2012 UET 1 no. 184: 341 UET 2 Supp. 14, o. I 1: 322 UET 4 no. 102: 254 UET 5 no. 249, 1: 365 UET 6/2 no. 402, 16–27: 250; 21: 336; 24: 323; 36–38: 256, 282 UET 6/3 no. 897, 2’–5’: 69 n321 UET 7 no. 136, 4’–8’: 352 UM 29-15-367, 10–11: 288 n1614 UM 29-15-570, r. 24: 323 VA Ass 2316, 5: 32, 37 VAS 17 no. 57, 2–14: 333–334 VAT 3, r. 1: 114 n632 VAT 5394 (VS 1 no. 90), 2: 269; 15– 16: 268–269 VAT 7525: 22 n56 VAT 7851: 173 VAT 8004//: 97, 286; 11–13: 14, 507– 519 (“Sîn 12”) VAT 8005, r. 17: 391 VAT 8901, 13–16: 268 VAT 9330, 40: 422 VAT 9427, r. 24–26: 272 n1526 VAT 9805+, 14’–20’: 136 n136 VAT 9823: see KAR 25 VAT 10035 (KAR 91), 14’: 303 n1706 VAT 10067 (KAR 74), r. 2’–24’; see “Sîn 11” VAT 10231, I’ 9’: 122 VAT 10235 (KAR 211), I’ 10’–12’: 279; I’ 19’–20’: 285; I’ 21’–22’: 274 n1538; r. IV 8’: 31 VAT 10954+, 7’: 105; 11’: 117; 12’: 119; 14’: 122; 15’: 122; 17’–18’:

Index

183 VAT 11449: 418 n2378 VAT 13596, I 7’–15’: 418 n2377 VAT 13608+; see BAM 3 no. 316 VAT 13630: see LKA 25 VAT 13681: see LKA 52 VAT 13688; see LKA 55 VAT 13854: see KAL 4 no. 66 VAT 14060: see LKA 39 VAT 14505: see LKU 32 VAT 17017: see VS 24 no. 112 VAT 21000: 265 VS 1 no. 90: see VAT 5394 VS 2 no. 68: see Nanna K VS 17 no. 34, 4–7: 69, 171, 288 VS 17 no. 57, 2–14: 333–335; 7: 333; 8: 334; 9: 333; 12: 334; 14: 334 VS 24 no. 31: 297; 3’: 302 VS 24 no. 92//, 30’–42’: 212–213 VS 24 no. 112 (VAT 17017): 383 VS 24 no. 112, r. 9–10: 384 W.20030/1, 35–36: 87 n437 Weisberg 2003 no. 37, 19: 263–264; 20: 256 n1449 YBC 2401, IV 169: 138 n738; V 13: 322 n1835 YBC 4650, 26’–42’: 62–63; 39’: 63 n283 YBC 7127, 1’–7’: 284 n1594 YBC 18182, r. 4’–5’: 365 YOS 1 no. 39: 195 YOS 7 no. 185, 20: 373 YOS 11 no. 22, 60: 63, 188, 200 YOS 11 no. 23, 13: 63, 188, 200 YOS 12 no. 102, 1–3: 377 Museum numbers of other objects BM 118015: 242 BM 118805: 40 H2.A: 41; see also Schaudig 2001, 3.1 H2.B: 41, 308 n1741; see also Schaudig 2001, 3.1

613

HSM 899.2.282: 409; see also Schaudig 2001, 4.2. IM 109007b: 249 N 2431: 73 n344 ND 1104: 40 TA 11381, 3’: 406 n2313 VA 511: 51, 53 VA 968: 64 n295 VA 2817: 43 VA Ass 4698: 39 WA 89780: 51–52 WA 91904: 39 Names of deities Abaralaḫ (A-bar-ra-laḫ5): 316 Abkar (Áb-kár): 139, 242–243, 327 Ablulu (Áb-lu-lu): 242–244, 327 Áb-na-ar-BU: 240, 317, 327 Adad: 23 n62, 53 n229, 84 n416, 86, 119, 159 n858, 168, 171, 172, 184, 187–188, 213–214, 216, 225–226, 251, 253, 255, 260–263, 265–267, 298–299 n1679, 316, 326, 374 n2110, 378 n2137, 396, 416–417, 419, 422–427, 429, 436, 438, 450, 483 Adad of Guzāna: 267 Adad-of-Plenty: 425 Adad-of-the-West wind: 119 Agû: 64 Alamuš: 7, 250, 319, 321–324, 328, 372 n2093, 434, 437, 446, 487, 489 Á-maḫ-tuku: 329 Amaraḫea: 230, 290, 324–325, 328, 437, 446 Amarazu: 230, 290, 324–325, 328, 437, 446 Amar-Suen: 328 Anahita: 310–311 n1760 An(-na)-ḫi-li-ba: 328 Anšar: 147–149, 353 Antu: 419

614

Index

Anu/An: 57–58, 62 n282, 63 n285, 68, 76, 86, 94–96, 101, 106 n571, 109, 128 n722, 136–150, 155, 172, 178– 180, 184–189, 195, 213, 234, 256 n1449, 291–292, 307–309, 310– 311 n1760, 312, 314–315, 324, 349, 374 n2110, 395 n2245, 399, 416–417, 419, 421–422, 436, 441– 442, 458, 489–490, 496 Anunītu: 182, 194 n1086, 233–234, 256 n1449, 282, 308, 313–314, 375–376, 384, 437, 446–448 Anunnakū: 81–82, 97–98, 124, 458, 460, 511, 514, 521, 523 Asalluḫi: 177 n982 Asar: 13, 498, 501 AŠimbabbar: see Dilimbabbar Aššur: 3, 23, 50, 64–65, 147 n780, 203, 209–210, 213–214, 216, 226– 227, 251, 253, 260–264, 266–268, 315, 353, 391, 395–396, 399, 401– 402, 418–420, 422, 425, 434–436, 446, 449–450, 454, 458, 491, 501, 503, 513, 515 Aššur-Divine Judges: 422 Aššurītum: 454, 458 Aya: 184, 225, 374 n2110, 377 n2133, 391–392, 419, 431–432, 435, 438 b‘l ḥrn: 43, 390 Baba: 198–199 Bēl: 263–264, 380, 384, 425 Bēlet-Arba’il: 399 Bēlet-Bābili: 380–381, 448 Bēlet-ilī: 67, 71–72 n335, 100–101, 104–105, 111–113, 116–118, 129, 131–134, 289, 305, 325–326, 419, 422, 446–447 Bēlet-mātāti: 67, 100–101, 105, 111, 113, 115–118, 325 Bēlet-ṣēri/Ĝeštinana: 186–187, 265– 266 Bēl-Ḫarrān: 389–391, 436

Bēl-ṣarbi: 340–341 Bēlu-Agû: 64–65 Bennu: 271–274, 281, 287, 445, 463, 480–481 Bēr: 251, 260 Birth Goddess: 374 n2110 Bride-of-Ekur: 374 n2110 Bunene: 184, 374, 421 BU.NIR: 83, 327 Daddi: 270 Dagān: 398–399 Damkina: 424 Daragal (Dàra-gal): 50 n220, 294 Daughters-of-Ebabbar: 374 n2110 Dayyānu: 374 n2110 Dilbat: 113, 175 n962, 186, 486–487, 488–489, 495–496 Dilimbabbar/Namraṣīt: 21, 28, 35, 71– 78, 81 n391, 86, 142–143, 147– 148, 155, 291, 306–307, 315 n1794, 327, 333–334, 354–355 n2001, 389, 415, 440, 455, 458, 460, 462, 486, 489, 495 Divine Chariot: 374 n2110 Dumugi (Dumu-gi7): 197, 292–293, 327 DUMU.MEŠ-ZI: 434 Dumununa (Dumu-nun-na): 197, 292– 293, 327, 372 Dumuzi: 349 n1968 Ea/Enki: 27, 62 n282, 81, 94–96, 122– 123 n685, 136–145, 149–150, 155 n833, 171, 184, 186, 190 n1060, 197, 212, 234, 247, 252, 289, 292, 294–295 n1653, 297–299 n1679, 314, 326, 349, 395 n2245, 419, 422–424, 429, 438, 441–442, 450, 496, 520–524 Ea-šarru: 422–423, 436 Ebeḫ: 421, 438 Egi (E4-gi7): 293, 312–314 Ellammê: 68–71, 78 n377, 97 n508,

Index

171, 440 Enbilulu: 143 n758, 291, 494 Enlil: 6, 29–30, 46–47, 50 n220, 59, 62 n282, 66, 71, 74, 89 n457, 94– 96, 98, 101 n532, 104, 109, 112– 113, 123, 128 n722, 136–146, 149– 150, 155 n833, 171, 174, 178–180, 184, 186, 189, 195–197, 203, 205– 207, 226, 234, 256 n1449, 271 n1523, 289, 291–296, 308–309, 310–311 n1760, 312–316, 324, 326, 330, 334, 347–349, 351–356, 358–359, 368–372, 374 n2110, 377, 384, 388, 391, 395 n2245, 404, 422, 424, 434, 441–443, 446– 447, 484–485, 488, 490, 493, 496 Assyrian Enlil: 251, 396, 436 Enmešara: 127 n717, 355 Ennugi: 205, 354–355 en-Suen: 29–30 n85 Enšalulua: 329 Erra: 167 Ga’u: 329 Gilsa’a (Gi16-sa-a): 327 Gilsa’ana (Gi16-sa-an-na): 93 n491, 327 Gira/Gibil: 32, 86, 110 n596, 190, 315, 433–435, 453, 458 Ĝišnu (Ĝiš-nu11): 78, 96 Ĝišnugal (Ĝiš-nu11-gal): 78–79, 138, 242, 327 Gods of the Night: 433–434 Gula: 113, 115, 184–187, 264, 374 n2110, 381, 423–424, 438, 450, 464 Ḫár: 318, 328 ḪI.A.MU-an-na: 328 Idimḫuš: 243, 327 Iganakešda (Ig-an-na-kéš-da): 252 Igigū: 76, 80–81, 97–98, 235, 299– 300, 455, 458, 460, 465, 470, 511, 514, 521, 523

615

Igisigsig (Igi-sig7-sig7): 208 n1185 Il-la-bu-un-du: 328 Il-Śer: 195 Irnina: 212 Išḫara: 180 n992, 184–188 Ištar/Inana: 32, 41, 43, 49, 67–68, 80– 81, 104, 131, 145, 171–172, 182 n1011, 184–187, 193, 213–214, 216, 231, 233–235, 247, 256, 264 n1489, 267–268, 273–274, 276– 277, 282, 290, 292 n1632, 297, 302 n1693, 308–314, 316, 330–331, 340–341, 368–373, 376, 380–381, 384, 391–392, 414, 416, 422, 434, 436, 437–438, 446–448, 450, 483, 495, 503, 515 Ištar of Akkad: 233 n1307 Ištar of Arbela: 256 n1449, 413 n2343 Ištar of Ḫarrān: 310–311, 392 Ištar of Ḫuzirīna: 392 Ištar of Nineveh: 413 n2343 Ištar of Uruk: 145 Ištar-tašmê: 374 n2110 Išum/Ḫendursaĝa: 74, 297 Kaka: 328 Kalkal: 369–370, 437 Kippat-māti: 419 Kišar: 147 n780 Kittu/Kettu: 184, 374 n2110, 421–422 Kusu: 354–355 Laḫar: 329 Lady of Nineveh: 431 Lamaštu: 152, 277, 445 Lisi: 383 Lugal: 197, 327 Lugalbaḫar (Lugal-báḫar): 318 n1814, 328 Lugalgira (Lugal-gìr-ra): 281, 434 Lugalgudgaz (Lugal-gud-gaz): 318, 328 Lugalkalamautud (Lugal-kalam-ma-ù-

616

Index

tu-ud): 197, 232 Lugalkisura (Lugal-ki-sur-ra): 197, 252–253 Lugalšudu: 27 Lugalura (Lugal-ùr-ra): 281 n1572 Má: 34–35, 46, 77, 327 Má-bàn-da-an-na: 45–46, 305 Madānu/Mandānu: 104 n559, 381 Má-gu-la-an-na: 45, 78, 305, 327 Magur (Má-gur8): 34–35, 46–47, 50, 67–68, 74 n352, 77, 327 Mamu: 374 Manzât: 498, 501 Mārat-Sîn: 310, 437 Marduk: 31, 37 n134.n137, 50, 51 n223, 62, 73, 83, 86, 87 n437, 93, 113–114, 137 n731, 143 n758, 145–146, 148 n782, 150, 154, 159, 168, 171, 174, 177 n982, 180, 184, 190 n1060, 192 n1078, 194, 198– 200, 202, 213, 244, 253, 262–263, 272 n1526, 326 n1863, 371, 372 n2087, 374 n2110, 381, 388 n2197, 401 n2284, 407–408, 437, 441, 444, 463, 480–482, 491, 494, 496, 520–523 Māštu: 308, 434 Māšu: 308, 434 Men-dàra-an-na: 34 n118, 60–61, 248, 294–295 n1653, 327, 335 Men-dàra-diĝir-ra: 60–61, 248, 294– 295 n1653, 327, 335 Men-šu-du7: 60–61, 327 Men-zalag-búr: 60, 327 Meslamtae’a: 291, 434 Mīšaru: 184, 324, 374 n2110 Mu-ḫé-ĝál-la: 236–237, 243, 327 Mullil: 197 n1103 Mullissu: 23, 214, 311, 419, 421, 501, 503 Assyrian Mullissu: 251 Nabû: 37 n137, 50, 89–90 n472, 99,

112, 141, 149, 174, 193, 210–211 n1196, 213, 263, 298–299 n1679, 313, 378 n2137, 381, 388, 414, 416, 425–426, 433–435, 437–438, 463, 492, 501, 503, 513, 515 Nabû-ša-ḫarê: 317 n1808 Namraṣīt; see also Dilimbabbar: 21, 28, 35, 71–78, 81 n391, 86, 142– 143, 155, 304–307, 315 n1794, 327, 354–355 n2001, 389, 415, 440, 455, 458, 462 Nanaya: 185–187, 217, 308–309, 310– 313, 368, 383–384, 438, 446, 448 Nanaya of Dūr-Kurigalzu: 374 n2110 Nanna: 1–3, 5, 12 n34, 29, 31–34, 36– 37, 45–46, 49 n212, 54 n236, 60 n264, 63, 68 n315, 71–74, 77–78, 87 n437, 90, 95–96, 98, 101 n532, 108 n587, 124 n692, 137–138, 147–149, 196–198, 204, 206 n1171, 224–225, 230–231, 236, 238 n1327, 240, 242, 250, 256 n1452, 290–292, 295–297, 302, 306, 309, 317–320, 322–324, 327, 331, 333–336, 345, 349, 352–353, 355, 359, 361 n2034, 368–371, 377–378, 380, 387–388, 402 n2288, 426, 434 n2443, 439 Nanna-adaḫ: 250 n1416 Nanna-balaĝ-an-ki: 329 Nanna-BALAĜ-maḫ: 328 Nanna-igidu: 250 n1416 Nannāru: 21, 27–28, 31–38, 46, 49– 50, 59, 77, 81, 87 n437, 93–94, 147, 159, 161, 171, 192, 197–198, 200 n1123, 207–208, 213, 216, 233, 288, 293 n1639, 301–302, 305 n1722, 327, 389, 439–440, 484– 485, 487–488, 490, 493, 505 Nanna-ušum-maḫ: 328 Nanše: 290, 329

Index

Narudi: 422 Našuḫ: 389 n2199 Nazi: 329 Nergal: 70 n328, 122, 165, 174, 180 n992, 184–188, 235, 264, 266–267, 269, 291, 316, 374 n2110, 412 n2340, 425, 434 Níĝ-ga-ba: 328 Nin-Anzu: 329 Nin-asilal: 321 n1826 Ninazu: 291 Nin-báḫar: 328 Nin-da-gal-zu: 329 Nin-da-maḫ-di: 329 Nindara: 243–244, 290, 329 Nineana: 378 n2137 Nin(e)igara: 240, 303 n1700, 317– 322, 328, 437, 444, 446 Ningal/Nikkal: 36, 65, 74–76, 80–81, 98–99, 106, 115, 129, 149, 211, 213–214 n1212, 215, 225, 234– 235, 240, 250 n1416, 253–254, 256 n1450, 259–264, 266–267, 290, 296–307, 309–310, 313, 316 n1797, 317, 322, 325–329, 332– 333, 337–338, 340, 341 n1933, 348–353, 355–356, 361 n2034, 362–364, 367–370, 377, 378 n2136, 380–381, 384, 387–389, 391–393, 396, 403–405, 408–409, 410 n2335, 413, 419, 421, 424, 426–427, 429–438, 444, 446–448, 450 Ningikuga: 80, 297, 327 Ningublaga: 7, 230, 240, 290, 303 n1700, 317–324, 328–329, 372, 434, 437, 444, 446 Ninĝeštinana: 185–186 Ninĝišzida: 212 Ninimma: 354–355, 370 Ninkarrak: 378 n2137 Ninkasi: 353–355

617

Nin-kù-nun-na: 328 Ninlil: 98, 101 n532, 291, 294, 348, 350–351, 354 n2000, 356, 368– 370, 384 Ninmaḫ; see also Bēlet-ilī: 326, 378 n2137 Nin-MAR.KI: 290–291, 329 Ninmena: 76, 304–305, 350 Ninmenana: 426 Ninmetenten: 329 Ninnu-tab-ba: 328 Ninurta: 112, 119, 140 n744, 144–145, 182 n1008, 184–186, 198–199, 205, 226, 252 n1431, 264, 294, 298–299 n1679, 311, 324, 371, 419, 423–427, 429, 436, 438, 450, 495 Ninurta of the Wall: 419 n2379 Ninsiana; see also Venus: 182 Ninsun: 212 Ninšar: 255 Ninšubur: 205, 250 n1416 Nin-Urima: 322, 328 Ninzadim: 42 Ninzilzil: 312–313 Nisaba: 354 n1994 nkl: 296 n1660, 392, 403 n2295 nsk: 388, 392 Nunamnir: 501, 503 Nusku: 7, 64–65, 127 n717, 171, 190, 192 n1078, 209, 230–231, 233, 260, 270, 290, 294, 300–301, 309, 314–317, 324, 354–355, 369, 388– 390, 392, 393 n2233, 396, 403– 405, 408–409, 422, 434–436, 438, 446, 448–450 Papsukkal: 309 n1732 Qingu: 145 Queen-of-Sippar: 374 n2110 Sadarnuna: 314–316, 388, 404–405, 408–409 Salmānu: 226

618

Index

Sebettu: 170–171, 352 n1982, 356 n2003, 419 n2379, 422 Sī’/Sē’: 30–31, 268 n1510, 389, 439 Sîn: passim Sîn of Dūr-Šarrukīn: 269, 426–427, 450 Sîn of Elumu: 86, 203, 216, 261– 262, 415–416, 449 Sîn of Ḫarrān: 1, 3, 7, 21 n51, 23– 24, 37 n137, 41–44, 142–143, 152– 153, 157–158, 196, 200–203, 209– 210, 224 n1253, 227–228, 230– 234, 236, 250–255, 259–270, 292, 302, 311, 315 n1790, 348, 385– 402, 406, 409–413, 415, 426–427, 436, 440, 442–445, 448–450 Sîn of Ur: 7, 9, 12, 21 n51, 98, 196–198, 201–204, 213, 230–232, 254, 259, 296, 331, 333–334, 342, 387, 447 Sîn-ša-kisalli: 373, 447 Sîn-ša-šamê: 372–373, 375 n2112, 376, 447–448 Suen: 2, 28–31, 46, 54 n236, 71, 75, 77 n368, 94, 138–139, 147, 151, 173, 197, 204 n1161, 206, 236– 237, 240, 291–292, 294, 307, 318 n1812, 320, 323 n1836, 326, 327, 331, 346–347, 368–369, 371 n2083, 372–373 n2097, 387, 439 SÚN-si: 318 n1814, 328 Ṣalbatānu: 186 Šakkan: 179–180 Šala: 374 n2110, 419, 424 Šamaš/Utu: 9 n24, 11, 14, 22, 40–43, 45–46, 53, 57–58, 63 n287, 67, 69, 70 n328, 73, 75–78, 81–86, 89–90, 92–103, 105–109, 111–113, 115– 121, 124–131, 133–134, 143–144, 146, 154, 157 n842, 163, 167–168, 169 n915, 171–172, 175 n962, 184, 187–188, 190–191, 194 n1086,

196, 202 n1147, 212, 214, 216– 225, 231, 233–235, 240–241, 248, 250, 253–254, 256, 261–264, 281– 282, 286 n1606, 288 n1614, 290, 292 n1632, 296–299, 301–302, 305–310, 312, 316–317, 325–326, 330–331, 340–341, 438 n1963, 368–370, 372–378, 381, 384, 388, 391–392, 394, 396, 405, 416–425, 427–438, 441, 444, 446–450, 454, 458, 463, 490–491, 494, 507, 510– 511, 514, 517, 520–523, 525 Šà-an-ba: 328 Šarrat-Ninūa: 399 Šarrat-nipḫi: 423–424, 438, 450 Šēr: 30–31 Šērūa: 419 šmš: 392 Šulak: 285 Šulpae’a: 175 n962, 182, 272 n1526, 324, 483, 495 Šuziana: 354–355, 369–370, 437 Tambāya: 421, 438 Tiamat: 93, 145, 419 Tišpak: 174, 324 n1844, 419 n2379 Tukul-diĝir-ra: 329 Twins: 434–435 U4-é-zi-an-na: 328 U4-kìri-zal-an-na: 328 U4-me-an-na: 328 Ūmu: 374 n2110, 421 Umun: 197, 327 Unkin: 150–151, 243, 327 Unkin-úru: 34, 150–151, 243, 327 Uraš: 340–341 Úriki-kìri-zal: 328 Urugal (Uru16-gal): 322 n1835, 328 U4-sakar: 34–35, 74 n352, 77, 327 Ušum-gal-an-na: 353 n1989 yrḫ: 296 n1660, 403 n2295 Zálag: 78, 88 n447 Zálag-ga: 68, 78, 88 n447

Index

Zaqīqu: 191–192, 443, 457, 459–460 Zarpanītu: 145 n769, 374 n2110, 480– 482 Names of temples and sanctuaries Agrunku (Agrun-kù): 296, 303, 349, 351–352 Agrunmaḫ (Agrun-maḫ): 303–304, 341 n1933, 343, 362 É-ad-gi4-gi4: 354 E’agadudu (É-aga-du7-du7): 344, 437 E’amaškuga (É-amaš-kù-ga): 367, 437 É-an-ki-kù-ga: 354 Eana (É-an-na): 181, 297, 332, 340– 341, 361 n2032, 362 n2039, 365 n2052, 371–373, 447 E’anšar (É-an-šár): 148–149, 352–353 É-aš-damar: 74 É-AŠ-AN-AMAR: 74, 354–355 É-aš-dmár: 74 Ebabbar (É-babbar): 181, 225, 233, 332, 340–341, 365, 374–378, 420– 421 (E)darakuga ((É-)dàra-kù-ga): 249, 333–335 É-di-ku5-maḫ: 334 n1889 É-dili-damar: 74, 354–355 n2001 Edimana (É-dim-an-na): 333–335, 374, 383–384, 437–438, 448 Edimgalana (É-dim-gal-an-na): 333– 335, 437 (E)dublamaḫ ((É)-dub-lá-maḫ): 333– 335, 338, 346, 348, 356–360, 363, 369, 437, 447 Edumununa (É-dumu-nun-na): 181, 371–372, 437, 447 Edurgina (É-dúr-gi-na): 340–341 É-en-nu-ĝá-ĝá: 352 É-èš-bàn-da: 354 É-GA-DI: 250 n1416 É-gar6-kù; see also Agrunku: 349 n1968

619

Eĝipar (É-ĝi6-pàr): 81, 296, 301–302, 337 n1909, 351, 360–363, 386, 403–404, 408, 438, 447 É-ĝissu-bi-du10-ga: 381, 437 Eḫulḫul (É-ḫúl-ḫúl): 24–25, 75, 81, 86, 90 n476, 97, 141–144, 153– 154, 157, 160–161, 194, 201, 208– 210, 214–216, 233–234, 238, 292, 315 n1791, 375 n2120, 386–388, 390 n2205, 393, 396–409, 414, 421, 436 n2456, 438, 442, 448–449 Eḫulḫuldirdira (É-ḫúl-ḫúl-dir-dir-ra): 396 n2258, 397, 420–421, 438 E-ibbi-Anum (É-i-bí-dA-num): 340– 341 É-idim-an-na; see also É-dim-an-na: 374 É-íd-lú-ru-gú-kalam-ma: 349 n1968 (E)itikuga ((É-)iti6-kù-ga): 333–335, 437 É-itu-da: 313 É-kišib-gal-é-kur-ra: 354 Ekišnugal (É-kiš-nu-ĝál): 46–47, 78– 81, 162, 213, 231, 249 n1407, 250, 259 n1464, 303–304, 319–321, 323, 332–343, 345–346, 349–352, 357, 360, 363–364, 369, 378–380, 437, 447–448 Eĝišnugal (É-ĝiš-nu11-gal): 79–80, 197–180, 259 n1464, 304, 319– 320, 333 n1881, 338 n1917, 342, 345–346, 350, 379, 437 E-keš-Nungal (É-kéš-dNun-gal): 80–81 E-ka-ešnun-gal (É-ká-èš-nun-gal): 80–81 Ekur (É-kur): 70, 88, 125, 138–139 n739, 293, 295, 315 n1788, 331, 333–334, 354–355, 370, 455, 458, 484–485, 487–488, 492–493 Elugalĝalgasisa (É-lugal-ĝalga-si-sá): 153, 343–349, 437, 447

620

Index

É-má-gur8: 47 Emelamana (É-me-lám-an-na): 203, 233, 315, 386, 403–405, 408 Enitena (É-ní-te-en-na): 380–381, 437, 448 Enitendu (É-ní-te-en-du10): 333–335, 378, 380–381, 437, 448 Enunmaḫ; see also Agrunmaḫ: 303– 304, 343, 362 Esaĝdili (É-saĝ-dili): 348, 358–359 Esaĝil (É-saĝ-íl): 202, 215, 341, 372, 381, 393 n2231, 408 Ešaduga (É-šà-du10-ga): 352–353, 355 Ešara (É-šár-ra): 419 É-šu-gán-du7-du7: 344, 437 Ešumeša (É-šu-me-ša4): 205 Etemenniguru (É-temen-ní-gùr-(ru)): 203–204, 344, 346–347, 357–359, 372–373 n2097, 437 Eturkalama (É-tùr-kalam-ma): 380– 381, 384 n2169, 448 E’ulmaš (É-ul-maš): 225, 233, 313, 375 n2120 É-ur5-šà-ba: 384 n2167 É-ušumgal-an-na: 353 Ezida (É-zi-da): 89–90 n472, 149 n790, 215, 341, 346 n1953, 383, 408, 448 [É...]ga?-kù-ga: 354 giparu: 303, 332, 343, 350–351, 360– 363 Ĝá-bur-ra: 317 n1804, 321 Ĝá-nun-maḫ: 303 Ĝi6-pàr-kù: 351 Kar-zi-da: 46 Ki-du10-ga: 352 Rēš-temple: 402 n2287 Personal names Abi-ešuḫ: 378 n2136 Adad-nāṣir: 51, 53 Adad-nērārī I: 386

Adad-nērārī III: 251–252, 260, 262– 263, 265, 398 Adad-šumu-uṣur: 222 Adapa: 27, 195 Adda-guppi: 52, 194, 202 n1148, 406 Amar-Suen: 296, 338, 351, 359, 365 Ammiditana: 380 Ammiṣaduqa: 380 Ana-nūr-Sîn-līṣi: 82 n399 Arik-dēn-ili: 416–417 n2368 Artaxerxes: 310–311 n1760 Asdi-takim: 385 n2174 Assurbanipal (Aššur-bāni-apli): 3, 9 n24, 25, 36–37, 44, 58–59, 73, 75, 81, 86, 88–89, 97, 100, 137, 140– 145, 151–154, 159–162, 164–165, 174–175, 176–177 n977, 192–194, 196, 200, 203, 208–210, 212–217, 220, 222–223, 225, 228–229, 232– 233, 234, 237–238, 247 n1396, 259–262, 264, 292, 294–295, 301, 306, 309–310, 315–316, 338–340, 345, 351, 367, 386, 388–390, 392– 393, 395–398, 400–409, 412 n2340, 413–416, 426–427 n2419, 431, 433, 435–337, 441–444, 448– 450, 454, 458, 501, 503, 506 Aššur-dān II: 8 Aššur-etel-ilānī: 228 n1281 Aššur-etel-šamê-erṣeti-muballissu: 401–402, 406 n2314, 438 Aššur-mukīn-palē’a: 401–402 Assurnaṣirpal II: 9 n24, 89, 155, 159, 162 n874, 200, 213, 216 n1221, 352 n1982, 386, 398, 417, 419– 420, 423–426, 430, 432–433, 450 Aššur-nērārī I: 416 Aššur-nērārī V: 253, 259, 267 n1505 Aššur-uballiṭ II: 386, 405 Ataršumki: 251 Awīl-Sîn: 293 n1638 Balasî: 66, 191

Index

Balāssu: 393, 438 Balti-yabatu: 263 n1487 Bar-rākib: 43, 390 Bayâ: 224 Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēlu-uṣur: 32–33 n109, 228 n1276, 245–246, 390–391, 459 Bēl-Ḫarrān-idrī: 390 n2209 Bēl-Ḫarrān-issē’a: 391 n2214 Bēl-Ḫarrān-killanni: 391 n2214 Bēl-Ḫarrān-kuṣuranni: 390 n2209 Bēl-Ḫarrān-ṣabtanni: 391 n2214 Bēl-Ḫarrān-šarru-uṣur: 228 Bēl-iddina: 64–65, 396 Belšazzar: 195 Cyrus: 181, 343, 375 Darius: 138–139 n739, 332 n1880, 376 n2126 Eanatum: 333 Egibi: 254 Enanedu: 363 Enḫeduana: 331, 333, 402 n2288 Enmenana: 368 En-niĝaldi-Nanna: 25 n72, 77 n369, 343, 351 n1976, 360–365, 402 n2288, 437 Esagil-kīn-apli: 274 n1538, 383 Esarhaddon (Aššur-aḫa-iddina): 9 n24, 32, 88–89, 152, 157–160–162, 175, 192, 200, 208–210, 213, 215–216, 220–222, 224, 227–228, 246, 253, 258, 260, 302, 337 n1913, 339, 365, 384–385 n2170, 386, 390, 393, 395–396, 400–401, 411, 414 n2349, 426–427 n2419, 432–433, 435–436, 449, 491 Geme-Sîn: 241 Ḫammurapi: 206 Ibni-Ištar: 373 Il-yabi: 415 Immerum: 373 Išme-Dagan: 206, 356 n2011 Ištar-šumu-ēreš: 107, 157, 218–219

621

Kiṣir-Nabû: 507, 513, 515 Kudurru: 389–390 Kurigalzu: 332, 349, 356–357, 360 Lú-Dumu-nun-na: 253, 293 Lugalkisura-nādin-aḫḫē: 253 Lugal-nesaĝ-ibila: 197 n1102 Lugalzagesi: 368 Lu-Nanna: 235 n1315 Mannu-kī-māt-Aššur: 51, 53 Marduk-apla-iddina I: 323 Marduk-šumu-uṣur: 208 Marduk-zākir-šumi I: 257, 373 Mati’-ilu: 253, 259, 267 n1505 Munnabitu: 163 Nabonidus: 1, 3, 8–9, 24–28, 40–41, 47 n198, 52, 58–59, 77, 83, 89, 114–115, 137, 140–141, 144, 149, 153, 161–162, 192, 194–196, 200– 203, 211, 213, 215–216, 223, 225, 233–235, 293 n1639, 295, 302 n1693, 303–305, 308–309, 313– 316, 340, 342–347, 350–351, 359– 364, 367, 373–377, 386, 388, 396– 398, 402 n2288, 404–409, 412 n2341, 441–444, 447–448 Nabopolassar: 8, 341, 405 Nabû-apla-iddina: 41 Nabû-balāssu-iqbi: 408 Nabû-dūr-makie: 388 n2197 Nabû-iqīša: 107 Nabû-nāṣir: 190–191 Nabû-pāšir: 388, 400, 410 Nabû-šumu-iddin: 365 Nabû-šumu-iddina: 425 Nabû-zēru-iddina: 393–394, 436, 438 Nabû-zuqup-kēnu: 57, 138–139 n739 Nanna-ibni: 31 Naqī’a: 392 n2218, 401, 433, 384–385 n2170 Narām-Sîn: 387 n2188 Narām-Sîn of Ešnunna: 385 n2174 Nāṣir-Sîn: 226

622

Index

Nebuchadnezzar I: 25 n72, 363 Nebuchadnezzar II: 9, 22 n56, 39, 47 n198, 162, 194, 213, 303–304, 335–336, 338, 340–343, 359, 362 n2040, 374, 378–379, 383, 447– 448 Ningal-iddin: 337, 346–347 Nūr-Adad: 73 n343 Nūr-Sîn: 82 Qalparuda: 251 Ra’īmâ: 384–385 n2170 Rīm-Sîn: 206, 363, 377 Sadibbu: 53 n229 Samsu-iluna: 378 n2136 Sargon of Akkad: 331 Sargon II: 6, 9 n24, 32, 43–44, 50, 64 n295, 88–89, 137, 138–139 n739, 152, 157, 160, 162, 200, 203, 217, 226, 228–229, 235, 294–295, 297– 300, 302, 339, 351, 375, 384–385 n2170, 386, 388, 395, 397–400, 410, 418, 421, 426, 428, 430, 449– 450, 492 Sē’-barakka: 30–31 n91 Sē’-immē: 268 Sē’-nūrī: 82 Sē’-šarru: 228–229 Sē’-yatê: 268 Sennacherib (Sîn-aḫḫē-erība): 9 n24, 23, 43 n177, 48 n208, 88–89, 138– 139 n739, 151–153, 156, 160, 200, 207–208, 213–214 n1212, 227– 228, 265, 384–385 n2170, 400, 418–419, 431–433, 444, 449–450 Silim-Bēl: 254 n1441 Sîn-aḫu-uṣur: 226–227 Sîn-ālik-pāni: 30 n88 Sîn-ašarēd-apli: 197 n1102 Sîn-balāssu-iqbi: 31, 74, 144 n763, 149, 153, 203–204, 228, 234, 304, 332, 337–359, 261 n2035, 365, 370 n2081, 372–373, 403–404 n2296,

444, 447 Sîn-ēda: 30 n88 Sîn-ḫāri: 30–31 n91 Sîn-ibni: 31 Sîn-iddinam: 306, 356, 377 Sîn-kāšir: 30 n88 Sîn-mušēpi: 31 n96 Sîn-nādin-aḫḫē: 253 Sîn-nādin-aḫi: 361 n2032 Sîn-nādin-apli: 227 Sîn-na’id: 44 Sîn-namir: 226 Sîn-nammir: 82 Sîn-natannu: 30–31 n91 Sîn-nūrī: 82 Sîn-per’u-ukīn: 227 Sîn-šarru-ibni: 228 Sîn-šarru-iškun: 8, 32, 37 n134, 200, 210–211, 225, 227–228, 258, 265, 444 Sîn-šarru-uṣur: 228, 337 n1913 Sîn-šarru-uṣuranni: 228 Sîn-šarrūssu-ka’’in: 229 Sîn-tabni-uṣur: 337 n1913 Sîn-zēru-ibni: 392 Sumu-abum: 378 Sumulael: 373 Šalmaneser I (Salmānu-ašarēd): 386 Šalmaneser II (Salmānu-ašarēd): 416– 417 n2368 Šalmaneser III (Salmānu-ašarēd): 37 n137, 40 n158, 43 n180, 155, 200, 216–217, 386 n2178, 398, 403, 406 Šalmaneser IV (Salmānu-ašarēd): 228 n1276, 251, 262, 390, 398 Šalmaneser V (Salmānu-ašarēd): 227 Šamaš-ibni: 507, 515 Šamaš-šumu-ukīn: 22 n56, 190–193, 228 n1279, 338 n1916, 400–402, 455, 458, 506 Šamšī-Adad I: 226, 416 n2367 Šamšī-Adad V: 256–257

Index

Šamšī-ilu: 251 n1427 Šarrī-taklāk: 416 Šarru-Sîn: 229 Šattiwaza: 251, 385–386 Šēr-idrī: 30–31 n91 Šēr-nūrī: 82, 268 Šulgi: 292 n1630, 302, 344, 346 n1953, 368 Šumu-libši: 393 n2231 Šumu-ukīn: 195 Šuppiluliuma: 251, 385–386 Šū-Sîn: 253 Teumman: 36, 37 n137, 58 Tiglath-pileser I: 50–51 n221 Tiglath-pileser III: 88, 208, 226–228, 390 Tukultī-Ninurta I: 416–417 n2368 Tukultī-Ninurta II: 200, 431 Ṭāb-šār-Aššur: 44, 399–400, 430 Urad-Ea: 390, 393–394, 412 n2339, 436, 438 Urad-Nabû: 426 Ur-Alamuš: 322 Ur-Namma: 291, 331, 343–344, 346 n1953, 347, 351, 360 Ušpilulume: 251, 262–263 Utuḫeĝal: 333 Warad-Sîn: 72 n340 Xerxes: 9 Yau-bi’di: 203 Zakur: 251 Zakûtu: 264, 433 Geographical names (ancient and modern) Açaği Yarimca: 43 n177, 45, 400 n2277 Akkad: 181, 218–219, 233, 298, 313 n1779, 387 n2188, 428 Akšak: 29 n81 Arabia: 218 n1228, 248–249, 406 n2313

623

Arbela: 311, 312, 413 Arpad: 251, 259, 267 n1505 Assur: 9, 30 n87, 31 n96, 39, 44, 52 n226, 64–65, 80, 86–87, 97, 102– 103, 110 n597, 116–117, 119, 122, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 169, 174, 183, 217, 220, 238, 247, 254, 265– 267, 274 n1538, 296, 303, 305, 315, 319, 330–331, 362 n2041, 365 n2052, 370 n2080, 395–397, 399, 402, 405, 416–423, 429–431, 433, 434–435 n2448, 436, 438, 446, 449–450, 464, 472, 477, 507, 516 Babylon: 9, 25, 39, 79 n381, 80–81, 202, 207, 208 n1183, 215, 254, 293 n1640, 298, 304, 312–313, 316 n1797, 317 n1808, 330, 333–335, 341, 345–346, 362 n2041, 368, 373, 378–384, 388, 401 n2284, 405, 408–409, 428, 448, Baghdad: 17 Baliḫ: 267, 330, 385–386, 448 Baltil: 399 Baṣ: 340–341 Bavian: 213–214 n1212 Bīt-Suena/Bīt-Sîn: 369 Boghazköy: 306, 335 n1894 Borsippa: 161, 181, 193 n1083, 313, 330, 335, 368, 374, 380, 383–384, 438, 448 Canaan: 265 n1497, 387 n2185 Carchemish: 52 n226, 261–262, 415 Damru: 381 Dilbat: 340–341 Diyarbakır: 43 Dūr-Bēl-Ḫarrān-bēlu-uṣur: 390–391 Dūr-Katlimmu: 9, 52–53, 229 Dūr-Kurigalzu: 344 n1948 Dūr-Šarrukīn: 6, 89, 162, 217, 220, 269, 296, 298, 330, 398, 405, 418, 420, 423, 425–430, 433, 438, 450 Dūrum: 367 n2061

624

Index

Ebla: 28, 385 Egypt: 157 n844, 208–210, 271 n1524, 302, 386, 395–396, 401, 414 n2349 Elam: 58, 84 n416, 228 n1281, 295 Elumu: 86, 203, 216–217, 260–262, 415–416, 438, 449 Eridu: 319–320, 338–339, 345, 352– 353, 379–380, 485, 488 Euphrates: 267, 330, 384 Fāra: 28 Gaeš: 46 Girsu: 331 Gisgis (Kesentaş): 43–44 Göktaçköyü: 45, 252 n1428 Gutium: 50 Guzāna (Tell Ḥalaf): 53, 267 Hamath: 203 Ḫabur: 267 Ḫarrān: 1, 3, 7, 21 n51, 23–27, 36–37, 41–45, 65, 73, 75, 114–115, 141– 144, 149, 152–153, 157–158, 160– 162, 194, 196, 200–203, 208–210, 213–216, 222–224, 226–227, 230– 239, 250–255, 259–270, 290, 292, 296, 297–298, 300–302, 308–311, 315–317, 330, 348, 351, 354 n1996, 375 n2120, 384–415, 421– 422, 426, 430, 435–436, 438, 440, 442, 444–450, Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe): 36, 127 n716, 261–262, 269–270, 306, 307 n1735, 311, 392–393, 405, 438, 464, 471–472, 479, 482, 507 Inner City: 205 Iraq: 3 Isin: 206, 356 n2011, 359 Jebel Hamrin: 421 Kalḫu (Nimrud): 39–40, 52 n226, 100 n529, 159, 216 n1221, 220, 228– 229, 249, 252 n1982, 264–266, 299, 311, 330, 414, 419–420, 423–

426, 438, 450, 507 Kar-[...]: 228 n1281 Karduniaš: 401–402 Keš: 326 Khosr: 432–433 Ki’abrig: 317–318, 321 Kissik: 211, 330, 339, 367–368, 437 Kisurra: 252 n1431 Kiš: 204, 380, 384 Kullab: 339, 379–380, 448 Kurba’il: 393, 411 n2337 Laḫiru: 228 Larnaka: 64 n295 Larsa: 181, 202 n1147, 206, 233, 259 n1464, 317, 330–331, 339, 340– 341, 356, 368, 377–378, 437, 448 Ma’allanate: 82 Maltai: 23–25, 27, 44 n181 Mari: 242 Marib (Saba): 249 n1405 Mount Amanus: 419 Mount Sinai: 28–29 n80 Nēmed-Laguda: 339 Nērab: 30–31 n91, 388, 392, 415 Nineveh: 39, 52 n226, 54, 68, 73, 78 n377, 127, 137, 141–142, 165, 182 n1013, 184, 187–188, 207–208, 220–221, 223 n1250, 225, 228, 232, 254, 263, 265–266, 273, 301, 303, 306, 307 n1735, 311–312, 319, 330, 334 n1889, 344, 386, 389–390, 393–396, 404–405, 413– 414, 418, 420, 423, 426–427 n2419, 429 n2428, 431–437, 438, 442, 449–450, 462, 464, 472, 483, 497, 507 Nippur: 7, 46, 48 n207, 80–81, 98, 101 n532, 112, 119, 138–139 n739, 178, 181, 204–205, 253, 291–293, 296, 310–311, 315–317, 325, 330, 333, 348, 352, 354–359, 368–371, 379, 384, 404, 437, 446–448

Index

Sam’al (Zinçirli): 43, 390 Samsat: 52 n224, 53 n229 Sippar: 102, 109, 113, 132, 190, 201 n1131, 202 n1147, 225, 250, 296– 297, 308, 313, 330, 341, 348 n1963, 365, 368, 372–377, 383 n2159, 384, 437, 447–448, 508 Sultantepe; see Ḫuzirīna Sumer: 428 Syria: 23, 43, 51, 53, 195, 290, 296, 330, 387, 395 Šāt-iddin: 339 Tayma: 115, 202 n1146, 343, 406, 412 n2341 Tell Abta: 390–391 Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ: 28, 29 n81, 71 n333, 291, 331 Tell al-‘Ubaid: 242 Til Barsip (Tell Ahmar): 23–25, 27, 43, 397 Turkey: 43, 330 Tutub: 331 Ur: 7, 9–10, 12, 21 n51, 25, 31, 46–47, 74, 76–79, 81 n393, 98, 101 n532, 119, 144 n763, 148–149, 153, 162, 193 n1083, 196–198, 201–204, 206, 213, 228, 230–232, 234–237, 240–242, 247, 250, 254, 256–259, 290–292, 296–298, 304, 313, 317, 319–325, 330–372, 374, 377–380, 383–385, 387, 402 n2288, 403–404 n2296, 405–406 n2312, 430, 434, 437, 443–444, 446–448, 485, 488 Urartu: 50 Uruk: 145, 171–173, 180–181, 292, 296–297, 304, 309 n1751, 310– 312, 317–318, 324, 330, 332, 339, 340–341, 361 n2032, 362 n2039, 368, 371–373, 376–377, 384, 437, 446–447, 479, 515, 525 Urum: 357 Wadi Brissa: 342

625

Yemen: 249 n1405 Zalmaqum: 385 n2174 Zinçirli; see Sam’al Thematic index Abraham: 387 Achaemenid rulers: 377 advice (from deities): 150–153, 155 n831, 301–302, 348 akītu (festival, house): 46, 114–115, 143 n759, 148 n782, 209 n1190, 222–223, 237, 247 n1396, 259, 268, 324, 370–371, 386, 393, 396, 400 n2276, 403, 410–415, 418– 419, 449 amulet, amulet stones: 39–40, 280, 439, 507, 513, 515 animals: 100–101 n530, 123 n687, 249, 257–258, 272, 282, 321, 494 animals (as offerings): 102–103, 113, 132, 184–186, 284, 363–364, 374– 375, 377 n2127, 433–434, 436, 475, 520, 522–523 animals (associated with the moon god) bison, kusarikku: 243 bull, ox: 23 n62, 61, 87 n437, 228 n1281, 240–242, 245, 248, 318, 340 calf: 74, 241, 244–245, 354–355 n2001, 393 cattle: 100, 218–219, 230, 236, 240–248, 290, 318, 321–323, 340 n1929, 444–446, 494, 496 cow: 39, 69, 171, 241–243, 247, 288, 322 n1831, 444–445, 496, 518 dragon, lion-dragon: 23, 27, 44 n181, 173–174, 353 gazelle: 55–57, 100–101, 248–249, 258, 445 goat: 249 horse: 242 n1363, 250, 264, 266–

626

Index

269, 396, 408 ibex: 60–61, 101 n533, 248–249, 333–335, 445 lion: 39 n151, 203–204, 219, 247, 346–347, 423–424 nannāru-bird: 282–383 n1587 sheep: 100, 246–248, 322 n1831, 494 wild animals: 61, 101 n533, 110, 120–121, 169, 230, 247–249, 282 n1585, 445 wild bull: 27, 231–232, 240–241, 340, 403 animals (in rituals): 110, 178–179, 321, 385 n2174, 526 anointing, oil for anointing: 178–179, 241, 272, 281, 304, 510, 512, 514, 518 anti-ghost rituals, therapy: 78, 108– 109, 154, 247 anti-witchcraft rituals: 37 n137, 48, 70–71, 81, 84 n420, 86, 109–110, 123, 146, 154, 165 n897, 238 n1337, 240, 246, 326 n1863, 495, 497 n2473 anzû-bird: 75, 141–142, 315 n1791, 329, 403 apotropaic rituals: 170, 175–181, 321, 526 Apsû: 80–81, 166, 171, 177, 212, 345, 498, 500–502 Arabic sources: 218 n1228, 387, 397 n2263 Aramaic sources, deities: 30–31, 40, 43, 52 268, 388, 389–390, 392, 415, 449 Arameans: 259, 395 n2247 architecture: 39, 331–332 n1876, 356, 369 n2074, 390 n2205, 405, 416– 417, 439 archives: 9–10, 297, 332, 365, 372– 373, 384 n2165, 449

aromatics: 265 n1496, 284, 304 n1710, 510, 514 assembly (divine) : 125–126, 146, 150–153, 156, 184–189, 243, 295, 442–443, 455, 458, 465, 470, 477– 478 astrology-astronomy, celestial divination: 1, 6, 8–10, 12, 19–22, 33, 50, 56 n246, 59, 61–64, 70, 82–85, 91– 92, 94, 98 n519, 101, 106–107, 109, 121–126, 137, 144, 146–147, 149–150, 152–153, 155–159, 161– 163, 169–171, 189, 195–196, 207 n1117, 211, 218–223, 244, 246, 255, 260–261, 295, 348, 361, 358 n2019, 365, 377, 379, 433–434, 440–443, 518–519 astrological reports: 22, 82–84, 92, 106–107, 159, 163–164, 170, 218– 219, 239–240 āšipu, mašmaššu (healer, incantation priest, exorcist), āšipūtu (craft of the healer): 11–14, 177–178, 222, 319–320, 364, 474–476, 480–482, 507, 513, 515, 518 Atraḫasīs: 48, 524 attalû-formula: 151, 176, 454, 458, 460, 506 balaĝ-gods (gu4-balaĝ): 290, 328–329 band (woollen): 165, 171–172 barge (appellation, description of the moon): 33–36, 45–51, 54, 67, 72– 73 n342, 77, 94–95, 244, 320, 440 bath (rimku): 101–103, 113, 116, 129, 131–134, 419 beard (lapis lazuli): 244–245 bed-chamber: 125, 296, 302–304, 306, 319–320, 322, 325, 349–351, 521, 523 belt (therapeutic): 507, 515–516 benedictions: 105, 114, 198–199 bīt ḫilṣi: 304

Index

bīt mēseri: 179 bīt rimki: 35, 100–101 n530, 175–177, 452 bīt salā’ mê: 464 blood: 178–179 boat (appellation, metaphor): 45–54, 77, 94 n493, 305, 337, 440, 511, 514, 518 border, border contracts: 250–253, 260, 262–263, 398, 526 bowl (appellation, cultic object): 41, 72–73, 201 n1131, 409 brick inscriptions: 148–149, 304, 341, 345–346, 352–356, 362, 397, 408, 416, 428–429 bricks, glazed (depicting the moon): 39 “burning” (in penalty clauses): 265– 266 carrying poles (of Ningal/Nikkal): 36– 37, 234, 259, 301, 309, 392, 403– 404, 413 cattle pen (tarbaṣu): 47, 237, 241, 246–247, 380, 444–445 cedar temple (in Ḫarrān): 208–210, 414 n2349 cella: 76, 220, 416–418, 430 n2429, 450 chapel: 149, 380–381, 383–384, 404, 414 childbirth, labour: 68–70, 94–95, 97, 171, 215, 224, 231, 235, 239, 241, 245, 271, 286, 288–289, 299–302, 306–307, 444, 464, 476, 507–519 childlessness: 110, 238–239, 406 n2314, 466–467, 470, 486, 489 children, babies, offspring: 265, 238– 240, 276–277, 279–280, 479, 510, 514, 518 clay nails: 304, 350–351 clothing, garments, textiles: 178–179, 197–198, 411–412, 414–415, 484,

627

488, 492, 509–510, 512–517, 520, 522, 524 command, divine: 50, 76, 145–146, 152–156, 167, 171, 189, 192, 194, 221–224, 237, 239, 244, 259 n1466, 273, 277, 288, 305, 313 n1780, 316, 441–443, 445, 466, 470, 480–481, 484–490, 498, 501, 521–523 commentary: 5, 8, 32–34, 69–70, 80, 94 n493, 122–123 170–171, 204– 206, 220, 234, 241, 243–244, 252– 253, 272 n1526, 282 n1584, 288– 289, 293 n1638, 305, 355 n2003 communication: 11, 22, 85, 99, 156– 163, 192–194, 211, 216, 270, 323 constellations, stars: 92–93, 180, 182, 186–187, 194–195, 310, 318–319, 324, 434 contracts: 6–7, 43, 242 n1363, 249– 256, 261–271, 282, 276, 395–396, 445 coronation: 208–211, 227 n1275, 302, 395–396 cosmos, cosmic forces: 19 n40, 37–38, 81–82, 85, 87, 91, 93, 96, 136–150, 156, 167, 185, 188, 196, 216–219, 222, 232, 234, 315 n1789, 347– 349, 353, 418, 422, 441–442, 444, 450 counsel: 94–95, 125, 144, 151, 153– 154, 155 n831, 348, 454, 458 courtyard: 44, 298, 323, 336 n1902, 346, 355, 370, 373, 376, 383, 429– 430, 447 creation, creator: 27, 35, 37, 55, 62, 93–95, 97, 136–137, 141–143, 158, 212–214, 228–234, 236–239, 245, 247 n1396, 289 n1619, 293 n1639, 498–499, 501–502, 505, 521–522 crescent moon: 1, 16–17, 22–24, 33, 35, 37–45, 47–49, 51–56, 59, 60–

628

Index

63, 73 n344, 77, 84, 89, 92–95, 98– 101, 108 n586, 111, 127–128, 136– 141, 146, 149 n789, 164, 173, 174 n955, 195, 216, 219–220, 230, 238, 242, 245, 248–249, 277–278 n1555, 280, 316, 373, 395, 439– 441, 444–445, 505 crescent moon emblem, standard (šurinnu): 8, 22–24, 39–45, 49, 51– 52, 111, 127, 149 n789, 219–220, 238, 242, 249–252, 263, 322 n1891, 373–374, 390, 392, 398– 400, 439–440 crown, tiara (of the moon): 27, 49–51, 56–57, 59–70, 76, 82 n396, 93–94, 103–106, 114, 138–140, 142–144, 148 n786, 152, 155, 159, 173, 187– 188, 191, 197–200, 206–208, 210– 211 n1196, 214, 216, 242–243, 245, 248, 257, 305, 335, 344, 350, 396, 440, 444, 449, 486, 489, 492 crown prince: 227, 376–377, 400–401, 448 cult image: 20–28, 41–44, 157–158, 210, 303–304, 322, 350, 409, 419, 421, 439–440, 451 cultic paraphernalia: 240, 330–340, 401 cultic/temple personnel: 363–365, 368, 374 n2106, 376, 393–394, 396, 401–402, 406 n2314, 422, 425, 437–438, 449 curses, curse formulae: 7, 249–250, 253–264, 270, 282, 319, 323–324, 398 n2268, 445 cylinder inscriptions: 6, 32, 37 n134, 85, 200, 210, 225, 294, 342, 346, 351, 367, 398–399, 408 n2321 dairy, milk products: 108, 240–241, 247, 321–322, 444, 446, 486, 489, 496 death, dying: 124–125, 169–170, 175–

176, 259 n1466, 521–522 decision-making, divine decisions: 6– 7, 19 n40, 36, 58–59, 76–78, 92, 97, 99, 101, 108–109, 118–121, 125–128, 130, 136–139, 142–143, 146–147, 149–162, 169–170, 176, 188–191, 195–196, 207, 212, 213, 221–222, 246, 248, 286, 294–296, 301–302, 342, 349, 360–361, 379, 394, 422, 427–428, 441–443, 446, 450, 452, 454, 458, 477–478, 491, 511, 514, 521, 523 demon(s): 85, 169–174, 183–184, 198, 270–273, 277–278, 285, 287, 295, 321, 443, 445, 463, 477–478 divine anger: 11–12, 59, 166–167, 170–171, 177–178, 190 n1063, 249, 270–271, 275 n1543, 281– 282, 286, 442, 445, 469, 471, 506 divine mandate (from the moon god): 215–216, 221, 407 Dogon tribe: 229 n1287 donations: 194, 216, 260–270, 332, 339–340, 392, 396 n2253, 399, 401, 405, 415, 416–417 n2368, 445 dreams, dream rituals, oneiromancy: 25, 66, 105, 113, 131, 150, 166– 167, 189–196, 215–216, 247, 295, 407–408, 443, 452, 457, 459, 460 dynasty, durability of: 216–217, 222, 415–416 Early Dynastic: 2, 28–29, 52 n224, 141 n749, 242, 291, 309, 349 n1971, 368, 385, 447 elation, joy: 85, 124, 162, 314, 396– 397, 409, 419–421, 440, 484–485, 487–488, 493–494 Enlil-gods: 203, 346–347, 352–356 entu-priestess, en-priestess: 25, 77, 331, 343, 351, 360–365, 368, 402– 404 n2296, 437, 447 eponym, eponymy: 229, 390

Index

equinox: 111, 412 n2341 etymology: 32, 69–70, 80–81, 243 n1368, 286 n1602, 369 exemption, freedom of debts (kidinnūtu, zakûtu): 339, 386, 395, 398– 399, 426–427 n2419 extispicy, bārû, bārûtu: 11–12, 63, 146, 150–151, 155, 181–189, 196, 199–200, 203 n1156, 208, 212 n1203, 227 n1274, 295, 365, 437, 443, 483–496 family (divine): 2, 142, 209 n1190, 240, 250, 259–260, 289–290, 294, 310, 327–328, 376, 378, 387, 391, 409, 434, 447, 449 brother: 139–140, 291, 310, 326, 412 n2340, 490 children of the moon god: 172, 194 n1086, 230–234, 282, 290, 297, 305–325, 373, 376 n2122, 384, 422, 434, 444, 446 daughter: 49, 104, 230, 276, 290, 309–314, 324–325, 328, 330, 369– 371, 375–376, 381, 384, 391 n2217, 422, 436–437, 446–448, 486, 488–489, 494–495 father: 7, 33 n110, 46, 73, 78, 108, 147–148, 188 n1048, 189, 197, 197–198, 225, 230–236, 257, 291– 294, 305–310, 312–315, 330, 333– 334, 349, 370–372, 378, 381, 388, 391–392, 424, 434, 444, 446–448, 465, 470, 491, 493, 503 husband, spouse: 75, 115, 211, 260 n1469, 296, 298, 300–302, 304– 305, 413 n2346, 430, 434, 446, 450 mother: 80 n385, 234–235, 240, 296–297, 299–302, 305–307, 310, 317, 326, 351, 369, 444 sister: 80, 308–310, 312, 326, 446– 447 son, heir: 6–7, 29–30 n85, 46, 77,

629

86, 123–124, 127 n717, 154, 171, 189, 196–197, 206–207, 213, 225, 230–231, 240, 254, 260, 290–298, 300–302, 305–309, 312–320, 322 n1835, 324, 330, 333–334, 354 n1996, 369–372, 376–377, 388– 389, 392, 396, 404, 416, 422, 427, 433–434, 436, 443–444, 446, 448– 450, 454, 458, 462–463, 479, 481, 485, 488, 490, 496, 501, 503 wife, spouse: 65, 75–76, 184, 211, 213–214 n1212, 225, 230, 234, 240, 253–254, 259–260, 264, 266– 267, 290, 292 n1633, 296–297, 298, 302–303, 305–306, 313, 319– 323, 327–328, 340, 348–351, 367– 370, 377–378, 383–384, 387–389, 391, 403 n2295, 421, 424, 427, 430, 434, 446, 448 fate, decreeing of: 109, 124 n692, 142–143, 145, 147, 149–150, 153– 154, 156, 159, 212, 215, 298, 360 n2028, 428, 442, 511, 514 fertility, procreation, growth: 6, 21 n51, 52–53, 55, 59, 110, 189, 206 n1173, 229–230, 232–233, 236– 247, 286, 326, 395, 444, 451, 471– 472, 496 festivals, festivities: 46, 98–100, 105– 106, 111–112, 114–119, 122–135, 205, 303 n1706, 318, 384, 441, 455, 459 figurine, puppet: 48, 165, 498, 500– 501, 503, 526 fine (in penalty clauses): 255, 264– 270, 426 fire (as source of light): 32, 83, 85–86, 453, 458 First Dynasty of Babylon: 378–380 fruit (appellation/epithet): 54–59, 66– 67, 97 n511, 100, 103, 139–140, 149 n788, 230, 236, 245, 360, 440

630

Index

Galen: 230 Gallābu archive: 365 garden (in a temple): 250 n1416, 304 n1710, 425 gate, gateway: 171, 178–181, 207– 208, 250 n1416, 336, 341, 346– 348, 356–360, 372, 403, 418, 432 Genesis: 387 gloss: 29–30, 72 n341, 137–138 n735, 322 n1835 god-list: 4, 6 n17, 10, 29–30, 37, 45– 46, 60, 68, 71, 74, 77–78, 83, 97, 127–128, 137–138, 150–151, 187 n1044, 191, 197, 207, 232, 236, 242–244, 248–249, 252, 290, 292– 294, 297, 305, 312–314, 317–318, 321–322, 324, 327–329, 335, 353– 355, 372, 446 gods of the king: 263 Graeco-Roman sources: 230, 271 n1524, 311, 387, 391–392 guard, divine (diĝir-gub-ba): 328–329 guilt: 165–166, 177, 282 n1581, 467, 470 Gurasimmu tribe: 339 Gurgumites: 251 headdress: 23–24, 51–52, 60 n265, 206 n1171, 492, 517 healing: 163, 199, 239 n1338, 254, 270–271, 273, 277–278 n1555, 280, 286–289, 304, 384–385 n2170, 445–446, 451, 462–463, 464, 474 heaven, heaven and earth: 12, 27–28 n75, 32–33 n109, 35–38, 45–46, 51, 58, 60–61, 63 n283, 76, 78–86, 89, 94–96, 105–106, 108–109, 123, 125, 136–143, 145–150, 152–156, 159–160, 162, 168–172, 177, 184, 188 n1048, 195–197, 201–204, 206 n1171, 210, 212, 217, 221–222, 233–234, 237, 241–247, 257–259,

271, 288, 291–292, 294, 299–302, 305–308, 310, 312, 318–321, 333– 335, 343–347, 352–354, 372–374, 376, 380, 383, 404–405, 408, 415, 423, 428, 439, 441, 447–448, 451, 453–454, 456, 458–459, 465–466, 468, 470–471, 477–478, 483–495, 510–511, 514, 518, 521, 523 doors of heaven, gates of heaven: 83–84, 95–96, 485–486, 488–489, 493–495 paths of heaven: 136, 141, 184– 186, 324 Hellenistic period: 10, 181, 310–311 n1760, 317, 371–372, 402 n2287,446–447 hemerologies: 5, 7–8, 54–59, 65–67, 97, 99–106, 110–122, 126–135, 140 n744, 176–177 n977, 178–180, 183–184, 219–220, 248, 325–326, 412–413, 441, 446–447 auspicious and inauspicious days: 183–184, 188, 219–220 hero, heroic powers (of the moon god): 287, 294, 477–478 Hittite sources: 251 n1420, 297 n1660, 385–386, 403 n2295 horizon: 16–17, 56, 74 n350, 83, 93– 96, 99, 107, 136 n728, 184, 218, 494–495 horned animals: 61, 101, 240, 244– 245, 248–249, 323 n1831 horns (of the moon): 35–36, 45 n187, 48, 89, 93–94, 101, 148, 159, 230, 244–246, 248–249, 444–445, 486, 488–489 household (divine): 5–7, 197, 230– 231, 243, 250, 252, 289–290, 293, 296, 302–303, 312–317, 321–330, 335, 371–372, 376, 388, 390–392, 396, 405, 421–422, 435–437, 446– 450

Index

housekeeper (divine): 319–322, 329, 444, 446 ḫul-ba-zi-zi: 294–296, 303, 319–320 human sacrifice: 265–266 Hurrian tradition: 251, 296 n1660, 403 n2295 hymn: 20, 29 n81, 54, 71 n333, 75, 79–80, 145 n769, 146 n775, 159, 212–213, 217, 235, 240–241, 249 n1407, 292, 297–299, 302, 311– 312, 317–318, 321, 323, 331, 333, 357 n2015, 360, 381 n2156, 463 iconography: 2, 8, 22–24, 39, 40–44, 51–53, 60 n264, 84, 240–242, 249, 252–253, 308, 376, 394–395, 439– 440 illnesses, diseases: 40, 86, 108, 230, 238–239, 250, 253 n1438, 255– 259, 264 n1489, 270–289, 310–311 n1760, 445–446, 451, 462–464, 474, 479 images of the moon god: 4, 8, 20–28, 39–45, 51–53, 157–158, 209 n1190, 251–252, 316–317 n1801, 409, 419, 439–440, 451 incense, incense burner: 108, 178– 179, 185–186, 498, 500–501, 503, 509–510, 513–514, 520, 522 incipit: 12–16, 31 n100, 35, 37 n138, 83, 88–89, 165, 247, 273, 275 n1545, 315 n1788, 452, 464, 491, 497, 503–506, 517 inhabited regions: 59, 121, 143, 161, 230, 238, 247–248, 298, 485, 488 intercession, intermediaries: 12, 115, 129, 260, 297–298, 301–302, 316 n1798, 446 Isin-Larsa period: 331–332, 349 n1971 Isin II dynasty: 256 n1449, 257, 332 Islamic era: 311, 387, 391–392 jewellery: 39–40, 216

631

judgement, judge (divine): 108–109, 124–125, 153–154, 168–169, 184, 186–187, 221, 250, 264, 295, 359– 360, 422, 484, 486–489, 511, 514 juxtaposition, association of Aššur and Sîn: 64–65, 203 n1157, 210, 251, 262–263, 267–268, 395–396, 399, 401–402, 449 kalû (lamenter, lamentation priest), kalûtu (craft of the lamenter): 11– 12, 15, 180–181, 365, 390, 393– 394, 436, 438 Kassite period: 153 n813, 155 n831, 255–257, 259 n1464, 297, 331– 332, 337, 344 n1948, 349, 356, 361 n2034, 369 kidney (description of the moon): 103, 137–140 kingship, reign: 4, 7, 26, 60–61, 64, 112, 149 n789, 157–158, 161–162, 172–173, 188–189, 193–194, 196– 229, 217, 221–225, 245, 298–302, 342, 348, 352–353, 377, 395, 401– 402, 406, 408, 415, 428–429, 440, 443–444, 450–451, 484, 488, 491, 493, 522–523 knot: 165, 499, 502–504, 508–509, 512–514 kudurru: 49, 62 n277, 256–257, 259 n1464, 323, 365, 373 Kultmittelbeschwörung: 331 Kummuḫites: 251 lamassu: 241, 288, 518 Late Babylonian period: 10, 12 n33, 33, 63 n285, 68–69, 71, 87 n437, 89–90 n472, 111, 140–141, 148– 149, 171–174, 180–181, 204, 219, 235, 241, 243–244, 252–253, 254– 255 n1445, 280, 297, 304, 310 n1753, 318, 324, 332, 355 n2003, 362 n2039, 364–365, 373 n2099, 377, 383, 402, 479, 515, 525

632

Index

leather bag (therapeutic): 275, 280 legal case, procedure: 42, 154, 249– 250, 261, 360, 373–374 letter formulae: 31 n97, 64–65, 301, 315, 367, 386, 388–389, 391–393, 396, 410 n2335, 425 letters, correspondence: 31, 44, 50, 63–66, 82 n401, 105, 111–114, 124, 157–158, 164, 175–176, 181, 190–191, 208–210, 222, 227, 240, 306, 331, 339–340, 367–368, 371 n2086, 388–389, 391–393, 395– 396, 399–401, 410–412, 414 n2349, 421, 425–426, 430, 436, 449, 524 library of Assurbanipal: 164–165, 174, 306, 412 n2340 light, luminescence, radiance: 5–6, 11, 16–18, 21, 27–28, 31–38, 45, 46 n197, 60–63, 66, 68–70, 74–90, 93–94, 96, 98, 108–110, 114, 124, 141–143, 148–150, 158–160, 162, 167–169, 173, 176–177, 190, 196, 204 n1163, 208, 210, 230–231 n1287, 236, 242–244, 246–247, 258–259, 261, 271, 281, 285–286, 290, 292 n1632, 294, 300–302, 305–310, 312, 316–317, 333–335, 388, 404, 408, 418, 430, 439–441, 443, 445, 450–454, 458–459, 462, 464–465, 470, 477–478, 483, 484– 491, 498–502, 505, 510–511, 514, 521, 523 lipšur-litanies: 98, 105, 119, 122–123 n685, 354 n2000, 381 lunar cycle, phases: 1, 16–19, 21–22, 28, 35, 38–39, 49–51, 54–55, 62– 63, 66, 70, 74 n350, 77–78, 83 n412, 85, 90–141, 144, 149–150, 152, 158, 161, 163, 183–184, 189, 191, 198, 205, 216, 218–221, 229– 230, 236, 244, 253–254 n1432,

271, 292, 326, 349, 375, 395 n2245, 439, 440–444, 495–496 conjunction (with the sun): 16–17, 38 n144, 92–94, 99, 101, 107, 118– 122, 125–127, 151, 154, 433, 444 disappearance, invisibility of the moon: 38 n144, 58, 91–94, 98–99, 122–127, 146, 151, 183–184, 229– 230, 273, 280–281, 283 n1593, 295, 316 n1795, 380, 441, 455, 458, 460 full moon: 16–17, 35, 38, 48–51, 54–59, 61–63, 65–73, 77–78, 81, 84, 86, 91–92, 94, 98–99, 104, 106–113, 127, 136–140, 146–147, 151, 154, 163–164, 183, 192 n1076, 205–206, 217–220, 223, 229 n1287, 239–240, 247, 252–253 n1432, 271, 349, 375, 412 n2341, 417, 419, 440–443, 495–496 gibbous moon: 35, 47–51, 54–55, 59, 62, 65–66, 68–70, 72–73 n342, 77, 104, 106, 112, 114, 137, 141 n748, 191, 413, 419, 440–441, 443 half moon: 17, 39 n151, 47–48, 57, 62, 91, 99, 102–104, 112, 117–118, 137–140, 183, 205, 243, 375, 419, 440–441 moonrise, moonset: 16–17, 67 n311, 74, 82–85, 87 n437, 89, 108, 149 n790, 157–160, 162, 188, 222, 397, 440, 486, 489, 493–495, 499, 502, 504 opposition (of the moon and the sun): 22, 92–94, 106–109, 126– 127, 154, 158, 191, 218–223, 417, 429–430, 433, 441–442, 444, 450 reappearance of the moon (crescent moon): 16–17, 35, 38, 54–56, 59, 61–63, 74 n350, 77 n368, 91–92, 94–95, 98–101, 122, 124, 126, 128, 136–141, 146, 164, 173, 174 n955,

Index

216, 230, 248, 248–249, 273, 316, 440–442, 444–445, 460 waning moon: 17, 39, 63, 91, 94, 99, 112, 114, 117–118, 136, 183, 205, 229–230, 252–253 n1432, 413, 441 waxing moon: 17, 35, 38–39, 47– 48, 54, 62–63, 77, 89, 91, 94–95, 99, 102–104, 112, 114, 136, 140, 148, 183, 229–230, 236, 439–441, 492 lunar deities of other cultures: 229 n1287, 249 n1405 lunar disc: 6, 16–17, 20–21 n49, 40– 41, 47–49, 61–66, 141, 168, 173– 174, 200, 247, 305, 439–442 lunar eclipse: 10, 20–21 n49, 26–28, 50, 58–59, 69–70, 77, 85, 89, 111, 113, 117, 126, 130–131, 133, 141 n748, 153, 158–159, 163–164, 165–181, 190, 198, 206–207, 261, 265 n1498, 281, 288 n1616, 293– 295, 342, 344 n1946, 360–361, 371, 440, 442–443, 452, 454, 458, 460, 503 lunar omens: 1, 22 n56, 50, 70, 82, 121, 144, 150–152, 155–156, 158– 165, 169 n918, 176–177, 190 n1063, 196, 207, 216, 219–221, 244, 261, 342, 348, 442, 491, 497– 506 lunar phenomena (earthshine, halo): 61–62, 66 n303, 246, 440, 444–445 magnates: 44, 226–228, 252 n1427, 390, 398 n2269, 430 māmītu, nam-érim-búr-ru-da: 163, 165 n897, 211, 238, 254, 271, 286, 478 “man in the moon”: 141, 173–174 mathematics: 48–49, 62, 121, 138–140 Medians: 9, 25, 405 menology: 178–180, 294–295, 507, 519

633

menstrual cycle: 229–230 me-powers: 68, 94–95, 204, 440 mercy: 142–143, 154 n825, 203, 231– 232, 286–287, 297, 301–302, 404 n2298, 467, 469, 470–471, 477– 478, 511–512, 514 messenger, mediator: 182, 186, 192, 276–277, 323, 446, 460 metals: 30, 40, 171–172, 180 n994, 242, 280, 358, 399, 403 432 gold: 27, 44, 90 n476, 127, 219– 220, 240, 264, 266–270, 340, 358, 403–404, 426, 445, 498, 501–502 silver: 44, 47 n198, 90 n476, 240, 264, 266–270, 358, 373–374, 392– 393, 399–400, 403, 414 n2347, 426, 430, 432, 445 metaphor: 45–49, 52–53, 60, 68, 70 n324, 72–73 n342, 83–84, 89–90, 170–171, 204, 245, 248, 288, 440, 444–445, 504, 518 Middle Ages: 180 n994, 265 Middle Assyrian period: 10, 30 n87, 31 n96, 50 n221, 52–53, 178–179 n985, 220, 226, 274 n1538, 285, 303 n1706, 363 n2041, 386, 416– 417, 429–430 Middle Babylonian period: 48 n207, 82 n399, 178–179 n985, 188, 256, 323, 356 n2002, 373, 516–517 Mitannian deities: 251, 385–386 month: 6–7, 33–34, 38, 54–59, 62–63, 66–67, 74 n350, 90–136–147, 149 n790, 154, 157–158, 161–162, 164, 168–169, 174 n955, 178–180, 183, 189, 210–211, 216–221, 229–230, 236, 238, 240, 243–248, 254, 257, 281, 286, 288, 313–314, 316, 370– 371, 375, 412–413, 416, 417, 419, 432–433, 440–443, 451, 495, 507– 519, 521, 523 month (in epithets): 57–58, 68, 97,

634

Index

152, 161 n868, 490 month of Sîn (Simānu, Ṣītaš): 6, 36, 179 n990, 294–295, 412 n2340 mountains: 76 n363, 112, 205, 247 mourning (lunar eclipse): 20–21 n49, 168–171, 288 musical instruments: 87 n437, 171– 172, 180–181, 393 n2233 mythology (of other cultures): 122 n678, 173–174, 229–230 n1287 namburbi: 163–166, 176–177, 180, 185 n1032, 190 n1065, 307, 442, 452, 507, 519 natural phenomena: 19–20 Netherworld: 81–82, 98, 122, 124– 125, 183–184, 186, 212, 266, 291, 309, 526 night: 16–18, 21–22, 31–32, 38, 45, 55–56, 60, 74–75, 84–86, 89, 93– 96, 100, 103, 107, 117, 123, 128, 149 n789, 158–159, 167, 173, 175 n966, 182, 184–186, 188–190, 192–193, 198, 215–216, 247, 254, 271, 277, 279, 285–286, 289, 309, 316–317, 348, 380, 384, 396–397, 434, 440–441, 445, 451, 457, 459, 475, 484–485, 487–488, 521–523, 525 Nippurian deities in Ur: 347–348, 352–356 nocturnal deities (gods of the night): 150, 174, 176, 182, 235, 433–434, 443 nocturnal rituals: 21–22, 109–110, 181–188 oath: 6, 43 n174, 97 n510, 249–256, 263–264, 282 n1583, 359–360, 393 n2230, 398 n2268, 445, 477, 504 observation of the moon: 16–20, 48, 57 n250, 62, 82–85, 91–92, 95, 107, 150, 155–156, 158–161, 163– 164, 167–168, 170, 175–176, 181,

210, 216, 218–221, 244, 440–443 offerings: 20–21, 55–57, 65 n299, 67, 91, 97–103, 105–106, 108, 110– 113, 115–119, 124–125, 127, 129– 135, 177–180, 184–186, 188, 220 n1238, 232, 240–241, 247–248, 275, 283–284, 303 n1706, 323, 325, 331–332, 339, 343, 363–364, 369, 371–377, 384, 391–393, 413 n2343, 418, 425, 433–436, 441, 443, 447, 455–456, 458, 475, 484, 486–487, 489–491, 498, 500–501, 503, 509–510, 513–514, 520, 522 Old Akkadian period: 236 Old Assyrian period: 372 n2094, 416 n2367 Old Babylonian period: 2, 12 n33, 22 n56, 29 n82, 38 n144, 42, 47–49, 62–63, 69 n320, 71, 73 n343, 79 n373, 119, 124–125, 146, 178–179 n985, 184, 187–188, 197, 199–200, 206, 240–242, 250, 256, 282, 288 n1614, 292–292, 296–297, 303, 312–313, 317, 323, 325, 331–332, 336, 349, 357, 362, 359 n2024, 361 n2034, 364–365, 369, 371, 372– 375, 376–378, 380–381, 385, 397, 447–448, 472, 520 opponent in court (the moon god as): 261–262 oracular utterance (egirrû): 190–191 ovulation: 229 n1287 palace: 44, 89–90, 100 n529, 171, 214, 226, 228, 242, 258, 360–362, 376– 377, 416, 425, 427, 429, 432–433, 447–450, 454, 458, 501, 503 Panbabylonism: 1, 387 pantheon: 1, 3–4, 7 n21, 23, 40, 77, 147 n780, 150, 200, 202–203, 213, 216, 234, 250–254, 256–257, 263– 264, 297, 330–331, 347, 368, 372– 374, 376 n2121, 386–388, 395,

Index

439–440, 442, 445, 447 pasture, pastoral aspect: 238, 240–242, 246, 249, 486, 488, 494 patron deity: 21 n51, 63–64, 187–188, 259, 311, 331, 410, 439, 444 penalty, punishment: 242 n1363, 249– 271, 281–282, 395–396, 416, 426– 427, 445, 450 Persian period: 9–10, 181, 332, 343, 365, 376–377, 384, 447–448 personal deities: 173, 184, 188 n1052, 190–192, 254, 283 n1591, 443, 456, 459, 460, 467–471, 480–482 personal names, theophoric elements in personal names: 30–31, 82, 197 n1102, 226–229, 253, 268, 270, 293, 300–301, 315, 322, 373–374, 386, 389–391, 444 petition, petitioner: 11, 21, 98, 115 n635, 154, 164–166, 177, 184, 187, 190–192, 203, 250, 260, 301–302, 314, 323, 370, 443, 446, 460, 497 pilgrimage: 209 n1191 pious fraud: 25 n72 planets: 19–20, 83, 91–92, 168, 175, 182, 186, 195, 220, 235, 272 n1526, 308–309, 376 n2122, 391, 396, 422, 446, 483, 495, 518–519 plants (medicinal, therapeutic): 166, 177–179, 272, 275, 281, 510, 512, 514 portable altar: 509–510, 513–514 poultice: 272, 275 prayers: 10–16 and passim Emesal prayers, lamentations: 11– 12, 15, 35, 47, 61, 71–72 n335, 89, 147–148, 180, 235, 244, 306, 333– 335, 353, 359, 380, 394 ikrib: 12, 16, 22 n54, 32, 63, 76– 77, 82, 84–85, 88–89, 110, 146, 151 n796, 155, 182–183, 188–189, 196, 198, 212 n1203, 236, 238,

635

240, 246–248, 293, 295, 323, 396– 397, 443, 446, 459, 483–496 “incantation prayers”: 11, 13–14, 452–482, 497–526 diĝir-šà-dab-ba: 11, 13, 167, 275 n1543, 505 eršaḫuĝa: 12, 15, 297, 303, 306, 411–412 eršema: 12, 35–36, 45, 87 n437, 197, 231 n1297 šu’ila (Akkadian): 11–12, 32–33 n109, 36, 73, 76, 125, 128, 146, 151, 153, 155, 162–163, 165, 176, 190–192, 198, 235, 293, 295, 306– 308, 310, 452–482, 497–526 šu’ila (Emesal, bilingual): 12, 15, 27–28 n75, 31–33, 37 n137, 42 n170, 54, 59, 63, 84, 137 n735, 147, 152–153, 156, 197–198, 204, 211–212, 231–232, 237, 244–245, 247, 353 n1986 prebend: 364–365, 373 n2087, 373, 376, 384 pregnancy: 70, 97, 229 n1287, 239– 241, 245 n1382, 286, 289, 466, 470, 507–519 pre-Islamic deities: 391 n2217 Pre-Sargonic period: 71, 331 prince, princess (in divine epithets): 36 n129, 77, 81, 88, 145 n767, 196– 198, 213, 292–295, 301–302, 320– 321, 326, 333–334, 371–372, 377, 464–465, 470, 484, 487–488, 490 procession: 12, 23, 46–47, 49, 114, 149 n790, 324, 377, 410–413, 418, 449 propaganda: 24–28, 195, 202, 252 n1429 prophecy: 224 prosperity: 142–143, 158, 236–238, 286, 426 n2416, 477–478 prostration: 102–103, 110, 113, 117,

636

Index

120, 126–127, 129–131, 133, 177– 179, 284, 475, 498, 501–502, 509, 512–514, 518 provinces (western): 3, 9, 203, 210, 253, 261, 263, 386, 390, 395 pun: 58, 72–73, 244, 518 pure, purity, purification (cleansing): 42, 55, 63 n283, 68, 70, 72–73 n342, 80, 83 n396, 88, 100, 148, 160, 204, 231, 241, 244, 249, 284, 307, 310, 319–320, 333–335, 354, 364, 367, 419, 440–441, 428, 456, 458–459, 468, 471, 475, 484, 487, 490–491, 494 Qedar tribe: 264 queen: 39, 249, 391–392, 401 queen, queenship (as an epithet): 213, 234, 299–300, 304, 349–350, 404 n2298, 498, 501 query: 89, 168–169, 187–188, 227 n1274, 437, 484, 486–489 rebellion: 203, 339, 395, 401, 402 n2289 reconciliation: 165–166, 176, 190– 192, 223–224, 405, 443, 467, 469– 471, 506 reed shelter, reed hut: 176, 476, 520– 524 reliefs: 23–24, 27, 41–45, 48 n208, 62 n277, 64, 100, 158 n846, 216, 251, 308 n1741, 376, 397, 418 renewal, regeneration, rebirth (of the moon): 5, 33–34, 55, 86, 94–95, 123–124, 160–161, 173, 211, 216– 217, 229–230, 236, 286–287, 295, 415–416, 444, 453, 455, 458, 460, 477–478 resin (as incense): 179, 185–186, 498– 503, 509–510, 513–514, 520, 522 river: 21–22 n53, 48, 139–140, 165– 166, 180–181, 275, 281, 283–284, 291, 379, 474–476, 498, 500–501,

503 Roman era, sources: 180 n994, 271 n1524, 311, 387, 391, 392 n2222 roof: 184, 280, 403, 475, 507, 509, 513, 517 royal apology: 172–173 royal court: 159, 170, 179, 188, 218, 228, 239, 393–394, 442 royal family: 3, 39, 52, 192–194, 214– 215, 224, 226–228, 249, 384–386, 391–392, 395–396, 400–402, 406, 449 royal hunt: 100, 120 n670 royal inscriptions: 4, 7–9, 37 n137, 50, 63–64, 73 n343, 87, 144, 157, 162 n874, 188, 192, 199, 206, 208, 213, 216, 246, 254, 294–295, 299–300 n1685, 306, 315, 331, 348 n1963, 359, 386, 423, 442–443 royal insignia (sceptre, staff): 23, 60, 64, 112 n615, 149 n789, 173, 197– 198, 200, 206–213, 216, 224–225, 276–278, 305, 323, 440, 444, 477– 478 royal names: 226–229, 444 royal power: 144, 156 n839, 158, 160– 161, 196–198, 207–213, 216, 220, 225, 300, 302, 395–396, 491 royal throne: 142–143, 198, 206, 208, 211–212, 217–220, 223, 428, 484, 488 rubric: 11, 13–16, 42 n170, 77, 110, 146, 164, 166–167, 189, 443, 483, 490, 495, 503–505 runner (the moon as): 72–73, 78 Samarra period: 385 n2172 Sargonid dynasty: 1, 3, 8–9, 65, 137 n733, 200, 210, 215–216, 224 n1253, 226–228, 268, 302, 310– 311 n1760, 314, 338–339, 348 n1965, 385–386, 395–407, 426– 428, 444, 449

Index

scapegoat: 321 scholars, scholarship: 7–8, 28, 32, 50 n220, 57, 61, 65–66, 93 n488, 123, 136–141, 149, 157, 170–171, 271, 365, 390 n2205, 393, 406–407, 441 seals (cylinder, stamp): 8, 21 n50, 23– 26, 39–43, 51–53, 73 n344, 84, 153 n813, 155 n831, 236, 238, 242, 249, 252, 329, 354, 373, 395, 409, 439–440 sheepfold (supūru): 233 n1304, 237– 238, 241 n1350, 243, 246–247, 367, 444–445, 486, 488–489 shepherd, shepherd-ship: 55, 214, 224–225, 240–241, 244, 288, 290, 319–320, 329, 444–445 signs, signals: 6, 37 n134, 50–51, 58– 59, 77, 85, 92 n483, 94–95, 107, 121, 125–126, 136, 142–143, 146, 150, 152, 155–163, 166–170, 175 n962, 181–182, 189–191, 194, 210–211, 216, 221–222, 275, 294– 295, 342, 348 n1964, 361 n2031, 383, 428, 442–445, 454, 458, 477– 478, 501, 503, 506, 512, 514, 521, 523 silence (of the moon god): 85, 171, 179 sky: 16–17, 19–22, 31–32, 38, 45, 47 n198, 55, 60, 62, 72–73 n342, 75, 78, 82–85, 88–89, 91–92, 94–95, 98–101, 107, 116–117, 124, 128, 136 n728, 141, 158–159, 168, 170, 173–174, 184, 186, 188 n1052, 194–195 n1092, 198, 219–222, 244, 247–248, 288–289, 321 n1824, 344 n1946, 348, 376, 396– 397, 439–440, 451, 463, 494–495 speaking to deities: 106, 120–121, 126, 128, 130 spindle, spindle head: 507–509, 513, 515–517

637

solstice: 111, 412 n2340 South Arabia: 218 n1228, 248–249 stability (in the land, of the throne): 210–211, 217, 220–223, 225, 418, 444, 450 star disc: 40–41 station: 50, 312–313, 352–354, 463 statue: 20, 24–28, 39 n151, 42, 47 n198, 52 n225, 157–158, 193–194, 217, 324, 350, 375, 375, 400–401, 409, 418, 421 n2392, 423, 439 stele: 23–25, 40–41, 43, 45, 52, 64 n295, 149 n789, 158 n846, 251– 252, 260–263, 308, 333, 362–363, 390–392, 397–398, 400 n2277, 415 steppe: 61, 100–101 n530, 247–249, 258, 278, 282 n1585, 486, 488, 494 stones: 26–27, 78 n373, 85, 89, 244– 245, 275, 409, 416 n2368, 427, 432, 484–485, 487–488, 491 street names: 207–208 substitute: 163, 165–168, 170, 172– 173, 175–177, 265 n1498, 411, 415, 443, 500, 502, 520–524 Sumerian (literary) sources: 1–2, 38, 45–46, 48 n207, 52, 54, 60–63, 71– 76, 78, 89, 94–95, 108, 124, 141 n749, 147–148, 196–197, 204, 206, 231, 240, 280, 288 n1614, 292– 293, 296–297, 302–303, 305–306, 318, 321, 323, 333–335, 337–338, 350, 353, 359, 380, 403–404 n2296, 440, 515, 518 sun: 16–17, 19–20 n42, 22, 38 n144, 39, 78, 83, 85, 87 n437, 90–96, 98– 99, 106–111, 113, 117 n648, 119– 122, 124–127, 131, 136, 151, 154, 157–158, 167, 174–175, 191, 195, 206, 211, 216–225, 240, 247, 281, 305–309, 330, 391, 417, 422, 429– 430, 433, 441–442, 444, 450, 493– 494, 520–526

638

Index

sun disc: 40–41, 51 n222, 53, 111, 127, 216, 219–220, 498, 502 sunrise, sunset: 16–17, 83 n414, 84 n417, 92, 96, 100, 107–109, 146 n777, 182, 184, 218, 314 supremacy of deities: 86, 108, 136– 137, 144–147, 149–153, 201, 234, 293, 296 n1659, 298–300, 306, 315, 347, 351, 353, 441–442, 454, 458 sword (of the moon god): 23–25, 194 syncretism: 29, 37 n134, 79–80, 86, 149 n790, 159, 297 n1671, 308– 312, 316–317, 326, 351, 381 n2156, 463 taboo: 262–263 tassels: 23, 43, 249, 251–252 temenos: 335–338, 341, 343, 349 temple, sanctuary, shrine: 7–10, 23– 26, 42–44, 46–47, 60 n264, 64, 74, 76, 78–81, 83 n414, 87, 89–90, 98– 99, 102, 106, 112–113, 141–142, 149, 153–154, 157–158, 161–162, 169, 180–181, 194, 201–205, 208– 210, 213–216, 220–221, 225, 231– 234, 249–251, 255, 258, 260–261, 290 n1623, 296, 298–299, 301– 304, 308, 311, 313–315, 317–321, 323–324, 330–390, 392–394, 396– 438, 442–445, 447–451, 513, 515 teratomancy: 282 theology: 4–11, 21, 61, 68, 71, 80, 99, 107–108, 144 n763, 149 n789, 182–183, 196, 230–234, 236, 248, 254–255, 261, 270, 286, 289–290, 302, 305, 316, 321, 335, 342, 347– 349, 351, 353, 358–359, 369–372, 376–378, 386–387, 394–396, 406– 407, 410, 413, 415, 425, 429, 436, 339, 441, 443–447, 449–450 “Theology of the Moon”: 62 n282, 112, 136–150, 155 n833, 205, 234,

292, 314, 349, 395, 407 n2318, 441–442 association with Anu: 58, 76, 101, 109, 144–149, 149, 155, 189, 486, 489, 496 association with Ea: 102–103, 144 n763 association with Enlil: 66, 70–71, 104, 109, 112, 136–144, 149–150, 189, 205–206, 234, 292, 314–315, 347–349, 351–356, 358–359, 441– 442, 496 therapies: 7, 40, 70, 108, 110, 163, 211, 238–239, 243–244, 247, 272, 280–281, 283, 286–289, 439, 445– 446, 464, 474, 476, 477, 479, 515 time, time-keeping: 90–135, 139–140, 152, 154, 161, 196 n1098, 207, 216, 222, 254, 418, 427–428, 441, 450–451 torch (description of moon light): 86, 453, 458 transgression: 156–157, 161, 166–167, 175–177, 256, 270, 282, 285 n1599, 499, 502, 504, 506 treasury (in a divine household): 319– 320, 322 treaty: 37 n137, 223–224, 251–254, 255–260, 264, 367 n1505, 385– 386, 398 n2268, 418 n2378 trees (on cylinder seals): 84, 238 tutelary deity: 12, 100, 196–197, 213, 247, 250, 255, 300–301, 349, 367, 370, 385, 387, 394, 427, 430, 447– 448, 450 twin, twins: 70 n328, 220–221, 308– 312, 318–319, 434–435 Ur III period: 28 n78, 38, 46, 47 n198, 100–101, 119, 141 n749, 291–292, 297 n1667, 306, 313 n1779, 317, 322–323, 325, 331–332, 336–337, 343–344, 346, 349 n1971, 356,

Index

359–361, 365 n2052, 368–371, 387 n2188, 413 n2342 vegetation: 52–53, 230 n1287, 236– 238, 322 n1821, 323, 395 verdict: 77–78, 92, 109, 118–121, 127, 130, 142–143, 147, 151–156, 182, 184, 186, 189, 220–221, 248, 295, 301–302, 323, 359–360, 443, 466, 470, 483 vizier (divine): 7, 171, 184, 205, 290, 314–316, 318–319, 322–323, 328, 354 n1996, 373 n2093, 388, 396, 404, 434, 446, 449, 484, 486–487, 489 votive gifts: 47 n198, 127, 133 war ritual: 109, 154, 223, 394, 520– 526 warrior: 121, 141 n748, 174, 226, 308 n1743, 310 n1755 watches of the night: 50, 168–169, 277, 361 “weapon of Anu”: 140–141 West Semitic: 30, 389, 439 wet nurse (in a divine household): 354–355, 370 wilderness: 100–101, 169, 247–248, 282 n1585, 335, 445 wisdom (of the moon god): 50–51 n221, 146 n773, 154–155 witnesses: 270, 365, 374 n2106, 422 womb: 214–215, 231–233, 237–239, 245 wood (in rituals): 284, 475, 507–509, 513, 516 wood (as building material): 209, 358, 378 n2135, 403, 414 n2349, 419, 430, 432 wool (in rituals): 165, 178–179, 498– 499, 501–504, 507–508, 510, 512– 514 ziqqurrat: 46–47, 153, 203–204, 303, 331–332, 336–338, 341, 343–349,

639

355–361, 408–409, 425, 429, 437– 438, 447, 450 Selective glossary abrātu, “populace, humanity”: 465, 470–471 agû/aga, “crown”: 50, 57, 60–65, 87– 88, 93–94, 139, 142–143, 152, 155, 173, 187–188, 197–200, 206–211, 214, 216, 257, 305, 344, 440, 484, 488, 492 agê tašriḫti, “crown of splendour”: 49, 56, 62, 65–70, 103, 105, 137– 138, 440 akāšu, “to go; to move”: 463 anzillu, “taboo”: 499, 502, 504 anūtu, “Anu-ship”: 144–145 arḫu, “cow”: 139, 243 arḫu, “month”: 33, 38, 55–59, 68, 92– 95, 97–98, 142, 152, 122 n679, 152, 161, 168–169, 175 n962, 211, 257, 294–295, 310, 432, 454, 458, 490, 511–512, 514–515, 518, 521, 523 attalû, “eclipse”: 26–27, 50 n218, 58, 113, 126, 168–169, 175, 177–179, 281, 361, 454, 458 bašû, “to be (available)”: 522–523, 526 bīt simmilti, “staircase”: 509, 513, 516 bubbulu, “day of the disappearance of the moon”: 98, 122–127, 130, 132– 133, 135, 295, 455, 458, 460 buginnu, “trough”: 49 da’āpu, “to push; to knock over”: 513, 515, 518–519 dārû, “everlasting”: 493 dublû/dub-lá, “projection”: 356 eddēšû, “constantly renewing”: 89, 152 n804, 160, 173, 453, 458, 462, 490 edēšu, “to be(come) new”: 33–34,

640

Index

161, 211, 217, 273, 415–416 epqu, “leprosy”: 256, 271 n1523, 281– 282 eqbu, “heel”: 499, 502, 504 eršu, “wise”: 50–51 n221, 87 n442, 155, 200 n1124 etēqu, “to go past”: 504, 508, 512, 514–515 gabāṣu, “to squint (convulsively)”: 274 gadamāḫu, “fine linen garment”: 484, 488, 492 galamāḫu, “chief lamentation priest”: 393–394, 438 ganūnu, “living quarters”: 472 garābu, “leprosy”: 281, 283–284 gišnugallu (designation for white stones): 78 ḫadû, “to be joyful”: 162, 314, 397 n2259, 484–488, 493–494 ḫanābu, “to grow abundantly”: 236 ḫidâtu, “joy, rejoicings”: 397 n2259, 409, 419–421 ḫimṭu, “scorching; fever; anxiety”: 459 ḫurbāšu, “shivers”: 474–476 ibšu/ipšu,“mat”: 516 ittu/giskim, “sign”: 32 n107, 58, 88 n449, 89 n462, 94, 152, 156, 160, 162–163, 166, 175 n962, 261, 454, 458, 477–478, 501, 503, 512, 514, 521, 523 itû, “boundary”: 499, 502, 504 kabāsu, “to tread”: 499, 502, 504 kabtu, “important, venerable”: 142, 145, 243, 257 n1455, 299–300, 454, 458, 460, 462–463 karû, “to be short”: 517 katāmu: 499, 502, 504 kayyamānu: 16, 486, 489, 495 kikkišu, “reed fence; wall”: 521–522, 524 kilallān, “both”: 14, 95–96, 108–109,

139, 408, 521, 523, 525 kinūnu, “brazier”: 467, 470, 472 kiṣṣu, “shrine”: 76 kussû, “throne”: 143, 145 n768, 198, 208, 211, 217, 223, 428, 484, 488 kuṣṣu, “chills”: 474–476 kuzbu/ḫi-li, “luxuriance”: 245 lalû/la-la, “plenty”: 54, 68, 245, 318 n1816, 499, 502 lītu/áb, “cow”: 241 n1355, 288 lumun libbi, “grief; sorrow; anger”: 170 túg MA.AN.DUL: 509–510, 513–514, 516–517 makāku/magāgu, “to spread out”: 509–510, 513, 517 massû, “leader, expert”: 462–463 mašmaššu, “incantation priest” (as an epithet): 177–178 mašqītu, “drinking place”: 237, 246, 486, 488–489, 494 melammu, “fearsome radiance”: 87 milku, “advice”: 95, 153, 155 n831, 454–455, 458 miqit šamê/AN.TA.ŠUB.BA, “epilepsy”: 40, 271, 273–274, 280–281 muḫtanbu, “growing”: 236, 484, 488, 492 nabalkattu: 522, 524, 526 nakāpu/du7, “to thrust; gore”: 344 namrīrū, “awe-inspiring radiance”: 87, 155, 246, 453–454, 458 namru, “bright, shining”: 16, 32, 36, 87–89, 162 n876, 204 n1163, 208, 301 n1692, 308, 421, 462, 484, 487–488, 490 nannāru/u4-sakar: 5, 13–14, 16, 29, 31–39, 47, 67–68, 76 n360, 77, 81, 88–90, 108, 142–143, 148, 149 n789, 160, 168, 173, 177, 208, 210, 244, 258–259, 294, 301–302, 310, 327, 372 n2096, 408, 439–440,

Index

453, 458–459, 462–465, 470, 484– 485, 488, 490–491, 498–499, 501– 502, 504–505, 510, 514 napāḫu, “to blow”: 35 n126, 83–84, 499, 502, 504 neqelpû/diri, “to float, glide”: 45 n187, 237, 274–275 nērtu, “murder, killing”: 468, 471–472 nin-gal, “elder sister”: 326 nipḫu, “lighting, flaring (up)”: 83, 149 n790, 157–158, 162 nissatu, “wailing, lamentation”: 468, 471–472 niṭlu, “look; view”: 521, 523, 525 nukurtu, “enmity, hostility”: 522, 524, 526 nūru/zálag, “light” palû, “reign, dynasty”: 58, 158, 143, 208, 223, 225, 298, 428–429, 522 paqādu, “to entrust; appoint”: 105, 521, 523, 525 parṣu/ĝarza, “divine powers; cultic ordinances”: 136, 140–143, 145, 204, 351 n1976, 441 pirištu, “secret”: 125, 455, 458 piṭru, “gut”: 199 puluḫtu, “fear(someness)”: 27–28 purussû, “decision”: 36, 57 n252, 58, 89, 97, 108–109, 120–121, 126, 128, 138–139, 142, 146, 151–154, 158–160, 214, 246 n1387, 294– 295, 301–302, 428, 442, 454, 458, 477–478, 511, 514, 521, 523 qalû, “to roast; burn”: 265 qerû, “to call; invite”: 509–510, 513, 517 qibītu, “speech; command”: 50, 146, 152–153, 233, 276, 305, 307, 313 n1780, 314 n1782, 326, 343, 480– 481, 484–490, 498, 501, 521–522 qilûtu, “burnt materials”: 284, 475– 476

641

qimmatu, “tuft; crest”: 474–476 ramānu, “self”: 44 n184, 54, 148, 513, 515, 518–519 rašbu, “awe-inspiring; fearsome”: 87, 462–463 rašdu, “firmly founded”: 493 rēmu, “womb, compassion”: 231, 467, 470 riāšu, “to rejoice”: 485–486, 488–489, 493–494, 521, 523 rību, “setting”: 83, 157–158, 162 rīmu, “wild bull”: 26–27, 231, 240, 340 rītu, “pasture”: 237, 246, 486, 488– 489, 494 ruššû, “having reddish sheen”: 459 saĝ-dili, “lone, single; noble”: 358 n2019 saḫaršubbû, “leprosy”: 255–258, 270, 281 simakku, “shrine”: 76 simmu, “wound; skin eruption”: 289 sînu, “moon”: 28 ṣaddu, “sign, signal”: 59, 89, 121, 142–143, 152, 159–161, 211, 213 n1207, 294, 383, 428 ṣummirātu, “wish; goal”: 521, 522, 524–525 šanû, “to run”: 73 šaqû, “high”: 14, 50–51 n221, 61, 87, 203 šarāpu, “to burn”: 265 šarūru, “brilliance”: 87, 167, 453, 458 šelāšû, “thirtieth day of the month: 127–128, 316 šipṭu, “verdict”: 142–143, 152–154, 301–302 šuddû, “to cause to be in ruins”: 484, 487, 491 šukbušu, “step; rung”: 510–511, 514, 517 šukênu, “to prostrate oneself”: 178–

642

Index

179, 284, 506, 509, 512–514, 518 šuklulu/šu––du7, “to complete, perfect”: 42, 60–61, 173, 198, 206, 245 šupalkû, “to open wide”: 84, 485–486, 488–489, 493 šupardû, “to brighten”: 491 šuparruru, “to spread out”: 60–61 šutātû, “meet (one another)”: 223 šutukku, “reed hut”: 476 tāmartu, “appearance”: 13, 59, 82, 85, 95, 139, 142–143, 158–159, 163– 164, 221–222, 442, 485, 488, 499, 502–504, 522–523, 525 tāmītu, “response (to an oracle query)”: 125–126, 169–170, 187, 455, 458, 484, 486–489 tamṭītu, “reduction; loss”: 468, 471–

472 taqānu, “to be placid, orderly, secure”: 217 tēdištu, “renewal”: 123–124, 142–143, 455, 458, 460 tillû, “proper attire of a person”: 520, 522, 524 tiqnu, “insignia”: 173 ṭā’tu, “bribe”: 468, 471–472 umāmu, “(wild) animals”: 90, 120– 121, 248 ūmu rīqu, “empty day”: 123 ûrtu, “order”: 142–143, 153, 319–320 uskāru/u4-sakar, “crescent moon”: 35, 38–39, 42, 60 n264, 94–95, 109 n586, 137, 195, 439 zibnu, “reed mat”: 516

Copies of Cuneiform Tablets

Plate 1

K. 15528 (“Sîn 1”)

K. 10151 (“Sîn 2”)

K. 2751+K. 2792+K. 7973+K. 9242+K. 10011+K. 13785, obv. (detail of column II)

Plate 2

K. 2751+K. 2792+K. 7973+K. 9242+K. 10011+K. 13785, obv. (ikrib-prayers to Sîn)

Plate 3

K. 2751+K. 2792+K. 7973+K. 9242+K. 10011+K. 13785, rev. (ikrib-prayers to Sîn)

Plate 4

K. 2751+K. 2792+K. 7973+K. 9242+K. 10011+K. 13785, rev. (detail of column III)

Plate 5

K. 2751+K. 2792+K. 7973+K. 9242+K. 10011+K. 13785, rev. (detail of column IV)

Plate 6

K. 3794+Ki. 1904-10-9, 157, obv. (ikrib-prayers to Sîn)

Plate 7

K. 3794+Ki. 1904-10-9, 157, obv. (detail)

Plate 8

K. 3794+Ki. 1904-10-9, 157, rev. (ikrib-prayers to Sîn)

Plate 9

CBS 1695, obv. (“Sîn 6” & “Sîn 7”)

Plate 10

CBS 1695, rev. (“Sîn 6” & “Sîn 7”)

Plate 11

VAT 8004 , obv.

Plate 12

VAT 8004, rev.

Plate 13

K. 8666, obv.

Plate 14

K. 8666, rev.