Explaining Disaster: Tradition and Transformation of the 'Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sin' in Babylonian Literature 3963270748, 9783963270741

Citation preview

dubsar 13 Schaudig • Explaining Disaster

Explaining Disaster Tradition and Transformation of the “Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn” in Babylonian Literature

Hanspeter Schaudig

www.zaphon.de

dubsar 13 Zaphon

dubsar-13-Schaudig-Cover.indd 1

30.09.2019 11:07:38

Explaining Disaster Tradition and Transformation of the “Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn” in Babylonian Literature Hanspeter Schaudig

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

dubsar Altorientalistische Publikationen Publications on the Ancient Near East Band 13 Herausgegeben von Kristin Kleber und Kai A. Metzler

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Explaining Disaster Tradition and Transformation of the “Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn” in Babylonian Literature Hanspeter Schaudig

Zaphon Münster 2019 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Cover illustration by H. Schaudig: The name of Ibbi-Sîn in different spellings, cf. p. 42.

Explaining Disaster. Tradition and Transformation of the “Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn” in Babylonian Literature Hanspeter Schaudig dubsar 13

© 2019 Zaphon, Münster (www.zaphon.de) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed in Germany Printed on acid-free paper ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 ISSN 2627-7174

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Table of Contents Preface.................................................................................................................................... ix 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. The Subject................................................................................................................. 3 1.2. History of Research .................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Method...................................................................................................................... 14 1.4. Selecting the Sources ............................................................................................. 15 1.5. Range of Topics ....................................................................................................... 18 1.6. Intentional History and Typification................................................................... 21 1.7. Excursus: “Nebuchadnezzar”, Khosrau and Jerusalem .................................... 30 2. Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur .......................................................................................................... 36 2.1. General Outlines of Ibbi-Sîn’s Reign .................................................................... 37 2.2. Ibbi-Sîn’s Family Relations .................................................................................... 40 2.3. Ibbi-Sîn’s Name and Titles ..................................................................................... 41 2.4. Ibbi-Sîn’s End ........................................................................................................... 45 3. The Figure of Išbi-Erra and Isin as Heiress of Ur ....................................................... 49 4. Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk ................................................ 54 4.1. Divine Primacy of Agency ..................................................................................... 54 4.2. The Abductions of Marduk .................................................................................... 61 4.3. Ancient Explanations ............................................................................................. 73 5. The Formation of a Tradition ........................................................................................ 81 5.1. Isin’s Answer ............................................................................................................ 82 5.2. Larsa’s Answer ......................................................................................................... 83 6. The Tradition of the Historical Omens ........................................................................ 89 6.1. The Ibbi-Sîn Omens ................................................................................................ 93 6.2. Excursus: The Element “Four” and the “Four Winds of Heaven” ................. 100 6.3. Excursus: The “Oracle of the Square Temple” at Jerusalem .......................... 108 7. The Formation of a Rationale: The Esaĝil Chronicle .................................................. 113 7.1. Sin and Sanction: Mirror Punishment............................................................... 117 7.2. Sin and Sanction: Collective Punishment ......................................................... 128 7.3. Historical Part........................................................................................................ 138 7.4. The Abuse of the Fish Offering to Marduk........................................................ 166 8. More Disaster: The Religious Chronicle & The Book of Prodigies ................................ 174 8.1. The Tower of Babel: When Adad smote Etemenanki ...................................... 176 8.2. The Tower of Babel: Jewish-Babylonian Traditions ........................................ 182 9. Periodicity of Disasters?............................................................................................... 186 10. The Impact of the Compositions on Politics ........................................................... 194 10.1. Sargon II and Marduk-apla-iddina II: The New Ibbi-Sîn?............................. 194 10.2. Aššurbanipal and Bēl-ēṭir: The New Utu-ḫeĝal? ........................................... 196 10.3. Nebuchadnezzar II and the Fish Offering to Marduk.................................... 198 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

vi

Table of Contents

10.4. The Sins of Nabonidus ........................................................................................ 201 10.5. Dareios and the Fall of Babylon ........................................................................ 206 10.6. Xerxes and the Statue of Marduk ..................................................................... 207 11. The Participants .......................................................................................................... 215 11.1. The Gods ............................................................................................................... 215 11.2. Kings and Priests ................................................................................................. 218 11.3. The People ............................................................................................................ 229 A. ṣābū kidinni “The Privileged Citizens (of a Babylonian City)” ..................... 229 B. nammaššû “The People (of Babylonia)” ........................................................... 230 C. ṣalmāt qaqqadi “The Black-Headed (People)” ................................................. 231 11.4. The Enemy ............................................................................................................ 235 A. Elam and Šimaški ................................................................................................ 236 B. Gutium and the Ummān-Manda ...................................................................... 239 C. The Subhuman Barbarians from the Eastern Mountains ............................ 243 12. Summary: Explaining Disaster .................................................................................. 246 Edition of the Sources ....................................................................................................... 250 1. Early and Middle Second Millennium................................................................... 250 Source 1: Excerpts from CKU no. 22B & 24: The Wrath of Enlil ....................... 250 Source 2: Excerpt from CKU no. 23: Išbi-Erra’s Brazenness ............................. 257 Source 3: Excerpt from CKU no. 24: Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (ISO 1) ............................. 261 Source 4: Excerpts from the Lament for Sumer and Ur ........................................ 269 Source 5: Excerpt from a Lamentation: Ibbi-Sîn died at Anšan ...................... 277 Source 6: Excerpts from the Lament for Uruk ...................................................... 278 Source 7: Excerpt from the Lament for Ur ............................................................ 279 Source 8: Excerpts from the Lament for Eridu ..................................................... 283 Source 9: Excerpts from the Lament for Nippur ................................................... 284 Source 10: Inscriptions & Year Names: Šu-ilīšu & the Return of Nanna........ 285 Source 11: Omen: The Fall of Akkade ................................................................... 289 Source 12: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 2) ..................................................................... 291 Source 13: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 3) ..................................................................... 292 Source 14: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 4) ..................................................................... 293 Source 15: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 1) ........................................................ 294 Source 16: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 2) ........................................................ 295 Source 17: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 1).................................................................... 297 Source 18: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 2).................................................................... 299 Source 19: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 3).................................................................... 300 Source 20: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 5) ..................................................................... 301 Source 21: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 6) ..................................................................... 301 Source 22: Omens of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 7, ISO 8, ISO 9).............................................. 303 Source 23: Omen: The Fall of Akkade ................................................................... 304 Source 24: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 10) ................................................................... 306 Source 25: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 11) ................................................................... 307 Source 26: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 12) ................................................................... 307 Source 27: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 1) ....................................................... 308 Source 28: Omens of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 2, ASO 3, ASO 4)............................. 311 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Table of Contents

vii

2. Late Second and First Millennium ........................................................................ 312 Source 29: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 13) ................................................................... 312 Source 30: Omen of Utu-ḫeĝal .............................................................................. 313 Source 31: Shalmaneser I and the Soil of Arinnu .............................................. 315 Source 32: Nebuchadnezzar I and the Wrath of Marduk ................................. 316 Source 33: The Misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II ....... 322 Source 34: Excerpts from the Marduk Prophecy .................................................. 325 Source 35: The Esaĝil Chronicle .............................................................................. 338 Source 36: The Book of Prodigies: Omens of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 14) & Ku-Baʾu (KBO 4) .................................................................................................. 400 Source 37: The Religious Chronicle ......................................................................... 426 Source 38: Excerpts from a Political Letter Quoting Omens of Disaster........ 445 Source 39: Excerpt from the Poem of Erra ............................................................ 448 Source 40: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 5) ................................................................... 453 Source 41: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 6) ................................................................... 455 Source 42: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 7) ................................................................... 456 Source 43: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 8) ................................................................... 457 Source 44: Chronicle of Early Kings: Sargon of Akkade & the Soil of Babylon . 458 Source 45: Omen of Sargon of Akkade: The Soil of Babylon ............................ 459 Source 46: Sennacherib and the Soil of Babylon ............................................... 462 Source 47: Aššurbanipal and the Soil of Elamite Cities .................................... 463 Source 48: Chronicle of Early Kings: The Sins of Šulgi .......................................... 464 Source 49: Chronicle from Uruk: The Sins of Šulgi ........................................... 466 Source 50: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 5) ....................................................... 476 Source 51: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 6) ....................................................... 477 Source 52: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 15) ................................................................... 478 Source 53: Omen dealing with the Element “Four” .......................................... 479 Source 54: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 16) ................................................................... 480 Source 55: Omen: Devastation of Ur and of the Land ....................................... 485 Source 56: Omen: Devastation of Ur and of the Land ....................................... 488 Source 57: Omen: The Wrath of Marduk ............................................................. 492 Source 58: Omen: Devastation of Babylonia ....................................................... 494 Source 59: Omen: Disaster for the King of Babylonia ....................................... 496 Source 60: Omen: Disaster for the King of Babylonia ....................................... 500 Source 61: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 17) ................................................................... 500 Source 62: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 18) ................................................................... 501 Source 63: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 19) ................................................................... 503 Source 64: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 20) ................................................................... 504 Source 65: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 21) ................................................................... 505 Source 66: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 22) ................................................................... 506 Source 67: Omen of [Ibbi-Sîn] (ISO 23) ................................................................ 506 Source 68: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 3) ....................................................... 507 Source 69: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 4) ....................................................... 508 Source 70: Letter of Samsu-iluna: The Sins of the Priests of Babylonia ............ 508 Source 71: Chronicle P: Crimes & Punishment of Tukultī-Ninurta I ................ 512 Source 72: Chedorlaomer Texts: Crimes & Punishment of Wicked Kings......... 522 Source 73: Diary: Xerxes I is killed by his Son.................................................... 535 © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

viii

Table of Contents

Source 74: Esarhaddon: The Sins of the Babylonians........................................ 536 Source 75: Excerpts from the Babylonian Chronicle ............................................ 552 Source 76: Assyrian Prophecy: Marduk’s Mercy ................................................ 555 Source 77: Nebuchadnezzar II and the Fish for Marduk................................... 559 Glossary ............................................................................................................................... 565 Akkadian ........................................................................................................................ 565 Non-lemmatic .......................................................................................................... 609 Cardinal Numbers ................................................................................................... 610 Complex Cardinal Numbers .................................................................................. 610 Ordinal Numbers ..................................................................................................... 610 Month Names........................................................................................................... 611 Sumerian........................................................................................................................ 611 Divine Names ................................................................................................................ 621 Temple Names .............................................................................................................. 623 Temple Gates ................................................................................................................. 624 Personal Names ............................................................................................................ 624 Geographical and Ethnographical Names ................................................................ 626 City Gates ....................................................................................................................... 629 Rivers and Canals ......................................................................................................... 629 List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... 630 Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 631 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................... 632 Indices ................................................................................................................................. 694

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Preface This book is the enlarged version of the thesis which I submitted to the faculty of philosophy at the University of Heidelberg in the process of my habilitation in Assyriology in 2012. My thanks for stimulating discussions and encouragement go in particular to the scholars who examined my thesis, that is to Professor Dr. Stefan M. Maul (Heidelberg), to Professor Dr. Markus Hilgert (Heidelberg – Berlin) and to Professor Dr. Konrad Volk (Tübingen). I thank also Stefan Maul very much for creating the intellectual space and freedom at his institute at Heidelberg which enabled me to design and to complete this rather long-winded study in these times so short of breath. I am also very much indebted to Dr. Alexander Johannes Edmonds (Tübingen), to Dr. Mary Frazer (Munich) and to Dr. Shana Zaia (Vienna) for reading and discussing my thesis, for improving my English and for softening my Teutonicisms. Any mistakes and idiosyncrasies that remain are, of course, mine. I want to thank all the colleagues and all the students I met at Heidelberg and abroad, but in particular the colleagues from The Sonia and Marco Nadler Institute of Archaeology (Tel Aviv) – Professor Dr. Nadav Naʾaman, Professor Dr. Oded Lipschits and Professor Dr. Israel Finkelstein – who very kindly gave me the opportunity to discuss my work with them by awarding me the “Junior Scholar Prize” of “The First Tel Aviv Colloquium for the Study of Ancient Israel: Scribal Culture and the Shaping of the Past: The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Tel Aviv University, December 10th, 2009”. I hope the final results presented here will justify their kind interest in the early stages of my study. Over the past years, I had been sending earlier versions of this book to various colleagues for discussion and as an information what I had been working on. I do thank very warmly all those many colleagues who did not disappoint my trust in their discretion.

Heidelberg, in the summer of 2019.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

1. Introduction May that dreadful, stormy day – like rain that has fallen – never come back again. May that dreadful, stormy day – that struck down the people – be utterly undone. May it be locked up – as if by a door, barred against the night. May that dreadful, stormy day not be given a place in treasured memory. May its fixed account be removed from its place in the House of Enlil. (The Lament for Ur, ll. 409–414)

In trying so hard to forget that dreadful day when the ruthless storm roared at Sumer and Ur – some four thousand years ago – the Babylonians nevertheless transformed its memory into magnificent literature, designed to last. As usual, the things one tries to forget best prove to be the most perseverant, not only during one’s personal life, but for future generations to come. The Lament for Ur itself is the “fixed account” which seeks to put the memories down, to store and to hide them away, as in a tied up leather bag. But in doing so, converting the memories into literature, it keeps them alive. Coping with remembering the catastrophe of Sumer and Ur, but also with the catastrophe of forgetting,1 the poets of Sumer and Akkad wrought a rich and beautiful string of thoughts, leading from the Sumerian laments to the literature that struggled to digest the Babylonians’ later disasters, from there to the biblical Book of Lamentations, further on to the Songs of Zion of Yehuda ha-Levi and eventually to the Hebrew Melodies of Harry Heine, which in turn are dedicated to the memory of Yehuda’s Perlentränenlieder. In his epic poem Jehuda Ben Halevy, Heine developed his view on cultural tradition and appropriation on the motif of the “pearls of Atossa”, which Alexander the Great – in Heine’s imagination – had found in a little coffer in the tent of Dareios after he had “inherited” the Persian empire in the battle of Arbela.2 In this casket there was also a most wondrous string of pearls, which were once to queen Atossa given by the bogus Smerdis – but the pearls themselves were real. And the merry victor gave them to a beauty of a dancer, from Corinth, by name of Thaïs. The infamous courtesan wore those pearls in her hair in the night of conflagration at Persepolis, and after she had died from a Babylonian ailment at Babylon, the pearls were sold off by auction and passed on through the ages from Babylonia to Europe, with stopovers in Egypt and al-Andalus. In Paris at the Tuileries Heine claims to have seen them last, shimmering on the neck of the Baroness Salomon. In the biblical Book of Lamentations, the wail of the widowed queen for her slaughtered city sounds like an echo of the lament of the goddess Ningal.3 In the 1

2 3

On the “catastrophe of forgetting” see Jan Assmann (1991) who discusses the story how the Book of the Law was retrieved under Josiah. The topic of the threat posed to society by letting experiences fall into oblivion is the key issue of the Babylonian legends about Enmerkar of Uruk who was cursed because he did not leave a written account of his fate so that future generations could read and learn, see p. 142 below. Discussed by Aleida Assmann (1999, pp. 119–126; eadem 2011, pp. 107–114). On the adaption of the genre of Mesopotamian city laments in the Hebrew Bible see, among others, Dobbs-Allsopp 1993 and Petter 2011. Koenen (2015, pp. 75*–77*)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

Sumerian laments, it is the task of the voice of the spouse of the city god to bewail her and her city’s fate.4 In the Book of Lamentations, the “Daughter of Zion” as the personification of the city of Jerusalem fills in the place of Ašerah, Yahweh’s then only recently silenced consort. The lament for ruined Jerusalem which inflames the heart of Yehuda ha-Levi in Heine’s poem Bei den Wassern Babels is a paraphrase of the opening verses of the Book of Lamentations: “Oh, how deserted lies the city, once so rich in folk …”. In a nutshell, Heine’s lament combines and condenses the age-old topic “city lament” and the trope “demonic wilderness breaking into the sacred realm of civilization”, which is also an ancient Babylonian motif:5 “Sie, die volkreich heil’ge Stadt ist zur Wüstenei geworden, wo Waldteufel, Werwolf, Schakal ihr verruchtes Wesen treiben.” Yehuda ha-Levi would probably not have appreciated the claim that the roots of the flowers of his Songs of Zion had been watered by the tears of a Babylonian goddess. Heine, however, when he was Dreaming of a Summer’s Night, would have added proudly a neatly cut bas-relief of the sobbing Ningal to the cluttered multicultural patchwork decorations of his spiritual coffin-couch – squeezed in perhaps between the doom of burning Troy and the vociferous ass of Balaam. As a result of the success of the Roman Empire, the core of Europe’s soul has been thoroughly steeped in ancient Eastern Mediterranean literatures and traditions. Thanks to Rome’s cultural colonization, we, too, have become descendants of Aeneas, who first made way, predestined exile, from Trojan shores to Italy, the blest Lavinian strand. Thanks to the poetic traditions preserved in the biblical writings, the Babylonian tales, which had been lying buried and forgotten in the dust of Mesopotamia for millennia, do not sound strange at all, but familiar – even to us, on the fringes of the West, but with our hearts in the East. Heine is dead, and so are Smerdis, Atossa, Dareios, Alexander, Thaïs, Cleopatra, the Ummayads and also the most esteemed Baroness Salomon. The Babylonian pearls are ours now, for a while – let’s have them bounce around …

4 5

confines the similarities to the common cultural background – which was, after all, forged and dominated by Babylonia. Sperl (2013) discusses the structure and content of three ancient Near Eastern laments, namely the Lament for Ur, the Book of Lamentations and the Basra Elegy. On the “weeping goddess”, a term coined by Samuel Noah Kramer (1983), see DobbsAllsopp 1993, pp. 75–90; Petter 2011, pp. 27–28; Löhnert 2011. The issue of certain Babylonian motifs preserved in later, biblical, Jewish and even in early Islamic traditions is the topic of chapter 1.7, dealing with the typification of “wicked kings” who dare to attack the “holy city”. Chapter 6.3 addresses the topic of the “square temple” of Jerusalem as an answer to the Babylonian notion of the “four winds of heaven” (chapter 6.2); see also pp. 101f. on the imagery of the “ram with the four horns”. On the motif of “wilderness invading order” see chapter 8 on the Religious Chronicle (Source 37). Chapter 8.2 discusses the Jewish-Babylonian traditions about the destruction of the “Tower of Babel”. See also pp. 136f. on the topic of the collective sins of all the people, and also of all the animals and even of the plants which trigger divine wrath according to Babylonian and Jewish thought.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Subject – History of Research

3

1.1. The Subject The aim of this study is to investigate the rationale that transformed the plain historical fact of the destruction of the southern Mesopotamian empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur under king Ibbi-Sîn (ca. 2028–2004 BCE) into a balanced and logical model of crime and divine punishment in the course of Babylonian historiography. In this process, the devastation of Ur and parts of Sumer became the model for destruction in Mesopotamian thought. In the aftermath of the catastrophe, during the period of reconstruction under the First Dynasty of Isin, the question why and how disaster could strike with divine consent was tackled only superficially – doubtless, because the ruling dynasty of Isin was deeply involved in the fall of Ur (chapters 2.4–2.6, 4.1). It was probably under the Dynasty of Larsa, that the Babylonian scholars developed the image of Ibbi-Sîn as a conceited king who could not read the signs of a liver omen which Enlil had sent him as a warning (chapter 5.2). In the course of the second millennium, the destruction became iconized as šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn “IbbiSîn Disaster” in the apodoses of Babylonian omens (chapters 5–6). The story of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster even survived into the first millennium and merged into the various events when the city of Babylon was conquered or devastated and when Marduk and the Babylonian gods left for Elam or Ḫatti and Assyria (chapter 4). At this point at the latest, the story was also provided with a reasoning why the gods abandoned their cities and would do so again. The philosophy was laid out in collections of historical omens and in a composition known today as the Esaĝil Chronicle (chapter 7).6 This text belongs to a genre which we usually label as an “admonition” or as “wisdom literature”.7 The anonymous author(s) of the chronicle clearly wanted its doctrine and moral to be learnt and heeded,8 and so the text caused various ramifications in the literature of the first millennium BCE (chapter 10). 1.2. History of Research Nearly a century ago, aspects of the topic how history and literature were interwoven with each other in Babylonian civilization were studied and discussed by Hans Gustav Güterbock in a famous and well researched thesis.9 As is already apparent from the title of his study – “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern” – Güterbock was well aware that the supposed historical core of the various traditions had been shaped by literature. Since we quite often do not have any other but legendary information about rulers like Sargon, Narām-Sîn or Šulgi, it is sometimes hard to resist the temptation to 6 7 8 9

Also known as the Weidner Chronicle, see p. 6 below. The text is edited here in a new and comprehensive reconstruction as Source 35. See the discussion on p. 113 below. See the discussions of the chronicle’s concept of “learning from history” on pp. 21f. and 114f. below. Published as two articles: Güterbock 1934 and 1938.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

pick the “factual” elements from the tradition, remove what seems to be literary formation, and to think that the result is the historical core. In contrast, the present study will work out the structural elements and the argumentative structures of composition such as the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). It will address the topics of sin and sanction, mirror punishment, kin liability, and the typology of rulers. We shall see that there are very similar structures in the literatures of neighbouring civilizations of the ancient Near East. The structural similarities between characters like Šulgi and Manasseh (pp. 132f.) or Ibbi-Sîn and Croesus (pp. 249 and 264) do not testify to the adaptation of the actual vita of a given historical figure, but to the persuasiveness of a certain type of king within the logics of a moralizing historical narrative. The problems addressed in this study, in particular the relationship between literary tradition and “historical truth”, have also been dealt with in the case of the famous dynasty of Akkade. However, tracing the numerous branches of this topic would go beyond the scope of the present discussion. Among the numerous studies into this topic, the interested reader is referred to Joan Goodnick Westenholz, Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts. MC 7 (Winona Lake 1997), and to the articles collected in the compilation Akkad: The First World Empire (Padova 1993), edited by Mario Liverani. Of particular interest is Liverani’s own article in this collection, “Model and Actualization: The Kings of Akkad in the Historical Tradition” (ibidem pp. 41–62) discussing the “undifferentiated use of sources” and the “search for the ‘historical kernel’” (ibidem pp. 41–44) in the legendary traditions. It is also Mario Liverani who has been discussing various related, mythical and historical narratives with a royal focus.10 Although Hans Gustav Güterbock also dealt with the Esaĝil Chronicle – or Weidner Chronicle, as he called the text (see p. 6 below) – the figure of Ibbi-Sîn and his fate did not play a major role in his study. This is partly because Güterbock had only the manuscript from Aššur at his disposal. Line 75, however, which deals with IbbiSîn, is only preserved in a manuscript from Sippar, published more than half a century later (Al-Rawi 1990). And even then, it did not find the attention it deserved, since the editor failed to grasp the meaning of the line. The other reason is that the history of the Third Dynasty of Ur and the fate of Ibbi-Sîn were not particularly well known in Güterbock’s time. Only about 30 years earlier, the circumstances of the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur had become roughly sketched out, mainly by historical omens. At the very beginning of the twentieth century, Hugo Radau (1900) produced a history of early Babylonia from the beginnings to the early Old Babylonian period. Today, his study is, of course, completely outdated. For our topic it is only important to note that Radau knew Ibbi-Sîn (“Ine-Sin”) as a king of Ur only from a couple of year-dates and that he knew nothing about his fate.11 The only hint to the upcoming problems of the Third Dynasty with Elam is Radau’s statement that 10

11

See in particular M. Liverani, “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts”, in: OrNS 42, 1973, pp. 178–194; idem, Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Studies in Egyptology and the Ancient Near East (London 2004). Radau 1900, pp. 27–28, 278–279.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

History of Research

5

“Gimil-Sin [i.e. Šu-Sîn, Ibbi-Sîn’s predecessor] found it necessary after a certain number of years to fortify the royal city again against his enemies – probably Elam”.12 In 1901, in his review of Radau’s History, François Thureau-Dangin stated that we lose track of the Third Dynasty of Ur from Ibbi-Sîn on and that the centre of Babylonian kingship moves to Isin and other Babylonian cities.13 In 1906, in a comment on Thureau-Dangin’s note in turn, Charles Boissier referred to the historical omen of Source 54 from the first millennium which preserves the tradition that “Ibbi-Sîn went to Anšan in fetters”.14 One year later and with reference to this omen, Bruno Meissner confirmed Thureau-Dangin’s earlier presumption and came to the conclusion that Ibbi-Sîn was the last king of the Third Dynasty of Ur, that he was taken prisoner to Anšan and that Babylonian kingship turned over to Isin.15 In 1910, Leonard William King, also referring to the omen of Source 54, sketched out the end of Ur and arrived at a picture which is in its basic outlines identical with our more recent and more detailed reconstruction of the events: The dwindling power of the centralized state after the reign of Šulgi, the conquest of Ur by the Elamites, Ibbi-Sîn’s exile to Anšan and the rise of Isin.16 For lack of more acurate chronological information, however, King also posed the question whether the Elamite raid which ended the reign of Ur was to be connected to the famous raid by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, whom Aššurbanipal – incorrectly – had dated to a time of 1635 years before his own reign.17 In 1917, Alfred Jeremias, in the introduction to his edition of the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72), gave a short summary of the end of Ibbi-Sîn, also referring to the late omen of Source 54. He already noticed the strange addition to the omen that had it that Ibbi-Sîn “stayed alive and saw the light”.18 Jeremias (1917, pp. 75–79) discussed Ibbi-Sîn’s fate in the larger context of the Elamite raids into Babylonia that ended the Third Dynasty of Ur and later also the Kassite Dynasty. He also referred to the texts pertaining to the abduction of the statue of Marduk by the Elamites (Source 33) in the 12th century BCE, to the final victory of Nebuchadnezzar I over Elam and to the return of Marduk’s statue.19 12 13 14

15 16 17 18

19

Radau 1900, p. 283. Thureau-Dangin 1901, pp. 408–409. Boissier 1906, p. 64 on Rm. 2, 174 = manuscript D of Source 54, plus variants. Boissier also reconstructed the royal name correctly as “Ibi-Sin”. Earlier, it had been read as “Ine-Sin” (see e.g. Radau 1900, p. 283; Thureau-Dangin 1901, pp. 408–409). Meissner 1907, col. 114 with note 1. King 1910, pp. 296–297, 303–304 with note 1 referring to the historical omen. King 1910, pp. 304–305. On the dates given by Aššurbanipal see the discussion below on pp. 530f. Source 54, line 6, manuscript B from Nineveh only. This strange tradition is perhaps triggered by a mix-up of the fates of Ibbi-Sîn and Marduk-apla-iddina II, see p. 46 below. Jeremias recounted Marduk’s return after the Epic of Nebuchadnezzar (Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 17–19, B.2.4.5), a Babylonian literary text preserved in copies from Aššurbanipal’s library at Nineveh.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

In 1928, Ernst Weidner provided the first proper edition of the omen of Source 54.20 In his edition, however, it did not yet become clear how diverse the tradition of its final line 6 actually is. Only one manuscript has it that Ibbi-Sîn “stayed alive and saw the light”. The others talk about his army or people weeping and falling. This is important, since the omen of Source 54 dominated the information available for the end of Ibbi-Sîn for decades. Weidner stated that “it gives the only news about the downfall of the Third Dynasty of Ur.”21 As King had done, he summarized that Ibbi-Sîn lost his throne and empire to the invading Elamites who took him prisoner to Elam. Weidner also went a step further than King and actually attributed the end of the Third Dynasty erroneously to the raid of KutirNaḫḫunte II a thousand years later, misled by Aššurbanipal’s exorbitant Distanzangaben.22 Jeremias (1917, pp. 76–77) had cautiously and correctly kept these raids apart, although he also accepted the date given by Aššurbanipal for the raid of “Kutir-Naḫḫunte” – in Jeremias’ view an older namesake of Kutir-Naḫḫunte II. The mistaken assumption that the Babylonian sources talk about an earlier Elamite ruler by the name Kutir-Naḫḫunte who raided Babylonia at some time during the late third or early second millennium BCE died only hard over the following decades. The last offshoots of this discussion were still being fought down in the 1990s.23 It was in this state of affairs, that Hans Gustav Güterbock published the first part of his aforementioned groundbreaking study on the literary formation of the historical traditions of the Babylonians and the Hittites in 1934.24 In his thesis, Güterbock addressed explicitly the literary shaping and character of the historical sources that are extant to us. He also discussed the strong typification of historical events that were portrayed as “Segens-” and “Fluchzeiten” in Babylonian literature.25 In this context, Güterbock also used the tag “Unglücksherrscher” (“illstarred king”) for Ibbi-Sîn.26 The main focus of his study was on the manifold traditions and legends surrounding the famous kings of Akkade. In this context, Güterbock provided a first edition of the manuscript from Aššur of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), which he then called Weidner Chronicle.27 This text is also in the focus of the present study. Since the manuscript from Aššur was damaged, Güterbock could not know that this composition finally led up to the disastrous end of Ibbi-Sîn of Ur (l. 75). Güterbock (1934, pp. 38–39) also prepared a translation of the beginning of the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4) as an appendix to his 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27

Weidner 1928–1929, p. 236; on the omen see also briefly Weidner 1921, p. 49. “Es gibt die einzige Kunde vom Untergang der Dritten Dynastie von Ur.” See already Weidner 1921, pp. 49–50; repeated by Weidner 1928–1929, p. 236. See Vallat 1993b and the discussion on pp. 531f. below. “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern”, published as two articles: Güterbock 1934 and 1938. Güterbock 1934, pp. 13–16; see also here chapter 9. Güterbock 1934, pp. 24, 61. Already Weidner (1928–1929, p. 237) had used the term for the hapless king. See more recently Gadd 1971, p. 617; Michalowski 1977b, p. 157; Evans 1983, pp. 111–112. Güterbock 1934, pp. 47–57; the composition took its name after Ernst Weidner who had discussed the text first (Weidner 1926).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

History of Research

7

discussion of the Curse of Akkade.28 Güterbock (1934, p. 15) also referred briefly to the (fictional) letters of Ibbi-Sîn in the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur. Rightly, he considered these texts, which pretend to be actual letters, to be rather literary transformations than simple copies.29 In 1938, Marguerite Rutten edited the clay liver models from Mari, which date to the very early Old Babylonian period. Among them, there were three models with omens dealing with Ibbi-Sîn (Source 12, Source 13 and Source 14), and one dealing with Išbi-Erra (Source 15). These omens are not only very close to the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur in terms of chronology, but also appear to present rather unbiased and sober traditions about Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra. From these omens, one could grasp the basic information that Ibbi-Sîn’s rule was undermined or overthrown by his own subjects, that Elam destroyed Ur and that Elam in turn was defeated by Išbi-Erra. Shortly later, in 1940, Samuel Noah Kramer put forward the first proper edition of the Lament for Ur.30 In stark contrast to the Lament for Sumer and Ur,31 this composition is in fact completely void of historical references. It attributes the fall of Ur simply to divine disgrace and to the negative impact of the “storm”. Kramer produced mainly a philological edition of the text. Only very briefly, in his summary of the plot, Kramer posed the question, whether the “storm” which devastated Sumer and Ur could be understood quite directly and historically as a political, man-made catastrophe: “It is not altogether impossible, though it seems quite improbable, that the word ‘storm’ is used figuratively and refers to the destruction of Ur by the Sutians [i.e. the ‘Su’-people = Šimaški] and Elamites”.32 In his review of Kramer’s edition, Thorkild Jacobsen (1941, pp. 219–221), in contrast to Kramer’s poetical reading, produced a very straightforward historical interpretation of the Lament for Ur (Source 7). In doing so, he filled the gaps left by poetry with pieces of information from other texts, such as the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4), the letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur,33 and from administrative documents. Neither Kramer (1940), nor Jacobsen (1941) made any reference to Güterbock’s (1934 & 1938) study, although the main question as to how history and literature were interconnected in the genre of lamentations was obvious. As we shall see below in the case of Jacobsen’s (1953) reply to Falkenstein’s (1950a-b) study into the end of Ibbi-Sîn’s reign, this straightforward historical reading of literary compositions was quite typical of Jacobsen’s attitude towards his sources. Slightly later, Maurus Witzel (1945 & 1946) presented another review of Kramer’s (1940) edition, accompanied with his own transliteration and translation. Witzel 28 29 30 31 32 33

More recent edition by Cooper 1983. See the excerpts in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3 and the discussion in chapter 5.2. Kramer 1940, recent editions by Römer 2004 and Samet 2014; see the excerpt here in Source 7. See the excerpts and the overview of its structure in Source 4. Kramer 1940, p. 3, note f. See the excerpts in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

made no mention of Jacobsen’s (1941) review and misinterpreted the Lament for Ur as a “Tammuzliturgie”. His highly spiritualistic interpretation was outdated already by the time of its publication and went unheard. In 1945, Jean Nougayrol presented a collection of no less than 106 historical omens from the entrails of sacrificial animals.34 Nougayrol’s collection contained some ten omens dealing with Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra.35 Nougayrol presented the omens only in French translation and arranged according to their protases, with no index of the historical figures. In parts, Nougayrol’s article is a kind of an answer to Güterbock’s study from 1934. As it appears, Nougayrol was rather reluctant to accept the reservations which Güterbock had about the historical validity of certain genres of Babylonian historical literature. On the other hand, Nougayrol expressively stated that he did not want to discuss the historical validity of the individual omens in detail, either.36 Instead, he proposed to separate omens dealing with legendary figures such as Gilgameš or Etana from omens dealing with historical figures such as Sargon of Akkade and to simply trust that the Babylonians, who were closer to the events, got these historical traditions more or less right. This, in fact, is no option since we cannot exclude that a “legendary” king like Etana may not turn out someday as having been a “historical” figure as well. On the other hand, also traditions dealing with historical figures like Sargon or Utu-ḫeĝal have clearly underwent literary shaping or even appear to be legendary on the whole.37 In 1947, Nougayrol’s collection of historical omens was greatly enlarged by Albrecht Goetze’s edition of Old Babylonian omen texts from southern Babylonia in YOS 10 and by his evaluation of the material in his article on “Historical Allusions in Old Babylonian Omen Texts” (Goetze 1947).38 In 1950, Adam Falkenstein published two preliminary editions of important texts dealing with the fall of Ur. The one (Falkenstein 1950b) was a part of the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4). The other one (Falkenstein 1950a) was a preliminary reconstruction of a literary Ibbi-Sîn-letter (Source 3) from the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur. Falkenstein noticed that certain elements in this letter presented the storyline in a different way as it was known from the very brief and later omens. He discussed the possibility that the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur were mainly literary fabrications, quoting Güterbock’s view on the matter,

34

35

36 37 38

Nougayrol 1945: “Note sur la place des ‘présages historiques’ dans l’extispicine babylonienne”. – On the very peculiar Babylonian genre of “historical omens” see in more detail the introduction to chapter 6. Omens of Ibbi-Sîn: Source 12, Source 13, Source 14, Source 52, (Source 60, king of Babylonia), Source 61, Source 62, Source 63, Source 66. Since Nougayrol had collected omens derived by extispicy only, he did not list the famous celestial omen from Source 54 in his article. – Omens of Išbi-Erra: Source 15, Source 69. For this and the following see Nougayrol 1945, pp. 30–31. See the discussions on the individual figures in chapter 7.3 below. See here the editions of Source 16, Source 17, Source 20, Source 21, Source 22, Source 23, Source 24 (A), Source 25, Source 26, Source 27 and Source 28. See also the index on YOS 10, passim.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

History of Research

9

namely that these texts underwent strong literary shaping, to say the least.39 Falkenstein, however, decided to take the letters as more or less historical. The version of the letter Falkenstein edited did not contain the delusional misreading of the liver omen by the literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn,40 which would have certainly alarmed Falkenstein. But it contained Ibbi-Sîn’s equally delusional assumption that Enlil had summoned up the Amorrites – and the Elamites, as Falkenstein thought – as Ibbi-Sîn’s relief troops in his fight against Išbi-Erra.41 Even though Falkenstein’s interpretation is no longer part of our reconstruction of the events, his basic question was legitimate: We must take it into consideration that the historical situation was more complex and by far not as straightforward as the final picture may suggest. Only briefly later, Falkenstein’s reconstruction of the fall of Ur, in particular the circumstances of Ibbi-Sîn’s “exile”, was refuted by Thorkild Jacobsen (1953, p. 44). In his answer to Falkenstein’s study, Jacobsen put forward a comprehensive reading of the events, which ever since has underwent only minor changes. This overall picture, however, quite plausibly reconstructed from literary and administrative texts, is rather simple: The central state of the Third Dynasty of Ur, founded by Ur-Namma and aggressively enlarged by his son Šulgi, collapses roughly during the third generation under Ibbi-Sîn, undermined by power struggles stirred by aspiring officials and pressed by exterior enemies such as the Elamites. This is a scheme that works also for the rise and decline of other systems of the same kind, such as the Old Akkadian empire or the Old Babylonian kingdom of Hammurapi. So, although this overall picture looks indeed quite plausible and may be more or less correct in its outlines, Jacobsen’s attitude towards the sources, the letters from the Royal Correspondence in particular, was problematic. Very much like Nougayrol (1945, pp. 30–31), who dealt with historical omens (see p. 8 above), he simply trusted that the Babylonians got it more or less right: “We incline toward Falkenstein’s judgment that these are genuine letters stylistically reworked. Even though they should prove to be, in Güterbock’s words, ‘bereits literarische Gestaltungen’ the general picture of events and attitudes which they give is probably in its main lines a trustworthy one.”42 This attitude, which is, in fact, not particularly Jacobsen’s, but the attitude of many colleagues now and then, is dangerously credulous. In an introduction to the Ibbi39 40 41

42

Falkenstein 1950a, p. 73, note 1, referring to Güterbock 1934, p. 15. See the long version of Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (Source 3; CKU no. 24). The sophisticated plot of this literary letter (Source 3; CKU no. 24), which works with intimate background knowledge of its audience, sent Falkenstein astray. See Falkenstein 1950a, pp. 63 (translation), 72 (commentary) on l. 36; pp. 73–74, 77–78 (interpretation); ibidem on p. 75, Falkenstein thought it was “historically difficult” to imagine that Ibbi-Sîn was deported to Elam – as the later tradition had it – since IšbiErra would not have let his pawn go. In his edition of the Lament for Sumer and Ur, Falkenstein (1950b, p. 384) proposed that Ibbi-Sîn “went” to Elam pressed by the advancing Išbi-Erra and perhaps also as a result of frictions with the Elamite relief troops, while an Elamite garrison stayed at Ur. Jacobsen 1953, p. 40, note 45.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

Sîn letter CKU no. 24 (Source 1, B), Samuel Noah Kramer gave a little more credit to the possibility that these letters were literary products of the Old Babylonian scribal circles, but in the end he also arrived at the conviction that these texts are “authentic”. After a rather lengthy discussion of the possibility that the Ibbi-Sîn letter “was a literary fabrication of the Sumerian scribes who lived quite some time after the struggle between Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra”, Kramer nevertheless concluded: “But no matter how and why the later scribes modified the original text of the letter, its historical portions are no doubt authentic. Indeed, even if we assume that the document before us is a literary fiction of the later scribes, and that no such letter was ever written by Ibbi-Sîn, it is still reasonable to assume that its historical details were not invented, but were based on actual data available to the scribes.”43 Interestingly, by “authentic” Kramer obviously did not mean “genuine”, but “correct in the historical outlines”, even if “no such letter was ever written by Ibbi-Sîn”. This, however, is the very difference between a historical source and the intellectual digestion of historical events. The issue of how and why historical sources were produced, and by whom, is certainly no “no matter” matter, but the most important question to be asked at all, and – if possible – to be answered. In 1957, Dietz Otto Edzard presented a detailed study into the history of Babylonia’s so-called “second intermediate period” from the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur through the early Old Babylonian period until the reign of Hammurapi of Babylon. In the chapters dealing with the fall of Ur and the rise of the Dynasty of Isin, Edzard (1957, pp. 44–66) drew a picture that was in fact identical with Jacobsen’s reconstruction. Edzard did not even mention Güterbock’s (1934) study and his reservations any more. Although Edzard (1957, p. 12) stated in his introduction that the letters collected in the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur are to be kept apart from the ordinary correspondence between the king and his officials, he indiscriminately used administrative documents and other sources from the time of the Dynasty of Ur alongside later literary sources such as the Royal Correspondence with complete easiness.44 Any reader unfamiliar with the nature of the texts from the Royal Correspondence would gain the impression that these compositions were genuine and contemporary letters of the empire’s administration, of the same kind as the “letter-orders” of Ur III.45 Only in the case of the lamentations, Edzard made a difference. At least there, he contrasted the evidence, even though he discussed only the “archaeological evidence”, with the “pieces of historical information from the Lamention for Ur [Source 7]”.46 The Lamentation for Sumer and Ur (Source 4), which he then called the “Sumer und Akkad-Klage” and which he – erroneously – distiguished from the “Ibbi-Sîn43 44 45 46

Kramer 1950, p. 480, note 1; spelling of the royal names modernized. Edzard 1957, pp. 44–49. On the Ibbi-Sîn letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur see the discussion in chapter 5.2 and the excerpts in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. On these “letter-orders” see Sollberger 1966. Edzard 1957, pp. 50–58: “6. Kapitel: Die Zerstörung Urs; die Klagelieder als historische Quelle: 1. Der archäologische Befund; 2. Historisches in der Urklage”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

History of Research

11

Klage”, played only a minor part in his study, since this lamentation was only insufficiently known when Edzard wrote his study.47 Over the following decades, the texts of the Lament for Sumer and Ur, the Lament for Ur and the Royal Correspondence of Ur have been edited for a couple of times, but the overall attitude towards these souces has stayed very much the same as the one displayed by Nougayrol or Jacobsen. The first comprehensive edition of the Lament for Sumer and Ur was published by Piotr Michalowski only as late as 1989. Replacing Kramer’s (1940) and Witzel’s (1945 & 1946) editions after more than half a century, the Lament for Ur was reedited by Willem H.Ph. Römer (2004) and again by Nili Samet (2014). The first comprehensive edition of the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur was put forward by Fadhil Abdulwahid Ali in 1964. In his first two chapters, Ali briefly addressed the issues of “date and authenticity” and of the “historical significance” of the letters. Ali took the texts as reliable copies of genuine royal letters from the court of Ur, calling them “a legitimate and reliable source of information” (p. 3), stating that “the historical significance of the Ur III official letters can hardly be overestimated” (p. 7). In 1970, Claus Wilcke devoted an article to the reconstruction of the fall of the empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur. In his introduction, Wilcke (1970a, p. 54) stated explicity that the texts he used, in particular the Ibbi-Sîn letters,48 are no historical primary sources, but literary reflections. But since they are the only documents at our disposal, he made use of them. In 1976, Piotr Michalowski put forward as his dissertation a new edition of the Royal Correspondence of Ur. In 2011, Michalowski published a thoroughly enlarged and reworked version of his dissertation. The new edition of the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur is now called the Correspondence of the Kings of Ur (CKU). The volume received an extensive review by Pascal Attinger (2012a) with numerous comments on Michalowski’s translations. Michalowski’s study bears the subtitle “an epistolary history of an ancient Mesopotamian kingdom”, which, of course, arouses the expectation that it is possible to write a history of the period on the basis of these sources at all. One might have expected that the fundamental issue of whether these texts are rightly taken as genuine and historical would have been tackled in the very first chapters of the volume. However, although there is some discussion of the nature of Sumerian literary letters and the genre of Ur III letter orders, the main problem of the letters’ authenticity remains strangely vague and ambiguous. Unless searching deliberately for the topic, the unsuspicious reader would probably overlook Michalowski’s “afterword” in his chapter 8. Even as late as there, matters remain unsettled, but the reader is told why: Michalowski (2011, p. 217) “cannot accept the very notion of authenticity as an ontological and heuristic concept”. Instead, Michalowski compares “these compositions – real, imaginary, or a mixture of both” (p. 3) to the European epistolary novel (pp. 17–18), where – in the words of Clare Brant – “the author plays on the link between reality and fiction to sow seeds of doubt” (p. 34). This is 47 48

Edzard 1957, pp. 54–56. CKU nos. 22B and 24, see Source 1.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

a little bit surprising, since Michalowski, in the introduction to his edition of the Lament for Sumer and Ur, was quite outspoken about the firmly literary character of this composition and warned to use it indiscriminately as a historical source.49 Taking up Michalowski’s reference to the European epistolary novel, I am quite sure that if we were to portray the demise of the ancien régime in France, we would also be careful to distinguish between genuine letters of Marie Antoinette and an epistolary novel produced by someone like Choderlos de Laclos – or even a film by Stephen Frears. In 2001, Fabienne Huber devoted a lengthy study to the texts of the Royal Correspondence of Ur and arrived at the conclusion that these letters are apocryphal and fictional products of the later Old Babylonian period.50 William Wolfgang Hallo (2006), in a passionate reply to Fabienne Huber, defended the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur as non-apocryphal. Hallo lamented the “virus of skepticism” which has spread in Assyriology over the last decades.51 The “virus of skepticism”, however, is but textual criticism. Only recently, Huber quite rightly maintained her view.52 Addressing “the literary letters as historical sources”, she concludes: “Searching for an authentic and reliable historical core […] seems hopeless”. Dealing with the legends about the birth and upbringing of Sargon of Akkade and Cyrus the Great, Amélie Kuhrt (2003) gave a witty farewell to the vain hope of finding the notorious “grain of historical truth” in these stories – the principal questions, of course, also apply to the texts discussed in the present study. Eleanor Robson (2002, pp. 350–351) has demonstrated that the famous passage in the letter of Išbi-Erra to Ibbi-Sîn (CKU no. 21) dealing with the purchase of grain by the king of Ur is but an Old Babylonian school mathematics problem with round numbers. This does not mean that Ibbi-Sîn’s administration was not in need of food supplies, but it means that this letter is simply no piece of historical evidence – actual historical evidence comes from the administrative records of Ur.53 The letter which exposes Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (CKU no. 24)54 unfolds an elaborate plot dealing with a multilayered misinterpretation of a liver omen by the figure of IbbiSîn. Every single interpretation of the omen put forth by the conceited king is at odds with the very basics of Babylonian extispicy. This is crucial since it makes it absolutely clear that the text is a not a genuine letter of king Ibbi-Sîn. Even if the historical king himself might have had no expertise in getting even the easiest left–right symbolism of the liver omens right, his scholars and his administration certainly would have had. An embarrassing nonsense like the one spread out at length in this letter would never have left the royal office of Ur. The composition of Ibbi-Sîn’s Error unfolds on the foil of Šulgi’s no-it-all-attitude displayed in Šulgi’s famous Self-Praise B.55 Ibbi-Sîn’s letter (CKU no. 24; Source 3) is certainly a product of Old Babylonian scholars who developed the literary figure of the conceited king 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Michalowski 1989, introdction, in particular pp. 8–9. Huber 2001; see the discussion here on pp. 84f. below. Hallo 2006, p. 100; see already, but less outspoken, idem 1998, pp. 121–122. Huber Vulliet 2011, pp. 489ff, in particular pp. 504–505. See the discussion here on pp. 38f. below. See Source 3 and the discussion on pp. 86f. below. See the discussion on pp. 87f. below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

History of Research

13

Ibbi-Sîn as a late answer to the overbearing figure of Šulgi. If we simply remove the math problem from the letter of Išbi-Erra to Ibbi-Sîn (CKU no. 21) or the sophisticated lesson in how not to read the liver from Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (Source 3) as “literary formation”, the “historical core” consists of hardly anything else but the sad figure of Ibbi-Sîn having a bad time. So the “historical information” is but the setting for the plot it frames. All the Old Babylonian author had to know is the names of the main protagonists – the flaws start already here56 – and the main course of the events. The letter which portrays Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (Source 3) is a classic example of a carefully composed, moralizing piece of literature where everything falls into place. This text has not been “stylistically reworked”, but artificially designed on the proverbial drawing board. The poem of the Curse of Akkade57 certainly preserves historical memories surrounding the fall of the Old Akkadian Empire, but this does not make the composition a sober and reliable historical source. We will not stop using literary texts for our interpretations, but in doing so we should be highly aware that we are dealing with stories in the first place, not with history. The texts discussed in this volume have often been used to unravel what actually happened during the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur. This, however, is something they probably cannot do. What they can do is tell us how later generations interpreted the events. This is probably also far more interesting than the boring history of a central state which ruthlessly exploited its neighbours until it was deservedly cannibalized in turn. A text like the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4) had not been composed in order to expose what actually happened, but to hide it and to consolidate the post-Ur III situation with Isin in the lead.58 Other texts gathered here, like Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (Source 3) or the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) had been written long after the events they claim to describe, with the firm intention of making sense. The Esaĝil Chronicle squeezes the Šulgi-Ibbi-Sîn-complex even into an entirely different religious-political system. Returning to Jacobsen’s dictum that “the general picture of events and attitudes” which the letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur give “is probably in its main lines a trustworthy one”,59 I want to repeat a caveat. It is exactly because the overall picture looks so plausible and trustworthy, that we should be alert. Whenever we encounter tales like the one of the demise of the Old Akkadian empire or of the fall of Ur and everything looks plausible, wrapped up, all neat and tidy, we should bear in mind that this is exactly what is wrong with it. These stories are quite often a little too neat, too tidy, and altogether too symmetrical. Actual history is messy. It may not be easy to admit that we might never know the historical “truth”, but we can tell when we are told stories.

56 57 58 59

See e.g. the comments on Puzur-Numušda/-Šulgi of Kazallu in the remarks on the content of Source 1 and Source 3. A composition by the poets of the court of the Third Dynasty of Ur, dealing with the fall of the Akkadian dynasty, see the edition by Cooper 1983. See the discussion on pp. 82f. below. Jacobsen 1953, p. 40, note 45; see above on p. 9.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.3. Method For anyone interested in “method”, the following brief remarks will come as a bitter disappointment. This is because I cannot accept any “methodological” preconsiderations in the field of Assyriology but the most fundamental ones. Also, this chapter goes without literature. The method which will be used in this study is so basic that any kind of name-dropping could not be but hypocritical. Working in ancient Near Eastern studies, we have to be aware that we are not dealing with objective data. The data we work with have been contaminated by us in the process of our studies. Every single archaeological item, every text, every context has been recovered by us, restored by us, interpreted and translated by us. The grammars and dictionaries we work with are our products. Even if we try our best, we have to realize that we can very well be wrong. There are no Babylonians around any more who could tell us so – and even they could be mistaken and blinded by a bias of their own. Also, there are no living traditions, but only our reconstructions. The hardest ground to be found among these quicksands is Akkadian philology with its etymological and grammatical relations to the other, more or less “living” Semitic languages, that is Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic. Having worked our way from there in the early years of Assyriology, we have also found an access to Sumerian. Even though Sumerology has made great progress over the past decades, we are still dependent upon our “Akkadian glasses”. Given these obstacles, the only proper way working with Babylonian texts which I can see is a firm grip on philology in combination with textual criticism and the historical-critical method. The process of identifying and collecting the sources is necessarily empirical, and the analysis and interpretation is, of course, hermeneutical. I cannot see that any other method could deliver us from the perils of pre-understanding, re-reading and interpretation. Of course we have to be aware that in reconstructing an ancient narrative we are producing our own. But this is the very character and destiny of all humanities. When we are lucky, we do not only have isolated final products of literary processes we cannot observe working. Due to the longue durée of the ancient Near Eastern civilizations and thanks to the durability of clay as the main writing material, many individual stages of intellectual and literary processes could survive by purpose or by chance and document the evolution and conglomeration of various interconnected lines of thought. The best we can do is putting forth a close reading of every single source that we identify or define as such. In trying to identify the authors and the audiences of the sources and to understand their meanings and intentions, it is necessary to discuss their place and date of origin and to put forward a comprehensive documentation. That is why I present the sources which I have selected in new editions with full commentaries in the second part of this book. In the case of extensive texts like the Sumerian lamentations, whose full edition would go far beyond the scope of this study, I shall present excerpts of the parts that matter here. The results will be brought together in the discussions of the various topics in chapters 2–11.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Selecting the Sources

15

1.4. Selecting the Sources The selection of the sources which treat the fall of Ur and the fate of Ibbi-Sîn will, of course, start with those texts which deal with the topic explicitly. The arrangement of the texts from Source 1 to Source 10 follows the stages of the unfolding Ibbi-Sîn narrative. In terms of chronology, the oldest pieces of evidence within this corpus are the inscription of Šu-ilīšu of Isin (Source 10) and the Old Babylonian lamentantions.60 They date to the period of the First Dynasty of Isin. From outside the realm of Isin – but probably from the same period – come the liver models from Mari61 which contain the earliest Ibbi-Sîn omens (Source 12, Source 13 and Source 14) and the first omen of Išbi-Erra (Source 15). Slightly later, this corpus is augmented by the omens from Larsa.62 At about this time, also the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur had been composed (Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3). In the arrangement of the other sources I shall proceed mostly chronologically from the Old Babylonian period onwards. Among the sources from the first millennium, I shall also arrange individual groups which are coherent in content. Adding to the core of the Ibbi-Sîn tradition, I shall collect sources which deal with literary figures and topics that appear in the historical narrative of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) and in texts related to the various conquests of Babylon and the abductions of a statue of Marduk (see chapter 4). This comprises mainly historical omens on the one hand, and programmatic texts which deal with the reasons for divine wrath on the other. Old Babylonian Period Source 1

(p. 250):

Source 2

(p. 257):

Source 3

(p. 261):

Source 4

(p. 269):

Source 5 Source 6

(p. 277): (p. 278):

Source 7 Source 8 Source 9 Source 10

(p. 279): (p. 283): (p. 284): (p. 285):

Source 11

(p. 289):

60 61 62

Excerpts from fictional royal letters (CKU no. 22B & 24): Ibbi-Sîn and the wrath of Enlil. Excerpts from a fictional royal letter (CKU no. 23): Išbi-Erra’s brazenness. Excerpts from a fictional royal letter: Ibbi-Sîn’s error (ISO 1). Excerpts from the Lament for Sumer and Ur: The fate of Ibbi-Sîn and of the city of Ur. Excerpt from a lamentation: Ibbi-Sîn died at Anšan. Excerpts from the Lament for Uruk: The king (Ibbi-Sîn) goes to enemy country. The Lament for Ur does not mention Ibbi-Sîn at all. Excerpts from the Lament for Eridu. Excerpts from the Lament for Nippur. Royal inscriptions and year names: Šu-ilīšu of Isin leads Nanna back from Anšan and restores Ur. Omen: The Fall of Akkade.

See in particular the excerpts of Source 4, Source 5, Source 6 and Source 7. The Lament for Eridu (Source 8) and the Lament for Nippur (Source 9) may deal with other events. Source 11, Source 12, Source 13, Source 14 and Source 15. Source 16, Source 17, Source 20, Source 21, Source 22, Source 23, Source 24, Source 25, Source 26, Source 27 and Source 28.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 1: Introduction

16 Source 12 Source 13 Source 14 Source 15 Source 16 Source 17 Source 18 Source 19 Source 20 Source 21 Source 22 Source 23 Source 24 Source 25 Source 26 Source 27 Source 28

(p. 291): (p. 292): (p. 293): (p. 294): (p. 295): (p. 297): (p. 299): (p. 300): (p. 301): (p. 301): (p. 303): (p. 304): (p. 306): (p. 307): (p. 307): (p. 308): (p. 311):

Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin Omen of Ku-Baʾu Omen of Ku-Baʾu Omen of Ku-Baʾu Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omens of Ibbi-Sîn Omen: Fall of Akkade. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omen of Ibbi-Sîn Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur Omens of Amar-Sîn of Ur

(ISO 2). (ISO 3). (ISO 4). (IEO 1). (IEO 2). (KBO 1). (KBO 2). (KBO 3). (ISO 5). (ISO 6). (ISO 7, ISO 8, ISO 9). (ISO 10). (ISO 11). (ISO 12). (ASO 1). (ASO 2, ASO 3, ASO 4).

Middle Babylonian / Middle Assyrian Period Source 29 (A) (p. 312): Source 30 (A–C) (p. 313): Source 31 (p. 315):

Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 13). Omen of Utu-ḫeĝal. Excerpt from a royal inscription of Shalmaneser I: The soil of Arinnu in Muṣri.

Early Neo-Babylonian Period Source 32

(p. 316):

Source 33

(p. 322):

Source 34 Source 35

(p. 325): (p. 338):

Excerpt from a royal inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I: The wrath of Marduk and its reasons. Excerpt from a royal inscription of [Nebuchadnezzar I]: Misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II. Excerpts from the Marduk Prophecy. The Esaĝil Chronicle.

Neo- & Late Babylonian / Neo-Assyrian Period Source 29 (B, C) (p. 312): Source 30 (D–H) (p. 313): Source 36 (p. 400):

Source 37 Source 38 Source 39

(p. 426): (p. 445): (p. 448):

Source 40 Source 41 (A) Source 42 Source 43 Source 44

(p. 453): (p. 455): (p. 456): (p. 457): (p. 458):

Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 13). Omen of Utu-ḫeĝal. The Book of Prodigies: Omens of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 14). Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 4: l. 4, omen no. 5). The Religious Chronicle. Excerpt from a letter quoting omens of disaster. Excerpt from the Poem of Erra; Kabti-ilī-Marduk was the scholar of Ibbi-Sîn; Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 5). Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 6). Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 7). Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 8). Excerpt from the Chronicle of Early Kings: Sargon of Akkade and the soil of Babylon.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Selecting the Sources Source 45 Source 46

(p. 459): (p. 462):

Source 47

(p. 463):

Source 48

(p. 464):

Source 49 Source 50 Source 51 (B) Source 52 Source 53 Source 54 Source 55 Source 56 Source 57 Source 58

(p. 466): (p. 476): (p. 477): (p. 478): (p. 479): (p. 480): (p. 485): (p. 488): (p. 492): (p. 494):

Source 59

(p. 496):

Source 60 Source 61 Source 62 Source 63 Source 64 Source 65 Source 66 Source 67 Source 68 Source 69 Source 70

(p. 500): (p. 500): (p. 501): (p. 503): (p. 504): (p. 505): (p. 506): (p. 506): (p. 507): (p. 508): (p. 508):

Source 71

(p. 512):

Source 72

(p. 522):

Source 73 Source 74

(p. 535): (p. 536):

Source 75

(p. 552):

Source 76 Source 77

(p. 555): (p. 559):

17

Omen of Sargon of Akkade: The soil of Babylon. Excerpt from a royal inscription of Sennacherib: The soil of Babylon: imitatio Sargonis? Excerpt from a royal inscription of Aššurbanipal: The soil of Elamite cities. Excerpt from the Chronicle of Early Kings: The sins of Šulgi. Religious chronicle from Uruk: The sins of Šulgi. Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 5). Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 6). Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 15). Omen dealing with the element “four”. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 16). Omen: Devastation of Ur and of the land. Omen: Devastation of Ur and of the land. Omen: The wrath of Marduk. Omen: Devastation of Babylonia (by Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II). Omen: Destruction of Babylon, devastation of the land and death of the king. Omen: Disaster for the king of Babylonia. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 17). Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 18). Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 19). Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 20). Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 21). Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 22). Omen of [Ibbi-Sîn] (ISO 23). Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 3). Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 4). Excerpt from a fictional letter of king Samsu-iluna: Sacrileges committed by the priests of Babylonia. Excerpts from Chronicle P: Crimes and punishment of Tukultī-Ninurta I. Excerpts from the Chedorlaomer Texts: Devastation of Babylon and punishment of the wicked kings Tukultī-Ninurta I, ITU-UD-ḪUL-A and Kutir-Naḫḫunte, killed by their sons. Diary: Xerxes I is killed by his son. Excerpts from the inscriptions of Esarhaddon: Sins of the Babylonians and the wrath of Marduk, leading up to the destruction of Babylon (by Sennacherib) in 689 BCE. Excerpts from the Babylonian Chronicle: Examples of divine revenge. Assyrian Prophecy: Marduk’s mercy. Excerpt from a royal inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II: Imitation of Ku-Baʾu, redemption.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 1: Introduction

18

1.5. Range of Topics In the following, I present an overview of the main topics, starting with the core elements of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster and augmenting them with the variations and additions which Babylonian tradition attached, in particular the elements from the narrative of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) and those surroundig the various conquests of Babylon and the abductions of a statue of Marduk (see chapter 4). Topics

Sources No.

Ibbi-Sîn

Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 4, Source 5, Source 6, Source 12, Source 13, Source 14, Source 20, Source 21, Source 22 (A, B1, C2), Source 24, Source 25, Source 26, Source 29, Source 35 (l. 75), Source 36, (Source 39), Source 52, (Source 53), Source 54, (Source 55), (Source 56), (Source 60), Source 61, Source 62, Source 63, Source 64, Source 65, Source 66, Source 67. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 5, Source 15, Source 16, Source 68, Source 69. Source 15, Source 16. Source 15, Source 16, Source 68. Source 12, Source 13, Source 21, (Source 64). (Source 11), Source 12, Source 20, Source 21, Source 67. Source 4 (D), Source 7, Source 10, Source 55, Source 56. Source 4 (A), Source 6 (A), Source 7, Source 55, Source 56. Source 13, Source 14. Source 32, Source 34, Source 35, Source 37, Source 57, Source 58, Source 74. Source 32, Source 33, (Source 34), (Source 36, ll. 1, 34), (Source 37), Source 38, Source 57, Source 58, Source 59, Source 71, Source 72, Source 74. Source 39 (see the introductory remarks on pp. 448f. below). Source 59. Source 17, Source 18, Source 19, Source 35 (ll. 52a–55), Source 36 (omen no. 5), Source 40, Source 41 (A), Source 42, Source 43. Source 77 (see chapter 10.3). Source 11, Source 23. Source 35 (ll. 56–61), Source 44, Source 45, (Source 59, l. 12) Source 31, Source 46, Source 47. Source 35 (ll. 62–63). Source 30, Source 35 (ll. 65–69). (Source 27), Source 35 (ll. 70–71, 75), Source 48, Source 49. Source 27, Source 28, Source 35 (ll. 72–73), Source 50, Source 51 (B). Source 35 (l. 74). (Source 34, C), Source 71, Source 72 (A). Source 33. (Source 32), Source 33, (Source 34, D), (Source 53), (Source 58), Source 72 (C). Source 46, (Source 72, in commentary), (Source 74).

Išbi-Erra Išbi-Erra defeats Elam Rivalry Revolt Impoverishment Nanna-Sîn and Ur Fall of Ur “Shepherd” absent Marduk and Babylon Fall of Babylon(ia)

Kabti-ilī-Marduk Babylon and Ur Ku-Baʾu Imitation of Ku-Baʾu Fall of Akkade Sargon of Akkade Imitation of Sargon Narām-Sîn of Akkade Utu-ḫeĝal Šulgi Amar-Sîn Šu-Sîn Tukultī-Ninurta I Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I Kutir-Naḫḫunte II Sennacherib

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Range of Topics Xerxes Assyria Assyrian texts Anšan Elam

Šimaški Gutium Subir/Subartu Ḫatti Tidnum/Amorites Arameans/Suteans Ummān-Manda

Number 4 Number 6 Number 7 Madness Sins of the people Sins of the priests Omen misread Omens disturbed Celestial omen Lunar eclipse Solar eclipse (?) Wrath of Enlil Wrath of Marduk Wrath of Anu Plague and paralysis Death of deities Urbicide Mercy of Enlil Mercy of Marduk Mercy and blessings Redemption

19

Source 73. Source 34 (C), Source 71, Source 72 (A), Source 74, Source 75 (A), Source 76. Source 31, Source 46, Source 47, Source 74, Source 76. Source 4 (A l. 36, E4 ll. 490–491), Source 5, Source 6 (A), Source 10 (A l. I 9, B l. II 5), Source 54 (l. 5), Source 65. Source 4 (A ll. 33, 35), Source 7, Source 8 (B), Source 14, Source 15, Source 16, Source 32 (l. 23), Source 34 (D), Source 53, Source 58 (l. 4), Source 63, (Source 64), Source 74 (A 6 = B2 8 = C 12), Source 75 (B). Source 4 (A l. 33), Source 7, Source 8 (B). Source 4 (E1, E2, E3, E4 l. 489), Source 6 (B), Source 35 (ll. 62–68). Source 6 (B), Source 8 (A), (Source 49, obv. 5). Source 34 (B), see also Source 72 (B). Source 4 (E4 l. 488), Source 9 (A); see briefly pp. 235f. below. Source 37 (III 4’b, 7’, cf. IV 8’ = I 1, see p. 444), (Source 39, see pp. 449f. below). Source 26 (in commentary), Source 35 (l. 42), Source 36 (in commentary on l. 8, omen no. 11), Source 58 (l. 2), Source 62 (in commentary), Source 72 (in commentary on C). Source 22 (B2, C2), Source 36 (omen no. 4 in line 4), Source 52, Source 53. Source 36 (in commentary on l. 8, omen no. 11), Source 62. Source 62 (in commentary), Source 65, Source 66. Source 32 (ll. 18, 22). Source 32 (ll. 18, 22), Source 74. Source 70. Source 3. (Source 11), Source 24, Source 60. Source 57, Source 58. Source 55, Source 56, Source 59, Source 73. Source 37 (II:14). Source 1, Source 59 (l. 11); see also the commentary on l. 5 of Source 58. Source 32, Source 35, (Source 36), (Source 37), (Source 38), Source 44, Source 48, Source 57, Source 58, (Source 59, l. 11), Source 74. Source 49 (obv. 18). Source 75 (A–B). Source 4 (ll. 173–177; p. 277), Source 35 (ll. 36–39; pp. 115f.). Source 31, Source 35 (ll. 37b–39), (Source 44), (Source 45), Source 46, Source 47; see the general discussion on pp. 70f. below. Source 3. Source 38, Source 76. Source 34 (B, C, see p. 326), Source 76. Source 77 (see chapter 10.3).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 1: Introduction

20

Arranged in a mixture of text types and content, there are the following groups: Fictional Letters –

Source 1, Source 2, Source 3, Source 35 (frame story in ll. 1–40, 76–82), Source 70.

Fictional “Letters”, Messages of Marduk –

Source 34, Source 76.

Cultic Lamentations –

Source 4, Source 5, Source 6, Source 7, Source 8, Source 9.

Royal Inscriptions –

Source 10, Source 31, Source 32, Source 33, Source 46, Source 47, Source 74, Source 77.

Omens –

Source 11, Source 12, Source 13, Source 14, Source 15, Source 16, Source 17, Source 18, Source 19, Source 20, Source 21, Source 22, Source 23, Source 24, Source 25, Source 26, Source 27, Source 28, Source 29, Source 30, Source 36, Source 40, Source 41, Source 42, Source 43, Source 45, Source 50, Source 51, Source 52, Source 53, Source 54, Source 55, Source 56, Source 57, Source 58, Source 59, Source 60, Source 61, Source 62, Source 63, Source 64, Source 65, Source 66, Source 67, Source 68, Source 69.

Omen quoted in a Fictional Letter –

Source 3.

Omens quoted in a Political Letter –

Source 38.

(Religious) Chronicles – – – – –

The Religious Chronicle (Source 37). Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 44 and Source 48). Religious chronicle from Uruk (Source 49). Chronicle P (Source 71). Babylonian Chronicle (Source 75).

There are also short excerpts from chronicles in Late Babylonian school texts: – –

See pp. 377f. below on Sābium and his son Apil-Sîn. See p. 470 below with note 1740 on Šulgi.

King List expanded with Anecdotal Information –

Source 49.

Admonitions / Contemplations on History – –

The Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 41–75). Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72).

Epical Myth –

The Poem of Erra (Source 39).

“Diary” dealing with Lunar Eclipses –

Source 73.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Intentional History and Typification

21

1.6. Intentional History and Typification Modern historiography lays claim to “objectivity”, how difficult it ever may be to define the term and to meet its demand. Although it is clear, that any historical description necessarily is also a narrative which works with literary elements and concepts,63 accounts of alleged events with causes and effects which deviate too far from “objectivity” or plausibility would be dismissed as propaganda, myth or simply as nonsense. The modern notion of historical “objectivity” was outlined by the historian Leopold Ranke (1795–1886) in his dictum from 1824, claiming that a historian should represent the past “as it really was”. Ranke presented this motto in feigned modesty, ironically turning against “the office, assigned to history, of judging the past, of instructing the present for the benefit of future ages”.64 This “office, assigned to history” means, of course, nothing less but Cicero’s (De oratore II:36) famous aphorism: – Historia (…), testis temporum, lux veritatis, vita memoriae, magistra vitae, nuntia vetustatis (…) “(It is) History (which is) bearing witness to times past, highlightning the truth, giving life to remembrance and teaching how to live, delivering tidings of days gone by.” In the societies from the classical antiquity to the early modern period (until ca. 1800), this view dominated the historical thought. Historiography had an edifying and didactic character, and even a practical utility. As opposed to philosophy, history taught manifestly, directly and vividly how to live.65 The Babylonians, too, would have certainly agreed with Cicero on his view of history as life’s teacher. The Babylonian term which comes closest to the notion of “history” in classical antiquity is the expression alakti šarrī maḫri which frames the educational part with the examples from Babylonian history of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 40, 76). The term alaktu literally means “way”. In the expression alakti šarrī maḫri it designates “the ways how former kings behaved” as well as “how they fared” in doing so. In this sense, the Babylonian expression alakti šarrī maḫri (ll. 40, 76) can truly be translated as “history of kings past”. The term also occurs outside of the 63

64

65

See in particular Hayden White 1973 and 1987. In the realm of the civilizations of the ancient Near East, it is perfectly clear to the modern eye that historical narratives are highly ideological constructs, put into literary and often mythological settings. They are vivid examples of White’s claim that historiography, too, is a kind of storytelling. However, they are so obvious examples that it makes little sense to quote White extensively on these texts. White’s thesis unfolds its acuity rather in the area of modern historiography, where narratives may pass unnoticed or unreflected. “Man hat der Historie das Amt, die Vergangenheit zu richten, die Mitwelt zum Nutzen zukünftiger Jahre zu belehren, beygemessen: so hoher Aemter unterwindet sich gegenwärtiger Versuch nicht: er will bloß sagen, wie es eigentlich gewesen.” Quotation from Ranke 1824, pp. V–VI, discussed by Vierhaus 1977. On the impact of the classical dictum of “history as life’s teacher” (historia magistra vitae) on the humanistic theory of history in the European Renaissance see Landfester 1972. On the meaning of the concept in the early modern period and its disinegration see Günther 1975, pp. 641–647; Koselleck 1979, pp. 38–66; idem 2004, pp. 26–42.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

22

Chapter 1: Introduction

narrative of the Esaĝil Chronicle. In the inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE), the plural alkakātu “ways/deeds” is used alongside epšētu “actions” in the description of the king’s “res gestae”: – alkakāt qurdīya (u epšēt tašnintīya) ina qerebšu alṭur 66 “I wrote upon (the stele) my heroic deeds (and victorious actions)”. The focus of the Esaĝil Chronicle is on the god Marduk, on his cult and his city Babylon. According to Babylonian theology, Marduk is the king who rules the other gods, the universe and also human affairs, in particular, if it comes to human kings who Marduk had appointed to rule the world on his behalf. This view of history, which focuses so heavily only on gods and kings in a “boss–and– employee–relationship”, is typical of the ancient Near East.67 This means, of course, that the main topic of the Esaĝil Chronicle is to tell the reader – in particular future kings – to heed the king of the gods, Marduk. This doctrine is exemplified by numerous examples of “the ways how former kings fared” (alakti šarrī maḫri, ll. 40, 76) in heeding or not heeding the god Marduk and his city Babylon. The potential royal reader is advised “to learn” (lamādu, l. 9) from these examples “how to behave” (alaktu, l. 9) and to worship Marduk in order “to keep himself safe and sound” (ša *ramānšu šullumi, ll. 7, 81), as well as his troops (ummānu, l. 7) and his land (mātu, l. 81). The abundance and variety of examples of former kings in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) guarantees the richness and comprehensiveness of the doctrine. Kings who would not learn but sin against Marduk in the same way as a wicked predecessor had done would in turn be punished in the same way as the earlier bad example had been according to a kind of divine penal code, organized by the talion principle of “sin and sanction”.68 Since Marduk, the king of the gods is supposed to rule the universe for all eternity, the doctrine taught by the Esaĝil Chronicle is eternal, too. That is why the lesson and the numerous examples from history which one “has been hearing” (šemû Gtn, Prs., l. 40) again and again is to be “repeated” and “transmitted” (šanû D, l. 40; see also qabû, l. 9) to the next generation in turn. Chapter 10.3 presents a vivid example how Nebuchadnezzar II in fact learnt his lesson from the Esaĝil Chronicle and made up for a sacrilege committed by a much earlier, in fact legendary predecessor in order to keep himself and his land safe and sound. The Babylonians would probably also have agreed to George Santayana’s famous aphorism that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”69 The idea that Narām-Sîn of Akkade committed the same sin and that he was punished in the same way as his predecessor Enmerkar of Uruk because Enmerkar had not left a written account of his deeds and fate so future kings could read and learn, lies probably behind the story of lines 42 and 62–63 of the Esaĝil Chronicle.70

66 67 68 69 70

After Grayson, RIMA 3, p. 21, Shalmaneser III no. 2, II:60; abridged: ibidem p. 39, no. 6, III:37–38; p. 48, l. 49’; written il-ka-kàt ibidem p. 10, no. 1, l. 63’; p. 16, no. 2, I:50. See the discussion in chapters 11.1–2 below. See the discussion in chapters 7.1–2 below. Santayana 1905, p. 284. See the discussion on p. 142 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Intentional History and Typification

23

In the Sumerian lamentations71, in the Esaĝil Chronicle (see chapter 7), but also in the historical omens (see chapter 6) and other kinds of texts which deal with pieces of historical information, literary elements play an immense role. They dominate the shaping of individual images and the overall structure of a text. To a modern historian, it may be strange to see religion and literature play such an eminent role in the writing of history. However, in the ancient Near East, “religion” was the main medium of reception and description of events, and “literature” was the only suitable means of communication.72 Since we are almost completely dependent upon these peculiar sources, we have to be aware that ancient Near Eastern historiography does not provide us with a straightforward account of indisputable facts which have occurred. It is but one of the many possible results of the selection and interpretation of a vast conglomerate of interactive processes. When we are dealing with Babylonian historiography, we should pay close attention to literary patterns and be alert if the stories start to make sense in an ideological or religious framework. The ideological framework which we shall observe most closely is the Babylonian one focusing on the god Marduk and his holy city Babylon. Babylonian historiography is famous for its various chronicles, mainly from the first millennium. Our enthusiasm when mining these important sources for data, names and facts makes us quite often ignore that these texts nevertheless certainly do not present history “as it really was” in Ranke’s sense. Albert Kirk Grayson (1975a), in his introduction to the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series, had once described these texts as “impartial historical documents” (p. 11), recording “what actually happened” (p. 14), written “in a reliable and objective manner” (p. 8) out of an interest in “history for its own sake” (pp. 6, 11). However, even if the bare historical data given by the Babylonian scribes were overall correct – which cannot be verified in many cases – it does not mean that their take on history was the same as the one of a modern historian. Even the Babylonian Chronicle, which looks so sober as a historical source at first sight, was nevertheless guided by a religious and ideological predisposition in the 71 72

See the excerpts from Source 4 to Source 9. See e.g. the numerous modern publications which combine the terms “literature, history and politics” in their title, such as H.G. Güterbock, “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200. Erster Teil: Babylonier”, in: ZA 42, 1934, pp. 1–91; “Zweiter Teil: Hethiter”, in: ZA 44, 1938, pp. 45– 149; P. Machinist, “Literature as Politics”, in: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38, 1976, pp. 455–482; D.S. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature. Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist (Winona Lake 2013); C. Wilcke, “Politik im Spiegel der Literatur, Literatur als Mittel der Politik im älteren Babylonien”, in: K. Raaflaub (ed.), Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 24 (München 1993), pp. 29–75; P. Michalowski, “Commemoration, Writing, and Genre in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: C. Shuttleworth Kraus (ed.), The Limits of Historiography. Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts. Mnemosyne Supplementum 191 (Leiden 1999), pp. 69–90; M. Liverani, Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Studies in Egyptology and the Ancient Near East (London 2004).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

24

Chapter 1: Introduction

selection and arrangement of its information.73 Babylonian historiography as manifested in the chronicles obviously did not perceive history simply as a chain of events following upon one another chronologically, but as an expression and manifestation of divine will, of divine approval or disapproval.74 It is a truism that in any culture history is not just a complete list of whatever has happened. In turn, not everything that has happened is history. History is a selection of events and interpretations plausible and meaningful to those who produce it. The historian Johan Huizinga (1936, p. 9) defined history in the following aphorism: “History is the intellectual form in which a civilization renders account to itself of its past.”75 We should note that it is not necessarily important that this “past” actually had happened. A meaningful historical story which never had happened can shape a civilization’s identity far more than a thousand meaningless facts. In the present context, this point can easily be seen in the case of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). The chronicle is “historical“ in the sense that it deals with history. However, it does so in a highly anachronistic and biased way. The chronicle has an agenda – that is “heed Marduk!” – and historical events, names and figures are squeezed into that scheme in order to prove the chronicle’s point. Most of the stories told are highly legendary, to say the least. However, in order to understand the chronicle’s concept, it is not necessary that the stories are historically true. The historian Hans-Joachim Gehrke (2001, p. 286) speaks in this connection of “intentional history”:76 “Social knowledge of the past, in other words that which a society knows and holds for true about its past, its ‘intentional history’, is of fundamental significance for the imaginaire, for the way a society interprets and understands itself, and therefore for its inner coherence and ultimately its collective identity.” In discussing the representations of the past in Ancient Greece, Gehrke explains:77 “History in its social function, the focus here, is particularly important for one simple reason: communities, or rather social groups, can only exist as such if they are capable of surviving beyond the lifespans of the individuals who constitute the group. This is where the transmission of information which is relevant to the group’s identity, in brief, memory, comes into play.” 73

74 75 76

77

This becomes apparent from examples which combine historical events arranged according to the religiously dominated “sin and sanction” perspective, see the commentary on two excerpts from the Babylonian Chronicle (Source 75). See the study by Drews 1975, in particular p. 45; Lambert 1972, p. 71. Quoted, among many others, by Finkelstein (1963, p. 462) and Van Seters (1983, p. 1). In a similar context, discussing “Israel’s history and the history of Israel”, Liverani (2005) speaks of “invented history” as opposed to “normal history”. Liverani, however, does not expressively specify the criteria that define certain traditions as “invented history”, see Naʾaman 2006; Kratz 2017, pp. xvi-xxii. Gehrke 2010, p. 15, similarly Gehrke 2004, pp. 22–23.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Intentional History and Typification

25

In another context, Gehrke associated this concept of history with the term “memory images”, coined by George Herbert Mead.78 Mead (1929, pp. 237–238) defined the past as a construction of the present put together from images which are composed and arranged in order to create meaning. For the type of memory which is not only the memory of an individual but which is shared by a group of people, Maurice Halbwachs (1925; 1950) had coined the term “mémoire collective”. Developing his concept, Jan and Aleida Assmann differentiated between “communicative” and “cultural memory”.79 “Communicative memory” is transmitted orally in direct contact among rather small family groups, spanning no more than three or four generations. “Cultural memory” is established by written reports and documents, by monuments, pictures and rituals. It can span many generations, hundreds and even thousands of years. The ancient Near East provides the unique opportunity to actually observe the transformation of documented historical events into “memory images”, which are sometimes distorted and dislocated, but arranged into a narrative which produces meaning. We should keep in mind that we cannot say anything about the “collective memory” of the vast majority of the people of Ancient Mesopotamia. The “collective memory” we are talking about is the cultural memory of a rather small group of people of high learning and high social status, in particular the “kings and the priests” and the members of the “good families” of the Babylonian cities (see the discussions in chapters 11.2–3). For an intellectual community committed to the ideals of an intentional history and to the notion of learning from history, it is not only an advantage, but even a necessity to dress its historical examples in certain types in order to illustrate the doctrine which was to be learnt. In typified guise, the core of the doctrine and even the individual motifs of the educational narrative could be adopted by and adapted for quite different, but structurally similar societies. Very similar narratives could be told in societies centering on Enlil of Nippur, on Marduk of Babylon or on the Assyrian Enlil of Aššur. The Babylonian narrative dealing with the “wicked king who opposes god and his holy city” was even still active in the historiography of ancient Judaism or early Islam.80 In order to adapt actual events to the models of perception, it is necessary to reduce details. In his study into constructive typology, John C. McKinney defined the process of typification as follows (p. 201):81 78

79 80

81

Gehrke 2005, p. 29: “Mir geht es […] um das Geschichtsbewußtsein der, sagen wir, Akteure und Gruppen, die es haben, wenn man so will, um die ‘soziale Oberfläche’ von Geschichte. […] In diesem Sinne verstehe ich Geschichte hier als das, was eine gegebene Gemeinschaft beziehungsweise Gesellschaft als ihre Geschichte jeweils ansah, und meine damit, was George Herbert Mead ‘Gedächtnisbilder’ genannt hat.” See in particular Jan Assmann 1992 and Aleida Assmann 1999 (English translation 2011). – On the “Collective Memory in Mesopotamia” see Jonker 1995. See chapter 1.7 for the types of “Sennacherib” (see also pp. 124f.), “Nebuchadnezzar” and the “fall of the sacred city”. See in particular p. 35 for the Muslim tradition about Muḥammad and the death of Khosrau II. John C. McKinney, Constructive Typology and Social Theory (New York 1966), pp. 199–216, chapter 8: “Toward a Codification of Typological Procedure”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

26

Chapter 1: Introduction

“All typification consists in the pragmatic reduction and equalization of attributes relevant to the particular purpose at hand for which the type has been formed, and involves disregarding those individual differences of the typified objects that are not relevant to such purpose.” The basic concept which – according to the Babylonians – one could and should learn from history is the same concept which underlies the system of the historical omens.82 It is not the notion of a cyclical history, but a notion of typical situations recurring. These situations would occur again since the gods who governed the universe and also all human affairs would take similar measures in similar situations. Of course, exactly the same situation would not recur, only similar ones. The empires of the dynasty of Akkade or of the Third Dynasty of Ur had gone. Exact twins of Akkade or Ur did never arise – and I dare say, were not expected to do so – only siblings. This means that it was not only permitted, but even necessary to reduce all the negligible details of a specific case and to work out the type. Even if not fully verbalized, this is the attitude which lies behind the brief statement in the apodosis of the Old Babylonian omen of Source 23, B: pali Akkadîm gamir “the reign of Akkade is at an end”. It is clear that the ancient scholar did not want to check by extispicy whether the reign of the dynasty of Akkade was over or not. It was over, this was perfectly clear and well known to anyone in those days. So, the apodosis can only mean “a reign (like the one) of Akkade is over (now, by divine decree).” Interestingly, the reign of the dynasty of Akkade is understood here as a whole, as a system. The reference is not to a particular king. On the one side of the spectrum of the “historical examples”, we have the absolutely perferct, divine king Gilgameš, about whom the “historical” omens almost never tell anything else but that he ruled all the world and was simply “peerless” (ša māḫira lā īšû).83 More detailed pieces of “information” of the kind that “he went to the cedar forest” are but snatches of the fabric of his legendary character. His name is very much a tag for “royal perfection” with no actual historical information attached at all. On the other side, we have Ibbi-Sîn, about whose reign of a quarter of a century we are never ever told anything else but that it meant “disaster” (šaḫluqtu).84 In between, we have less typified rulers who are rather cases of exemplification than of rigid typification. They present examples of shades of grey, apart from the white-and-black characterization of figures like Gilgameš and Ibbi-Sîn. In the narrative of the Esaĝil Chronicle, there are kings who commit crimes, and there are kings who do good.85 There are good kings turning bad, like Sargon of Akkade, and we should also look out for bad kings turning good, although this latter type (“Šulgi”) is still opaque.86 I am still looking for an intra82 83 84

85 86

On this and the following see the discussion in the introduction to chapter 6. On the omens dealing with Gilgameš see Tigay 1982, pp. 14–15; Lambert 1960b, pp. 43– 46; Metzler 2002, p. 222; George 2003/I, pp. 112–117. Weidner 1928–1929, p. 237; Edzard 1957, pp. 50–51 with note 227; Michalowski 1989, p. 2 with note 5; Hallo 1991, p. 160; Michalowski 2006, p. 256. – See the overview at the beginning of chapter 6.1 and the comments on p. 81 below. See the overview on p. 140 below. See the discussions on pp. 132f. and 160 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Intentional History and Typification

27

Babylonian reasoning why Marduk allowed this wicked king to rule for as long as 48 years. Sargon of Akkade was mainly remembered as a powerful and successful founder of his dynasty.87 However, he gets his shading by certain sacrileges against Babylon attributed to him. His grandson Narām-Sîn, as a lateborn member of Sargon’s dynasty, was inevitably associated with the decline of the dynasty.88 But he, too, gets his positive highlights by certain spectacular successes he is said to have achieved. There is also the “female king” Ku-Baʾu whom the legendary tradition of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 51–55) held to have been a model of piety.89 The historical omens, however, are mainly interested in her figure as an unnatural abomination, as a tag for palace women or eunuchs taking over the male office of kingship.90 Also the foreign enemies of Babylonia undergo a very sharp and even racist typification. Often singularized (p. 243) as “the stupid Gutian” (p. 241) or “the wicked and godless Elamite” (pp. 238f.), they come as icons of the “uncivilized, subhuman, destructive barbarian”, and bestialized as “dogs” and “monkeys”.91 There is also a typification of situations. The crimes committed by wicked kings against the holy city of Babylon comprise the conquest of the city, the plunder of its temples, the abduction of a statue of Marduk and of the flooding the city’s grounds, using a standardized set of phrases. This setting also comprises the appropriate and standardized punishment, that is, being slain by one’s own son.92 Another kind of typification, which, however, becomes plainly visible only during the Old Babylonian period, can be found in the evolution of the behaviour of a “bad or wicked king” towards the sacred science of divination:93 – – – –

Narām-Sîn of Akkade Amar-Sîn of Ur Ibbi-Sîn of Ur Narām-Sîn of Akkade

cannot obtain positive omens cannot obtain positive omens cannot read negative omens does not care for omens at all

(Curse of Akkade, Ur III) (Amar-Sîn & Enki’s Temple, Ur III) (Ibbi-Sîn’s Error, Source 3, Old Bab.) (Cuthean Legend, Old Bab./1st mill.)

Historical figures from the past are stripped of most of their characterizing identities, they turn into typified “memory images”.94 The name which originally 87

88

89 90 91 92 93

Finkelstein 1963, p. 470. On the omens dealing with Sargon see Hirsch 1963, pp. 7–8; Metzler 2002, p. 223; Sommerfeld 2009–2011 (RlA 12), pp. 47–48, § 5.2. The differences between the omens and other historical traditions dealing with Sargon have been discussed by Finkelstein 1963, pp. 465–470. See the discussion of Sargon’s figure here on pp. 153f. in chapter 7.3, king no. 7. Finkelstein 1963, p. 470. On Narām-Sîn as “the archetypal Unheilsherrscher” in Babylonian literature see in particular Evans 1983; see also Glassner 1986, pp. 77–85. On the omens dealing with Narām-Sîn, which very often depict him in a positive light, see furthermore Hirsch 1963, p. 26; Leichty 1970, p. 201, BM 41548, ll. 11–12; Glassner 1983; Frayne 1998–2001 (RlA 9), p. 174, § 5; Metzler 2002, pp. 223–224. See the discussion of her pious deed here on p. 146 in chapter 7.3, king no. 5. See the discussion on pp. 147–152 below and Source 19 = KBO 3, Source 36, l. 4, omen no. 5 = KBO 4 and Source 41 (A) = KBO 6. See the discussions in chapter 11.4, in particular part C: “The Subhuman Barbarians from the Eastern Mountains”. See on the whole complex the discussion on pp. 123ff. below. See the discussion on p. 87 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

28

Chapter 1: Introduction

was an expression of a person’s essence95 is condensed into a label. Turning to the traditions about Ibbi-Sîn, this means that he – or rather his name – was reduced to the tag “disaster”. Ibbi-Sîn had been ruling for a quarter of a century, but all that was remembered is his disastrous end. The classic catch-line of the Ibbi-Sîn omens runs like “omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster” (amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti) from the Old Babylonian period on.96 In texts from the first millennium, particularly in texts like the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35),97 the Book of Prodigies (Source 36),98 but also in texts like the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 44 and Source 48), we can observe that the historical details surrounding historical kings like Sargon of Akkade or Ibbi-Sîn of Ur move into the background. The new topics “Marduk” and “Babylon” supersede the original political and religious concepts: Tradition Structure History Ibbi-Sîn of Ur IBBI-SÎN ill-starred king king of Babylonia endangered Ur Babylon holy (capital) city Sumer Babylonia land Ekišnuĝal Esaĝil temple Enlil/Sîn Marduk god Elam Elam enemy Šimaški (term vanishes) Gutium Gutium enemy Amorites (term vanishes) Ummān-Manda enemy In two celestial omens from the first millennium (Source 55 and Source 56), whose elements are highly reminiscent of those of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, the name of IbbiSîn and the title “king of Ur” are replaced by the titles “king of All”, “king of Babylonia” or simply “the king”.99 Similarly, the first millennium liver omen of Source 60 employs the apodosis “omen pertaining to the king of Babylonia meaning disaster”, replacing the classic catchphrase “omen of Ibbi-Sîn meaning disaster”. The title “king of Babylonia” (šar māt Akkadî) is a more modern term which allows to identify a contemporary ruler with the infamous king from the past. So there is also abstraction apart from typification. The transition from “king of Ur” (lugal uri2/5ki = šar Uri) to “king of Babylonia” (lugal uriki = šar māt Akkadî) is enhanced by the fact that the logograms of these terms even sounded alike: lugal uri.100 This is, of course, a mere coincidence to the modern mind, but it was certainly meaningful to the Babylonians. 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

See the discussion on p. 25 above. See recently Radner 2005a, in particular pp. 15–16, 19–20, 271–278. See the overview in chapter 6.1. See the introduction to chapter 7 and chapter 7.3 in particular. The omens are attributed to Ibbi-Sîn in line 1, but they do not deal with the “fall of Ur”, but with the “ruin of Babylonia” (nadû māt Akkadî, line 34) on the whole. šar kiššati (Source 56, l. 1c), šar māt Akkadî (Source 56, l. 4) and šarru (Source 55, l. 5). See the commentary on line 4 of Source 56; see also Source 60.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Intentional History and Typification

29

The celestial omens of Source 55 and Source 56 from the first millennium deal with lunar eclipses on Addār 14–16 and 20–21. They distribute the full range of the classic Ibbi-Sîn Disaster on several individual lunar eclipses following on one another. Does this mean that the full range of the Ibbi-Sîn catastrophe was held to occur only when the moon would have been eclipsed for a whole week? This is, of course, impossible in physics, but it might be conceivable in religion. As Hermann Hunger (2002) has argued, these lunar eclipses had very probably not been observed and transmitted through the ages. They had probably only been construed as possibilities and fitted into an intellectual system of eclipses by the Neo-Babylonian scholars. The connection to the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster as the archetypal “utter disaster” is associative and systematic. Moreover, in a calendar like the Babylonian one, lunar eclipses are only possible between the 12th and the 16th day of a given month.101 In the first millennium BCE, the beginning of a new month was certainly calculated, even if the new moon could not be observed. So we can rule out the possibility that the beginning of a new month was delayed for a whole week. This probably means that watching out for a lunar eclipse on the 20th–21st day of a given month shows that the scholars were still expecting spontaneous expressions of divine wrath apart from the calculated range of eclipses.102 Source 55: Eclipses of the Moon in the Month of Addār 14th: Famine and defeat of the troops. Devastation of Ur. 15th: Defilement of the land. 16th: Devastation of Eĝišnuĝal. 20th: End of the reign/dynasty of the king, 21st: the land of the king will become waste. Source 56: Eclipses of the Moon in the Month of Addār 14th: Decision given for the king of All (šar kiššati), (meaning) the devastation of Ur (šaḫluqti Uri), defilement of the land, destruction of the city walls, devastation of the city under siege, while barley is still being heaped up. Revolt against the king, defeat of the troops in battle. 15th: Decrease (of cattle) in the land. 16th: The king’s auxiliary troops will revolt. Death of the king of Babylonia, defilement of the land. 20th: Devastation of Ur at the command of Sîn. 21st: It is plain to see that in these ideal and typified circles of disaster, which led from impoverishment to revolt and defeat, one could well have done without any reference to a particular city or deity at all. The name “Ibbi-Sîn” had been replaced by the terms “king of All” or “king of Babylonia”. The names “Eĝišnuĝal”, “Ur” and “Sîn” were in fact dispensable as well. 101 102

See Hunger 1993–1997b (RlA 8), p. 359, § 3a; idem 2002. On the problem of predictable, “mechanical” eclipses see pp. 191ff. below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

30

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.7. Excursus: “Nebuchadnezzar”, Khosrau and Jerusalem In order to prepare the reader to understand the Babylonian interest in carving out the divinely controlled system which to the ancient mind underlay what we call history, I shall briefly demonstrate how disaster was perceived in another Near Eastern civilization that is perhaps more familiar to us. In the history of Jerusalem, we can observe a very similar case of typification of historical figures and situations within a religiously dominated framework. Coping with the conquests and destructions of Jerusalem in 586 BCE by the Babylonians, in 70 CE by the Romans, and in 614 CE by the Sassanid Persians, very similar stories were told in completely different historical situations. Having been the one who destroyed Jerusalem and its temple first, the name of Nebuchadnezzar II became a tag for other destroyers of Jerusalem to come. There are similar typifications like the one of the figure of “Sennacherib”,103 but the case of Nebuchadnezzar and of the conquest of Jerusalem is a very instructive example, since the figure of “Nebuchadnezzar” assembles around him a whole cast of typified characters.104 On the level of political entities, the Midraš Berēšît rabbah (16:4 on Gen 2:14) formulates also a typification of realms supported by “etymological” considerations which connect the kingdoms’ names to their behaviour towards Israel: “All kingdoms designated by the name of Aššur (ʾšwr) are so called because they enrich (mtʿšrwt) themselves at the expense of Israel. […] All kingdoms designated by the name of Nineveh (nynwh) are so called because they adorn (mtnʾwt) themselves at the expense of Israel. […] All the kingdoms designated by the name of Egypt (mṣrym) are so called because they persecute (mṣyrwt) Israel.” The Iranian historiographer al-Bīrūnī (973–1048 CE) relates a tradition according to which the inhabitants of Jerusalem used to call the enemy who attacked Jerusalem in the time after the decapitation of John the Baptist “Nebuchadnezzar”.105 In his commentary on the 29th of Ab in the Syrian calendar, the day of the decapitation of John the Baptist, son of Zechariah, al-Bīrūnī reports that according to local tradition,106 John’s blood kept bubbling on the spot after he had been beheaded:107

103 104 105 106

107

See the discussion here on pp. 34f., 124f. and 526f. below. See pp. 31f. below on “Nebuzaradan” and “Zechariah”. Discussed with reference to the figure of Nebuchadnezzar II in history by Sack 1982, pp. 109–110, and by Sack 1991, p. 54. The informant whom al-Bīrūnī quotes, a certain al-Maʾmūn bin Aḥmad as-Salamī (or: as-Sahlī) al-Harawī (Sachau 1878, p. 301) who said to have heard that story in Jerusalem, appears to be otherwise unknown (Sachau 1879, p. 436 on p. 287, l. 19). Al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb al-āṯār al-bāqīya ʿan-il-qurūn al-ḫālīya (“The Remaining Signs of Past Centuries”, alias “Vestiges of the Past”), chapter 15: “On the Festivals and the Memorable Days of the Syrian Calendar”; edition of the Arabic text by Sachau 1878, p. 301, English translation by Sachau 1879, p. 297.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: “Nebuchadnezzar”, Khosrau and Jerusalem

31

“This went on till Nebuchadnezzar killed the people, and made their blood flow over it; then it grew quiet.” Al-Bīrūnī, of course, questioned the historicity, “for Nebuchadnezzar came to Jerusalem nearly four hundred and forty-five years before the death of John; and the second destruction was the work of the Roman kings, Vespasian and Titus.108 But it seems that the people of Jerusalem call everybody who destroyed their town “Nebuchadnezzar”; for I have heard a certain historian say that in this case is meant Ǧūḏarz, son of Sābūr, son of Afqūr-šā,109 one of the Aškanian [= Arsacid] kings.” The tradition is more complex than al-Bīrūnī’s spirited and sharp-witted note might suggest. Originally, this legend had been a Jewish tradition, but it obviously had been adopted and adapted by Christians in the course of the first millennium CE, when the Jews were banned from Jerusalem under Byzantine rule. Quite rightly, al-Bīrūnī does not attribute this tradition to the “Jews”, but to the “people of Jerusalem”.110 The original Jewish legend about the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar had it that the Babylonian official Nebuzaradan (*Nabû-zēr-iddin) found the blood of the prophet Zechariah ben Jehoiada still seething on the floor of the temple.111 Zechariah had been stoned roughly a hundred years earlier in the court of the temple at the command of king Jehoash (ca. 836–797 BCE) because he had fortold the destruction of Jerusalem (2 Chr 24:17–22). Nebuzaradan tried in vain to soothe Zechariah’s blood, slaying countless Israelites on the spot. The foaming blood only 108

109

110 111

Al-Bīrūnī writes “the two kings of Rome” (‫)ﻣﻠﻜﻰ اﻟﺮوﻢ‬, meaning with ar-Rūm here indeed the Western Roman Empire. But since in Arabic sources the term more often meant the Eastern Roman Empire, Sachau (1879, p. 297) translated “Greek kings”. Already Ṭabarī, from whose History al-Bīrūnī quotes (see below), had noted that the attribution to Nebuchadnezzar is erronneous for chronological reasons (Perlmann 1987, pp. 107–108 [717–718]; in the following, the numbers in square brackets quoted alongside Perlmann’s translation refer to the edition of Ṭabarī’s Arabic text by Goeje 1882). Ṭabarī attributed the second destruction of Jerusalem correctly to “Titus, son of Vespasian the king of Rome” (Perlmann 1987, p. 99 [706–707]). ‫ﺟﻮذرز ﺑﻦ ﺳﺎﺑﻮر ﺑﻦ اﻓﻘﻮرﺷﺎ‬. Obviously, al-Bīrūnī refers here to the History of Ṭabarī (839– 923 CE) who reports that the Arsacid ruler Ǧūḏarz, son of Sābūr, son of Afqūr “attacked the Israelites to avenge the death of the Baptist” (Perlmann 1987, p. 101 [710]). Judging by the form of the name as it has been preserved by Ṭabarī, the element šā (‫ )ﺷﺎ‬in “Afqūr-šā” of al-Bīrūnī’s account appears to be a distorted form of the title šāh (‫“ )ﺷﺎه‬king”, and not part of the name. Ṭabarī calls that king also “Ǧūḏarz, son of Ašakān” (Perlmann 1987, p. 97 [705] with note 275). Only for chronological reasons, the king Ṭabarī was dealing with could have been Gotarzes II of Parthia who had been ruling for 13 years from 38–51 CE. Ṭabarī, however, assigns to him a reign of 59 years (Perlmann 1987, p. 101 [710]). It is not clear to me how the tradition about Gotarzes II attacking Jerusalem emerged at all. During Gotarzes’ rule, Jerusalem had been part of the Roman Empire, undisputed by the Persians. ‫ﺳﺎآﻨﻰ ﺑﻴﺖ اﻟﻤﻘﺪس‬, literally “inhabitants of Bayt al-maqdis (= Jerusalem)”. Ginzberg 1947/IV, p. 304. For the sources and a discussion see Ginzberg 1946/VI, pp. 396–397, note 30. One version replaces Nebuzaradan with Nebuchadnezzar.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 1: Introduction

32

grew quiet when Nebuzaradan asked the ghost of the murdered prophet whether he desired the whole people to be slain in retaliation. In the Christian adaptation related by Ṭabarī112 and al-Bīrūnī this legend is transferred to the blood of John the Baptist, the son of – another, much later – Zechariah.113 The stories of the destructions of Jerusalem cling at least as much to the name “Zechariah”, as they do to the name “Nebuchadnezzar”. Ṭabarī in fact mentiones the older “Zechariah” directly before “John, son of Zechariah” among the prophets God sent to the Israelites.114 The most elaborate version, attributed by Ṭabarī to Ibn Isḥāq,115 comes very close to the original Jewish legend, but it replaces Zechariah ben Jehoiada with John the Baptist, son of Zechariah, and Nebuchadnezzar with “a king of the kings of Babylon called Ḫardūs”,116 apparently meaning Herod Antipas, under whose reign the Baptist was beheaded. However, it keeps the figure of Nebuzaradan, Nebuchadnezzar’s official.117 The capture of Jerusalem in 614 CE by the Persian Sassanids under king Khosrau II provided another opportunity to make history intelligible and meaningful by means of typification, repetition, and re-enactment. The report by the Christian monk Antiochos Strategos on the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614 CE and on the following exile of the Christians of Jerusalem under the patriarch Zachariah (Zacharias) to Ctesiphon abounds in allusions to the passion of Jesus on the one hand, and to the first exile of the Judeans to Babylonia on the other.118 Destruction of Jerusalem

Evil (enemy) King

Good Prophet/Priest

586 BCE

Nebuchadnezzar Nebuzaradan “Nebuchadnezzar” “Herod, king of Babylon” “Nebuzaradan” “Babylonian king”

Zechariah b. Jehoiada

70

CE

614

CE

John the Baptist, son of Zechariah patriarch Zachariah

In his report on the capture of Jerusalem in 614 CE, Antiochos Strategos frequently likens the Christians of Jerusalem, in particular their patriarch Zachariah, to Jesus:

112

113 114 115 116

117 118

Related at length and in various versions from different informants, see Perlmann 1987, pp. 54–55 [657], 103–104 [713]: Nebuchadnezzar and John (the Baptist), son of Zechariah; pp. 105–106 [715–716]: Nebuchadnezzar and the Baptist, with the Romans helping in the destruction (p. 106 [717]). The legend and its motifs have been recently discussed by Swartz 2009, pp. 436–439, and by van Gelder 2011. Perlmann 1987, p. 108 [720]. Perlmann 1987, pp. 108–111; Goeje 1882, pp. 719–723. Herod = ‫ﺧﺮدوس‬, with variants: ‫ﮐﺮدوس‬, ‫ﺣﺮدوش‬, ‫ﺟﺮدوس‬, etc. (Goeje 1882, p. 720 and passim). The name of Herod perhaps got mixed up with the Parthian royal name Orodes/Hyrodes/Hurauda. As Nabūzarāḏān = ‫( ﻧﺒﻮزراذان‬Goeje 1882, p. 720 and passim). The Greek original of Antiochos’ report is lost, but the text is extant in an Old Georgian version; English translation in excerpts by Conybeare 1910, full translation in Latin by Garitte 1960.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: “Nebuchadnezzar”, Khosrau and Jerusalem

33

– Jews buy Christians to slaughter them, “as they bought the Lord from Judas for silver”119; – patriarch Zachariah is “conducted [by the Persians] to Sion through the gate through which our Lord Jesus Christ came in” (Conybeare 1910, p. 509); – patriarch Zachariah is led out like Jesus “when he went forth from Sion to the cross”, or like Adam when he went “forth from paradise” (Conybeare 1910, p. 509); – certain Christians bury the corpses of the Christians, resembling “Nicodemus who buried the body of the Lord” (Conybeare 1910, p. 514); – the holy cross stands before the Persian king, “as our Lord Jesus Christ stood before the ruler Pilate” (Conybeare 1910, p. 512). Even more often, the new exile to Babylonia is presented as a re-enactment of the Babylonian exile of the Judeans under Nebuchadnezzar: – the capture of Jerusalem and the new exile happened because of the sins of the people, for chastisement (Conybeare 1910, p. 512); – craftsmen are singled out and deported (Conybeare 1910, pp. 507–508); – people are deported into Persia/Babylon (Conybeare 1910, pp. 508–511); – “all that happened in former days of the people of Israel and in the time of Moses” happened again (Conybeare 1910, p. 511); – psalm 137 is sung “by the river of Babylon” (Conybeare 1910, p. 511); – people enter “Babylon” (i.e. Ctesiphon), into the presence of the evil king Khosrau II (Conybeare 1910, pp. 511–512); – contest between the patriarch Zachariah and the magi of the Persian king, putting them to shame (Conybeare 1910, pp. 512–513).120 In the end however, king Khosrau II “was slain by his son” (in 628 CE), as Sennacherib had been in times of old, and the cross finally returned to Jerusalem, in a box unopened by the pagans, “just as the ark of the covenant was left unopened among strangers”.121 119 120

121

Thus with Garitte 1960, p. 18 (X:4): “a Iuda”. Conybeare 1910, p. 508, certainly erroneously, translates “from the Jews” instead of “from Judas”. Without referring verbally to Moses and Aaron before the pharao (Ex 7:8–13), or to Daniel before Nebuchadnezzar (Dan 2; 4; 5), the text obviously re-enacts these competitions between the servant of the “true god” and the “false” and powerless pagan magi. The text cleverly refrains from ascribing some faint miracle to Zachariah, but elaborates on a trick question asked by Zachariah which demonstrates that the magi had no command of divine wisdom. The plot recalls the scene described in Dan 2:1–45, when Nebuchadnezzar asks his sages not only to explain a dream he saw, but to tell him his dream without being told. Conybeare 1910, p. 516. – It is strange and interesting to hear about the – alleged – whereabouts of the ark of the covenant after the destruction of the first temple, since we do not have any actual information on it. In the biblical texts on the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the ark is passed over in silence and after the exile it is not mentioned again as an existing object. In the name of Yahweh, the prophet Jeremiah (3:16) declares, obviously during the exile, that in those better days that are to come the ark “shall not come to mind or be remembered or missed – it shall not be made again”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

34

Chapter 1: Introduction

Composed in a Christian setting in the second half of the first millennium CE, and imparted by the Jewish reports on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, the report by Antiochos Strategos unwittingly follows closely the Babylonian concept of the fall of the great city by divine wrath, the abduction of sacred statues or vessels, and the eventual restoration of divine favour.122 The report even makes use of the element of the “wicked enemy king slain by his own son” as ultimate retaliation for his sacrilege. This topos had originally been formulated by the Babylonians as the classic punishment of a wicked king who would dare to lay his hands upon Marduk and Babylon.123 From Marduk and Babylon it had been transferred by the Judeans to Yahweh and Jerusalem in the biblical accounts on Sennacherib.124 As a biblical account, the story became prolific also in Christian and finally in Islamic writings, as we shall see below. The comparison with Sennacherib is not made verbally in the text of Antiochos, but we are certainly safe to assume that Antiochos’ audience recognized the motif. Khosrau had indeed been killed by order of his son Siroes who ascended the throne under the name Kavadh II, ruling only for a few months in 628 CE.125 But, as Nöldeke has pointed out after reviewing the different versions about the death of Khosrau, the exact circumstances of the killing had probably never been known.126 It is fairly clear that Khosrau II had not been killed by his son Siroes directly. Rather, he had been arrested and executed at his son’s command after some kind of trial, as described in novelistic detail by Ṭabarī.127 However, the version maintaining that Khosrau was slain by his own son personally as a Sennacherib redivivus was far more popular among the Christian chroniclers who wanted to see the wicked king suffer as a punishment for his conquest of Jerusalem. In the following, we shall briefly survey the most interesting versions about the death of Khosrau. According to Ṭabarī, Khosrau was beheaded with a sword at Siroes’ command by the son of a former courtier whom Khosrau had wronged and killed.128 The anonymous Khuzistan Chronicle (late 7th cent. CE) relates a similar version but knows of two Persian nobles who set out to kill Khosrau with a sword and an axe,

122 123 124 125 126

127 128

See the discussion of this complex in chapter 4. See the discussion on pp. 123ff. below. 2 Ki 19:37; 2 Chr 32:21; Isa 37:38; see p. 125 below. A recent and detailed survey is given by Howard-Johnston 2006, pp. 96–97. Nöldeke 1879, p. 382, note 1: “Der wahre Hergang ist wohl nie recht bekannt geworden. Sicher ist nur, dass er auf seines Sohnes Befehl im Stillen hingerichtet wurde, wahrscheinlich, dass dies auf Drängen der Grossen geschah.” Translation by Bosworth 1999, pp. 381–398. Bosworth 1999, pp. 396–398. The Armenian chronicle attributed to Sebeos introduces an executioner who kills Khosrau at his son’s command: “[…] on y amena un bourreau. Sur l’ordre du roi Kawat on le tua” (Macler 1904, p. 85). This version, however, appears to have originated from a mistake of the ancient scribe. The “executioner” is to be deleted from the text, but the figure of Siroes-Kavadh ordering the execution remains, see Dowsett 1961, p. 92, note 1; Thomson & Howard-Johnston 1999, p. 85, with note 528, commentary on p. 221.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: “Nebuchadnezzar”, Khosrau and Jerusalem

35

in order to avenge their fathers. Only one of them kills Khosrau, with two blows of the axe, one in either shoulder.129 According to Theophanes the Confessor (8th–9th cent. CE), Khosrau had been arrested by his son Siroes who had him bound and held prisoner in a dungeon. After some days in close confinement and humiliation “Siroes commanded that he should be killed with bow and arrows, and thus in slow pain he gave up his wicked soul.”130 The Chronicon Paschale (mid-7th cent. CE) gives a similar report but uses a phrasing that has Siroes take a more active part in the killing: Siroes his firstborn son “killed the same ingrate, arrogant, blaspheming opponent of God by a most cruel death.”131 In the Muslim tradition, the ancient Babylonian and biblical motif of the wicked king who opposes God and is killed by his own sons finally comes full circle in a new setting again. Now, the scene is no longer set at Babylon or Jerusalem, but at Mecca. And here it is the prophet Muḥammad, the messenger of God, against whom Khosrau rages, ordering his local governor to kill him.132 But instead, God has Khosrau killed in turn. Ibn Hišām says: “God killed Khosrau on the day which the prophet had named. He was killed by his son Siroes.” In addition, Ibn Hišām quotes a verse of an Arabic poet: “And Khosrau, when his sons cut him to pieces with swords as pieces of meat are cut (…).”133 This last version, stating that Khosrau was killed by “his sons”, is particularly interesting since Siroes-Kavadh had not only his father executed but also his brothers in order to eliminate possible rivals.134 So the plural “sons” only makes sense if we understand it as a motif adopted from the biblical reports on the murder of Sennacherib.135

129

130 131

132 133

134 135

Nöldeke 1893, p. 29; Guidi 1903, pp. 24–25; quoted by Whitby 1989 p. 184, note 485. Similarly, Khosrau is said to have been beheaded with a sword by some unnamed persons, but not by his son, according to the Old Armenian History by Movses Daskhurantsi (10th cent. CE; Dowsett 1961, p. 92). Mango & Scott 1997, p. 455 = pagina 327. Whitby 1989, p. 183. Furthermore, the author of the Chronicon Paschale rejoices over the fall of Khosrau: “Fallen is arrogant Khosrau, opponent of God. He is fallen and cast down to the depths of the earth!” He obviously quotes Isa 14:12: “How you have fallen from heaven, O morning Star, son of Dawn! You are cut down to the earth, you who laid low the nations!” The taunt of Isa 14:4b–21, directed to Babylonia, respectively to Assyria (Isa 14:25), may well be a redacted version of a mockery originally aiming at the Assyrian kings Sargon II or Sennacherib (Gallagher 1999, pp. 87–90). After Guillaume 1955, p. 699: Ibn Hišām’s note (55) on Ibn Isḥāq’s Life of the Prophet (p. 34 = pagina 46 after the edition of the Arabic text by Wüstenfeld 1858). ‫ وآﺴﺮى إذ ﺗﻘﺴّﻤﻪ ﺑﻨﻮه ﺑﺄﺳﻴﺎف آﻤﺎ اﻗﺘﺴﻢ اﻟﻠﺤﺎم‬. Ibn Hišām attributes this verse to Ḫālid b. Ḥiqq aš-Šaybānī. Ǧawālīqī in his Al-muʿarrab attributes the same verse to ʿAmrū (or ʿUmaru) b. Ḥassāna (Sachau 1867, Arab. p. 128, see also his commentary ibidem p. 54 on Arab. p. 118, third line from below). As related by Ṭabarī and others (Bosworth 1999, pp. 398–399). 2 Ki 19:37; 2 Chr 32:21; Isa 37:38. On the death of Sennacherib see pp. 124f. and 526f.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

2. Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur The story of king Ibbi-Sîn (ca. 2028–2004 BCE) and the destruction of Ur is, in its basic oulines, a rather simple story. Being the last king of the once lofty and powerful Third Dynasty of Ur, it was during his reign that the decline of the empire set in most painfully and that the final downfall came about. The dramatic ending is told only in later, highly literary texts. The factual decline of the empire, however, can already be seen from contemporary archival sources. As usual, the final collapse of the empire is not documented, at least not at Ur proper, since the administration and the literate social classes perished together with the ruling dynasty. All we have is later, circumstantial evidence.

1

Figure 1: Royal Gift Seal, presented to the official Ur-niĝar by his lord, king Ibbi-Sîn.136 King Ibbi-Sîn (seated) receives in audience his servant, Ur-niĝar (middle), escorted by a protective deity (far left).

It is clear, but not needless to say, that the actual, personal character of the human being, which Ibbi-Sîn was, is completely hidden behind the façades of his office and later literary interpretation. We do not come any closer to his personality than the image of his kingship issued by the official “portrait photography” of the royal court presented in the seal above.

136

Reconstructed from seal impressions from Ur; Mayr & Owen 2004, pp. 159, 162, 168, no. 24. The nature and meaning of the small object the king presents to his servant – apparently a vessel, not the seal – is still unclear (Winter 1986, p. 265). The inscription reads: (I:1) di-bí-den.zu (2) diĝir kalam-ma-na (3) lugal kalag-ga (4) lugal uri5ki-ma (5) lugal an ub-da límmu-ba-ke4 (II:1) ur-ni9-ĝar (2) pisan-dub-ba (3) dumu ar-ši-aḫ (4) ir11-da-ni-ir (5) inna-ba. “(I:1) (Divine) Ibbi-Suʾen, (2) (protective) deity of his country, (3) powerful king, (4) king of Ur, (5) king of the four regions of the world (II:5) has presented (this seal) (4) to his servant (1) Ur-niĝar, (2) the accountant, (3) the son of Arši-aḫ.” – The grandeur of IbbiSîns titles – “(protective) deity of his country, powerful king, king of the four regions of the world” – is at odds with his real power, see Sollberger 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Historical Ibbi-Sîn

37

2.1. General Outlines of Ibbi-Sîn’s Reign During his reign of roughly 24 years,137 Ibbi-Sîn had to face very early on the disintegration of his realm,138 accelerated by the betrayal and extortion at the hands of his allies and his once loyal officials. The name of Ibbi-Sîn’s sixth regnal year commemorates his restoration of the walls of Nippur and Ur, but rather quickly afterwards he lost his grip on the north. In Ibbi-Sîn’s eighth year, Išbi-Erra, an official whom Ibbi-Sîn – according to later, literary sources – had entrusted with guarding the cities Isin and Nippur, took control of Nippur and made himself independent king of Isin.139 Already at the very beginning of Ibbi-Sîn’s reign, in his regnal years 1–3, a reduction of food rations can be observed in the “messenger texts” from ĜišaUmma and Ĝirsu.140 The documents issued at the stockyard at Puzriš-Dagān end on XII/30/Ibbi-Sîn 2, although Ibbi-Sîn’s control of Nippur lasted until his seventh year.141 Over the years Ibbi-Sîn 1–2, the animals were no longer fed and fattened with grain, but only with fresh reeds.142 The number and quality of the sacrifices offered to the gods declined after the sixth regnal year of Ibbi-Sîn, partly because 137

138

139

140 141 142

There are 24 individual year names attested for Ibbi-Sîn, see Sollberger 1976–1980 (RlA 5), pp. 5–7; Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 361–366; Sallaberger 1999, pp. 173–174. The year name listed as “0” by Sollberger 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 5 is merely a slip of the stylus of the ancient scribe who erroneouly inserted Ibbi-Sîn’s name (or rather only the sequence di-bí-) into the formula of the ninth and last year of Šu-Sîn, his predecessor (Sollberger, ibidem p. 2). The various manuscripts of the Sumerian King List attribute to Ibbi-Sîn “15” (read *[10+]10+5 = *25), 23, 24 or 25 years (Jacobsen 1939, pp. 122–123, VIII:17–18 with note 331; Vincente 1995, p. 243, IV:12). On the decline of the empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur, in particular during the reign of Ibbi-Sîn, see Falkenstein 1950a and 1950b; Jacobsen 1941, pp. 219–221; Jacobsen 1953; Edzard 1957, pp. 44–49; Wilcke 1970a; Sollberger 1976–1980; Michalowski 1989, pp. 1–3; Sallaberger 1999, pp. 174–178; Charpin 2004, pp. 60–64; Michalowski 2011, pp. 170–177. On the decline of the archives of the Third Dynasty of Ur see in particular Lafont 1995 and the summary by Michalowski 2011, pp. 177–179. On the “persona” of Ibbi-Sîn – a tricky question – see Sharlach 2013. Sharlach poses the question whether it might have been the young age at which Ibbi-Sîn came to the throne, resulting in lack of experience and weakness which may have contributed to the decline of the empire. However, the idea of the inexperienced “boy king” is quite certainly to be dismissed, see p. 41 below. Furthermore, I do not think that personalizing and psychologizing the collapse of complex political and economic systems is a good idea. Focusing on the alledged “personality” of the royal individual is but a modern variant of an ancient Near Eastern attitude: They discussed piety, we discuss psyche. On the synchronism of Ibbi-Sîn 8 = Išbi-Erra 1 see Van de Mieroop 1987a, pp. 125–126; Lafont 1995, p. 10; Sallaberger 1999, p. 175; Michalowski 2011, pp. 182–185: “The Usurpation of Power by Išbi-Erra”. – Literary reflections of Išbi-Erra’s rise and Isin’s claim to hegemony are found in the letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur, see the excerpts in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. See Sallaberger 1999, pp. 175–176 on the economic crisis on the whole, see ibidem p. 176 and McNeil 1970, pp. 63–64 on the “messenger texts”. Sallaberger 1993/I, pp. 26–27; Sallaberger 1999, p. 176; Paoletti 2012a, pp. 27, 341. Sallaberger 1999, p. 176.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

38

Chapter 2: Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur

the ensis of the realm ceased delivering the sacrificial animals for the eššēšu offerings for the moon-god Nanna.143 During the same time, the price for grain rose by a factor of fifteen to as high as sixty,144 although the arable land was intensively cultivated.145 A sheep could become more expensive than an ox in normal times.146 We do not know what caused this want which finally led to the demise of the Third Dynasty of Ur, whether overpopulation, the raids by the infamous Amorite Tidnum-bedouins, salinization, or shifting water courses.147 The drammatically deteriorating situation made it necessary to collect precious metal as purchase price for grain even from the temples at Ur. In a text from Ur (Legrain, UET 3, no. 704), dated to the eighth month (iti ezem-dšul-gi) of the year Ibbi-Sîn 13, silver from the storeroom of the “Temple-of-Šulgi-the-Child-of-An” is listed.148 No purpose is specified, but the metal is handed over to the same people who are named four months later in the text Legrain, UET 3, no. 702 as those who collect the “purchase price to Isin”. In this text, dated to the twelfth month (iti ezem-dme-ki-ĝál) of Ibbi-Sîn 13, various amounts of metal (objects) from the temple of Ningal are listed, also broken (metal objects) belonging to the goddess Ninsun, from (her) storeroom, and metal from the temple of Ninkununna. According to its rubrum, the tablet listed “gold, silver, bronze and copper, weighed, crafted objects, taken from individual temples and sanctuaries, in order to pay the price to Isin”.149 Roughly three years later, texts from the Isin Craft Archive from the reign of Išbi-Erra (years 9 and 10 = Ibbi-Sîn 16–17) mention leather bags that are to take in the “silver to be levied in Ur”.150 This means that the texts from Ur and those from Isin refer to similar but different151 occasions when silver and other metals were given from Ur to Isin, probably in order to pay for grain. These transactions appear to be the historical background for the letters from the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur which deal with Ibbi-Sîn’s efforts to purchase grain from Išbi-Erra.152 However, the archival texts and the literary letters have to be 143 144 145 146 147

148 149 150

151

152

Jacobsen 1953, p. 38 with note 17, pp. 41–42. In the years Ibbi-Sîn 6–8, see Gomi 1984, pp. 211–212, 231. Sallaberger 1999, p. 176. Waetzoldt 1988, pp. 43–44. See Sallaberger 1999, pp. 176–177; Michalowski 2011, pp. 172–177. On the Amorites as troublemakers within the realm of the empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur, but not as the principal enemies of Ur see briefly pp. 235f. below. – Vanstiphout (1974 and 1980) even tried to connect the fall of Ur to a plague epidemic. On the texts Legrain, UET 3, nos. 704 and 702 (see immediately below) see Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 114. kù-si22 kù-babbar zabar urudu ki-lá níĝ dím-dím-ma é-diĝir èš-didli-ta è-a mu-níĝšám-ma IN-si-in.ki-šè (Legrain, UET 3, no. 702, rev. 7’–9’). BIN 9, no. 332 (Išbi-Erra 9: mu ús-sa eri mar-tu ba-ḫul), obv. 3: kù-babbar uri5ki-ma kéšře6-dè; BIN 9, no. 386 (Išbi-Erra 10: mu a-šà gibil im-ta!-DU-a), rev. 2–3: kù-babbar kéšře6-dè šà uri5ki-ma. See Van de Mieroop 1987a, pp. 113–114. Legrain 1933, pp. 124–125, no. 12; Matouš (1956, p. 136 with note 2) and apparently also Edzard (1957, pp. 46–47, with note 206 and p. 62) still thought the texts would refer to the same event, but this is outdated, see Van de Mieroop 1987a, pp. 113–114. Edzard 1957, pp. 46–47; Michalowski 1980–1983 (RlA 6), p. 55. The letters are CKU nos. 21–22 (RCU nos. 19–20), see Michalowski 2011, pp. 416–438.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Historical Ibbi-Sîn

39

kept apart since they belong to different genres. In the setting of the literary letters Išbi-Erra is still Ibbi-Sîn’s official, whereas the archival documents come from the time after Išbi-Erra had himself installed as independent king of Isin.153 So, if taken literally, they cannot refer to the same event. Furthermore, as Eleanor Robson has demonstrated, the famous passage in the letter of Išbi-Erra to Ibbi-Sîn dealing with the purchase of grain for Ur is construed around an Old Babylonian school mathematics problem with round numbers.154 This means that this letter is simply no piece of genuine, historical evidence, even though it certainly preserves the memory of hardship and famine during the last days of Ur. One would have expected Ibbi-Sîn to despoil the treasures of the temples of Ur anyway, since this is what normaly happens in times of economic crisis. Similar stories told in other situations comprise the biblical account about Hezekiah peeling the precious metal from the doors of the temple at Jerusalem (2 Ki 18:15– 16) in order to pay the tribute to Sennacherib, or the story about Nero confiscating even the treasures of the temples of Rome in order to finance the rebuilding of the city after the great conflagration (Tacitus, Annales 15:45). However, it is highly remarkable that in the aftermath of the fall of Ur the factual despoliation of the temples of Ur by Ibbi-Sîn himself was not made out as his main and fundamental sin. In fact, it never became a topic at all. Quite quickly, Ibbi-Sîn’s power was reduced to the borders of his capital city Ur, and after some years of decline, impoverishment, hunger, want, and misery the once proud city of Ur fell prey to the invading, “barbarian” hordes of eastern highlanders from Elam and Anšan. We know the tale of the last years of the empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur and its dreadful end only from literary sources that tell the story in retrospect. These sources comprise the corpus of the fictional Royal Correspondence of Ur, cultic lamentations and omens.155 As the enemies of Ibbi-Sîn, the Old Babylonian sources name Šimaški and Elam,156 with a stress on “Elam” which serves as a collective term. The city of Ur was taken, looted, and destroyed.157 The august temples were despoiled and even the statues of the gods residing in them were taken to Anšan as hostages.158 With them the hapless king Ibbi-Sîn was taken to Anšan in fetters, from where he was not to return, but where

153 154

155 156

157 158

Years Ibbi-Sîn 13 and 16–17, corresponding to the years Išbi-Erra 6 and 9–10. Robson 2002, pp. 350–351 on CKU no. 21, the letter of Išbi-Erra to Ibbi-Sîn 1; Ibbi-Sîn’s answer (CKU no. 22) contains a similar calculation; Michalowski 2011, pp. 187–188, p. 420, on l. 8. See Source 1 to Source 7 and the Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra omens (pp. 96f.). The Lament for Sumer and Ur, line 33 (Source 4, A:33; see part E also for Gutium and the Tidnum-bedouins), and the year formulas Išbi-Erra 16 and 27 (see the commentary on Source 16). See the summary in chapter 11.4, A. Described in great detail in the Lament for Ur (Source 7) and in the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4). According to the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, D, l. 375) the gods leave Ur and go to an “alien place”. From an inscription of Šu-ilīšu of Isin (Source 10, A) we learn that he brought (the statues of) the abducted moon-god Nanna – and certainly also his divine family and entourage – back to Ur from Anšan.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

40

Chapter 2: Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur

he was to die.159 In the aftermath of the conquest and the destruction of Ur, the Elamites installed a garrison at the site which was driven out by Išbi-Erra only eight years later.160 Some twenty years after the fall of Ur, the kings of the First Dynasty of Isin, who in fact had played a key role in the decline of Ur, were able to bring the abducted gods back to Sumer and Ur.161 2.2. Ibbi-Sîn’s Family Relations The fact that Ibbi-Sîn was a member of the royal house of the Third Dynasty of Ur and related to Šulgi becomes explicitly important within the framework and the logics of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Implicitly, it already plays a role in the letter dealing with Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (Source 3). There, the boasts uttered in Šulgi’s Self-Praise B form the back-ground for Ibbi-Sîn’s failure. According to the concept of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), Ibbi-Sîn was the “son” (māru) of Šulgi.162 The term “son” is not always to be taken literally. It can also mean “grandson” or “descendant”, and in the framework of the Esaĝil Chronicle it primarily means that by way of lineage and kin liability the sins of Šulgi finally reached Ibbi-Sîn, his descendant and successor, as a punishment.163 Until recently, Ibbi-Sîn was quite naturally considered to have been the son of his predecessor ŠuSîn.164 Yet, according to seal-inscriptions from the Garšana archives, Simat-Ištarān, daughter of Amar-Sîn,165 was the sister of Šu-Sîn and of Ibbi-Sîn as well,166 which makes Šu-Sîn and Ibbi-Sîn brothers, sons of Amar-Sîn and grandsons of Šulgi. Among Ibbi-Sîn’s wider family, there was also the famous uncle Babati, the brother of Amar-Sîn’s wife Abī-simtī, who by his accumulation of offices and proud selfrepresentation was a living symbol of the decline of Ur’s central power.167 Ibbi-Sîn had at least one wife, Geme-Enlila,168 and two daughters, Šulgi-simtī and Mammētum.169 We know of no son who would have been heir. Compared to the 159 160 161 162 163 164 165

166

167 168 169

On Ibbi-Sîn’s end see in detail chapter 2.4 below. See the year formula Išbi-Erra 27 (in the commentary on Source 16), dealing with the final expulsion of the last Elamites from Ur. See the discussion on pp. 50f. below, in particular the commentary on Source 10. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 75. On Šulgi’s sin see the discussion on pp. 131f. and on king no. 11 in chapter 7.3. See e.g. Sallaberger 1999, p. 172. According to the Sumerian King List, Ibbi-Sîn was the “son (dumu) of Šu-Sîn” (Jacobsen 1939, p. 122, VIII:17). Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 267, no. 13; Such-Gutiérrez 2009–2011 (RlA 12), p. 505; Heimpel 2009, p. 3 with note 5: unpublished seal legend that identifies Simat-Ištarān’s husband Šu-Kabta as son-in-law of Amar-Sîn; Michalowski 2013, p. 297. Owen & Mayr 2007, p. 429, seal no. 3b, seal of Adad-tillatī, scribe of Šu-Kabta and later, after his death, scribe of his wife Simat-Ištarān: naming Simat-Ištarān, the beloved sister (nin9-ki-áĝ-ĝá-ni) of Šu-Sîn; p. 432, seal no. 26b, seal of Ea-šar, scribe of Šu-Kabta and his wife Simat-Ištarān: Simat-Išta[rān], the beloved sister (nin9-ki-áĝ-ĝ[á-ni]) of Ibbi-Sîn. Michalowski 1976, pp. 48–56; Whiting 1976; Walker 1983; Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 340– 342, nos. 32–33; Sallaberger 1999, pp. 167–168. See recently and in detail Weiershäuser 2008, pp. 164–169. On Ibbi-Sîns family see the overview by Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 375–377.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Historical Ibbi-Sîn

41

extensive families of the other kings of Ur III,170 who had several wives and numerous children, Ibbi-Sîn’s nuclear family as it is known appears to be extremely small. This is probably due to the dwindling written documentation during his reign. By the time of Ibbi-Sîn’s fall, we have to reckon with hundreds of members of the wider royal house of Ur. However, only the king’s fate is dealt with in the literary tradition. As an Assyriologist, one is accustomed to the ancient Near Eastern fixation on the figure of the king alone. Nevertheless, it is necessary to realize that our sources do not even bother to tell us anything at all about the fate of the other members of the royal family. No mention ever is made of Geme-Enlila, not even as an “appendix” to Ningal, even though the royal spouses also played an important role in the cultic and public life of the Third Dynasty of Ur.171 Recently, Tonia Sharlach has revived the presumption brought up by Thorkild Jacobsen and again by Piotr Steinkeller,172 that the royal woman by the name Geme-Enlila whom Ibbi-Sîn took in marriage might have been his own sister. Starting from there, she also revived Jacobsen’s speculation that Ibbi-Sîn may “have become king while still an unmarried youth”, a “boy king”.173 However, as Piotr Michalowski, Walther Sallaberger and most recently Frauke Weiershäuser have demonstrated,174 there are at least two royal women by the name Geme-Enlila who have to be kept apart. The one is the wife of Ibbi-Sîn, another one is a daughter of Šu-Sîn and lukur-priestess of Ninurta. Sharlach’s other supposition which is interwoven with the speculation that Ibbi-Sîn might have married his sister, namely that he was an inexperienced “boy king”, has no proper fundamentum in re. We simply do not know when Ibbi-Sîn was born, neither do we have any material that would allow us to judge his character. But since Ibbi-Sîn, who ascended the throne 18 years after the death of Šulgi, had a daughter by the name Šulgi-simtī (“Šulgi-Is-My-Decorum”), her “court name”175 strongly suggests that she was born when Šulgi had still been reigning. If this is correct, it means that Ibbi-Sîn was at least in his mid-thirties when he became king. Then, he must have been around 60 years old when Ur fell. 2.3. Ibbi-Sîn’s Name and Titles The original writing of the royal name Ibbi-Sîn (or more correctly Ibbi-Suʾen), “Sîn-has-called-(him-into-being)”, is di-bí-den.zu.176 The cultic lamentations from the early Old Babylonian (Isin I) period adhere to the Ur III orthography,

170 171 172 173 174 175 176

See the family tree of the royal house of Ur in Dahl 2007, p. 31, fig. 4. See Weiershäuser 2008, pp. 179–185: chapters 9.1–2 on the roles of the queens of Ur III; chapter 6.1 on the cultic duties of Geme-Enlila. Jacobsen 1953, p. 37; Steinkeller 1981, pp. 80–81; Sharlach 2013, pp. 427–430. Quotations from Jacobsen 1953, p. 37 and Sharlach 2013, p. 426. Michalowski 1982, pp. 136–138; Sallaberger in ZA 82, 1992, p. 134 on Puzriš-Dagan-Texte II, no. 1056; Sallaberger 1999, p. 184; Weiershäuser 2008, pp. 164–165. On the kyriophoric names of officials and members of the royal family of the Third Dynasty of Ur see Hilgert 2002b. See e.g. his royal inscriptions: Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 369–374, passim.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

42

Chapter 2: Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur

sometimes omitting the divine determinative: (d)i-bí-den.zu.177 The Old Babylonian omen tradition is divided. While the omens from Mari read i-bí-d(+)en.zu,178 the texts from Larsa (see p. 83) published in YOS 10 write (I)i-bi-d(+)en.zu.179 The Middle Assyrian manuscript (A) of the omen from Source 29 spells the name as Ii-bi5-d30, using a variant of the basic sign bí and replacing the ancient orthography den.zu with the modern spelling d30. In like manner, the Neo-Babylonian omens which are very often extant via the Neo-Assyrian Nineveh tradition consistently write (I)ibí-d30.180 This orthography seems also to appear in a Late Babylonian copy of a list of kings, sages, and scholars from Seleucid Uruk, if the name is correctly restored there.181 In stark contrast, the Late Babylonian Esaĝil Chronicle spells the name thoroughly modernized as Iim-bi-d30.182 Overview d i- bí- den.zu Ur III (d) i- bí- den.zu Isin I Mari Omens i- bí- d(+)en.zu (I) i- bi- d(+)en.zu Omens from southern Mesopotamia YOS 10 (probably from Larsa, see p. 83) I i- bi5- d30 Middle Assyrian omen (Source 29, A) (I) i- bí- d30 Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian omens I im- bi- d30 Late Babylonian (Source 35, l. 75) The Book of Prodigies, extant only in Neo-Assyrian manuscripts copied by the scribe Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, uses the highly sophisticated writing I⌈babbar⌉-a-še-em-me-íbbi.183 This is a mixed cryptography, using the allonym Ašim-babbar for the moongod Sîn and writing the elements of the royal name back to front: babbar-Ašem-ibbi = ibbi-Ašim-babbar = Ibbi-Sîn. Furthermore, the syllabic value íb helps to conceal the meaning of the name, since in the first millennium this sign was nearly exclusively used for tum or tu4. Although the traditional writings of the name in i-bí and i-bi5 are highly archaizing and nearly cryptographic in the first millennium, the NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian spellings in íb-bi and im-bi demonstrate that even as late as then the name was still correctly understood as ibbi, derived from nabû “to call”. The titles which Ibbi-Sîn used during his reign are the following:184 diĝir kalam-ma-na “(protective) deity of his country, lugal kalag-ga powerful king, king of Ur, lugal uri5ki-ma king of the four regions of the world” lugal an-ub-da límmu-ba-ke4

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184

See: di-bí-den.zu (Source 4, A:35; B1:105); i-bí !-d+en.zu (Source 5, line 2’). Source 12, Source 13 and Source 14. Source 20, Source 21, Source 22, A and C2, Source 24, A and B. See Source 52, Source 54 (l. 4), Source 61, Source 62, Source 63, Source 64, Source 65, and Source 66. See in the comments on the date of Source 39, with note 1698. Source 35, l. 75, manuscript S. Source 36, line 1. See again his royal inscriptions: Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 369–374, passim.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Historical Ibbi-Sîn

43

Among these titles, only the title “king of Ur” is used to identify him in the later tradition (Source 54, l. 4; Source 62). In a celestial omen from the first millennium, whose elements are in fact identical with those of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, the name of Ibbi-Sîn and the title “king of Ur” do not occur.185 Instead, we find the title “king of Babylonia” (šar māt Akkadî), a more modern term which provides the opportunity to identify a contemporary ruler with the king from the past. Written logographically, the homophonous lugal uri2/5ki (šar Uri) and lugal uriki (šar māt Akkadî) even sounded alike: lugal uri.186 The concept of the king being the (protective) deity of his city, his people or country was first fully formulated during the Old Akkadian period.187 The first historical king who enjoyed divine honours consistently, with his name written with the divine determinative, with a temple built for him, and who sometimes even wore the divine horned crown, was Narām-Sîn of Akkade (ca. 2270–2235 BCE). The deification of Narām-Sîn of Akkade can be correlated with a historical event. When “the four corners of the world” rose in rebellion against him and his city Akkade, he victoriously fought “nine campaigns in one year” and saved Akkade from destruction. Gratefully, the citizens of Akkade asked the gods for permission to worship Narām-Sîn as “god of their city”. Hence, his name was written with a divine determinative, and a temple was built for him in Akkade.188 The deification of Narām-Sîn, as well as the subsequent deification of most of the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur is due to the worship of the divine element of the king functioning as lamma, the “protective deity of his country”.189 This notion was eventually verbalized in the Sumerian royal epithet diĝir kalam-ma-na “(protective) deity of his country”, which emerged under Šulgi.190 Šulgi himself, however, used the epithet only rarely.191 Mostly, it was attributed to him as an honorific predicate by his subjects, paying homage to their king.192 Under Ibbi-Sîn, 185 186 187 188 189

190 191 192

See pp. 28f. on Source 56, l. 4; cf. also Source 60 with the catchphrase amūt šar māt Akkadî ša šaḫluqti “omen pertaining to the king of Babylonia meaning disaster”. This homophony obviously plays a role in the omen of Source 56, see the commentary there on line 4, and probably also in the omen of Source 60. See the detailed discussion of the sacred and priestly king in chapter 11.2 below. See the summary given by Westenholz 1999, pp. 51–54. See, among the “good names” showered upon Šulgi by Enlil, the epithet sipa dlamma kalam-ma “the shepherd, the protective deity of the land” in Šulgi’s “Coronation Hymn” (G, l. 23; Klein 1991, pp. 302, 309); Wilcke 1974, pp. 179–180; Sallaberger 1999, pp. 152–154; Steinkeller 2017, p. 152, note 412; see also the discussion on pp. 220f. Seux 1967, pp. 389–390; Wilcke 1974, p. 179; Steinkeller 2017, p. 152. I know of only two cases among Šulgi’s rather numerous inscriptions: Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 141, no. 33, l. 2: diĝir ma-ti-šu; p. 160, no. 58, l. 4: diĝir kalam-ma-na. Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 181, no. 83, l. 2; p. 223, no. 2038, l. 5; p. 228, no. 2046, l. 3’. There is also a variant of the date formula of Šulgi 42 using the epithet: mu dšul-gi diĝir⌈kalam-ma⌉-ke4 ša-šú-ru-umki mu-ḫul “Year (after) Šulgi the “god of the land” had destroyed Šaššurum” (Keiser, YOS 4, no. 92; Seux 1967, p. 389). Wilcke (1974, pp. 179, 188 with note 32) quotes for Ibbi-Sîn the epithet diĝir zi kalam-ma-na “true god of his country” from Sollberger, UET 8, no. 26. This text, however, is inscribed in the name of Šulgi, and the epithet is not used there. This particular form of the epithet, adding the adjective zi(-d) “true”, appears to be used once by Amar-Sîn (Frayne, RIME 3/2, p.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

44

Chapter 2: Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur

the situation is converse. Interestingly, the epithet is consistently used only by Ibbi-Sîn himself. It is employed in each of his four extant royal inscriptions, as well as in the inscription of an agate bead dedicated by him to Nanna.193 In the seal inscriptions of the members of his family and of officials naming the king, the ambitious epithet is surprisingly rare.194 As it ultimately turned out to be, Ibbi-Sîn was unable to meet the expectations associated with the title anyway. In the Old Babylonian period, in a literary letter from the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur, Ibbi-Sîn’s claim to divinity is finally even ridiculed on the background of his blatant insufficiencies in understanding an omen sent to him by Enlil, warning him of his imminent downfall. The author of the fictional letter puts the following phrase into the mouth of the conceited king, directed to an official of his: “You know very well that I own (elements) of divinity!”195 The title “king of the four regions of the world” emerges under Narām-Sîn of Akkade and is consistently used by the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur, also by Ibbi-Sîn.196 Ironically, it were the enemies swept in by the “four winds of heaven” who brought about Ibbi-Sîn’s disastrous end.197 With a shift of emphasis from the vastness of the empire to the intensity of dominion, the concept of the title survives in the form šar kiššati “king of All/the world” and appears in a complex omen from the first millennium, preserving all the hallmarks of the Ibbi-Sîn tradition:198 devastation of Ur at the command of Sîn, defilement of the land, want, hunger and revolt, and finally the death of the king. Etymologically, kiššatu “totality” and kiššūtu “absolute dominion” are derived from the verb kašāšu “to master completely”.199 As far as I can see, the term šar kiššati “king of All” always kept its positive meaning in royal titulature. However, at least in omen literature

193 194

195

196 197 198 199

265, no. 17, l. 10: diĝir zi kalam-ma-na; Lämmerhirt 2010, p. 37). Amar-Sîn also uses once the variant form “true god, sun-god of his country” (Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 263, no. 16, ll. 10–11: diĝir zi / dutu kalam-ma-na). See Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 368–374. The inscriptions nos. 2, 3 and 4 are only known from Old Babylonian copies, but these copies appear to be trustworthy. See Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 374–389. The seal inscriptions calling Ibbi-Sîn the “god of his/the country” are in fact the inscription on a votive seal of Ibbi-Sîn himself (ibidem p. 374, no. 5, l. 4), the seal of Dada the governor of Nippur (ibidem p. 384, no. 2007, l. 2), and the seal of Sîn-abūšu “childhood companion of the king” (ibidem p. 389, l. 2), a close friend. The title is also used in the seal inscription of a scribe called Nanna-[kam] from Ur (Legrain, UET 3, no. 254; Seux 1967, p. 389), and in a private votive inscription for the life of Ibbi-Sîn from Nippur (Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 391, no. 2016, l. 5). mu-e-zu-zu diĝir-ra ĝá-a-kam, line 32 of the long version of the Letter of Ibbi-Sîn to Puzur-Numušda no. 1 (Source 3, RCU no. 22 = CKU no. 24), see p. 265 below with note 1265. – See note 775 on p. 165 for a similar critique, disputing the divinity of Šu-Sîn even during his reign. In Akkadian: šar kibrātim arbaʾim etc., in Sumerian: lugal an-ub-da límmu-ba, literally: “king (ruling) as far as the heavens with their four borders” (Seux 1967, pp. 305–306). See the discussion of the element “four” in chapter 6.2. See Source 56, the title šar kiššati appears there in line 1c. Furthermore, the abstract kiššūtu occurs only in literary texts from the late second half of the 2nd millennium onwards, see CAD K 461–463, s.v. kiššūtu. It appears to have been secondarily derived from kiššatu in turn.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Historical Ibbi-Sîn

45

the title could also express the nuance of a “king executing complete and harsh control”, i.e. the notion of a “despotic king”.200 Similarly, the term “strong king” (šarru dannu) could also denote a “harsh king” who turns out to be harmful to his country. In epic literature, there is the type of the youthful Gilgameš who oppressed his city Uruk in his overbearing potency.201 This negative meaning of the title šar kiššati may lie behind the aforementioned omen of Source 56 (title in line 1c) and behind the omen of Source 23 (A). 2.4. Ibbi-Sîn’s End The ill-fated end of Ibbi-Sîn at Anšan is covered by several passages from lamenations and omens, dating from the Old Babylonian period onwards. However, the statements are not very explicit. When Šu-ilīšu of Isin led the cult statue of the moon-god Nanna and Ur’s deported people back from Anšan to Ur roughly twenty years after the fall of the city (Source 10), one might have expected to see him taking care of Ibbi-Sîn or his mortal remains. However, the sources are silent. A votive inscription might not be the proper place to mention a dead kings body, but also the lamentations and omens are rather tight-lipped. The Lament for Ur (Source 7) does not mention Ibbi-Sîn at all. The Lament for Uruk (Source 6, A) and the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, A) state only briefly that Ibbi-Sîn was taken captive and led away to enemy country as far as Anšan. An Old Babylonian lamentation which apparently lists the places where historical kings have died who were considered personifications of Dumuzi, respectively of Damu, is the only source which explicitly addresses the awkward topic and states that Ibbi-Sîn died at Anšan (Source 5, ll. 1’–2’). However, we are not told when and under which circumstances. He may have been killed during the victory celebrations or may have died after some years in detention or house arrest.202 After all, he may have met family members at Anšan. In the 29th regnal year of Šulgi, one of his daughters – i.e. an aunt of Ibbi-Sîn – had been married to the ruler of Anšan (year name Šulgi 30). However, “Anšan was destroyed” again only four years later (year name Šulgi 34). Again, in the second year of Šu-Sîn, a daughter of this king – i.e. a sister of Ibbi-Sîn – was sent to Anšan, certainly as a bride.203 So Ibbi-Sîn may have met his aging sister there, and also his nephews and nieces, if the dynastic line had not been interrupted.204 In his fourth regnal year, i.e. some 200

201 202

203

204

See Garelli 1979, pp. 322–323 on the negative nuances of šar kiššati and šarru dannu, with examples from the omen series Šumma izbu. See also CAD D, p. 98, s.v. dannu 4d: “obstinate, bad, tyrannical, harsh”. See recently Klein 2002 and George 2003/I, pp. 448–450. Cf. the late (mid-7th century BCE) and rather unreliable information from an omen (Source 54, line 6, manuscript B from Nineveh only) that has it that Ibbi-Sîn “stayed alive and saw the light”, see p. 46 below with note 208. On these two political marriages see Weiershäuser 2008, pp. 262–264. Steinkeller (2007, p. 228 in note 47) points out that princesses from Ur travelled to Anšan in the years Šulgi 44 and Šu-Sîn 5. During the (early) reign of Ibbi-sîn, a certain Lu-[...]-uḫḫan had been acting as ruler of Anšan. It is unclear so far what kind of relationship he had to the family of Ebarat, in

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

46

Chapter 2: Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur

twenty years prior to the fall of Ur, Ibbi-Sîn had married his own daughter Tukīnḫaṭṭi-migrīša to the ruler of Zabšali, the most important province of the lands of Šimaški.205 Under these circumstances one hesitates to imagine Ibbi-Sîn being actually slain during a victory parade or later in a dungeon. For members of royal families, there were always exceptions from “normal treatment”. During the Old Babylonian period, a scribe from Ur added the comment “(the Elamite) smote (in-sìg) Ibbi-Sîn” to the king’s last regnal year in a date list.206 The verbal base sìg means “to beat/smite”, so the focus is rather on military defeat than on physical annihilation – this would have been expressed by the verbal base gaz “to smash/kill”. The literary tradition, however, appears to have been convinced that Ibbi-Sîn was put to death, since the topic of “killing” is the final outcome of the omen misinterpreted by the literary figure of the conceited king who could not see that the omen announced his own death: “I will kill (my adversary)” (Source 3, l. 43). The Old Babylonian omens of Source 12, Source 13 and Source 21 attribute the fall of Ibbi-Sîn to his land “revolting” (nabalkutu) against him. In sources from the first millennium, the end of Ibbi-Sîn at Anšan is told more drammatically. The first millennium omen of Source 63, and probably also Source 65, know of Elam, respectively of Anšan, as the party who “annihilated” (šulputu) Ibbi-Sîn. In the omen of Source 64, the end of the apodosis with the verb is lost, it can be restored either as šulputu “to annihilate” or as nabalkutu “to overthrow”. The first millennium celestial omen from Source 54 offers the information that Ibbi-Sîn went to Anšan “in fetters, while he was weeping”. This late tradition is surprisingly diverse and colourful, adding “his troops”, respectively “his people”, weeping and falling, to the scenery.207 Surprisingly, the same late omen tradition also offers the variant that Ibbi-Sîn “stayed alive and saw the light”,208 i.e. that he survived and was set free. This reading appears only in a single late manuscript from the library of Aššurbanipal at Nineveh. One wonders whether it is an interpretation rather than a tradition, modelled on the fate of Marduk-apla-iddina II. His adversary, the Assyrian king Sargon II and his scribes, appear to have perceived him as a “new Ibbi-Sîn” to be.209 In the end, Marduk-apla-iddina went to Elam as Ibbi-Sîn had done, but he was not arrested or put to death there, but lived on for several years unharmed and probably died peacefully in his bed. The name of the king of Elam who fought against Ibbi-Sîn is not mentioned in the sources dealing with the fall of Ur. In the 1970s, Walther Hinz had proposed that

205 206 207 208 209

particular to Kindattu and Idattu who took the title “king of Anšan” after him. Steinkeller (2007, pp. 229–230; idem 2014, p. 290) assumes that Lu-[...]-uḫḫan was related to the Šimaškian dynasty of Ebarat. It was probably Kindattu who vanquished Ur and took Ibbi-Sîn prisoner (see immediately below). Recorded in the year name Ibbi-Sîn 5 (Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 363); Steinkeller 2007, p. 228 with note 49; Weiershäuser 2008, p. 264. Gadd & Legrain, UET 1, no. 292, II:2–3: di-bí-d+en.zu / in-sìg; Sollberger 1954–1956, pp. 40–41. See line 6 of Source 54 and the commentary. Source 54, line 6, manuscript B from Nineveh only. See the discussion in chapter 10.1.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Historical Ibbi-Sîn

47

this was the Elamite-Šimaškian ruler Ḫutran-tempt.210 Furthermore, Hinz surmised that Kindattu, the Elamite king against whom Išbi-Erra fought at some time of the Elamite invasion (see below), was a younger brother of this Ḫutran-tempt.211 However, a king by the name Ḫutran-tempt is only known roughly a thousand years later from the inscriptions of Šilhak-Inšušinak I (ca. 1150–1120 BCE) who mentions earlier kings who had built temples at Susa.212 The name Ḫutran-tempt does not occur in the List of the 12 Kings of Awan and the 12 Šimaškian Kings from the Old Babylonian period.213 In the early 1980s, Matthew Stolper argued that the kings of Elam, Šimaški and Anšan who brought about the fall of Ur must have been Kindattu, the son of Ebarat I, and Kindattu’s son, Idattu I.214 The connection of Kindattu with Anšan is welldocumented and the title “king of Anšan” is explicitly attested for him.215 Recently, Piotr Steinkeller has confirmed Stolper’s reconstruction on the basis of a newly discovered inscription that gives the full filiation of Kindattu’s son Idattu.216 In literary texts from Babylonia, Kindattu is known from the heavily destroyed text Išbi-Erra and Kindattu, also known as Išbi-Erra Hymn B.217 The very fragmentary text appears to celebrate a victory of Išbi-Erra over the Elamite king Kindattu. During Išbi-Erra’s reign, we know of at least two218 occasions when Isin defeated Elam. The one event occurred in Išbi-Erra’s 15th regnal year when “Išbi-Erra smote the armies of Šimaški and Elam”. The other one occurred during his 26th regnal year when he finally expelled the Elamite garrison from Ur, eight years after the fall of the city.219 Išbi-Erra’s 15th regnal year corresponds to the 22nd regnal year of Ibbi-Sîn, two years before the fall of Ur. The name of Ibbi-Sîn’s 22nd regnal year celebrates the rather pathetic deed that, in the previous year, Ibbi-Sîn had managed to protect his city Ur and just another town from “the flood (of enemies) commanded by the gods, which shook all heaven and earth”.220 A year later, the year name IbbiSîn 23 made fun of “mountain monkeys” having come to Ur, probably an Elamite delegation.221 Although the destruction of Ur is not mentioned in the fragments of 210 211 212 213 214 215 216

217 218 219 220 221

See Hinz 1971, p. 659 and idem 1972–1975 (RlA 4), p. 527. Hinz 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 598. Carter & Stolper 1984, pp. 19, 72 with note 132. Gelb & Kienast 1990, pp. 317–318; Steinkeller 2007, p. 216, note 5; Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015, pp. 23–25. Stolper 1982, pp. 44, 47–48, table on p. 62; Carter & Stolper 1984, pp. 20–22, table 2 on p. 232. Steinkeller 2007, p. 224; idem 2011, p. 22, referring to Amiet 1972, p. 217, pl. 34, no. 1679, impression of a seal of a son of “Kindattu king of Anšan”. A bronze bowl dedicated to “Idattu (I), son of Kindattu, grandson of Ebarat (I), king of Anšan, king of Šimaški and Elam”, see Steinkeller 2007, pp. 221–222, 224; idem 2011, pp. 21–22, no. 18; idem 2014, pp. 287–288, table on p. 290. See van Dijk 1978. Vanstiphout (1989–1990) supposes that Išbi-Erra Hymn B is rather a precursor to the city laments than a royal hymn. Perhaps three? Steinkeller suggests that there was another defeat of the armies of Elam early in Išbi-Erra’s 16th regnal year, see p. 296 with note 1370. On either defeat (year names Išbi-Erra 16 and 27) see the commentary on Source 16. Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 365: a-ma-ru nì-du11-ga diĝir-re-ne-ke4 zà an-ki im-sùḫ-sùḫ-a. See the discussions on pp. 244 and 255f. below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

48

Chapter 2: Ibbi-Sîn King of Ur

the composition Išbi-Erra and Kindattu that have come down to us, the notion of “global” doom makes it plausible that the text deals with the Elamite attacks on Sumer during the last years of Ibbi-Sîn which finally led to the fall of Ur, with IšbiErra acting as a protector, at least for Isin and Nippur.222 As a matter of fact, we do not know how much “global” damage the Elamite invasion actually did. The litanies of the Lament for Ur and the Lament for Sumer and Ur leave the impression that it was mainly the south of Sumer that suffered from the attack, in a corridor from Lagaš to Ur and Eridu.223 Northern Babylonian cities, in particular Nippur and Isin,224 are also listed among the cities whose deities forsook them “bitterly weeping” and “taking an unfamiliar path”.225 It is not made clear, however, that this meant that the cities were actually taken and that the cult statues of the gods were abducted to enemy country. In particular the first circles each of the lists of afflicted cities in the Lament for Ur and the Lament for Sumer and Ur appear to deal with the catastrophe on the theological level.226 Since according to the laments the entire land was affected, it was also necessary for cities like Nippur and Isin to get their share of divine alienation. However, since these cities appear to have been successfully defended by Išbi-Erra against the Elamite attacks, they had not been destroyed. They join the list of afflicted cities probably only out of some kind of theological solidarity. However, seeing Isin – the beneficiary of Ur’s fall – sneaking into the line of the victims leaves a bitter aftertaste. In Babylonia, the fall of Ur left an enormous impression. The Sumerian King List, which usually lists only names and numbers, added the emotional comment “the foundation of Su[mer] was [torn out]” to the conventional phrase “Ur was smitten with weapons, its kingship was transferred to Isin”.227 As stated above, it is quite conceivable that it was a rather small area in the very south of Sumer which was actually devastated by the Elamite attack and that the cities in the middle and the north of Babylonia were not much affected. That is why modern scholars sometimes doubt the catastrophic dimensions of the fall of Ur.228 However, it is the Babylonian perception that matters here. And the Babylonians did coin for this event the expression “disaster” (šaḫluqtu).229

222 223 224

225 226 227 228 229

On Išbi-Erra and Kindattu and on Išbi-Erra’s role see van Dijk 1978, in particular pp. 202– 204. See Michalowski 2011, pp. 171–172, 176 on Nippur and other cities in the north. See the commentary on part D of the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4) and the commentary on the Lament for Ur (Source 7). The Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4) bewails devastations which allegedly occurred at Isin (ll. 136–138) and at Nippur (ll. 139–142; see p. 270), as does the Lament for Ur (Source 7; ll. 1–6, 51–55 = Nippur; ll. 9–10, 59–60 = Isin; see pp. 280f.). See the Lament for Sumer and Ur, part 4 (ll. 115–162) sub “content” in Source 4. See the comments on pp. 276 and 280 below. úriki-ma ĝištukul ba-an-sìg / suḫus ⌈ki⌉-[en-gi-ra] mu-⌈un⌉-[bu] / nam-lugal-bi ì-si-inkišè ba-de6 (after Jacobsen 1939, p. 124 with note 336 on line V:21; manuscript Su3+4). See e.g. Michalowski 2011, pp. 170–172, on the concept of “catastrophic collapse”. See the overview at the beginning of chapter 6.1 and the comments on p. 81 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

3. The Figure of Išbi-Erra and Isin as Heiress of Ur The original, historical adversary of Ibbi-Sîn appears to have been his former official Išbi-Erra (reigned ca. 2017–1985), who made himself king of Isin during Ibbi-Sîn’s eigth regnal year.230 In the following, we should bear in mind that Edzard’s (1976–1980b, p. 174) caveat on the character of Išbi-Erra is still valid: Next to every piece of background information on Išbi-Erra is derived from the fictional Royal Correspondence of Ur.231 The historical Išbi-Erra can only be grasped in the year names of his reign,232 in just one royal inscription and in some few seal inscriptions of his officials.233 The historical victory of Išbi-Erra over Elam (Source 16) is discussed above on p. 47. Although Elam and Šimaški emerged as the final and fatal enemies of Ur, Išbi-Erra is cast in the role of Ibbi-Sîn’s ill-disposed opponent in the letters from the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur. According to the logic of the narrative, it is certainly Išbi-Erra who is called “the one who is ill-disposed towards me” (lú ḫulĝál-ĝu10) by the figure of Ibbi-Sîn in the letter of Source 3, l. 43. Interestingly, the author of the literary letter did not use the straightforward term “enemy” (lú kúr). This term appears to have been reserved for foreign enemies such as Elam. The flood of invectives put into the mouth of the literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn in the literary letter CKU no. 24 (Source 1, B) is rather due to the attitude of the court of Larsa towards the founder of the rivalling dynasty of Isin.234 Išbi-Erra is called a “(roving) bandit, peddler of devil’s dung, not of Sumerian descent” and “the man from Mari, with the mind of a dog”.235 Among these “attributes”, only the tag “man from Mari” may pass as a historical information. In the letter CKU no. 24, this attribute is meant as a racist insult. However, virtual confirmation for Išbi-Erra’s or his kin’s origin from Mari comes from a hymn composed in Išbi-Erra’s honour, using the same reference in a positive atmosphere: “(An and Enlil) [chose] divine Išbi-Erra from Mari to be the king of the land.”236 Since Išbi-Erra appears indeed to have been from Mari and since he obviously made a successful career in the administration of the Third Dynasty of Ur, it is not to be excluded that he had been a family member of the influential and independent šakkanakku-rulers of Mari who also had dynastic connections to the royal family of Ur.237 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237

See p. 37 above with note 139. – On Išbi-Erra see recently Michalowski 2011, pp. 182– 185: “The Usurpation of Power by Išbi-Erra”. See the excerpts here in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. Van de Mieroop 1987a, pp. 126–128; Sigrist 1988, pp. 13–21. Frayne, RIME 4, pp. 6–14. See the discussion on p. 85 below. See Source 1 (B1 ll. 15–16; B2 ll. 20–21) and p. 254 with note 1221. On the topic of the “beast-like foreigner or enemy” see in detail the discussions in chapter 11.4. Išbi-Erra Hymn G (BM 88492), rev. 11’: diš-bi-èr-ra lugal kalam-ma-⌈šè⌉ má-ríki-ta muu[n-suḫ-eš]; Michalowski 1995, p. 183; idem 2005, pp. 203, 206; idem 2011, p. 183. As Sharlach (2001, p. 68), without the evidence from the royal hymn (Išbi-Erra G), had already surmised; see also Charpin 2004, p. 60 note 147; Michalowski 2005, p. 205; Michalowski 2011, p. 183. On the šakkanakku-dynasty of Mari see Durand 1985; Sallaberger 1999, p. 209; Durand 2006–2008 (RlA 11), pp. 560–563. Tarâm-Uram, the

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

50

Chapter 3: The Figure of Išbi-Erra

In the course of the abuses hurled at Išbi-Erra in the letter CKU no. 24, his name is nevertheless written with the divine determinative (diš-bi-èr-ra, Source 1, B2 21), as is customary with royal names during the early Old Babylonian period. It is also the usual orthography in texts issued in his name.238 Išbi-Erra also appears in Source 2 and Source 3, other excerpts from the fictional letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur.239 In Source 2, the author of the text has put Isin’s claim for hegemony over Sumer into Išbi-Erra’s mouth. In Source 3, the figure of Ibbi-Sîn hopes to overcome the wrath of Enlil and looks forward to his adversary’s downfall. According to the logic of the setting of this text, the figure of Ibbi-Sîn means Išbi-Erra here.240 The informed Old Babylonian audience of course knew that the final and fatal enemy turned out to be actually Elam. The literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn failed not only in reading the omen, but also misidentified his enemy. This is another twist to the story of the conceited king. Interestingly, the Babylonian omen tradition does not connect the ambitious character of Išbi-Erra to his former lord Ibbi-Sîn explicitly and directly – as the corpus of the Royal Correspondence does – but remembers that Išbi-Erra victoriously fought against Elam (Source 15 and Source 16). Išbi-Erra Omen Date Topic IEO 1 (Source 15) OB victory over Elam IEO 2 (Source 16) OB victory over Elam topic: rivalry IEO 3 (Source 68) 1st mill. […] IEO 4 (Source 69) 1st mill. The notion of “rivalry”, which dominated his struggle with Ibbi-Sîn, can probably be traced in the imagery of competing elements in the omens of Source 15, Source 16 and Source 68. The illustrative character of the liver omen of Source 16 apparently refers to the replacement of Ibbi-Sîn by Išbi-Erra as the “shepherd” of Sumer, although the written apodosis deals only with Išbi-Erra’s victory over Elam. Even deep down in the first millennium, the figure of Išbi-Erra was still remembered (Source 68 and Source 69). In an Old Babylonian lamentation we are told that Išbi-Erra died – and certainly also was buried – in Isin, his capital city (Source 5, ll. 3’–4’). Some twenty years after Ur had fallen, the kings of the First Dynasty of Isin, who had installed themselves as the heirs of the Third Dynasty of Ur, were able to bring the abducted gods back to Sumer and Ur. The repatriation of the abducted gods and the population from Anšan to Ur can be dated to the very beginning of the

238

239 240

daughter of Apil-kīn of Mari, had been sent to Ur as the daughter-in-law of UrNamma, probably to become the wife of Šulgi and the mother of Amar-Sîn (Sallaberger 1999, p. 161; Weiershäuser 2008, p. 29). See e.g. Išbi-Erra’s only extant royal inscription (Frayne, RIME 4, pp. 6–7, no. 1, ll. 4, 13), numerous seal inscriptions of his officials (Frayne, RIME 4, pp. 7–14, passim), and his year names (Van de Mieroop 1987a, pp. 127–128; Sigrist 1988, pp. 13–21, passim). In these excerpts, Išbi-Erra is not mentioned by name. He is, however, named in other parts of these letters, see the remarks on the “context” of Source 2 and Source 3. See the commentary on ll. 41–43 of Source 3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Isin as the Heiress of Ur

51

reign of Šu-ilīšu of Isin (ca. 1984–1975 BCE).241 However, the preparations for the restoration of Ur and its temples were well under way already during the reign of Šu-ilīšu’s father Išbi-Erra, since the year name of Išbi-Erra 30 mentions new thrones for the gods Nanna and Ningal, who were by then still being kept prisoners at Anšan (see p. 289). As a crown-prince and during the 33rd and last year of Išbi-Erra, Šu-ilīšu had been involved in the fashioning of the moon-god Nanna’s emblem Nunbi-me-anki.242 Administrative documents from Isin show that Išbi-Erra maintained dipolmatic contacts with the royal court of Anšan, before and after the fall of Ur.243 It is certainly due to the success of his diplomatic efforts that the gods and the population of Ur could be brought back early in the reign of his son and successor Šu-ilīšu. The kings of Isin organized the restoration of the sacked cities and had tearful cultic lamentations composed upon the reinauguration of the devastated temples.244 Yet despite the many beautiful words and phrases sought, these lamentations are suspiciously silent about the reasons for the catastrophe. Although it is clearly stated that the gods had delivered their cities to enemy hands by leaving them and withdrawing their divine protection, we are not told any reason why they did so. Certainly, it all happened by the divine decree of An and Enlil, as usual, but there is no reason given, no sin or offence indicated which might have prompted them to reject Sumer.245 Instead, we are told, time for Ur had just run out. In the Lament for Sumer and Ur, Enlil, the king of the gods, tells the moon-god Nanna of Ur, his son, to abandon Sumer and Ur, which the assembly of the gods had decided to destroy. Enlil advises him as follows:246 “Ur was indeed given kingship, but it was not given an eternal reign. Who has ever seen a kingship that would take precedence for ever? O my Nanna, do not exert yourself in vain, leave your city!” And Nanna left and stepped aside, delivering his city to destruction. With no specific reason, as it seems. This is odd, because already slightly earlier the poets of the Third Dynasty of Ur themselves had inscribed the fall of the dynasty of Akkade in the poem The Curse of Akkade247 into the logic of sin and sanction.248 241 242 243 244 245

246 247

See the commentary on Source 10, B. See p. 288 with note 1356. See p. 289 with notes 1360 and 1361. See the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4) and the Lament for Ur (Source 7). In the Sumerian city laments the responsibility for the destruction of the land lies with the gods and their decisisons, although the reasons are almost never discussed (Green 1975, pp. 300–303). See also Cooper 1983, pp. 29–30 on the lack of reasoning in the Sumerian laments. Summarizing paraphrase after Michalowski 1989, pp. 58–59, ll. 366–370. Cooper 1983, pp. 22, 30; Edzard 1989; Michalowski 1989, pp. 8–9. The reasoning of the Curse of Akkade is complicated. The reasons are apparently twofold. Disaster seems to be triggered by Narām-Sîn’s semi-divine greatness which is answered and halted by Enlil’s word from the Ekur. Then, Narām-Sîn aggressively turns against Enlil and Nippur. Consequently, Akkade is punished and destroyed. So Narām-Sîn’s sin appears to have been perceived, respectively construed, as a mixture of hybris and sacrilege.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

52

Chapter 3: The Figure of Išbi-Erra

Even half a millennium earlier similar acts of destruction had been discussed in terms of sin and punishment. When Lugal-zage-si of Ĝiša-Umma attacked and devastated the neighbouring city state of Lagaš in the 25th century BCE, the king of Ĝirsu-Lagaš had a lamentation composed to document the destruction and the sacrileges done by Lugal-zage-si. In this lamentation, the king of Ĝirsu clearly states that there was no misdeed or offence on his part, which may have triggered the catastrophe. At the same time he accuses Lugal-zage-si of committing grievous sins against the temples and gods of Lagaš. The Sumerian expression used is namda6, that is “misdeed/sin”.249 The important passage runs as follows:250 – (VII 10) lú ⌈ĝišKÚŠU⌉ki-k[e4] (11) egi[r] ⌈lagaški⌉ (12) ba-ḫul-a-ta (VIII 1) nam-da6 (2) dnin-ĝír-su-da (3) e-da-a5-ka-am6 (4) šu in-ši-ře6-a-am6 (5) e-ta-ku5-ku5 (6) nam-da6 (7) eri-enim-gi-na (8) lugal (9) ĝír-suki-ka (10) nu-ĝál (11) lugal-zag-ge-si (12) énsi (13) ĝišKÚŠUki-ka (14) diĝir-ra-ni (IX 1) dnisaba-ke4 (2) nam-da6-bi (3) gú-na ḫé-ilex(= íl-íl)251 – (VII 10) “The man of ⌈Ĝiša⌉, (11–12) afte[r] he had devastated ⌈Lagaš⌉, (VIII 3) did (also) commit (1) a sin (2) against Nin-Ĝirsu! (4) (His) hands which he had laid upon him (5) will be cut off! (6) A sin (7) of Eri-enim-gina (8) the king (9) of Ĝirsu (10) does not exist! (11) As to Lugal-zage-si (12) the ruler (13) of Ĝiša, (14) may his (personal) goddess (IX 1–3) Nisaba carry (the blame for) that sin on her neck!”252 248

249

250

251

252

On “sin and sanction”, as well as on the reasons and the forms of expression of “divine wrath and mercy” and on “military defeat as a result of divine anger” see van der Toorn 1985; Spieckermann 2008; Krebernik 2008; numerous individual studies in Kratz & Spieckermann 2008; Charpin 2015; recent and detailed discussion by Johandi 2016. In the present framework see chapter 4.3 below. The Akkadian equivalents are arnu and šērtu, meaning both the “misdeed” and its “penance”. The terms run parallel to ḫīṭu/ḫiṭītu “sin”. The meaning of nam-da6 has been discussed by Hirsch 1967; Löhnert 2011–2013 (RlA 13), pp. 249–250, § 3.1; see also Wilcke 2007, pp. 220–221. Clay tablet, Eri-enim-gina (“Uru-ka-gina”) 16, VII:10–IX:3; copy: Sollberger, CIRPL, p. 58, Ukg. 16; edition: Frayne, RIME 1, pp. 276–279, no. E1.9.9.5; discussion: Hirsch 1967; Michalowski 1989, p. 8; Powell 1996; Schrakamp 2015, pp. 369–370. I analyse the form as ḫé-ilex(= íl-íl) = *ḫêb’ile = ḫa-i-b-il-e, with the reduplicated ḫamṭu base as an orthographical marker for the marû form (Krecher 1995, pp. 165, 171–172 on íl). One might read the form as ḫé-íl-íl = *ḫêb’ilile, corresponding to the many sacrileges of Lugal-zage-si listed in the earlier parts of the inscription. However, it appears that this paragraph deals with that one infamous sin Lugal-zage-si committed against Nin-Ĝirsu (VIII:1–2), and so a plurality in the verbal root is not called for. On the problematic verbal form see also Hirsch 1967, pp. 104–106; Bauer 1998, pp. 489– 492; Wilcke 2007, pp. 220–221. This sentence is often translated as: “As to Lugal-zage-si, may his (personal) goddess Nisaba place (the punishment for) that sin on his neck!” This interpretation is certainly more in line with how we would expect the system of sin and sanction to work. Frayne (RIME 1, p. 279) even translates “may Nissaba (…) make them (the people of Ĝiša) bear

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Isin as the Heiress of Ur

53

In the end, Lugal-zage-si got his well-deserved punishment when Sargon of Akkade took him captive on the battlefield and led him in fetters before Enlil at Nippur.253 Since this line of thinking, i.e. looking for reasons and looking for those to be held responsible for the catastrophe, is also found in descriptions of disasters after the destruction of Ur, it comes as a surprise that this point should not have come up in the aftermath of the fall of Ur. We are quite probably safe in surmising that the question of why and how disaster could strike with divine consent was deliberately avoided because the ruling dynasty of Isin was too deeply involved in the fall of Ur. Isin benefitted from the fall of Ur and sought to establish itself as the successor and heir of the Third Dynasty. Obviously, Isin was not interested in entering into a thorough discussion. Rather, the new dynasty wanted to state that the rule of Ur had ended quite naturally by divine decree and that it was now Isin’s turn.254 Isin’s self-image as the direct and legitimate heiress of Ur finds its vivid expression in the Ur-Isin King List from the early reign of Damiq-ilīšu of Isin. It starts with the reign of Ur-Namma of Ur and runs down without any interruption to the fourth year of Damiq-ilīšu of Isin, summarizing the reigns from “Ur-Namma to Damiqilīšu” as those of a single dynasty.255

253

254 255

this sin on their necks!” Obviously, he takes the reduplication of the verbal root in ḫéíl-íl as a marker of plurality. However, as Wilcke (2007, pp. 220–221 with note 45), followed by Selz (2008, p. 23), has shown, this translation is not in line with the grammar. Wilcke argues that the verbal form cannot be a causative (“to have him carry”), because a locative or dative infix is missing which would indicate the second subject in causative constructions, e.g. *ḫé-ni-ilex(= íl-íl) = *ḫênib’ile = ḫa-i-n.i-b-il-e. According to Wilcke and Selz, it is Nisaba, the personal goddess of Lugal-zage-si, who is held responsible for the sacrileges committed by her protégé. Selz even goes a step further, putting forth the interpretation that the gods act as some kind of hypostasis of their kings, inspiring them and acting through them. So the “personal deity” Nissaba would be affected by any action carried out by Lugal-zage-si, the person “assigned” to her. On the other hand, one might expect to see the deity being appaled by the offences committed by her protégé, and not held responsible. On the possible partial identity of a human with his or her personal or family deity see also the reflections by Selz 2006, pp. 91–93. Bauer 1998, p. 495; Westenholz 1999, pp. 36–37; Powell 1996 understands the list of Lugal-zage-si’s sacrileges quoted above as a kind of apology put forward by Eri-enimgina who perhaps might have allied himself with Sargon in order to take vengeance on Lugal-zage-si. See Michalowski 1983, p. 242; idem 1989, pp. 6–8. See the discussion in chapter 5.1. See Sollberger 1954; Grayson 1980–1983 (RlA 6), p. 90, § 3.2; George 2011b.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

4. Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk The Elamite destruction of Ur under Ibbi-Sîn was certainly not the first occasion when Mesopotamian civilization had to face a serious attack by foreign enemies and to overcome harm and loss. Clearly it was not the last one. After the blow that brought to an end the Third Dynasty of Ur, Mesopotamia experienced a couple of fierce assaults which became part of the cultural memory of the country. It was no longer Sumer which suffered from these attacks, but the “land of Akkad” with its new capital Babylon. The gods Nanna-Sîn of Ur and Enlil of Nippur had given way to Marduk of Babylon, and it was this god and his city, and their victories and defeats which would form the new identity of the country, which finally became Babylonia. In this process, the memory of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster merged into the digestion of later catastrophes. The events which formed this process consisted of various conquests of the city, followed by abductions256 of its tutelar deity, Marduk, in the form of a statue. His main cult statue, depicting him residing in his temple Esaĝil, would, of course, have been the primary target of these abductions. But there was also his processional statue,257 which represented him walking, and a couple of other statues of major importance, which the enemies could choose from.258 4.1. Divine Primacy of Agency The ingenious intellectual Babylonian strategy against these attacks consisted in understanding the defeat not as an obvious proof of Babylonian weakness, but as a sign of the utmost superior agency of the native Babylonian god Marduk, who could even employ a foreign enemy as a tool of his wrath in justly punishing Babylon for her sins.259 By interpreting history in this way, Marduk could still be the subject of the action, not the object. This is made perfectly clear by a text like the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34) which is keen to show that Marduk ordered his going to foreign lands for the good of his people. Marduk walks the mountains and roams about the countries from sunrise to sunset of his own accord, inspecting the 256

257 258 259

The deportation of divine images and vessels is a highly interesting topic in itself. The question how religion was employed among the strategies of the Neo-Assyrian empire and which role the destruction of foreign cults and the abduction of divine images played in it has been addressed by Cogan (1974, pp. 22–34: abductions of divine images, pp. 35–41: restoration of cults, table on pp. 119–121) and by Holloway (2002, pp. 109–111: list of destructions of temples, pp. 123–144: list of abductions of divine images). See also Kutsko 2000, pp. 157–169: “Appendix: Removal, Repair, and Return of Divine Images”. Berlejung (2002) discusses the provisional solutions to which the defeated had to adjust themselves for the time of the exile of their gods. The topic of abduction of divine images has been investigated in more detail by Johnson 2011 and by Zaia 2015; see also Watai 2016, as well as Schwemer 2008 and Gilan 2014 for the Hittites. For an early example of this practice from the Ur III period (Amar-Sîn and the god Ruḫuratir of Ḫuḫnuri) see the discussion on pp. 259f. below. See figure 14 on p. 211. See p. 521 with note 1862. See the discussion here in chapter 4.3 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Divine Primacy of Agency

55

whole world (Source 34, A 1–2). It is Marduk, not the enemy, who declares that he would go, e.g. to Ḫatti or to Elam:260 – kī (/ašar) alliku aḫḫisa [anā]ku aqbi (Source 34, D 2) “It was [m]e, who said when (and where) I wanted to go (and when) I wanted to return.” – aqbi – ana māt Ḫatti lullik (Source 34, B 1) “I said: I want to go to the land of Ḫatti!” – ana māt Elamti allikma alkā ilānū kalâma anākū́ma aqbi (Source 34, D 3) “I went to the land of Elam, and it was me who said: “Come, all ye gods!” The same notion is also found in other texts: – Bēl ana māt Elamti alaktuš iqabbi (Source 58, l. 4) “Bēl (himself) will order his going to the land of Elam.” In our history books, the first event referred to above, when Marduk went to Ḫatti, marks the end of the First Dynasty of Babylon (see below, abduction no. 1 in chapter 4.2). The second event, when Marduk went to Elam, marks the raid by Kutir-Naḫḫunte and the abduction of Marduk by the Elamites (see below, abduction no. 3). But by reading history the way the literate Babylonians did, the Babylonian god could always remain the agens of the action. Marduk would neither be the object, nor a victim. A paean composed in honour of Marduk on the occasion of his triumphant return from Elam during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I puts the idea in a nutshell: – ibbabilma ana māt Elamti usaḫḫir[ši] imḫaṣ dabdâš[a]261 “(Although Marduk) had been brought (by force) to the land of Elam, he overturned [it (and)] inflicted a complete defeat upon i[t].” Admittedly, term (w)abālu N “to be carried away” – even if the passive voice does not allow the Elamites to take an active role here – nevertheless expresses the notion of “being carried away” instead of “going away on one’s own”. But in the second half of the sentence the author shows undisguised glee over the fact that the Elamites, in carrying off Marduk’s statue, unexpectedly imported their own defeat. In the end, Marduk held the upper hand. Sometimes one gains the impression that the idea of the primacy of divine agency is not always fully kept up and that the cult statue which embodies the deity is seen as a powerful, but rather practical device, some kind of an early atomic bomb. Considering the elegance of the concept of a god moving and acting on his own, one is a little bit disappointed to find the rather straightforward and prosaic term leqû “to take (something back)” in some descriptions of Marduk’s homecomings, even if it is the 260

261

For more examples of the gods of Babylonia leaving their temples on their own accord and dwelling in enemy country see Source 53, the commentary on l. 2 of Source 54, and Source 57. After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 32, B.2.4.10, l. 15, Akkadian version only: ib-ba-bíl-ma a-na kur e-lam-ti ú-saḫ-ḫir-[ši] im-ḫa-ṣa dab-da-a-š[a].

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

56

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

cult statue that quite physically occupies the focus. In the probably pseudoepigraphic inscription of Agum-kakrime,262 the king describes his efforts to bring Marduk home from Syria as follows:263 – ana leqê Marduk ana Bābil pānīšu aškunma “(With my ardent prayers) I (succeeded to) set Marduk’s mind on taking him (back) to Babylon.”264 – ana māti rūqti ana māt Ḫanî lū ašpurma qāt Marduk u Zarpānītu lū iṣbatūnimma Marduk u Zarpānītu rāʾim palêya ana Esaĝil u Bābil lū utīršunūti “I sent (envoys) to a remote land, to the land of the Ḫaneans and they (the envoys or priests) took the hand(s) of Marduk and Zarpānītu and so I brought back Marduk and Zarpānītu, who love my reign, to Esaĝil and Babylon.” Besides the prosaic term leqû “to take”, Agum-kakrime’s description employs the more elevated phrase qāt DN ṣabātu “to take the hand of a god”, which means to lead him in procession, and again the rather mechanical term turru “to restore”. Also Nebuchadnezzar I, whose inscriptions – like the probably pseudo-epigraphic inscription of Agum-kakrime – are extant only in late copies from Nineveh, uses the awkwardly practical term leqû “to take”. Moreover, it even puts it into Marduk’s mouth. Marduk addresses Nebuchadnezzar: – [ultu qereb māt Ela]mti ana Bābil liqânni265 “Take me (back) [out of the land of Ela]m to Babylon!” When Esarhaddon was about to return the refurbished statues of the Babylonian gods to their temples after the destruction of Babylon by his father Sennacherib, his scribes showed more delicacy and portrayed the gods as moving on their own, accompanied by the king:266 262 263

264

265 266

See p. 64 with notes 314 and 316. The following two quotations are from the Agum-kakrime inscription, quoted after Stein 2000, p. 153, II:2–4, 9–17: (2) a-na le-qé-e damar-utu (3) a-na ká-diĝir-raki (4) pa-ni-šu áš-kun-ma (…) (9) a-na kur ruq-ti a-na kur ḫa-ni-i (10) lu-ú áš-pur-ma šu damar-utu (11) ù dzarpa-ni-tu4 (12) lu iṣ-ba-tu-nim-ma (13) damar-utu ù dzar-pa-ni-tu4 (14) ra-im bala-e-a (15) a-na ésaĝ-íl (16) ù ká-diĝir-raki (17) lu ú-tir-šu-nu-ti. Literally: “I set his (: the god’s) mind on taking Marduk (back) to Babylon.” The Akkadian phrase sounds smoother since there “Marduk” appears prior to the suffix referring to him in pānīšu. With ana leqê “for taking” going first, the sentence appears to be a final clause until one comes about the pānī šakānu phrase which requires an object introduced by ana. The whole construction even gets stranger when one realizes that it says that the “king has set the god’s mind on something”. This is in fact unidiomatic Akkadian since the pānī šakānu phrase as a rule expresses that “one sets one’s own mind” on a goal. It is a weird phrase for a weird situation. After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 18, B.2.4.5, obv. 17: [ul-tu qé-reb kur ela]m-maki a-na ká-diĝirraki li-qa-an-nu. The following two quotations are from an inscription of Esarhaddon (AsBbE = Assur 3916), after Borger, Asarh., p. 88, § 57, pl. I, rev. 17–18: (17) in-neš-ru-ma ul-tú q[é-re]b éḫur-saĝ-gal-kur-kur‹-ra› gin7 dšá-maš ana kur nam-riš it-ta-ṣu-ú (18) ḫar-ra-an šu-an-naki

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Divine Primacy of Agency

57

– innešrūma ultu q[ere]b Ehursaĝgalkurkur‹ra› kīma Šamaš ana māti namriš ittaṣû ḫarrān Bābil iṣbatū uruḫ tašīlti “They went out f[ro]m Ehursaĝgalkurkur‹ra› in an orderly procession, shining like the sun over the land. They took the road to Babylon, a road of splendor.” – u anāku Aššur-aḫu-iddi[na q]āt ilūtīšu rabīti ṣabtākū́ma ⌈elṣiš a‹šad›diḫa⌉ maḫaršu “And I, Esarhaddo[n], ⌈‹kept mar›ching joyfully⌉ before him (: Marduk), holding the [h]and of his great divinity.” It is well kown, however, that Esarhaddon, contrary to his inscriptions which portray the restoration of the gods of Babylon as an accomplished fact, did not live to see Babylon fully restored. In anticipation of the restoration and the reinauguration of the Babylonian temples, the king’s scheduled deeds had been written into his inscriptions, which were often to be buried in the foundations of the temples he was restoring.267 It was only Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, the son of Esarhaddon who was installed as king of Babylon after his father’s death, who actually brought Marduk back to Babylon at the beginning of his reign in 668 BCE.268 In a tune very similar to the one of his father’s inscription he says in his cylinder inscription that Marduk “went” (wâru) with him from Aššur to Babylon: – ultu qereb Bal‹til› ana šubat balāṭi ittīya ḫadîš lū iʾīra šar ilānī Asare269 “The king of the gods, Asare (: Marduk), came gladly with me from Bal‹til› (: Aššur) to the ‘Seat of Life’ (: Babylon).” The elaborate description presented by Šamaš-šumu-ukīn’s brother Aššurbanipal on this event is too broken in its important parts,270 but it is clear that it depends upon the anticipating report given by Esarhaddon. Aššurbanipal, too, portrays the various gods as moving and acting on their own. Already more than a millennium earlier, the scribes of the First Dynasty of Isin had ascribed the leaving of the gods of Ur to their own will and action.271 Only rarely the loss of divine agency is admitted by the texts when they portray particular gods as being led away “like slaves in fetters” (see p. 277). But again, when Šu-ilīšu of Isin succeeded in returning the statue of Nanna from Anšan to Ur, he did not “bring” the statue back as an object, but he “led” the living god back,272 very much

267 268

269 270 271 272

iṣ-ba-tú ú-ru-uḫ ta-ši-il-ti. – After Borger, Asarh., p. 89, § 57, pl. I, rev. 20: (…) ù a-na-ku I aš-šur-pap-a[š qa]-at diĝir-ti-šú gal-ti ṣab-ta-ku-ma ⌈el-ṣi-iš a‹-šad-›di-ḫa⌉ ma-ḫar-šú. See Landsberger 1965, p. 19. Landsberger 1965, pp. 19–23; Parpola 1983, p. 32 on no. 29 = Harper, ABL, no. 32; Frame 1992, pp. 68 (rebuilding Babylon), 77–78 and 103–105 (restoration of Marduk to Babylon), in particular p. 104 with note 8; recent summary by Nielsen 2012. – See also p. 557 below with note 1975. After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 250, B.6.33.1, ll. 14–15, Akkadian version only: (14) ul-tu qé-reb bal-‹til›ki a-na šu-bat ba-la-ṭu (15) it-ti-ia ḫa-diš lu-ú iʾ-i-ra lugal diĝirmeš da-sa-re. Streck 1916/II, pp. 262–269, II:26–III:30. See Source 4 (D) with the commentary. See Source 10 (A) with the commentary on the semantic difference of “leading” (túm) and “bringing” or “carrying” (ře6).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

58

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

like Esarhaddon or Šamaš-šumu-ukin who “went home with Marduk” a thousand years later, walking with him side by side, holding the god’s hand. Marduk’s divine primacy of agency, however, does not mean that the foreign enemy king, picked as Marduk’s tool for punishing his beloved city Babylon when she had done wrong, would not also be punished by Marduk in turn. This kind of revenge was even an integral part of the system. Already at the beginning of the second millennium BCE, the cry to avenge the devastation of Sumer – which had been ordered by the Sumerian gods An and Enlil – on the foreign enemy lands is uttered at the end of the Lament for Sumer and Ur.273 When Nebuchadnezzar I set out against Elam in order to retrieve the statue of Marduk which had been abducted by the Elamite kings at the end of the second millennium, “he raised his weapons in order to avenge the land of Akkad” (ana turri gimilli māt Akkadî ušatbâ kakkīšu).274 An omen that also deals with the devastation of Babylonia by the Elamites has it that in the end “vengeance will be exacted” (tuktû uttarrū; Source 58, l. 5). In this respect, it is particularly remarkable that the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34) as well as the prophecy of Source 76, dating to the early reign of Aššurbanipal, announce pardon and mercy in the aftermath of Marduk’s “journeys” to Assyria instead of retaliation. In the case of the Marduk Prophecy this is probably due to the aparently rather peaceful circumstances of the return of the statue by the Assyrian king Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur.275 In this case, the statue was neither retrieved by Babylonian military force, nor was it given back under the humiliating conditions of Assyrian dominance. In the case of Marduk’s return from Assyria in 668 BCE, under the suffocating control by Aššurbanipal, matters were dramatically different. The hopes for peace expressed in the prophecy of Source 76, that dates to this time, represents Assyrian wishful thinking which was dreadfully dashed only a few decades later. In the aftermath of the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib in 689 BCE, the theme “avenging Babylonia” (turri gimilli māt Akkadî) becomes a catchphrase, and, in Babylonian sources, the driving element in the final struggle against Assyria.276 Already Esarhaddon, in his evasive interpretation of the destruction of Babylon by his father Sennacherib whom he does not mention in this context, explained his own restoration work as an act of turri gimil(li) māt Akkadî.277 Here, the translation “to avenge” is slightly out of place. One has to resort to the literal meaning of gimilla turru as “to return an act of equivalence” in order to understand Esarhaddon’s phrase as “to make amends” for the damage done to Babylon.

273 274 275

276

277

See Source 4, part E4 for the cursing of Tidnum, Gutium and in particular of Anšan. After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 34, no. B.2.4.11, I:13. See also the comments on Source 34 sub “content” and the discussion of the reign of Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur on pp. 515ff. in the commentary on the excerpt from Chronicle P (Source 71). With reference to the Letter of Nabopolassar to Sîn-šarru-iškun discussed below, Beaulieu (1989, p. 115), followed by Albertz (2001, pp. 50–51; 2003, p. 51), quite correctly understood the topic of “taking revenge for the destruction of Babylon” as the mythe fondateur of the Neo-Babylonian empire. After Borger, Asarh., p. 18, episode 14, version a, line 47.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Divine Primacy of Agency

59

In a pro-Assyrian twist, Esarhaddon’s son Aššurbanipal claimed in his Votive Inscription to Marduk that Marduk had ordered him to campaign against Elam “in order to take revenge” (ana šakān gimilli turri tuktê).278 Here, Aššurbanipal does not specify which particular misdeed he was taking revenge for. Probably, it was the “wickedness” of Elam in general,279 which manifested itself in backing up the numerous rebellions in the South during the 7th century. But in another text, Aššurbanipal also styled himself expressively as the late-born avenger on the crimes of Kutir-Naḫḫunte II who had devastated Babylonia more than half a millennium earlier.280 After Nabopolassar had rose in rebellion against the Assyrians and after Nineveh had finally been sacked, Babylonian literature digested this earth-shaking event in a brilliant and certainly fictional correspondence between Nabopolassar and the Assyrian king Sîn-šarru-iškun. In this correspondence, the literary figure of Nabopolassar justifies his war as an act of vengeance, ordered by Marduk, for the devastation of Babylonia done by Sennacherib: “In order to avenge the land of Akkad, (Marduk) inspected my omens, examined [my] loyal heart” ([an]a turri gimil māt Akkadî iḫīṭ têrētūʾa ibri lib[bī] kīn[a]).281 Even the literary persona of his opponent Sîn-šarru-iškun confirms the legitimacy of Nabopolassar’s claim: In the same correspondence, this figure addresses Nabopolassar as “his king” and as the one whom Marduk “entrusted the aveng[ing of the land] of Akkade to his hand” (turri gi[mil(li) māt] Akkadî umallâ qatuššu).282 The cry to avenge Babylonia had also been incorporated into Nabopolassar’s acclamation as king of Babylon in the Nabopolassar Epic. The line in question can be restored as: “The lord [of the gods (Marduk) may entrust to your hand the av]enging of the land of Akkad!” ([turr]i gimil(li) māt Akkadî bēl [ilānī (Marduk) limallâ qatukka]).283 As it turned out, “Marduk’s” earlier assurance, communicated by an Assyrian prophet (Source 76), that had it that the Babylonian god had pardoned Assyria was an Assyrian self-deception.284 The fully developed theological-historical interpretation of the destruction of Babylon and its aftermath can be grasped in the inscriptions of Nabonidus, some 278 279 280

281

282

283 284

After Streck 1916/II, p. 280, obv. 17; Borger 1996, p. 202. On the topos of the “wickedness of Elam” see the discussion on pp. 238f. below. Nergal-Laṣ-Inscription: Streck 1916/II, pp. 178–180, K 2631+, obv. 12–18; Borger 1996, p. 83. On the raid of Kutir-Naḫḫunte see abduction no. 3 in chapter 4.2. On the question whether Aššurbanipal meant Kutir-Naḫḫunte I or II see the discussion on pp. 530ff. From the Letter of Nabopolassar to Sîn-šarru-iškun (“Declaration of War”); tablet dating to the Seleucid period, probably from Babylon; after Gerardi 1986, p. 35, obv. 12’–13’: [an]a tu-ru gi-mil kur uriki i-ḫi-iṭ te-re-tu-ú-a ⌈ib⌉-ri šà-[bi] (rasura) ki-i-n[i]. The theme “revenge for Babylon” (*gimilla turru ana Bābil) also occurs in a slightly less dramatic phrase ibidem p. 36, rev. 3. From the Letter of Sîn-šarru-iškun to Nabopolassar; tablet dating to the Seleucid period, from Babylon; after Lambert 2005, pp. 207–208, no. 44, obv. 2 (copy wrongly spaced): (…) tur-ru gi-[mil(-li) kur] uriki ú-mál-l[a]-a qa-tuš-šú. I propose to read: [tur-r]u gi-mil kur uriki en [diĝirmeš (damar-utu) li-mál-la-a qa-tuk-ka]; after Grayson 1975b, p. 84, III:21’. See also Source 75 on the topic of “vengeance exacted by released but vengeful gods”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

60

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

60 years after the fall of Assyria. It combines the view that Babylon was punished due to the wrath of its tutelar deity, Marduk, with the satisfaction at the murder of wicked Sennacherib, Marduk’s tool. According to this view, Marduk proved to be the subject of the action in either case. Nabonidus stated that Sennacherib had devastated Babylonia “in accordance with the wrath of the god (Marduk)”.285 And yet, after Marduk’s wrath against Babylon had relented, Sennacherib had to face his own punishment: He was killed by his own son.286 But with the death of the wicked king matters were not settled. Only a few decades later, Assyria was wiped out as a final revenge for the destruction of Babylon. According to Nabonidus, “the king of the Ummān-Manda” – this means the Medes here – had come to the aid of Nabopolassar. The relentless king of the Medes “avenged Babylon, took vengeance” (utīr gimilli Bābil irība tuktê)287 and “flattened” Assyria and her allies “worse than the deluge”.288 According to Nabonidus, this ruthless trial shocked the pious and restrained king of Babylon, who refrained from any iniquity and instead surrendered to mourning.289 This, of course, was only a white lie, meant to cover up the Babylonians well-known participation in the destruction of the Assyrian temples and cities.290 With this double strategy, understanding disaster as a punishment inflicted by its own god on the one hand, and looking forward to the final and inevitable downfall of its enemies as a divine revenge on the other, Babylon maintained Marduk’s primacy of agency throughout and managed to hold her head high even in times of defeat.

285 286

287 288 289 290

kīma uzzi ilīma ītepuš māta “in accordance with the wrath of the god he (mal)treated the land” (Nabonidus, Babylon Stele I:18’–19’; after Schaudig 2001, p. 516). šar Subarti ša ina uzzi Marduk šalputti māti iškunu mār ṣīt libbīšu ina kakki urassibšu “as to the king of Subartu (i.e. Assyria), who by (permission of) Marduk’s wrath had brought about the devastation of the land, his own son cut him down with the weapon” (Nabonidus, Babylon Stele I:35’–41’; after Schaudig 2001, p. 516). – See on this typified punishment the discussion on pp. 124f. below. Nabonidus, Babylon Stele II:11’–13’, after Schaudig 2001, p. 516. Nabonidus, Babylon Stele: abūbāniš ispun (after Schaudig 2001, p. 516, no. 3.3a II 10’); ušātir abūbiš (ibidem no. 3.3a II 30’–31’). Paraphrase of the Babylon Stele II:32’–41’, after Schaudig 2001, p. 516. According to the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle, the Babylonians and the Medes took, plundered and destroyed the city of Nineveh and its temples (Grayson 1975a, p. 94, line 45); likewise, the Babylonians took and plundered the city of Ḫarrān and its temples (ibidem p. 95, lines 63–64). In the time of Nabonidus, items from the treasury of the temple of the moon-god of Ḫarrān were accessible to him at Babylon (Beaulieu 1989, p. 75; Lee 1993; Schaudig 2001, p. 20, note 85). In his own inscriptions, Nabopolassars bluntly boasted of having turned the Assyrian cities into ruins: “(When, on the order of Nabû and Marduk,) I had slain the Subarean (: Assyrian) and had turned his land into ruins and wasteland” (*Subarâ anāru māssu utirru ana tillī u karmī); quotation from the Etemenanki Cylinder of Nabopolassar; after Langdon 1912, p. 60, I:29–31; Da Riva 2013, p. 81, no. C31 1 I:25–27.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Destructions and Abductions

61

4.2. The Abductions of Marduk In the following chapter I shall discuss the most important cases in history when Babylon was taken and a statue of Marduk was abducted by an enemy country. These cases comprise the following four major events: 1) Abduction Return 2) Abduction Return 3) Abduction Return 4) Abduction Return 5) Abduction

(?) (?) (?) (?)

ca. ca. ca. ca. ca. after ca.

ca.

1595 BCE 1570 BCE 1222 BCE 1143 BCE 1155 BCE 1125 BCE 689 BCE 668 BCE 484 BCE

by the Hittites under Muršili I (allegedly) by Agum-kakrime by the Assyrians under Tukultī-Ninurta I under (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur by the Elamites under Kutir-Naḫḫunte II by Nebuchadnezzar I by the Assyrians under Sennacherib by Aššurbanipal by the Persians under Xerxes

Abductions of various Statues of Marduk and his Divine Entourage from the City of Babylon 1) Abduction (?) ca. 1595 BCE by the Hittites under Muršili I Return (?) ca. 1570 BCE (allegedly) by Agum-kakrime According to Babylonian and Hittite traditions, the Hittites under Muršili I marched down to Babylon in the time of Samsu-ditāna and apparently sacked it.291 Returning to Ḫatti, the Hittites appear to have taken with them the statues of Marduk and Zarpānītu, his spouse. After 24 years, Agum-kakrime, king of the Babylonians and the Kassites, is said to have restored the statues of Marduk and Zarpānītu to Babylon. Although this overall picture seems to be quite plausible at first sight, nothing but the plain fact of the Hittite raid can be verified. However, whether historically true or not, it is the Babylonian tradition which is of interest in this study, and the system into which the Babylonians fitted the story. In Hittite sources, the raid of Muršili I is briefly summarized in the Edict of Telipinu and in a Middle Hittite prayer which was later integrated into the Plague Prayers of Muršili II. According to the Edict of Telipinu,292 Muršili I destroyed Aleppo and also “went to Babylon and destroyed Babylon. He also fought the Hurrian [troops]. And he brought deportees and goods from Babylon to Ḫattuša.” However, no gods or cult statues are mentioned here. According to the Plague Prayers of Muršili II,293 “the Land of Ḫatti” destroyed Aleppo and Babylon in the past and “took the goods of all the lands – silver, gold and deities – and placed them before the sun-goddess of Arinna.” Here, also cult statues are obviously meant, but details are not specified and Marduk is not mentioned by name. Many of the more interesting details are told only in much later sources. 291

292 293

On Muršili’s raid see Wilhelm 1993–1997 (RlA 8), pp. 434–435; Charpin 2004, pp. 382– 383; Schwemer 2008, pp. 140–141. Landsberger (1954, pp. 61–72, in particular pp. 64– 65) and Soysal (1989, pp. 147–160) discuss the raid of the Hittites and the taking over of Babylon by the Kassites in detail. See also the commentary on Source 72, B. CTH 19; Hoffmann 1984, pp. 18–19, § 9; Gilan 2014, p. 198. CTH 376; Singer 2002, pp. 44–46, no. 7, p. 53, no. 8, § 8; Gilan 2014, p. 198.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

62

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

According to the inscription of Agum-kakrime discussed below, the cult statues from Babylon did not end up in Ḫattuša or Arinna, but in “the land of the Ḫaneans”, i.e. on the Middle Euphrates. If this is historical, Muršili perhaps had to leave the statues behind at Ḫana due to Hurrian attacks he had to fend off when he returned to Ḫatti.294 The Chronicle of Early Kings, a composition dating to the first millennium which quite often appears to present rather legendary information, at least for the more ancient periods,295 reports the basic information that “in the time of Samsu-ditāna the Hittite(s) went (down) to Babylonia.”296 In Babylonian sources, no references can be found to the name of the Hittite king who raided Babylon – Muršili.297 In the first millennium, one of the so-called the Chedorlaomer-Texts possibly tried to fill this gap by inserting the Hittite royal name “Tudḫaliya” into a highly typified and legendary piece of tradition.298 Interestingly, already at this early stage of the “Marduk abductions”, the king who laid his hands on Marduk, Muršili, was murdered by his relatives. He was killed by Ḫantili, his brother-in-law, together with a certain Zidanta, who appears to have been Ḫantili’s son-in-law.299 In defence of the murder, Ḫantili produced an Apology which accused Mušili of having offended, literally “sickened the gods in heaven” by the conquest of Babylon.300 In contrast, the conquest of Aleppo was not 294

295 296

297 298 299

300

See the remark on Muršili fighting the Hurrians which follows on the note on the conquest of Babylon in the Edict of Telipinu quoted above; Güterbock 1954, p. 385; Otten 1964, p. 122; Soysal 1989, p. 158; Haas 1993, p. 143; Klinger 2007, p. 41. Klengel (1999, p. 65), obviously for reasons of geography, assumes that the conflicts with the Hurrians predated the conquest of Babylon (see also Landsberger 1954, p. 64). Gurney (1973, p. 251) considered both options. Grayson 1975a, chronicle 20; see also here the excerpts from this text in Source 48 on Šulgi and in Source 44 on Sargon of Akkade. With the “Hittite” in a generic singular: ana tarṣi Samsu-ditāna Ḫattû ana māt Akkadî ⌈illik⌉ (Grayson 1975a, p. 156, chronicle 20, B rev. 11, sqeezed into the text). On the political situation under Samsu-ditāna see the summary by Pientka-Hinz 2006–2008b (RlA 11), p. 642. There is also a fragmentary report on damages done to temples during the conquest of Babylon in an inscription of the first Kassite king to rule over Babylon, Gandaš (Gaddaš). However, the inscription is only known from a Neo- or Late Babylonian school text: i-na ka-šad bà-bà-lam “during the conquest of Babylon” (Stein 2000, pp. 149–150, Kb1, l. 4; see Landsberger 1954, pp. 67–68 with note 172; Brinkman 1976, pp. 127–128, no. H.3.1). The damnatio memoriae which Ḫantili imposed on Muršili in the Hittite empire (see below) cannot explain the silence of the Babylonian sources. See the commentary on p. 529 below on Source 72, B. The murder is described in the Edict of Telipinu, see Hoffmann 1984, pp. 18–19, §§ 10– 11; Wilhelm 1993–1997 (RlA 8), p. 435; Bryce 1998, p. 105; Klengel 1999, p. 67. On the relationship between Ḫantili and Zidanta see Hoffmann 1984, pp. 18–19, notes i and 3 on § 11 of the Edict of Telipinu; see also ibidem pp. 20–21, on line I:40 with note d in § 13 of the Edict; Soysal 1989, p. 161; Klengel 1999, p. 69. CTH 10: Apology of Ḫantili; KBo III 45, obv. 4’–15’ (Soysal 1989, pp. 54–55, 100–101, text no. 8; the verbal base in l. 4’ is ištarnink- “to make sick”); similar, but very fragmentary: KUB XXXI 64+, III:15’–21’ (Soysal 1989, pp. 56, 101, text no. 9); discussed by Hoffner

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Destructions and Abductions

63

portrayed as an offence in the apologetic texts put forward by Ḫantili, since in this case Muršili was credited with having avenged his grandfather Ḫattušili on Aleppo.301 The reason why the conquest of Babylon was a different matter is not easy to see. In the Hittite texts, the argument is not properly explained. By the middle of the second millennium BCE, Babylon had not yet achieved the status of a sacrosanct city like Nippur.302 Sure, Babylon once had been the seat of a famous and powerful dynasty, but now it was just another city that fell prey to the Hittite expansions. Some scholars have seen a violation of international law and a political atrocity in the conquest of Babylon,303 but this is perhaps a view a little bit too modern. Perhaps, Ḫantili was simply in need of a good excuse. In a similar way, the intraBabylonian opponents of king Nabonidus accused him of waging wars of aggression against the people of North Arabia.304 However, waging wars of aggression is exactly what “good and great” kings like Nebuchadnezzar II or Ḫattušili I had been doing all the time. Obviously, it was in the eye of the beholder whether actions like these were considered deeds or atrocities. Ḫantili’s Apology also included a damnatio memoriae that banned the mention of Muršili’s name,305 at least on Hittite soil and during early years of Ḫantili’s reign when he had to consolidate his rule. And again, this Hittite damnatio cannot explain why Muršili’s name is not mentioned in the Babylonian sources which were quite keen to put the finger on the sins of particular kings.306 At the same time, the murder of Muršili is also the only case when the “offence against Babylon” is brought forth as an argument from within the society that has to deal with the “punishment”. In all other cases, the reasoning is a purely Babylonian reading, superimposed on foreign succession quarrels.307 Ḫantili and Zidanta became kings of Ḫatti after Muršili, but they, too, were killed by relatives, as was quite a number of members of the Hittite ruling family. This crisis went on until Telipinu took the throne and tried to calm the situation with his Edict.308 In Hittite texts, the notion that Muršili’s conquest of Babylon had aroused divine displeasure, causing instability and plagues, can be traced from the

301 302 303 304 305 306 307

308

1975, pp. 56–58; Soysal 1989, pp. 164–165; Haas 1993, pp. 142–143; Soysal 1998, pp. 30– 31; Gilan 2014, p. 203. KBo III 57, obv. 1’–16’ (Soysal 1989, pp. 101–102, text no. 10). See also Otten 1964, p. 120. On the status of Marduk and Babylon in the first millennium see the discussions on pp. 68f., 105f. and 216f. See e.g. Haas (1993, p. 142) who calls it “ein[en] völkerrechtliche[n] Verstoß, eine politische Untat”. See Schaudig 2001, p. 19 on the “atrocities” committed by Nabonidus in Arabia according to the Verse Account (P1 II 24’–26’, ibidem p. 575). KBo III 45, obv. 12’–15’ (Soysal 1989, pp. 54–55, 100–101, text no. 8). See the discussion on pp. 123f. below. See the discussion on pp. 520f. for the murder of Tukultī-Ninurta I and pp. 525ff. for the murder of Sennacherib; see also p. 214 for the murder of Xerxes. The murder of Kutir-Naḫḫunte even appears to be a Babylonian fiction on the whole, see p. 530. See also the summarizing discussion on pp. 124f. See the overview by Bryce 1998, pp. 107–110.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

64

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

Apology of Ḫantili to the Edict of Telipinu and as far as the Plague Prayers of Muršili II.309 In linking the sins of a king to the divine punishment of himself and his dynasty, the Hittite narrative is typologically similar but actually unrelated to the later Babylonian reasoning.310 It is an intra-Hittite discussion that does not appear to have affected Babylonian historiography. It is quite noteworthy that, not even in retrospect, the conquest of Babylon by Muršili and the subsequent spectacular decline of the royal house of Ḫatti never ever was arranged by the Babylonians according to their narrative of the “wicked king who dares to offend Babylon and who is consequently killed by his own son” – or at least “by close relatives”.311 Some scholars have supposed that a remote memory of the events may lie behind the tradition of the king disguised as ITU-UD-ḪUL-A in one of the Chedorlaomer Texts.312 If so, the name “Muršili” had perhaps been exchanged for the typical Hittite royal name “Tudḫaliya” and the event would have been misplaced in the aforementioned text between the raids of Tukultī-Ninurta I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II.313 According to two later copies of an inscription of Agum-kakrime,314 king of the Kassites and of the Babylonians, he “sent (envoys) to a remote land, the land of the Ḫaneans”,315 and brought back (the statues of) Marduk and Zarpānītu from there to Esaĝil at Babylon. The text is only extant in two late Neo-Assyrian copies from Nineveh. One has to reckon with the strong probability that the text is a pious fraud,316 produced to supply the Assyrian king Esarhaddon with models of earlier kings to follow in his restoration of Babylon and its gods. But whether historically correct or not, at least at some point of time in the first millennium Agum-kakrime was indeed held to have brought Marduk back to Babylon. The Marduk Prophecy, an esoteric text dating probably roughly to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125– 1104 BCE), reports that Marduk had been staying in “Ḫatti” for 24 years.317 By the time of Nebuchadnezzar I, after the fall of the Hittite empire, “Ḫatti” would no longer mean “Anatolia”, but “(northern) Syria”,318 matching “the remote land Ḫana” from the Agum-kakrime inscription. So, the abduction of Marduk by Muršili might be historical, but at the present state, given the little we know about the end 309 310 311 312 313 314 315

316

317 318

For the Edict of Telipinu and the Plague Prayers of Muršili II see above on p. 61. See the discussion in chapters 7.1–2. On this topos see the discussion on pp. 124f. below. See the commentary on p. 529 on Source 72, B. Abductions nos. 2 and 3, see below. See also the discussion on p. 529. Recent editions by Stein (2000, pp. 150–165, no. Kb 2) and Oshima (2012). ana māti rūqti ana māt Ḫanî (kur ḫa-ni-i) lū ašpurma (after Stein 2000, p. 153, II:9–10). On Ḫana in Syria on the Middle Euphrates in the Middle and Neo-Babylonian period see Nashef 1982 (RGTC 5), p. 118, s.v. Ḫānu; Zadok 1985 (RGTC 8), p. 151 s.v. Ḫanû; Podany 1991–1993, in particular p. 60 on the Hittite raid. Brinkman (1976, pp. 52–53, in note 160) noted that the text is atypical of the royal inscriptions of that time; ibidem p. 97 s.v. Db.3.1, he briefly mentioned that the authenticity of the text is sometimes questioned. See in more detail Longman (1991, pp. 86–87), who discusses the text as a “fiction”; see also, but inconclusive, Oshima 2012, pp. 231–233. – Paulus 2018 argues for the authenticity of the text. See Source 34, B 3. Hawkins 1972–1975 (RlA 4), p. 152, § 1; idem 1974, pp. 67–68.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Destructions and Abductions

65

of the First Dynasty of Babylon, it is equally possible that the Kassites, settling then on the Middle Euphrates, grasped their chance and either aided the Hittites in their raid on Babylon,319 or got hold of the statues of the tutelar deities of Babylon when the Hittites left them behind at Ḫana on their return to Ḫatti.320 After all, these statues are said to have been recovered by the early Kassite king Agumkakrime from Syria, and not from Ḫattuša or Arinna, the cities sacred to the Hittites, where they usually stored booty and housed their “divine foreign guests”.321 2) Abduction (?) ca. 1222 BCE by the Assyrians under Tukultī-Ninurta I Return (?) ca. 1143 BCE under (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur The abduction of Marduk by Tukultī-Ninurta is only documented in two rather biased and legendary texts, i.e. in the Chronoicle P (Source 71) and in one of the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72, A). It is also reflected in the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34, C). Although it is possible that Tukultī-Ninurta actually took a statue of Marduk to Assyria, the details of the reports and the character of the sacrilege appear to have been modelled heavily on the sins of Sennacherib. The Epic of Tukultī-Ninurta provides an Assyrian reasoning for Tukultī-Ninurta’s first Babylonian campaign in ca. 1231 BCE against the Babylonian king Kaštiliyaš IV. The line of argument of this Assyrian reading of events keeps to the classic logic of sin and sanction: Kaštiliyaš is said to have violated a sworn treaty, which is why the gods became angry and abandoned him.322 Tukultī-Ninurta’s second campaign in ca. 1222 BCE has not been digested in a similar way. Moreover, the abduction of a statue of Marduk, which according to Chronicle P (Source 71) occurred during this campaign, is not mentioned at all in Assyrian sources (see p. 519 below). The return of the statue of Marduk under the Assyrian king Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur was not achieved by a Babylonian raid as in the case of the abduction to Elam (no. 3), but obviously rather by means of diplomacy. This may be the reason why Marduk blessed Assyria after his “journey” according to the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34, C). 3) Abduction ca. 1155 BCE by the Elamites under Kutir-Naḫḫunte II Return after ca. 1125 BCE by Nebuchadnezzar I This abduction of a statue of Marduk occurred in the course of the conquest of Babylonia by the Elamite king Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and his son Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, “kings of Anšan and Susa”.323 The Elamite rule and the devastation of numerous 319 320 321

322 323

Cf. Landsberger 1954, p. 65; Gurney 1973, p. 250; Soysal 1989, p. 153; Bryce 1998, p. 104. See p. 62 above with note 294. See Haas 1994, pp. 585–586 on booty distributed to Ḫattuša and Arinna. The Annals of Ḫattušili (Beckman 2006; Schwemer 2008, p. 140) contain various passages stating that the abducted statues of foreign gods were allocated to the temple of the sun goddess of Arinna and to the temple of her daughter Mezulla. See the discussions on pp. 73f. and 519 below. On the Elamite raid into Babylonia and the end of the Kassite Dynasty see Brinkman 1968, pp. 88–89; Labat 1975, pp. 485–487; Wiseman 1975, p. 446; Henkelman 2011–2013 (RlA 13), p. 370. For the Elamite royal inscriptions dealing with the attack on Babylonia

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

66

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

cities and cult centres all over the land held a prominent place in the memory of Babylonia. A Late Babylonian historical-literary text describes in detail the sacrileges committed by Kutir-Naḫḫunte at Nippur, Babylon, Uruk and Borsippa.324 For a second time after the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster Babylonia was invaded and devastated by the Elamites. Babylonian gods were abducted to Elam, alongside with the Babylonian king, Enlil-nādin-aḫi, just like Ibbi-Sîn.325 In the south of Babylonia, the Second Dynasty of Isin established itself, very much as it had done earlier under its First Dynasty.326 Once again, Isin inherited kingship over the land and was the one to wreak vengeance on Elam on behalf of Babylonia. The structures of the fall of Babylonia under Ibbi-Sîn and under Enlil-nādin-aḫi were similar enough to allow scholars in the early days of Assyriology – misled by the excessively high date327 given by Aššurbanipal for Kutir-Naḫḫunte – to blend the two raids erroneously into one another.328 The similarity of the events was also noted by Walther Hinz and John Brinkman.329 The Babylonians themselves certainly also noticed the resemblance to the destruction of Babylonia at the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur and the fate of Ibbi-Sîn, even though they did not call Enlil-nādin-aḫi a “new IbbiSîn”. There are no historical omens dealing with Enlil-nādin-aḫi, either. This, however, was not necessary, since for this kind of disaster the term šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn “Ibbi-Sîn Disaster” had been coined long ago by then,330 and so Enlil-nādin-aḫi’s fate would have appeared only as a repetition of the fate of Ibbi-Sîn. After this event at the latest, the name Ibbi-Sîn was untied from the historical example in the strict sense, and turned from a hapless king of Ur into a hapless king of Babylonia. This development is mirrored in the first millennium omens from Source 56 and Source 60. They are in fact very close to the classic story-line of the

324 325 326 327 328

329

330

see König 1977, pp. 71–84. On the history of the title sunkik Anšan Šušunka “king of Anšan and Susa” see Shayegan 2011, pp. 283–284, with a list of rulers on pp. 265 (Ebarat II, ca. 18th cent. BCE), 269–277 (Middle and Neo-Elamite periods). See Roberts 1977 on the Babylonian reading of the abduction of Marduk and his return. See Lambert 1994b and p. 524 below with note 1869. See Source 33, obv. 6’–13’; Brinkman 1968, pp. 80–81, 88–90. Labat 1975, p. 488; Brinkman 1968, pp. 90–91; Brinkman 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 185, § 4. See the discussion here on pp. 530f. below. See e.g. Weidner 1921, pp. 49–50, referring to the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72) in his note 1 on p. 50. Already King (1910, pp. 304–305), for lack of more acurate chronological information, had posed the question whether the Elamite raid that ended the reign of Ur was to be connected to the famous raid by Kutir-Naḫḫunte. Jeremias (1917, pp. 76–77), in the introduction to his edition of the Chedorlaomer Texts, accepted the dates given by Aššurbanipal but kept the two Elamite invasions apart. On the abduction of Nanaya see Vallat 1993b; Stol 1998–2001a (RlA 9), p. 150 s.v. Nanaja § 6.5; Beaulieu 2003, p. 185. Hinz 1964, p. 104: “Der letzte Kassit mußte, wie 850 Jahre früher der letzte König von Ur III, den Weg ins elamische Exil antreten”. – Brinkman 1968, p. 86 with note 443: “It is noteworthy that both the First and Second Isin Dynasties gained their hegemony in Babylonia after Elamite raids on the former capital”. Mostly in the catchphrase amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti “omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster”, but also as a nominal composition in šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn “Ibbi-Sîn Disaster” (Source 26); see the overview on p. 93 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Destructions and Abductions

67

Ibbi-Sîn Disaster and even employ its catchwords.331 However, they do not give the actual name of this king, but use the term “king of Babylonia” instead. To this group belongs also the omen from Source 53, stating that “the gods will dwell in Elam”. At this point a notion of history repeating itself emerges.332 However, it is not the idea of a cyclical or mechanical repetition, but rather the idea of a repetition of types, rooted in the mutual dependence of sin and punishment. In the early Old Babylonian period the element of guilt had been suppressed because it would have meant addressing the role of the First Dynasty of Isin in the catastrophe of Ur III. But at least from the early Neo-Babylonian period onwards the sins of the kings and of the people of Babylonia were addressed.333 Obviously, the disastrous events of the rule of Kutir-Naḫḫunte had been digested in the omen of Source 58, reporting that the Ummān-Manda334 would rise, the shrines of the gods would be devastated, Marduk-Bēl would go to Elam, but that after thirty years vengeance would be exacted. The vengeance wrought refers to the victorious campaign of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE) against Elam. For the time being, Nebuchadnezzar’s victorious raid on Elam cannot be firmly dated. John Brinkman estimates that Nebuchadnezzar conceived the plan for retrieving the statue of Marduk early in his reign.335 The period of thirty years for Marduk’s exile, quoted from line 5 of the omen of Source 58, looks like an ideal number as a designation for “one generation” (cf. p. 192). On the other hand, it also matches the period of time from the abduction of Marduk’s statue in ca. 1155 BCE to the rise of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar in ca. 1125 BCE as a new Heilszeit.336 A historical-literary text (Source 33) which deals with a Babylonian king, certainly Nebuchadnezzar I, who is about to take revenge for the Elamite invasion, lists the numerous offences committed by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II. Among the many misdeeds of the Elamites we learn that they had removed the native kings of Babylonia, Zababa-šuma-iddina and Enlil-nādin-aḫi (Source 33, obv. 2’, 6’–13’). But the most grievous crime of the Elamite kings was the abduction of the god Marduk from Babylon to Elam, when they crushed Enlil-nādin-aḫi’s resistance: – [Marduk bē]la rabâ iddeki ina šubat [ilūtīšu] (Source 33, obv. 10’) “He removed [Marduk], the great [lo]rd, from [his divine] dwelling.” Babylonia finally was avenged by Nebuchadnezzar I who overthrew Elam and retrieved the statue of Marduk from Elam. As befits its significance, the victory over Elam had been announced by omens.337 331 332 333 334 335 336 337

Source 60: amūt šar māt Akkadî ša šaḫluqti “omen pertaining to the king of Babylonia meaning disaster”. See also the discussion in chapter 9. See the discussion in chapter 4.3. On the Ummān-Manda taking part in the raid of Kutir-Naḫḫunte see the commentary on Source 72, C. Brinkman 1968, p. 105 with note 569. See the commentary on line 5 of Source 58. Quoted in a letter of a Neo-Assyrian scholar: annīyu ša pī umm[ânī] kī Nabû-kudur-uṣur māt Elamti iḫpûni “This (omen) is from the oral tradition of the scho[lars], (pertaining

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

68

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

Nebuchadnezzar made the triumphant return of Marduk the topic of several inscriptions of his.338 Strangely enough, none of our sources state where exactly in Elam the statue of Marduk was kept. They only tell us that Marduk returned “from Elam”, or even more drastically “from the wickedness of Elam”.339 However, the city of Susa proposes itself as the most probable place since the Elamite kings stored many of their trophies from Babylonia there and since Nebuchadnezzar fought the decisive battle against the Elamite king on the bank of the river Ulay (modern Karḫeh).340 The restoration of Marduk’s cult, alongside the restoration of firm Babylonian rule, probably gave Marduk the final boost in taking over the position of the head of the Babylonian pantheon after his gradual rise to eminence during the Old and Middle Babylonian periods.341 Consequently, this period witnessed the emergence of a whole range of new religious texts which would form the character of the Neo-Babylonian civilization. To these texts belong the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enūma elîš), the list Tintir, and the Esaĝil Chronicle.342

338

339

340 341

342

to the events) when Nebuchadnezzar shattered Elam”; after Hunger 1992, no. 158, rev. 4–5; earlier treatments: Thompson, RMA, no. 200, rev. 4–5: Weidner 1928–1929, pp. 238–239; Weidner in AfO 14, 1941–1944, p. 176; Brinkman 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 186; Brinkman 1968, p. 110, with note 599. Thompson, Weidner, and Brinkman had been reading the beginning of the phrase as ša pī ṭuppi [šanî] “from the [other] tablet” instead, taking it for a scribal tradition instead for an oral one. Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 11–12, 17–35, Nebuchadnezzar I nos. 5–11; Roberts 1977; Brinkman 1998–2001 (RlA 9), p. 192–193, § 2. – Most of these texts are preserved as late copies only, and quite often the name of Nebuchadnezzar is broken in the manuscripts. His name is preserved in the Šitti-Marduk kudurru (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 33, B.2.4.11, I:1) and partly broken in the bilingual inscription no. 8 (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 25, ll. 4, 7). The broken name of his father [Ninurta-nādin]-šumi is also partly preserved in the same text in line 11. The assignment of all of these inscriptions to Nebuchadnezzar I is virtually safe because of their similarities in content and style. See e.g. the Epic of Nebuchadnezzar: [… ištu Ela]mti (after Frame, RIMB 2, p. 18, Nebuchadnezzar I no. 5, obv. 17: [… *iš-tu ela]m-⌈ma⌉ki), and from one of the bilingual inscriptions: ištu qereb lemnēt Elamti (after Frame, RIMB 2, p. 30, Nebuchadnezzar I no. 9, l. 13: iš-tu qé-reb lem-né-ti e-lam-ti). On the topos of the “wickedness of Elam” see the discussion on pp. 238f. below. See the Šitti-Marduk kudurru (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 34, Nebuchadnezzar I no. 11, I:28); see also the summary by Henkelman 2011–2013 (RlA 13), p. 370. Lambert 1964; Brinkman 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 188, § 6; Lambert 1992b, pp. 121–122; Brinkman 1998–2001 (RlA 9), p. 194; Lambert 2013, pp. 442–443. On Marduk’s rise in general see Sommerfeld 1982; see recently also Nielsen 2018, chapter 8. Of course, Marduk’s elevation did not come about abruptly, but as the final consequence of a long process of merging Marduk with Enlil and Babylon with Nippur, see recently Tenney 2016 on the situation in the late Kassite period. Sommerfeld 1982, pp. 175–177, 180–189; Sommerfeld 1987–1990 (RlA 7), pp. 365, 368; George 1992, pp. 5–7 on Tintir and the Babylonian Epic of Creation; Lambert 2013, pp. 439–444 on the date of the composition Enūma elîš. On the date of the Esaĝil Chronicle see the comments in the introduction to Source 35. Even if elements and parts of Enūma elîš may well be older (Lambert 1986; Dalley 1997, pp. 168–169), the decisive component is not the dragon fight motif – also found e.g. in the Old Babylonian

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Destructions and Abductions

69

In the centuries after the devastating raid and despotic foreign rule at the hands of the Elamites under Kutir-Naḫḫunte, Babylonia experienced again periods of weakness and suffered from disturbances caused by the Suteans and Arameans. This troubles of this period are covered by the Religious Chronicle (Source 37). The text lists evil portents, observed during the century from the reign of Nabû-šumulibūr (ca. 1033–1026 BCE) to Nabû-mukīn-apli (ca. 978–943 BCE). The experiences of these troubled centuries had apparently been digested by the Poem of Erra and got mixed with the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, since Kabti-ilī-Marduk, the scribe who is said to have written the Poem of Erra, was also held to have been the scholar of Ibbi-Sîn.343 I think that Adolf Leo Oppenheim (1964, p. 268) had the right inkling when he commented on the Poem of Erra as follows: “The long lament over the destruction of Babylon in the fourth tablet, a lament in which even Marduk joins, takes up an old Sumerian literary tradition, the lamentations over destroyed temples and cities. It is possible that the sack of Babylon by the Elamite king Šutruk-Naḫḫunte inspired the poet and that the opus was composed, in a dark period, to promise the city a brighter future.” 4) Abduction 689 BCE by the Assyrians under Sennacherib Return 668 BCE by Aššurbanipal This event is certainly the most drastic, famous and well-documented case when Babylon was destroyed and a statue of Marduk was abducted or, as in this case, probably even destroyed.344 In his own inscriptions, Sennacherib was very clear and blunt. He stated: ́ ušabbirūma345 – ilānī āšib libbīšu qāt nišīya ikšussunūtīma [bušâšunu] makkūršunu ilqû “My people seized and smashed the gods living therein and they took [their possessions] (and) property.”

343 344 345

Sumerian Ninurta myth Angim dimma – but the elevation of the victorious god to the head of the pantheon (Lambert 1994a, p. 565). Even in the reign of Hammurapi, during the heydays of Babylon’s power in the second millennium, Marduk held only the Enlilūt kiššat nišī (CH I:11–12) the “absolute power over all the people” (Lambert 2013, p. 256), but not yet over the gods (pace Dalley 1997, p. 170). (Anu’s and) Enlil’s supremacy remained officially untouched until the end of the Kassite Dynasty (Lambert 2013, pp. 265–271). A most remarkable stage in the process of the “Enlilfication” of Marduk is still the re-dedication of a throne at Nippur itself for Marduk as the “lofty Enlil of the gods” by Simbar-Šipak (ca. 1025–1008 BCE), roughly a century after Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE), see Hurowitz 1997; text: Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 71–73, no. B.3.1.1. On this event see in more detail p. 427 below. See the introductory remarks on the excerpt from the Poem of Erra (Source 39). For another excerpt from the poem see pp. 135f. On the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib see, among others, Brinkman 1983; Galter 1984; Frahm 1997, pp. 16–17. See also the discussion on pp. 124f. below. From the Bavian Inscription of Sennacherib, l. 48: diĝirmeš a-šib šà-bi-šú šumin ùĝmeš-ia ikšu-su-nu-ti-ma ú-šab-bi-ru-ma [níĝ-šu-šú-nu] níĝ-ga-šú-nu il-qu-ú; after Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2, p. 316, no. 223, l. 48.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

70

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

In another inscription, Sennacherib even used the singularis auctoris: – ištu Bābil aḫpû ilānīša ušabbiru346 “After I had destroyed Babylon (and) had smashed its gods (…)”. Contrasting his work of destruction ironically with the magnificent water supply he provided for his capital Nineveh, Sennacherib described how he over-irrigated Babylon, drowing the ruins in the waters from numerous canals he had dug all over the city.347 Sennacherib combined this theme with the motif of the “deluge (abūbu) that literally levels (*sapānu › naspantu/nalpantu)” Babylon: – eli ša abūbi nalpantašu ušātir348 “I brought on it (: Babylon) a levelling more severe than (the one done) by the deluge”. As an attributive animal and as divine weapon, the flood-dragon abūbu is also conspicuously often found at the feet and in the hand of the god Aššur from the time of Sennacherib onwards.349 Sennacherib’s devastation of Babylon was far more than a simple destruction, it was a classic example of an urbicide. The concept of the term urbicide (“citykilling”) construes the annihilation of human settlements parallel to the annihilation of human groups or societies (genocide or ethnocide). It understands the social space of a city as a living organism which can be killed. The concept emerged in the 1960s as a term describing the devastating effects of destructive restructuring of urban areas.350 During the 1990s, it became a label for the destruction of cities like Sarajevo in the Bosnian War.351 Only recently, the term has also been introduced into the field of ancient Near Eastern studies.352 Talking of urbicide in the ancient Near East instead of simple destruction only makes sense 346 347

348

349 350

351 352

From the Bīt-Akīti-inscription of Sennacherib; after Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2, p. 248, no. 168, ll. 36b–37a: iš-tu tin-tirki aḫ-pu-u / diĝirmeš-šá ú-šab-bi-ru. As Galter (1984) has demonstrated, the description presented by Sennacherib of his destruction of Babylon in his Bīt-Akīti-inscription is a de-construction of Babylon, a negative or reversed building inscription. “Over-irrigating” Babylon, drowning it, is a mocking version of an age-old topic of royal inscriptions, that is, providing a city with “abundant water”. From the Bavian Inscription of Sennacherib, l. 53: ugu ša a-bu-bu na-al-pan-ta-šú ú-ša-tir; after Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2, p. 317, no. 223, l. 53. The noun naspantu (/nalpantu) “leveling/squashing”, derived from sapānu “to level/to flatten”, describes the destruction wrought by devastating floods and it is often combined with the term abūbu “deluge” (see CAD N/II, pp. 29–30, s.v. naspantu; Frahm 1997, p. 154 on l. 53). The root sapānu also occurs ibidem in the line ahead: ina mê aspun “I levelled (the city) with water” (after Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2, p. 317, no. 223, l. 52). See Seidl 1998; see also Berlejung 2007, p. 21. The term “urbicide” is considered to have been coined by Michael Moorcock in his novella Dead God’s Homecoming (1963). Slightly later, Ada Louise Huxtable used the term in an article “Manchester, N.H.: Lessons in Urbicide”, the New York Times, December 22, 1968. See recently, among others, Shaw 2004; Coward 2004; idem 2009. See Wright 2015; Schaudig 2018.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Destructions and Abductions

71

if the devastation goes beyond the usual looting and burning. That is, if the devastation is accompanied by symbolic or ritual acts aiming at a complete and lasting effect, such as sowing salt over the ruins of a city, tabooing it (Source 31 and Source 47). Sometimes, the destruction of a city or a temple is bewailed like the murder of a person. In Sumerian and Babylonian texts, temples and cities are often identified with their divine owner or otherwise anthropomorphized as representations of the human community.353 In the description of the Death of the Goddess Baʾu354 the death of the goddess and the annihilation of her temple at Lagaš by the “storm that destroys cities and temples” are tightly interconnected. In this respect, Sennacherib’s extirpation of Babylon, which aimed at a complete and lasting annihilation of its whole structure and ideological system parallel to the effacement of the Babylonian gods, can certainly be called an urbicide. The same applies to the legendary misdeeds of Sargon of Akkade against Babylon,355 whom Sennacherib appears to have imitated. It also applies to the destruction and tabooing of Arinnu in Muṣri by Shalmaneser I (Source 31) or to Aššurbanipal’s devastation of the royal cities, graves, temples and sacred groves of Elam (Source 47). Finally, Assyria’s cult centre Aššur was wiped out by the Babylonians in 614 BCE, taking similar measures.356 Restoring Esaĝil and returning Marduk and his divine entourage to Babylon was the major task of the reign of Esarhaddon, Sennacherib’s son and successor. However, in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon, the completion of the restoration had been anticipated.357 This deed had been outstripped by history. It was finally accomplished only after Esarhaddon’s death under his sons Aššurbanipal and Šamaš-šumu-ukīn in 668 BCE.358 Esarhaddon offered a theological and euphemistic reading, eliminating the active role of his father Sennacherib. According to Esarhaddon, Babylon had only become deserted because of Marduk’s just wrath, triggered by the sins of the Babylonians themselves.359 Moreover, he avoided any reference to the shocking fact that the gods had been kind of slaughtered when their cult statues had been smashed. According to him, “the gods went off to heaven” instead: – Esaĝil u Bābil namûta illikūma ēmû kišubbêš (Source 74, D 4–5; cf. E 5–6) ilānūšu u ištarātūšu ipridūma kiṣṣīšunu ēzibūma ēlû šamāwîš “Esaĝil and Babylon became desolate and turned into wasteland. Its gods and goddesses became frightened, they abandoned their shrines and went up to heaven.” 353 354 355 356 357 358 359

See briefly p. 2 above with note 4 on the topic of the “weeping goddess”. From the Lament for Sumer and Ur, ll. 173–177; see the excerpt on p. 277 below. According to the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 60 and the omens of Source 44 and Source 45; see the discussion here on p. 154 below. See Schaudig 2018 on the temple “A” at Aššur, a monument of Babylonian victory and of the finis Assyriae. Borger, Asarh., pp. 21–24, episodes 26–33, pp. 88–89, § 57, rev. 8–24. See the descriptions on pp. 56f. and on p. 557. See the discussion in chapter 4.3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

72

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

Esarhaddon also used similar phrases in other versions of his inscriptions: – ilānū ištarātu āšib libbīšu iṣṣūriš ipparšūma ēlû šamāwîš360 “The gods and the goddesses who lived therein (: Babylon) flew off like birds and went up to heaven”. A century later, the Babylonian king Nabonidus undid the interpretation of Esarhaddon and put the blame exlicitly back on Sennacherib again.361 But Nabonidus, too, took advantage of the euphemistic theological interpretation which allowed the gods “to fly off to heaven like birds” instead of being manhandled and battered by the Assyrian soldiers: – [i]ṣṣūriš ip[paršūma] īlû š[amāwîš]362 “[The gods] fl[ew off] like [b]irds [and] went up to he[aven]”. These lines are a verbal reference to one of the phrases used in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon quoted above. In his inscriptions, Nabonidus also turns Sennacherib’s flood-motif back against Assyria. Taking revenge for Babylonia on Marduk’s behalf, it is now the king of the barbarian Ummān-Manda – historically Cyaxares king of the Medes – who “levels” (sapānu) Assyria and its allies “worse than the deluge (abūbu)”.363 5) Abduction ca. 484 BCE by the Persians under Xerxes This event is dealt with in detail below in chapter 10.6. As it appears, the abduction of a statue of Marduk – probably the processional one – by Xerxes is the last case of an abduction of a statue of Marduk. Native Babylonian kingship never regained the importance it once had had and the meaning of the cult statues of Marduk for the investiture of the king finally faded.

360

361 362

363

After Borger, Asarh., p. 14, § 11, Babylon episode 8a. – Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 196, no. 104, I:43–46; p. 236, no. 114, II:6–8 (abridged); p. 245, no. 116, obv. 15’. For Leichty, RINAP 4, pp. 229–230, no. 113, 13–14 see Source 74, E 5–6 below. In his Babylon Stele, see Schaudig 2001, pp. 515–516, no. 3.3a I 1’–19’. From a fragment of another stele of Nabonidus: (2’) [i]ṣ-ṣu-riš ip-[par-šú-ma] (3’) i-lu-ú š[ama-míš] (Schaudig 2001, p. 542, no. 3.8a 9, II’: 2’–3’). In this stele inscription of Nabonidus, the following lines are badly broken but one may guess from the traces that “(Sennacherib) brought the spoils of the land (of Babylonia) into [his royal] city [and appointed] a governor [for Babylon(ia)]”: (8’) šil-lat kur [x x x] (9’) qé-reb er[i x x x] (10’) ú-šeri[b x x x] (11’) šagina [x x x]. Quotations from the Babylon Stele: abūbāniš ispun (Schaudig 2001, p. 516, no. 3.3a II 10’); ušātir abūbiš (ibidem no. 3.3a II 30’–31’).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Ancient Explanations

73

4.3. Ancient Explanations The various occasions when Babylon found itself exposed to the wrath of its tutelar deity could well be understood as historical illustrations of the fourth holy name of Marduk, Meršakušu “He-who-flies-into-Rage-but-quickly-calms-again”: – Meršakušu (dmer-šà-kúš-ù) – eziz u muštāl sabus u tayyār rapaš libbašu lāʾiṭ karassu (Enūma elîš VI:137–138) “(Marduk’s name is also) Meršakušu (Rage-calm), raging yet circumspect, angry yet forgiving. His heart is wide, his mind all-encompassing.” Among the five major catastrophes listed above, two have been provided with an intra-Babylonian reasoning that has come down to us. These events are nos. 3 and 4, the devastations of Babylon and abductions of Marduk by the Elamite ruler Kutir-Naḫḫunte II and by the Assyrian king Sennacherib respectively. The descriptions of these events will be discussed in detail below. Basically, they operate with the classic philosophy of “sin and sanction” and with “military defeat as divine punishment”.364 The sins of the Babylonians, however, which according to this logic must have been the reason for divine wrath, are treated slightly differently in the reports on event no. 3 and event no. 4. As we shall see, the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I presented a rather soft reading of the Babylonian misdeeds which must have triggered the catastrophe prior to his reign. The Assyrian king Esarhaddon, however, who discussed event no. 4, the devastation of Babylon by his father Sennacherib, was quite outspoken about the sins of the Babylonians. But, although Esarhaddon basically presented an Assyrian reading of the events, he arranged his line of arguments along the interpretation of event no. 3, which had been given half a millennium earlier by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I. Esarhaddon, who was also king of Babylon, obviously dressed his Assyrian reading in Babylonian array in order to win the acceptance of the status quo by the literate Babylonians. Event no. 2, the conquest of Babylonia by the Assyrian king Tukultī-Ninurta I, presents another, very simple and completely Assyrian approach. In this case, the Assyrian king developed his argument along the straightforward, classic line of “sin and sanction”, combined with a simple blackening of the opponent’s image. According to Tukultī-Ninurta, the Babylonian king Kaštiliyaš IV had treacherously violated a sworn treaty. Consequently, he was deserted by the gods and punished by their chosen tool, i.e. Tukultī-Ninurta.365 This very simple line of argument is verbosely developed in the Epic of Tukultī-Ninurta:366 The Babylonian gods become 364

365 366

On “sin and sanction”, as well as on the reasons and the forms of expression of “divine wrath and mercy” and on “military defeat as a result of divine anger” see van der Toorn 1985; Spieckermann 2008; Krebernik 2008; numerous individual studies in Kratz & Spieckermann 2008; Charpin 2015; recent and detailed discussion by Johandi 2016. See also the brief discussion on p. 519 below. Quoted after the edition by Machinist 1978, pp. 60–139; translated also by Foster 2005, pp. 298–317. Discussed by Machinist 1976; Johandi 2016, pp. 143–146 and passim; see Schroeder 2001, pp. 147–152 on the prayer of Tukultī-Ninurta I to Šamaš in the Epic.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

74

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

angry at Kaštiliyaš, the oathbreaker. Enlil, Marduk, Sîn, Šamaš, Ea, Ištarān, Anunītu and the Lady-of-Uruk forsake their shrines and their cities (col. I; B obv. 32’–47’).367 Because of his sins, which are put by the poet even into Kaštiliyaš’ mouth as a confession (col. III; A obv. 25’–38’), Kaštiliyaš is not able to obtain any positive omens (têrēt šulmi) from the gods, neither by extispicy, nor by dreams (col. III; A obv. 41’–45’).368 In the decisive battle, the gods side with Tukultī-Ninurta against Kaštiliyaš (col. V; A rev. 33’–40’). The text lists Aššur, Enlil, Anu, Sîn, Adad, Šamaš, Ninurta and Ištar. Marduk is not mentioned here. So, Tukultī-Ninurta’s inscriptions and the epic composed in his honour do not offer any intraBabylonian argument that allows us to understand how the Babylonians themselves tried to come to terms with the situation. Event no. 3 had been discussed at length by Nebuchadnezzar I in one of his royal inscriptions (Source 32), drawn up after his famous raid on Elam which set matters straight again for the Babylonians. The account given by Nebuchadnezzar opens with the description of an Unheilszeit unfolding. The outbreak of divine wrath (Source 32, ll. 17, 19) is construed around the larger topic that “things changed” (šanû, l. 15, 18, 22). The elements changing are idātu “signs” (l. 15), ṭēmu “thinking” (l. 18) and milku “wits/intellectual capacity” (l. 22). The term šanû ṭēmi, and to a lesser extent also šanû milki, can mean “changing one’s mind”, but it is far more often used to describe insanity.369 Here, it is quite clear that “madness” and “viciousness” is meant in lines 18 and 22. The changing portents are named first (l. 15), but as divine warnings they are logically secondary to the changing of human behaviour (ll. 18, 22). The divine wrath in line 19 appears to have been triggered by the moral offences in line 18b. But they in turn are an outcome of the gods forsaking the country in line 18a, ordered by enraged Marduk (l. 17), the cause of whose wrath is not specified. Systematic and theologic thinking would ask for a reason, e.g. for sins comitted by the people or by that “former king” (l. 15) whose name is conspiciously not given. Around line 18, when the gods leave the land and the people go mad, the topic of what or who was to blame in the first place gets lost in a description of sweeping chaos. Correspondingly, the strangely evasive phrase “good departed and evil was constant” (l. 16) probably denotes “sins of the people”, but is formulated like one of the passages describing “gods and good genies leaving” (ll. 18–20). The repetition of the šanû-cycle, inscribed into an accelerating rhetoric that enlarges and elucidates its motifs and arguments by repeating them, obscures the fact that the sin that must have triggered divine wrath in the first place is not named at all. Instead, the beginning of the disaster is referred to rather vagely as having occurred during the reign of a former king. If we sort the statements structurally according to their logical place in the argument, we arrive at the following typological elements: 367

368 369

This corresponds to the leaving of the gods of Ur prior to the conquest of the city in the stages 16–17 of the Lament for Sumer and Ur, see Source 4, D and the overview of this composition ibidem sub “content”. The inability of obtaining omens, resulting from a disturbed relationship with the gods, appears also to be the topic of Source 11, Source 24 and Source 60. CAD Ṭ, pp. 95–96, s.v. ṭēmu 5c-d; CAD M/II, pp. 68–69, s.v. milku 2c. On the concept of insanity in Babylonia see Stol 2009; Steinert 2012, pp. 390–394; Schaudig 2014.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Ancient Explanations

Elements (Source 32) A) Sins of the people:

75

Content The thinking of the people changes, they are incited to falsehood. 22b The land’s wits turn mad. 16 Good departs, evil is constant. B) Divine wrath: 17 Marduk becomes angry. 19a Good genies become angry. C) Bad omens: 15 Portents deteriorate. D) Gods leave: 18a The gods abandon the land. 19b–20 Good genies leave the land. E) Evil enters: 21 Demons enter the land. F) Elamite attack: 23–24 Elamites enter the land. In the report of Nebuchadnezzar however, the elements enter the stage in a different order. They start (I) with the bad omens appearing (C), and develop their analysis in two repeating circles (II and III). The first analysis (II) describes divine alienation as resulting from human sins. The second analysis (III) explains human problems as resulting from divine alienation. Part IV describes the historical situation as experienced, with the divine sphere (B–D) blanked out. Here, the demons (E) are replaced by the Elamites (F).370 From the bad omens in line 15 (I) to the devastation of Babylonia by the Elamites in line 24 (IV) the storyline passes through two analytic circles (II–III): I (A) (B) C(15)

Lines 18b

II A(16) B(17) (C) D(18a)

III

IV

A(18b) B(19a) (C) D(19b–20) E(21)

A(22b) F(23–24) This passage is a masterpiece of an intra-Babylonian reasoning about what went wrong in general without stepping on anybody’s toes in particular. The report makes use of the logical mutual dependence of bad and mad conduct of the people and divine wrath, but it is silent about the original offence that led up to the catastrophe in those former times of an earlier king. The unspoken offence, perhaps still unclear due to an unsettled discussion within Babylonian society, is pushed aside and confined to the remote reign of an earlier king. In a very similar manner, the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34), an esoteric text drawn up probably rather directly after Nebuchadnezzar’s raid on Elam, presents chaos and unrest as 370

This is part of the demonization and bestialization of the enemy, see chapter 11.4, C.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

76

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

the result of divine absence,371 not as the cause. The Marduk Prophecy goes even one step further and largely negates the notion of divine wrath. Instead, Marduk’s “journeys” are deliberately presented as a kind of pleasure trips the god undertook because he was in the mood to do so. He wanted to see Ḫatti, so he went there (Source 34, B 1). Aššur (Baltil) and its king were pleasing to him, so he went there (Source 34, C 1). Only in the case of Elam (Source 34, D) could the author not force himself to present this land as an attractive place for Marduk to dwell. Obviously, these Elamite memories were too fresh and the pain suffered was still too intense. So, contrary to Ḫatti and Aššur, Elam is not a blessing for Babylon, and it is not blessed by Marduk in turn, but cursed.372 In his analysis of the reasons for the destruction of Babylon in 689 BCE (Source 74), Esarhaddon took up the model provided by Nebuchadnezzar, but he was also quick to specify the sins of the Babylonians. For his versions A and B, with the bad omens coming first, Esarhaddon adopted the structure and even the very phrasing of the explanation given by Nebuchadnezzar I (Source 32) as to why Marduk deserted Babylonia before his reign and allowed the Elamites to smite the land and the temples. The structural stages in Esarhaddon’s reports (Source 74) are as follows:373 1. bad omens in the time of a former king (A 1) (B1 1) [ ? ] ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― 2. people lie to each other (A 2) [. . . .] [. . . .] 3. social disorder and crimes [. . . .] (C 1–7) 4. people forsake their gods (A 3) (B2 1) [C 8a] 5. people leave their duties, pursue other things (A 4) (B2 2) (C 8b) 6. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (B2 3) [C 9a] 7. people commit sins and taboos (B2 4) (C 9b) 8. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (B2 5) [C 10a] 9. people incite a conspiracy against Assyria (B2 6) (C 10b) 10a. people touch the treasury of Esaĝil (A 5) (B2 7) (C 11) 10b. and steal from the temple (B2 7) (C 11) 11. they sell off its gold etc. to Elam as hire (A 6) (B2 8) (C 12) 12. Marduk becomes angry and plots evil (A 7) [. . . .] (C 13–15) 13. Marduk curses the land (C 16) ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― 14. bad omens occur [ ? ] (C 17–19) In Esarhaddon’s reports (Source 74), there are two major versions, differing from one another as to the place the bad signs occur in the composition. The first one adopts the interpretation of Marduk’s wrath as presented in the report (Source 32) of Nebuchadnezzar I dealing with the devastation of Babylonia by the Elamites in the 12th century BCE: 371

372 373

See Source 34, D 5–10; D 5: alcoholism, dead people blocking the gates; D 6: social bonds disrupted; D 7: social order reversed; D 8: weak authorities, chaos rising; D 9–10: wild animals attack and kill people; wild animals invading the city are also understood as bad omens, see the discussion on pp. 174ff. below. See Borger 1971, p. 21 in general, p. 16 on Ḫatti (I:13–22) and Aššur (I:3’–5’; 12’: Marduk blesses Assyria), p. 17 on Elam (III:22’–23’: Marduk announces the destruction of Elam). On the sins allegedly committed by the people see pp. 79f. and 135 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Ancient Explanations

77

1. bad signs (A 1) (B1 1) 2. sins of the Babylonians (A 2–6) (B2 2–8) 3. Marduk becomes enraged (A 7) [. . . .] Nearly all manuscripts of version A come from Babylon. One fragmentary manuscript, from which, however, the part under discussion is missing, comes from Aššur.374 The manuscripts of version B come from Nineveh. As it appears, the reading of history as presented in this line of thoughts was prepared for a mainly Babylonian audience, at home in Babylon or in exile at the Assyrian court. Esarhaddon probably tried to lure the Babylonians into accepting the Assyrian interpretation of the destruction of Babylon by dressing it in the guise of the older, Babylonian report of Nebuchadnezzar I. Esarhaddon even quoted the line introducing the evil befalling Babylon from Nebuchadnezzar’s report nearly verbatim in his own inscriptions.375 A fourth version (D), which does not address the sins of the Babylonians and the bad omens at all, keeping down any discussion, also comes from Babylon. The second line of reading history as presented by Esarhaddon puts an elaborate list of the sins of the Babylonians ahead. The sins comprise moral and social offences (C 1–7), sacrileges (C 8–10), and finally the theft of goods from Marduk’s treasury in order to hire Elam against Assyria (C 11–12): 1. sins of the Babylonians (C 1–12) 2. Marduk becomes enraged (C 13–16) 3. bad signs (C 17–19) This line of events is presented only in manuscripts coming from Nineveh, i.e. written for an Assyrian audience. This is the more logical line of events, leading from the sins of the Babylonians to their punishment, announced by bad omens. The important point in this discussion is the position of the bad signs at the beginning of the narrative in Esarhaddon’s versions (A 1) and (B1 1). Being put ahead in the reports of Nebuchadnezzar I and Esarhaddon, the “bad signs” acquire secondarily a meaning that comes very close to “bad powers”.376 This is because the sharp intellectual differenciation between “indicator of evil” and “evil indicated” appears not always to have been maintained. When at the beginning of the reign of Aššurbanipal the gods show the pleasure they take in the new king by releasing abundant water from clouds and springs and by making the crops thrive miraculously,377 these good omens are not just indicators of good things, but the good things themselves. Likewise, in namburbi-rituals the difference between an 374 375

376 377

See note 1927 on p. 537 below. Nebuchadnezzar’s report (Source 32), l. 15: inūšu ina palê šarri maḫrî išnâ idātu “in those days, during the reign of a former king, the portents took a turn (for the worse).” – Esarhaddon’s report (Source 74), phrases A 1 and B1 1 (slightly shorter): inūšu (var.: ullânūʾa) ina palê šarri maḫrî ina māt Šumeri u Akkadî ittabšâ idātu lemnētu “in those days (var.: before my time), during the reign of a former king, signs portending evil appeared again and again in the land of Sumer and Akkad.” On the problem whether ittu (pl. ittātu/idātu) “sign” can also mean “power” see the discussion in the commentary on Source 74, A 1. Streck 1916/II, pp. 6–7, annals I:41–51.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

78

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

indicator of evil and the evil itself was at some stage neglected.378 A similar transition between the indicator of evil and the evil indicated can be seen in the explanation of an earthquake, as given by the scholar Balasî to king Esarhaddon.379 Balasî explains to the king, that the evil indicated by the earthquake was the earthquake itself, a rather bold interpretation which turns the whole system of omens upside down. In this respect, the “signs” (idātu) can secondarily acquire a meaning coming very close to “powers”, depending upon the position they are introduced into the argument. This appears to be the case in the reports of Nebuchadnezzar (Source 32, l. 15) and Esarhaddon (Source 74, l. A 1). However, one should bear in mind that this transition of meaning is only due to the way how the events are presented in the reports. It requires a deliberate ignoring of the systematic and theological dependency of sin and sanction. The presentation of the omens first, appears to make use of a placating and mollifying effect. Putting the bad signs ahead, without stating straightforwardly and harshly that those signs were in fact but the result of the just wrath of Marduk, offended by the outrageous sins of the Babylonians, allows structuring of the events into “bad times” (Unheilszeit) then and “good times” (Heilszeit) now. It abandons the strictly systematic and theological explanation and covers up the question of cause and effect. This storyline may well be in place in the report of the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar who apparently would not go into too much detail about the actual reason for the disaster that had struck his own land so badly. Dwelling on “people lying” without addressing the sins of responsible kings and priests looks like a feeble excuse. In its evasive and calming effect, it recalls the report of Nabonidus on the wrath of Sîn which had desolated his city Ḫarrān, and which was placated after a given time, without addressing the topic of sin and penance (see p. 191). Significantly, Esarhaddon abandons this kind of presentation when he comes to deal with the sins of the Babylonians in painful scrutiny in the inscriptions of type C. There, he lists the sins of the Babylonians elaborately and puts the threatening signs last, after the wrath of Marduk and just ahead of the catastrophe. This is their logical place. The beginning of the storyline of type C is not preserved, but I doubt that the bad signs appeared there, too, as in types A and B. The same reluctance in engaging with intra-Babylonian discussions of sins and guilt, even though admitting divine wrath, is found in an inscription of Mardukapla-iddina II.380 Without discussing any reason at all for the wrath of Marduk, Marduk-apla-iddina tells us that “the great lord Marduk had been angry with the land of Akkad” lately.381 This is the reason why “the wicked Subarian (= Assyrian) had been exercising the rule over the land of Akkad for seven years”.382 But now, 378 379 380 381 382

Maul 1994, p. 7, with note 56, p. 85: the indicator of evil (“Omenanzeiger”) is treated as if he had caused the evil (e.g. as a sorcerer), he is magically removed and annihilated. See p. 137 below with note 641. After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 137, no. B.6.21.1, ll. 8–15. Ibidem line 8: [in]ūšu bēlu rabû Marduk itti māt Akkadî k[im]iltuš isbusma. ́ Ibidem line 9: [seb]e [šanātī]ma nakru lemnu Subarû ina māt Akkadî ippuš bēlūta. The restoration of seven years at the beginning of the line ([mu-6+]1-kam-ma) is due to the

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Ancient Explanations

79

“the great lord Marduk had become reconciled again with the land of Akkad, with which he had been angry”.383 Now, Marduk had called Marduk-apla-iddina to kingship, which means that good times are here again. The bad seven years comprise the rules of the Assyrian kings Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V over Babylonia from 729–722 BCE. According to Marduk-apla-iddina, it was just a matter of time when Marduk would be reconciled again: “[unt]il the days were fulfilled and the appointed time had arrived.”384 In like manner, Nabonidus explained that the period of Sîn’s wrath, which had smitten Ḫarrān in 610 BCE, simply had expired (see pp. 191f.) by the beginning of his kingship, without discussing why Sîn had become angry in the first place at all. In another case, where Nabonidus deals with the wrath of Sîn against Babylonia during his reign, he was quite eager to list the sins of the Babylonians in detail again. Obviously, Nabonidus wanted to spare the feelings of the Ḫarrānians, but could be quite strict with the Babylonians, with whom he notoriously was at odds. According to him, all the Babylonians, priests and ordinary people alike, had sinned grievously against Sîn’s great godhead:385 – (14) nišū mārū Bābil Barsip (15) Nippur Ur Uruk Larsa šangû (16) nišū māḫāzī māt Akkadî ana ilūtīšu rabīti (17) iḫṭûhīma išētū u ugallilū (18) lā īdû ezēssu galta ša šar ilānī (19) Nannār parṣīšun imšûhīma (20) idabbubū surrāti u lā kīnāti (21) kīma kalbī ittanakkalū aḫāmiš “(14) The people of Babylon, Borsippa, (15) Nippur, Ur, Uruk, and Larsa, the priests (as well as the ordinary) (16–17) people of the cities of Babylonia sinned against his great godhead, they neglected (him) and committed sacrileges. (18) They did not know the raging wrath of the king of the gods, (19) Nannār. They forgot their cultic duties. (20) They would talk lies and untruths, (21) devouring each other like dogs.” In consequence, Sîn smote the country with a plague, but he let Nabonidus escape to Tayma, since the king himself was innocent:386 – (21) diʾu (22) u sugû ina libbīšunu *ušabši-u (23a) uṣaḫḫir nišī māti (23b) ́ u anāku ultu (24) ālīya Bābil ušēriqannīma “(21–22) He caused diʾu-disease and famine to appear among them and (23a) reduced the people of the land. (23b–24) But me, he let me escape from my city Babylon.” It is very interesting to compare the accusations of Nabonidus with those of Esarhaddon and with the inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I. We can see that in particular the texts of Esarhaddon and Nabonidus share the same set of topics:

383 384 385 386

seven years of Assyrian occupation of Babylonia under Tiglath-pileser III and Shalmaneser V, according to the Babylonian King List (Grayson 1980–1983 [RlA 6], p. 93). Tiglath-pileser III (745–727 BCE) had been reigning over Babylon under the name Pūlu in 729–727 BCE, and Shalmaneser V did so under the name Ulūlāyu in 727–722 BCE. Ibidem line 11: [bēlu] rabû Marduk ana māt Akkadî ša ikmilu ir[š]û salīma. Ibidem line 10: [ad]i ūmū imlû ikšuda adannu. Nabonidus, Ḫarrān Stele H 2B, Schaudig 2001, pp. 488–489, no. 3.1 2 I 14–21. Nabonidus, Ḫarrān Stele H 2B, Schaudig 2001, pp. 488–489, no. 3.1 2 I 21–24.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

80

Chapter 4: Destructions of Babylon and Abductions of Marduk

The Babylonians tell lies (surrātu):387 – šūḫuzā surrāti “They were incited to falsehood.” – nišū (…) anna ulla aḫāmiš ītappalū idabbubā surrāti “The people (…) used to answer each other ‘yes’ for ‘no’, telling lies.” – idabbubū surrāti u lā kīnāti “They would talk lies and untruths.” The Babylonians devour each other like dogs: – (Elaborate description of social disorder) – kīma kalbī ittanakkalū aḫāmiš “They would devour each other like dogs.” The Babylonians forget their cultic duties: – parṣīšina īzibāma (var.: umašširāma) “They forsook their cultic duties.” – parṣīšun imšûhīma “They forgot their cultic duties.” The Babylonians sin against their gods: – ilānīšina ībukāma imēšā ištarātīšin “They abolished their gods and despised their goddesses.” – šangû nišū (…) ana ilūtīšu rabīti iḫṭûhīma išētū u ugallilū “The priests and the people (…) sinned against his (: Sîn’s) great godhead, they neglected (him) and committed sacrileges.”

Nebuch. (18) Esarh. (A 2) Nab. (H 2B, I:20)

Esarh. (C 1–7) Nab. (H 2B, I:21)

Esarh. (A 4; B2 2; C 8) Nab. (H 2B, I:19)

Esarh. (A 3; B2 1) Nab. (H 2B, I:15–17)

Summarizing the results, we can observe that the most clear and harsh explanations of Marduk’s wrath as caused by Babylonian sins are given by the notso-Babylonian kings Esarhaddon and Nabonidus, kings whose hearts certainly were not dedicated to Marduk and Babylon undividedly, to say the least. In stark contrast, the proper Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar I and Marduk-apla-iddina II give rather soft explanations that delicately skirt around the topic of sin and guilt.

387

Below, the following abbreviations are used: Nebuch. = inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I (Source 32); Esarh. = inscriptions of Esarhaddon (Source 74); Nab. = inscription of Nabonidus from Ḫarrān, H 2B, Schaudig 2001, pp. 486–499, no. 3.1.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

5. The Formation of a Tradition In the course of the second millennium BCE, the events accompaning the fall of the once powerful Third Dynasty of Ur became typified as a model disaster in Babylonian historical philosophy. One might be tempted to call the fatal incident rather banal, since things like these kept happening all over the ancient Near East for millennia. But after all, it was not just any land that was smitten, but the land of Sumer, the homeland, the centre of civilization. Fact (late 3rd mill.) Ibbi-Sîn of Ur388

Tradition (2nd mill.)

Tradition (1st mill.)

• Fictional royal letters389 • Cultic lamentations • Canonical omens391 • Canonical omens390 • Uncanonical omens:392 Book of Prodigies (Source 36) • Rationale: Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35)

During the early Old Babylonian period, the story of Ibbi-Sîn turned from fact into fiction. It was iconized as šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn “Ibbi-Sîn Disaster” and it was handed down in literary tradition to the first millennium, most prominently in the form of “historical omens” (see chapter 6). For this genre, the Babylonian scholars coined the catchphrase amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti “omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster”.393 The tag šaḫluqtu “disaster” was in use to mark out Ibbi-Sîn’s fate for two millennia from the Old Babylonian to the Late Babylonian period. Already Ernst Weidner (1928–1929, p. 237) had pointed out the prominent use of the term šaḫluqtu “disaster”, and after him also Dietz-Otto Edzard (1957, pp. 50–51 with note 227), Piotr Michalowski (1989, p. 2 with note 5) and William Wolfgang Hallo (1991, p. 160).394 Only recently, Michalowski (2006, p. 256) has again paraphrased the Akkadian catchphrase as “[t]hose who studied omen texts knew well that the portents linked to Ibbi-Sîn meant only one thing: disaster.” As an echo of the Babylonian tag šaḫluqtu, modern scholarly literature has labelled Ibbi-Sîn as an “Unglücksherrscher” or as an “ill-starred king”.395

388 389 390 391 392 393 394

395

See the overview of the historical figure Ibbi-Sîn in chapter 2. Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. Ibbi-Sîn omens (ISO): ISO 1 – ISO 13, see the overview in chapter 6.1. Ibbi-Sîn omens (ISO): ISO 15 – ISO 23, see the overview in chapter 6.1. I count the the Book of Prodigies (Source 36) as one single “uncanonical” omen (ISO 14). See the overview in the introduction to chapter 6.1. The term saḫmaštu (“turmoil/anarchy/chaos”), which Edzard, Michalowski and Hallo quote in addition to šaḫluqtu, does in fact not occur in the Ibbi-Sîn tradition. It is a misreading of ša-aḫ-/-lu-uq-ti in the omen from Source 26 by Goetze (1947, p. 262), see the commentary on lines XIII 3–4 of this text on p. 308 below. See, among others, Weidner 1928–1929, p. 237; Güterbock 1934, pp. 24, 61, 75–76; Gadd 1971, p. 617; Michalowski 1977b, p. 157; Evans 1983, pp. 111–112.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

82

Chapter 5: The Formation of a Tradition

But it was not the exact historical details that were discussed by the Babylonians, but the overall structure of the catastrophe. Although it was still known that IbbiSîn had been a king of Sumer and Ur, and that it was the city of Ur and its temple Ekišnuĝal which were devastated, these details vanished from the centre of attention. The Babylonians were interested in the structure and logic of the event. By the first millennium, the political focus had shifted away from Sumer and Ur and the moon-god Sîn towards Babylonia, to the city of Babylon and to the god Marduk. So the story of that catastrophe from the third millennium was retold in a first millennium setting, focusing on the god Marduk. Finally, the old story of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster was provided with a reasoning why the gods left the country to destruction, and would do so again. This philosophy was laid out most clearly in a composition known today as the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). The Babylonians kept the memory of the catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn in a variety of very peculiar and often esoteric texts, such as omens, or cultic lamentations – probably not the kind of texts we would call historiography. Yet, in these peculiar sources with their salient bias we can see the peculiar Babylonian take on history more clearly than in other texts, which might look more “sober” to us, at least at first sight. 5.1. Isin’s Answer After the First Dynasty of Isin had installed itself as successor and heir of the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur, a kind of graveyard peace seems to have been imposed upon the land. The question why the gods had left the land to destruction was not touched upon at all.396 At first, Išbi-Erra of Isin was busy enough fighting the Elamites who had established themselves at Ur (see Source 16, also Source 15). Later, under his son Šu-ilīšu, the cities and temples of Sumer and Ur had to be restored, and the land was settled again (Source 10). For the reinauguration of the cult centres, the kings of Isin had lamentations composed, which, however, are completely silent about the reasons for the disaster.397 As indicated earlier,398 the reason for this silence is to be sought in the blunt fact that Isin had managed to establish itself as a centre of kingship only at the expense of the ruin of Ur. If Isin would have dared to tackle the reasons for the catastrophe, it would have had to discuss its own role under Išbi-Erra in the first place. It is easy to see why, under these conditions, the kings of Isin did not enter any discussion at all. Instead, they made the most of the idea embedded in the structure of the Sumerian King List, which means that kingship is an office that different Babylonian cities hold in turn.399 After the fall of Ur, it was simply Isin’s turn. To put it in the words of Piotr Michalowski:400 396 397 398 399 400

See the discussion on pp. 51ff. above in chapter 3. The Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4), and the Lament for Uruk (Source 6). The Lament for Ur (Source 7) not even mentions Ibbi-Sîn’s name. See p. 53 above; see also the later reflection of the situation in the literary letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur (Source 1 and Source 2). The “term of office cycle” (bala) of the Sumerian King List, see pp. 188f. below. Michalowski 1983, p. 242; similarly Michalowski 1989, pp. 6–8.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Isin and Larsa

83

“[The] conscious attempt to link the Isin dynasty with the Ur III kings was most dramatically realized in a literary text which exploited the fall of Ur. The “Lament over the Destruction of Sumer und Ur,” […] contains in effect a full articulation of Isin ideology. […] The “Lament” and the King List both reflect the same ideology; Isin is in line to hegemony and that is simply the way things are.” In addition, the authors who composed the Lament for Sumer and Ur on behalf of the kings of Isin dressed the character of Ibbi-Sîn in the figure of the “passive king” who would not act, but only sit and grieve.401 This delineation had earlier been successfully employed in the portrayal of Narām-Sîn of Akkade and of Amar-Sîn of Ur in the compositions The Curse of Akkade and Amar-Sîn and Enki’s Temple.402 Sitting passively does not explain Enlil’s wrath in the first place, but it gives Ibbi-Sîn his share in the blame for not having averted the catastrophe. It is small wonder that the Old Babylonian omen tradition that had it that Ibbi-Sîn was betrayed by his own people and allies was not reflected in the Lament for Sumer and Ur, since it would have turned the attention to the role of Isin’s defection.403 It is interesting, however, that Išbi-Erra is not mentioned at all in this composition, not even as the brave governor of Isin who did his very best to fend off the enemies. 5.2. Larsa’s Answer Outside of the realm of Isin, or in intellectual areas which were not fully dominated by the kings of Isin, the story of Ibbi-Sîn was digested and finally provided with a reasoning. The results of this intellectual productivity, however, become tangible for us only after the end of the reign of Isin, during the subsequent reign of the dynasty of Larsa. The oldest references to the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster are probably the omens from the liver models found at Mari.404 According to their grammar and orthography they are still very close to the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Among the liver models from Mari, there is also the first omen dealing with Išbi-Erra of Isin (Source 15). The other Old Babylonian omens come from the corpus of texts published in YOS 10.405 Christian Dyckhoff has argued that these omen texts were probably part of the archive and text collection of Bala-munamḫe and his family, which was closely connected to the god Enki and his temple at Larsa.406 This archive runs roughly from 1830–1730 BCE.407 401 402 403 404 405

406

See excerpt B from the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4) and the discussion on p. 275 below in the commentary. See the discussion here on p. 275 in the commentary on Source 4, B. For the Old Babylonian Ibbi-Sîn omens dealing with betrayal and revolt see Source 12, Source 13 and Source 21. Source 12, Source 13 and Source 14. Source 16, Source 17, Source 20, Source 21, Source 22, Source 23, Source 24, Source 25, Source 26, Source 27 and Source 28. Not all of these omens deal with Ibbi-Sîn, but also with Ku-Baʾu, Amar-Suʾena and Išbi-Erra. Dyckhoff 1999/I, pp. 110–113, 119–120; followed by Michalowski 2006, p. 255; Brisch (2007, pp. 33–34) has reservations, as has Winitzer (2017, p. 17, note 97). Already Kraus (JCS 4, 1950, p. 142) had argued for Ur or Larsa. – Eridu-liwwir, grandson of Bala-mu-

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

84

Chapter 5: The Formation of a Tradition

Probably also from Larsa comes the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur.408 As Fabienne Huber has shown,409 the origin of this corpus of fictional royal letters of the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur is to be sought outside of the new capital of Isin. The texts are grammatically later than Lipit-Eštar of Isin (ca. 1934–1924 BCE). By the stratigraphy of their findspots and by their colophons they can be dated to the period from Sumu-la-El (ca. 1880–1845 BCE) to Samsu-iluna (ca. 1749–1712 BCE) of Babylon. The literary catalogues which date to the time of the hegemony of the First Dynasty of Isin do not list the letters. Ten letters of Šulgi are listed in a late Old Babylonian catalogue which also lists a letter addressed to Sumu-la-El of Babylon.410 A literary catalogue from Uruk which finally lists the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur comes from a complex of tablets dating to the years 32– 43 of Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa (ca. 1822–1763 BCE).411 This means that the literary corpus of these letters probably emerged more than a century after the historical events they describe. The political background is probably set by the rise of the dynasty of Larsa, which began under Gungunum (ca. 1932–1906 BCE) and which finally withdraw the city of Ur from the rule of Isin. Gungunum took control of Ur probably in his seventh year. He was also briefly in control of Nippur and took the title “king of Sumer and Akkad”.412 There are literary letters and letter-prayers from the reigns of Sîn-iddinam of Larsa (ca. 1849–1843 BCE) and Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa (ca. 1822–1763 BCE).413 So the genre of literary letters flourished under the later

407

408 409 410 411

412 413

namḫe the elder, was purification priest (išib/išippu) of Enki. The diviner (máš-šu-gídgíd/bārû) Nūrum-līṣi was the son-in-law of Bala-mu-namḫe the elder (Dyckhoff 1999/I, pp. 90, 106, 111). Bala-mu-namḫe the elder, son of Sîn-nūr-mātim, can be traced from Warad-Sîn 6 (ca. 1829 BCE) to Rīm-Sîn 31 (ca. 1792 BCE). His grandson, Bala-mu-namḫe son of Iddin-Ea, was active from Rīm-Sîn 57 (ca. 1766 BCE) to Samsu-iluna 11 (ca. 1738 BCE). See Van de Mieroop 1987b, p. 2. Excerpts from this corpus are presented here in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. The following remarks after Huber 2001, pp. 205–206. AUAM 73.2402, Cohen 1976, pp. 131–133; Huber 2001, p. 206, note 168; Michalowski 2011, p. 25. W 17259 an, Cavigneaux 1996, pp. 3, 57–59, no. 112; Huber 2001, p. 206 with note 166; Michalowski 2011, pp. 25–27. Among other compositions, the catalogue lists three Ibbi-Sîn letters in obv. 6–8: CKU no. 21, CKU no. 24 (Source 1 B; Source 3) and either CKU no. 23 (Source 2), or an unknown letter (Michalowski 2011, pp. 26, 441). Charpin 2004, pp. 71–72; Brisch 2007, p. 38. Brisch 2007, pp. 75–81: Sîn-iddinam’s letters of petition to Nin-Isina and Utu; pp. 81– 87: Letters of petition to Rīm-Sîn; on pp. 87–89 Brisch discusses the “Royal Correspondence of Larsa”. Since passages of Sîn-iddinam’s letters to the gods complain about setbacks and feebleness, Brisch (2007, p. 81, 117–118) proposes the idea that these letters were composed in order to present him in a negative light, perhaps by scribes loyal to the rulers of Babylon. This is interesting, but I am not convinced. The mode of whining and complaining in the first person is an integral element of letter-prayers, see Böck 1996, pp. 7–18. The self-accusation in the first person is meant to arouse pity and comfort, it is literally meant to be “contra-dicted” by the gods. This is very different from stating hard facts or reproaching someone else in the third person.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Isin and Larsa

85

kings of Larsa. Rīm-Sîn I is particularly famous for the late heyday of Sumerian literature which his court sported. In the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur,414 the literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn analyses his situation with a historical lucidity which is typical of a view in retrospect. This is not the view we should expect from people caught in the actual turmoil of the historical events. The figure of Ibbi-Sîn in fact does confirm Enlil’s dislike for Ur and his favour with Isbi-Erra, a view on the usurper which the historical king of Ur would certainly not have shared. The historical Ibbi-Sîn claimed the titles “divine patron of his land”, “king of Sumer and Akkad” and “king of the four regions” right to his very end.415 So the setting of this story is certainly not the historical royal court of Ur. On the other side, the abuses hurled at IšbiErra in the letter CKU no. 24 in a mixture of racial and social bias would certainly not have been appreciated at the court of Isin, either, even if uttered only by the figure of Ibbi-Sîn in the role as a desperate loser in the narrative.416 They make perfect sense, however, as part of the literature created by the scholars of the rivalling court of Larsa. Išbi-Erra of Isin is characterized as politically successful, but not in a good light. As far as the content of these letters is concerned, there is also a strong textual argument in favour of rating them as late and fictional compositions. That is the very fact that we understand these letters at all. Anyone who has ever read a couple of Babylonian letters – private or official ones – knows that one always stumbles very quickly over situations one does not understand or comes across persons one does not know. Since the ancient sender and the addressee knew what was going on, the letters would be formulated very concisely and would not spread out facts well known to the two parties. In a critical situation such as the decline of the empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur, we have to reckon with a multitude of unclear and unstable conditions that would change from day to day. In genuine letters we should expect to hear about persons and situations that were forgotten or passed over by later historical traditions since they played a role only during a very brief period of time. Nothing of this applies to the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur. Sender and addressee are carefully indentified with full names and titles – although this may be a later addition – topics and situations are described in unnecessary detail so the letters are fully understandable even to late borne outsiders like us, and the correspondence very often comes in pairs, as letter and response. They are in fact very much dialogues and debate poems, transferred into the sphere of letter writing as in the tales about Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta.417 414 415 416

417

See the excerpts here in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. See the overview on p. 42 above. The literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn calls Išbi-Erra a “(roving) bandit, a peddler of devil’s dung, who is not of Sumerian descent” (Source 1, B1 ll. 15–16; B2 ll. 20–21) and “the man from Mari, with the mind of a dog”, see p. 254 with note 1221 in the commentary of Source 1 and the discussion on p. 49 in chapter 3. See Mittermayer 2009, pp. 45–47 on the similarities between the composition Enmerkar and the lord of Aratta and the debate poems, reflected in the subheading of her study as

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

86

Chapter 5: The Formation of a Tradition

From this corpus of the Royal Correspondence come the first literary treatments of the conflict between Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra, his former official and the new king of Isin.418 A text from this rather late corpus presents the first interpretation of the events which gives a reason why Ibbi-Sîn and his land could not evade disaster. There is a letter, puportedly written by Ibbi-Sîn himself, in which the king explains to one of his few loyal officials left that he is about to overcome the crisis which had befallen him lately and which had allowed Išbi-Erra to rise.419 The reason for Ibbi-Sîn’s confidence is a liver omen which Enlil had sent him and which he quotes in that letter at length. However, Ibbi-Sîn misinterprets the omen in every respect. The warning omen unequivocally announces that one party will be delivered into the hands of the other one and will be killed. Gladly, Ibbi-Sîn understands this omen as a sign that he will catch his adversary and kill him. According to the setting of the story, Ibbi-Sîn means Išbi-Erra here. However, as the informed Old Babylonian audience of course knew, Ibbi-Sîn’s final and fatal enemy turned out to be Elam. So the figure of Ibbi-Sîn misidentifies his actual enemy.420 But this is not the only mistake. Certainly to the utter consternation of the ancient audience, Ibbi-Sîn obviously misinterprets the omen completely. Repeatedly, he confuses the ominous right and left side of the liver, not realizing that the king who will be bound and killed is nobody else but him. Enlil told him clearly, but he would not hear. The story might well pass as an illustration of the Sumerian proverb that has it that “the palace teems with ignorants”.421 According to the Old Babylonian interpretation of the events, Ibbi-Sîn was not considered a wicked, but a conceited ruler, who could not read the signs sent by the gods. The opposition between the right and the left side of the liver constitutes one of the basics of extispicy.422 This means that Ibbi-Sîn either had no educated advisors – which is highly implausible – or he did not listen to them. Scholars and diviners belonged to the basic equipment of an ancient Near Eastern palace. It was their task to advise and to guide the often illiterate rulers. As I shall argue below, it was this social class, whose expertise sometimes had to suffer the affronts of overbearing kings like Šulgi, who created the picture of Ibbi-Sîn as the king who would not hear. Ibbi-Sîn is presented here as one of the earliest examples of blind and conceited rulers in history like Croesus or Belshazzar who could not read the signs on the wall.423 This image of the guideless ruler is dominated by the notion that the communication between the king and the gods had broken down. Within the corpus of Old Babylonian omens, the same idea can be traced in the omen of Source 24. This is an omen from an anomaly, which is “solid”, i.e. compact and block-like. It is a very bad omen, for sure, but since it does not indicate any details, it cannot be read and understood. The opposite omen, which nevertheless means

418 419 420 421 422 423

“Ein ungleicher Wettstreit”. – Michalowski (2011, pp. 17–18, 34) compares the letters to the European epistolary novel. See the excerpts in Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. See the detailed discussion of this text below as Source 3 (“Ibbi-Sîn’s Error”). See the commentary on ll. 41–43 of Source 3. nu-zu é-gal-la ba-šár (Alster 1997/I, p. 178, Sum. Prov. Coll. 9, Sec. A 9). See the commentary on ll. 40–42 of Source 3. See, in particular on the comparison with Croesus, pp. 249 and 264.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Isin and Larsa

87

the same, is found in the omen of Source 60 from the first millennium. It is a liver ́ a lupputat). This, too, omen, and the liver is completely anomalous (amūtu kalûšām is a very bad omen, and this time the gods give too much information. They are not talking, but yelling. One does not know where to start and where to end the extispicy, and one does simply not understand anything. The text of Source 65 from the first millennium underlines the idea that Ibbi-Sîn was a ruler who did not understand the signs sent to him. This text is a commentary on the science of extispicy, and it warns the diviner: If there are seven ambiguous signs – the highest number of ambiguous signs in that paragraph – it is an omen of Ibbi-Sîn. So the picture we get from these illustrations is rather close to the image of the hapless, clueless and passive king, not guided by the gods, which the poets of the kings of Isin painted in the Lament for Sumer and Ur.424 It appears that we can observe here the evolution of a longue durée discussion dealing with the significance of divination on the whole.425 In the early Ur III period, the poets of the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur depicted Narām-Sîn of Akkade in the composition The Curse of Akkade as a paralyzed king who could not obtain any positive omens.426 Slightly later, this image was also applied to AmarSîn of Ur (Amar-Sîn and Enki’s Temple).427 In the Early Old Babylonian period, the figure of the guideless and passive king is developed into Ibbi-Sîn’s figure of the conceited king who is warned by omens, but cannot read them (Ibbi-Sîn’s Error, Source 3). Later, in the Cuthean Legend, Narām-Sîn is finally depicted as a king who does not even care for omens at all – at least temporarily.428 The background on which the narrative of the clueless Ibbi-Sîn fully unfolds is another piece of literature that also was studied in the Old Babylonian schools. The literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn as a conceited ruler is an implicit counterconcept to the lavish self-promotion of his grandfather Šulgi. In his famous self-praise, Šulgi boasts of his vast and intimate knowledge of the secrets of extispicy. His heavenly wisdom overshadows the scholarship of his studied full-time diviners, and, of course, he would never ever confuse a favourable sign with an unfavourable one:429 – máš-šu-gíd-gíd dadag-ga-me-en (l. 131) “I am (also) a ritually pure diviner.” (l. 132) – ĝìri-ĝen-na enim uzu-ga-ka dnin-tu-bi ĝe26-e-me-en “I am the very Nintu (: the creator deity) of the collections of omens.” 424 425 426 427

428

429

See Source 4, B, with commentary. See already Maul 2013, pp. 190–191. – See also p. 27 above, discussing typification. The Curse of Akkade, ll. 92–99; Cooper 1983, pp. 54–55. Amar-Sîn and Enki’s Temple; Sollberger, UET 8, no. 33, 19’–20’; online edition: ETCSL, text: 2.4.3.1, segment A:20–21. Discussed by Michalowski (1977b, p. 156) and Cooper (1983, pp. 27–28). See also the discussion here on p. 275 in the commentary on excerpt B from the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4). See Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 316, text 22, ll. 79–83. Preserved only in the Standard Babylonian recension from the first millennium BCE. The Old and Middle Babylonian recensions are very fragmentary. The following excerpts are from Šulgi’s Self-Praise B, after ETCSL, text: 2.4.2.02; older edition by Castellino 1972, p. 44. See already Michalowski 2006, pp. 247–248; Maul 2013, pp. 187–190.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

88

Chapter 5: The Formation of a Tradition

– máš-šu-gíd-gíd-ĝu10 na-ĝá-aḫ-gin7 u6 mu-e (l. 144) “My diviner watches me in amazement like an idiot.” (l. 146) – sa6-ga ḫul-da la-ba-an-da-ḫa-zé-en “I never confuse a favourable (sign) with an unfavourable one.” In particular this last statement is the very foil that sets the scene for the narrative of Ibbi-Sîn’s silly and fatal mistake (Source 3). At least his understanding of extispicy leaves much to be desired. His mixing up of the pars familiaris and hostilis of the liver, and his ignorance of the meaning of the weapon-mark must have left the ancient reader flabbergasted. The fact that in the very same letter the figure of Ibbi-Sîn claims for himself a share in the divine renders the conceited king completely ridiculous.430 Apart from this highly sophisticated interpretation of Ibbi-Sîn as a conceited ruler, the Old Babylonian omen tradition about Ibbi-Sîn appears to be still quite close to the historical, albeit coarse, facts. It provides the basic information that Ibbi-Sîn was overthrown by his own people and allies, and that it was Elam which struck the final blow.431 Already during the early Old Babylonian period the term šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn “Ibbi-Sîn Disaster” had been coined.432 The omens of the first millennium do preserve the historical tradition about Ibbi-Sîn, king of Ur, whose reign ended in famine and disaster, and who was taken to Anšan in fetters, but they also provide a more abstract reading, talking just about “the king” and “the land of Babylonia”. They deduce the principle from the individual facts and isolate the structure from the bewildering mass of details. In this process, the story of the gods of Sumer going to Elam into exile was brought up to date and mixed with the various events when Babylonia was conquered or devastated, and when Marduk and the Babylonian gods left for Elam, or Ḫatti and Assyria. The most important of these events was the devastation of Babylonia by the Elamites under ŠutrukNaḫḫunte I and his son Kutir-Naḫḫunte II in the late second millennium.433

430 431 432

433

See p. 265 with note 1265 in the commentary of Source 3. See the liver models from Mari (Source 12, Source 13 and Source 14). Mostly in the catchphrase amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti “omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster”, but also as a nominal composition in šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn “Ibbi-Sîn Disaster” (Source 26); see the overview on p. 93. See the discussion in chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

6. The Tradition of the Historical Omens The so-called “historical omens” are a very peculiar Babylonian element of learned literary tradition.434 In handing down omens, mostly liver omens, which were apparently held as having occurred just prior to or in a particular historical situation, they combine the fields of divination and of early historiography. However, we are accustomed to calling these omens “historical” not because they are unequivocally historical, but because they deal with history. We cannot actually tell whether the omens had in fact been observed in a given historical situation, or whether they had been produced by scholars only in the aftermath of the event, in the firm belief that the gods must have sent hints, either positive or negative.435 The main aim of historical omens certainly was not to provide historical information, but to illustrate the meanings of particular ominous signs on exemplary cases of the past. The gods would send omens as guidelines or warnings, and similar historical situations recurring formed a paradigm.436 Firmly convinced that these signs constituted a kind of written language of the gods, the Babylonian diviners tried to work out the orthography, lexicon, and grammar of that divine language. The “linguistic method” we see employed in the historical omens is dominated by analogy and association,437 to an even distinctly higher degree than normal omens. We are probably safe in surmising that highly illustrative omens of this kind had not been observed in advance, but attributed to specific figures or situations with hindsight.438 434

435

436

437

438

On the genre of historical omens see, among others, Weidner 1928–1929; Nougayrol 1945; Goetze 1947; Finkelstein 1963, pp. 464–470; Reiner 1974; Cooper 1980; Van Seters 1983, pp. 77–79; Starr 1986; Hallo 1991; Jonker 1995, pp. 55–58; Michalowski 1999, pp. 75–77; Metzler 2002, pp. 219–229; Maul 2013, pp. 210–212; Glassner 2015; PongratzLeisten 2015, pp. 366–369. This appears to be the case with the fictional, literary letter from Source 3, telling us how Ibbi-Sîn misinterpreted the liver omens sent to him by Enlil. – The opinions of modern scholars on the historicity of the “historical” omens differ widely. See, among others: Cooper (1980, p. 99) reckoned “that the historical value of the apodoses is nil.” Reiner (1974, p. 261) stated that “such historical omens have their relevance for the Mesopotamian scene, yes, but as ‘historiettes’, not history.” Finkelstein (1963, pp. 465, 469 and passim) basically assumed that the omens actually originated in the historical situation they describe. Hallo (1991, p. 156) defended “the ultimate historicity of the historical omens, as of other ancient historiographic sources.” On this function of the historical omens within the wider realm of divination see, among others, Finkelstein 1963, p. 466; Grayson 1975b, p. 21, note 34; Starr 1986, cols. 630–632; Michalowski 1999, p. 76; Glassner 2015, pp. 131–132; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, pp. 367–369. On analogy and association as methods of divinatory interpretation see Jeyes 1980, pp. 23–25; Starr 1983, pp. 8–12; Glassner 1984; Larsen 1987, pp. 213–214; Meyer 1987, pp. 81–92; Böck 2000, pp. 38–40; Greaves 2000, pp. 106–112; Maul 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 79– 80 § 7.9; Koch 2005, pp. 8–10. See e.g. recently Maul (2013, pp. 211–212) who assumes that many of the historical omens had not been actually observed, but had rather been developed logically from the hermeneutics of extispicy.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

90

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

A very instructive example is set by the Amar-Sîn omens (Source 28, A–B). The illustrative character of the connection between a “hole in the sill of the palace” and the “fatal wound in the king’s foot” is obvious. Another good example is the Sargon omen of Source 45 which turns the diviner’s liver into a regular map of the city of Babylon. The Ku-Baʾu omen of Source 41 (A) illustrates the gender ambiguity of the woman Ku-Baʾu occupying the male office of kingship by an anomaly born with both penis and vulva.439 A number of Ibbi-Sîn omens deal with the element on the liver called gate-of-the-palace. In a highly illustrative way, the appearance of the gate-of-the-palace expresses – or rather arouses – the notion of “the palace being open to invasion from all sides” and “the palace losing control”.440 There are also Ibbi-Sîn omens which have it that “the shepherd will be dislocated or absent” (Source 13, Source 14), referring to the final deporation of Ibbi-Sîn to Anšan. In other cases the illustrative character and the verbally expressed interpretation of the omen appear to be rather mutually complementary than literal. Such is the case in the omens of Source 15, Source 16 and Source 68 whose apodoses deal with the victorious Išbi-Erra. The illustrative character of double or competing elements in their protases, in paticular the “two shepherds” in the omen of Source 15, generate of the notion of “rivalry between two native kings”, i.e. between IbbiSîn and Išbi-Erra. The final victory of Išbi-Erra dealt with in the apodoses is the outcome of the idea of “competition” addressed in the protases. The widespread use of association and the illustrative character of the examples from the past make it in many cases virtually impossible to decide whether the Babylonians, in labelling a given omen as “omen of Sargon”, meant that this omen in fact occurred to Sargon, or whether it illustrates a “Sargon moment”, recalling a “Sargon situation”. In fact, there is reason to think that the Babylonians did not make this distinction at all. The bulk of the Gilgameš omens do not deal with a specific political situation that might have occurred during his reign, if Gilgameš is actually to be considered a historical person. Instead, they rather deal with the general character of his figure as it emerges from legendary tradition, i.e. the perfect king without a rival “ša šānina lā īšû”. If Gilgameš indeed was a historical figure, and if he indeed did obtain liver omens in some specific historical situation, it is highly unlikely that the gods would have answered him with “an omen of Gilgameš who had no rival”. The same applies to the Ku-Baʾu omen of Source 41 (A). The omen is connected to her legendary character as a female person occupying the male office of kingship.441 It is the topic of “female gender” or “sexual ambiguity” combined with “exercising power” that triggers the association “Ku-Baʾu the female king” in this omen. So these omens simply connect a characteristic element or situation to a well-known figure in a concise, illustrative way. By labelling a situation as a “Ku-Baʾu moment” or a “Gilgameš disposition” they re-personalize a characteristic that has earlier been abstracted from the individual, legendary figure. The label “Gilgameš” means unrivalled 439 440 441

See chapter 7.3, king no. 5, in particular p. 151. See the discussion below on pp. 100f. See the discussion below on pp. 147-152.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Ibbi-Sîn Omens

91

power, “Ku-Baʾu” means an awkward political situation characterized by dominant queens, queen mothers or eunuchs (Source 41, B), and “Ibbi-Sîn” means utter disaster: ša šaḫluqti.442 The topic becomes more complicated when we turn to historical omens like the Narām-Sîn omen which announced victory over Apišal (*ʾpšl) via association with a “break”, i.e. pilšu (*plš) in the protasis.443 Here, the associative, pseudo-linguistic character between the two key-terms is clear. Moreover, we can observe in this particular example that the “figura etymologica” ʾpšl–plš was fully developed only over time, since it is not found in the older versions of this omen. However, we still cannot exclude that this kind of omen in fact had occurred in the actual historical situation. Another, more complicated example is presented by the Sargon omen from Source 45. Obviously, it illustrates a historical legend, which certainly had existed earlier and independently as an etiology explaining the origin of a pit or a depression on the “Meadow of (the goddess) Katuna” at Babylon. Referring to this legend – i.e. only secondarily – the omen connects the “event” to a correspondingly formed liver. Although the protasis actually illustrates a consequence of Sargon’s legendary victory – taking Babylon’s sacred soil captive – the apodosis nevertheless has it that Sargon exercised dominion over Babylon “by this omen” (ina šīri annî),444 which he logically should have obtained in advance. But given the Babylonians’ conviction that these signs were sent deliberately by the gods, making such a distinction means missing the point of omens at all. If asked, the ancients would have certainly told us – and they clearly do in the case of the aforementioned Sargon omen (Source 45, l. 8) – that the gods had sent these omens to Sargon before and that they would keep sending them again in a similar situation. Likewise, in one of the Old Babylonian Ibbi-Sîn omens from Mari (Source 13), the written comment has it that “when the land of Ibbi-Sîn revolted against him, this (omen) was put forth like this” (inūmī Ibbi-Sîn māssu ibbalkitū́šu annīyum kīʾam iššakin). The phrase annīyum kīʾam iššakin “this (omen) was put forth like this” occurs also in the apodoses of other Old Babylonian omens from Mari.445 Other omens from the same group even use the future tense and clearly state that “if” or rather “when” some particular event is about to happen, “(this omen) will be put forth like this”: annīyum kīʾam iššakkan.446 Returning to the question whether the historical omens were observed or derived, we may add the following consideration: In the case of the omens of Sargon or Narām-Sîn of Akkade which announce victory and supremacy “by this omen” one could perhaps imagine that these omens might have been made known all over the 442 443 444

445 446

On the tag šaḫluqtu see the overview in chapter 6.1 below and p. 81 above. Goetze 1947, pp. 257–258; Cooper 1980, p. 101; Glassner 1983; Metzler 2002, pp. 223– 224; George 2010, p. 328; De Zorzi 2014, pp. 376–377; Glassner 2015, pp. 132–137. See Source 45, l. 8. The comment ša ina šīri annî “(Sargon/Narām-Sîn) who by this omen (…)” occurs repeatedly in this collection of omens of Sargon and Narām-Sîn of Akkade, see Koch 2005, pp. 226–231, ll. A 1, 8 (Babylon), 13, [16], 19, 22, 36, r5, r12, r16. See Rutten 1938, nos. 10 and 22. See Rutten 1938, nos. 12 (without annīyum), 19, 23, 29. See also Glassner 2005a, p. 9.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

92

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

empire.447 This, however, is inconceivable in the case of the omens of death and disaster of Amar-Sîn and Ibbi-Sîn. Furthermore, in the case of the Ibbi-Sîn omens, there is a quite mundane and practical obstacle to the assumption that these omens entered the stream of tradition from actual observation. Texts like the Šulgi hymns were copied and studied also outside of Ur, at Nippur and Isin which were not affected by the Elamite raid.448 So they were still available in the Old Babylonian period. But the omens which the scholars of Ibbi-Sîn probably actually obtained, in particular in the years of severe crisis just prior to the fall of Ur, and the reports which these scholars may or may not have put down in writing were, of course, kept only at Ur, in the isolated ex-capital. When the Elamites took Ur and destroyed the city, the royal archives were also destroyed. It is just naive to suppose that Išbi-Erra of Isin, who liberated Ur from the Elamites eight years later and started to clear up the ruins,449 would have had his workmen sift the rubble for the scattered fragments of Ibbi-Sîn’s omen reports. Moreover, the oldest Ibbi-Sîn omens do not come from the Isin tradition, but from Mari and Larsa.450 Besides giving information which perhaps is truly historical, but which certainly was considered as such by the Babylonians, the surplus value of the historical omens is in their extremely illustrating and associative character that allows us to grasp the Babylonian line of thought. As is the case with many cuneiform genres, the written tradition of the historical omens becomes tangible in the Old Babylonian period. The examples of kings chosen mainly come from the archaic or heroic periods of the time after the flood, the Old Akkadian period, and from the Third Dynasty of Ur. During the early Old Babylonian period, the genre begins to fade and only rarely are contemporary kings singled out as ominous examples. This is, on the one hand, probably due to the ongoing process of fixing the omen collections in writing. On the other hand, it is quite conceivable that from the Old Babylonian period onwards historical situations were not regarded as typologically new events, but rather as recurring “Gilgameš” or “Ibbi-Sîn situations”. However, the genre did not die out completely, and in the course of radically important turning points of history new historical omens were coined. Such is the case with the omens announcing the triumph of Nebuchadnezzar I

447

448 449 450

Something like this appears to have happened in the case of a very positive “omen of victory” derived from the inspections of the entrails of a sheep under the Old Babylonian king Daduša of Ešnunna. A clay liver model found at Tell as-Sib near Tell Haddad documents the formation of the liver and gives an additional, written report about the features of other body parts such as the belly, the heart and the guts. The text once also specified the name of the diviner. It contains the information that “the victory is mine” and that this omen had probably been obtained shortly before Daduša became king, since the final comment runs like this: ina šarrūt Daduša šīrum annûm “at the (assumption of) kingship by Daduša, this was the (state of the) flesh (in extispicy).” See Al-Rawi 1994, pp. 38–40, no. 5; Glassner 2005b, pp. 277–278; Maul 2013, pp. 212– 213; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, pp. 369–373. See the discussion p. 48 above. See Source 16 and the discussion on p. 47. See the discussion above on p. 83.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Ibbi-Sîn Omens

93

over Elam, apparently remembered only in oral tradition,451 and it is the case with the omens by which Aššurbanipal annihilated Elam, which were actually put down in writing, as a propagandistic documentation of his god-given victory.452 6.1. The Ibbi-Sîn Omens Up to now, there are 23 Ibbi-Sîn omens (ISO) dealing with the fate of that king and with the devastation of the land which occurred under his reign. They spread rather evenly over the Old Babylonian period and the first millennium (12:11). The relatively high number and the complexity (see in particular ISO 16) of the omens from texts of the first millennium give impressive testimony to the perseverance and the significance of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster in Babylonian memory. The most common catchphrase is “omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster” (amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti). Other topics deal with Ibbi-Sîn’s subjects “revolting” (nabalkutu) or with his “annihilation”(šulputu) by Elam. ISO Source Date Topic or Catchphrase ISO 1 ISO 2 ISO 3 ISO 4 ISO 5 ISO 6 ISO 7 ISO 8 ISO 9 ISO 10 ISO 11 ISO 12 ISO 13 ISO 14 ISO 15 ISO 16 ISO 17 ISO 18 ISO 19 ISO 20 ISO 21 ISO 22 ISO 23

(Source 3) (Source 12) (Source 13) (Source 14) (Source 20) (Source 21) (Source 22, A) (Source 22, B1) (Source 22, C2) (Source 24) (Source 25) (Source 26) (Source 29) (Source 36) (Source 52) (Source 54) (Source 61) (Source 62) (Source 63) (Source 64) (Source 65) (Source 66) (Source 67)

OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB 2nd–1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill.

lit. royal letter: being bound and killed diminution/nabalkutum nabalkutum, “shepherd” absent ruins and wasteland, “shepherd” absent amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqtim people uniting against the king amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫl[u]qt[im] amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqtim amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫlu[qtim] amūt Ibbi-Sîn, šaḫluqtum ∥ ša šaḫluqtim [amūt Ibbi-Sî]n ša šaḫluq[ti]m tērtum ša šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti “ruin of Babylonia” (nadû māt Akkadî, l. 34) amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti complex; palû šaḫluqti, l. 3 amūt Ibbi-[Sîn (…)] šaḫluqtu amūt Ibbi-Sîn šar Uri šulputu [šulputu] or [nabalkutu] [šulputu] amūt Ibbi-[Sîn . . . . . . .] a[mūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫ]luqt[i]

To this list, we may add the first millennium omens from Source 56 and Source 60, which are very close to the classic story-line or the catchwords of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, but which do not give the actual name of the king. Instead, they deal with the “king of Babylonia”. So there are now 23 individual Ibbi-Sîn omens. For the sake of countability, I list the Book of Prodigies (Source 36) which collects 47 omens 451 452

See p. 67 above with note 337. See Starr 1985; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, pp. 373–378.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

94

as one item. The first Ibbi-Sîn omen (ISO 1) dealt with in Source 3, a fictional royal letter attributed to Ibbi-Sîn, presents a special case: The omen is described and interpreted in that letter, but up to now it is missing from the later tradition. This means that there are 22 classic Ibbi-Sîn omens from the Babylonian omen tradition. At first sight, this list might seem to be congruent with the 21 Ibbi-Sîn omens listed earlier by Sollberger.453 However, it is not. It contains seven additional omens.454 The list of Sollberger contained four dublicates. Furthermore, Sollberger added the two omens of Source 56 and Source 60, although they do not give the name of Ibbi-Sîn in the strict sense. So, Sollberger’s list of 21 omens consisted in fact of only 15 individual Ibbi-Sîn omens: Source ISO Sollberger No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

= = = =

10 12 8 11

=

4

= = =

2 5 3

Source 54 Source 52 Source 63 Source 62 Source 61 Source 56 Source 66 Source 62 Source 60 Source 52 Source 61 Source 63 Source 13 Source 12 Source 14 Source 21 Source 25 Source 20 Source 22 (C2) Source 24 Source 26

ISO 16 ISO 15 ISO 19 ISO 18 ISO 17 (king of Babylonia) ISO 22 ISO 18 (king of Babylonia) ISO 15 ISO 17 ISO 19 ISO 3 ISO 2 ISO 4 ISO 6 ISO 11 ISO 5 ISO 9 ISO 10 ISO 12

The topics of the omen tradition dealing with Ibbi-Sîn of Ur are the following: 1. Ibbi-Sîn’s rule is upset (nabalkutu) by his own people, land, allies or troops Source 12 Source 13 Source 15 Source 16 Source 21 Source 22, B2 Source 56, l. 3 Source 64 Source 68 453 454

(OB, nabalkutu) (OB, nabalkutu) (OB, rivalry between two “shepherds”) (OB, replacement of the “shepherd”) (OB, paḫāru “to unite against”) (OB, šar ḫammê “rebel king”, not referring to Ibbi-Sîn by name) (1st mill., complex) (1st mill., [nabalkutu?]) (1st mill., rivalry between two “bull tails”)

Sollberger 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 7, § 5. These are ISO 7 (Source 22, A), ISO 8 (Source 22, B1), ISO 13 (Source 29), ISO 14 (Source 36), ISO 20 (Source 64), ISO 21 (Source 65) and ISO 23 (Source 67).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Ibbi-Sîn Omens

95

2. King loses control Source 22, A, B1, C1

(OB, gods take control over the palace)

Source 12 Source 20 Source 21 Source 22, B2 Source 26 Source 54 (l. 3) Source 55 (l. 1 b-c) Source 56 (l. 3) Source 67

(OB) (OB) (OB) (OB, yield will not enter the palace, not referring to Ibbi-Sîn by name) (OB, imagery: snakes and locusts) (1st mill.) (OB? – 1st mill., not referring to Ibbi-Sîn by name) (1st mill.; complex) (1st mill.)

Source 3 Source 24 Source 60 Source 65

(OB, Ibbi-Sîn misinterprets the omen) (OB, omen giving no details) (1st mill., “king of Babylonia”, omen giving too many details) (1st mill., omens unclear due to ambiguous signs)

Source 13 Source 14 Source 54 Source 63 Source 64 Source 65

(OB, “shepherd” absent) (OB, “shepherd” absent) (1st mill., complex: bound, weeping, finally set free?) (1st mill., šulputu) (1st mill., [šulputu?], by [Elam]) (1st mill., [šulputu], by A[nšan])

3. Hunger, want and misery, diminution, impoverishment and famine

4. Communication between king and the gods broken down

5. Ibbi-Sîn overthrown, deported and annihilated (šulputu) by Elam (and Anšan)

The Old Babylonian omens dealing with Ibbi-Sîn unambiguously pass the tradition that Ibbi-Sîn was betrayed or overthrown (nabalkutu, topic no. 1) by his own people (nišū “people”, mātu “land”). However, it was Elam which struck the final blow (Source 14). The Old Babylonian Sumerian cultic lamentations give the information that Ibbi-Sîn was taken to Anšan as a prisoner, from where he was not to return (Source 4, A), but where he was to die (Source 5). This tradition, which corresponds to topic no. 5 of the omens, is also supported by the Sumerian literary texts from the Old Babylonian period, most notably by the literary and fictional Royal Correspondence of Ur which was composed and studied in the curriculum of the Old Babylonian school. These texts also preserve – or rather present – the figure and the name of Ibbi-Sîn’s opponent, the traitor and usurper king, Išbi-Erra of Isin.455 Išbi-Erra’s name is also remembered in an omen tradition of his own.456 Up to now, however, Išbi-Erra is not expressively mentioned by name in the IbbiSîn omens together with his former lord. In the Old Babylonian omens of Source 15

455 456

See here Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3. He is also named in the cultic lamentation of Source 5. Old Babylonian period: Source 15, Source 16 and the “Mari liver model no. 10” (see p. 295 with note 1364), which is not edited here since does not deal at all with the IbbiSîn affair. First millennium: Source 68 and Source 69.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

96

and Source 16 Išbi-Erra is named as the one who finally defeated Elam, a deed which is also remembered in Išbi-Erra’s year formulas.457 Apart from the fully verbalized apodoses of the liver omens, there is also a figurative language which does not express its associative chain in words. In the Old Babylonian liver models from Mari, where the gall bladder was called rēʾûm “shepherd”,458 the gall bladder being removed from its proper place or missing at all was obviously understood as a sign that the “shepherd will be abducted”, referring to Ibbi-Sîn’s deportation to enemy country.459 In turn, the existence of two gall bladders in the Old Babylonian liver omen of Source 15 (cf. also Source 16) probably gave rise to the notion of a rivalry between “two shepherds”, i.e. between Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra. The notion of rivalry is probably also the topic of the Šumma izbu omen of Source 68 from the first millennium. The situation sketched out in topic no. 2 – which takes a turn towards disaster in topic no. 3 – matches the image of kings like Narām-Sîn and Ibbi-Sîn sitting passively and immobilized in their palaces without taking any measures against the disaster which is to come about.460 The idea that the communication between the gods and the hapless king is broken down (topic no. 4) is conveyed in the omens of Source 24 and Source 60. The topic of the king misunderstanding the signs sent by the gods is elaborately dealt with in Source 3.461 The notion of misunderstanding and possible ambiguity is still connected to Ibbi-Sîn in the first millennium in the commentary on ambiguous signs (pitruštu) from Source 65. The tradition of the Ibbi-Sîn omens starts in the early Old Babylonian period mainly with liver omens, and is later augmented by other kinds of omens, most notably by celestial omens in the first millennium: ISO Source Date Sort of Omen ISO 1 ISO 2 ISO 3 ISO 4 ISO 5 ISO 6 ISO 7 ISO 8 ISO 9 ISO 10 ISO 11 ISO 12 ISO 13 457 458 459

460 461

(Source 3) (Source 12) (Source 13) (Source 14) (Source 20) (Source 21) (Source 22, A) (Source 22, B1) (Source 22, C2) (Source 24) (Source 25) (Source 26) (Source 29)

OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB OB MA

liver (kakku, discussed in a literary letter) liver model liver model liver model liver (naplastu) lung (ḫašû) liver (bāb ekalli) liver (bāb ekalli) liver (bāb ekalli) anomaly (of a sheep) liver ([naplastu]) liver (martu/ubānu) [lung]

See the commentary on Source 16. See p. 290 below with the commentary on Source 11. Old Babylonian period: Source 13 and Source 14. A late descendant in the first millennium is the omen of Source 61. – The Old Babylonian omen of Source 11 is also a perfect example, but it announces the “disaster of Akkade” (šaḫluqti Akkade) instead. See Source 4, B, with the commentary on p. 275 and the discussion on p. 83. On “Ibbi-Sîn’s Error” (Source 3) see the discussion on pp. 86ff. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Ibbi-Sîn Omens ISO 14 ISO 15 ISO 16 ISO 17 ISO 18 ISO 19 ISO 20 ISO 21 ISO 22 ISO 23

(Source 36) (Source 52) (Source 54) (Source 61) (Source 62) (Source 63) (Source 64) (Source 65) (Source 66) (Source 67)

1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill.

97

mixed: Šumma ālu, anomalies (izbu) liver (bāb ekalli) astrology liver (imšukku/martu/ubānu) liver (padānu) liver (martu/ubānu) astrology liver (pitruštu, i.e. ambiguous signs) intestinal convolutions (tīrānū) lung (ḫašû)

The omens of Ku-Baʾu (KBO), the omen of Utu-ḫeĝal (UHO), the omens of Amar-Sîn (ASO) and those of Išbi-Erra (IEO) also fit into this picture. They, too, consist mainly of omens from the intestines: KBO 1 KBO 2 KBO 3 KBO 4 KBO 5 KBO 6 KBO 7 KBO 8

(Source 17) (Source 18) (Source 19) (Source 36, l. 4, omen 5) (Source 40) (Source 41, A) (Source 42) (Source 43)

OB OB OB 1st mill.

liver (kakku/martu) liver ([kakk]u) lung human anomaly: adult woman with beard and moustache, with a penis and a vulva liver (kakku) (human) anomaly liver (imšukku) liver (featured like a lung)

1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill. 1st mill.

UHO 1

(Source 30)

2nd–1st mill. lung (ḫašû)

ASO 1 ASO 2 ASO 3 ASO 4 ASO 5 ASO 6

(Source 27) (Source 28, A) (Source 28, B) (Source 28, C) (Source 50) (Source 51, B)

OB OB OB OB 1st mill. 1st mill.

liver (martu) liver (bāb ekalli) liver (bāb ekalli) liver (padānu) liver ([padānu]) liver (ekal ubāni)

IEO 1 IEO 2 IEO 3 IEO 4

(Source 15) (Source 16) (Source 68) (Source 69)

OB OB 1st mill. 1st mill.

liver model liver (kakku) anomaly of a sheep [intestinal convolutions (tīrānū)]

As early as the Old Babylonian period, the corpus of liver omens was augmented by omens from the lung (Source 21) and from anomalies (Source 24). In the first millennium. There are also astronomical omens (Source 54, Source 64) and omens of the Šumma ālu type (Source 36) among the Ibbi-Sîn omens. It is obvious that lunar eclipses would have been connected to the wrath of the moon-god, the god of Ur, and so we find the elements of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster – without giving IbbiSîn’s name – in the treatment of lunar eclipses in the astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil.462 In these treatments, the individual elements of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster are segmented and distributed among several consecutive eclipses of the moon. 462

See Source 55, Source 56 and the discussion on pp. 28f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

98

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

This process of widening and completing the range is perfectly in line with the Babylonian divinatory philosophy. According to the ancient thought, the omens from various parts of the universe were in harmony and confirmed each other. The idea that the signs of heaven and earth have an ominous meaning, that they are interconnected with one another and that they mutually confirm one another, is one of the fundamental convictions that characterize Babylonian divination.463 This tenet is stated several times in the Diviner’s Manual, an ancient hand-book listing “25 tablets with signs (occurring) in the sky and on earth whose good and evil portents are in correspondence (with one another)”.464 The text formulates the following doctrines on the omens of heaven and earth: – idāt šamê itti erṣetimma ṣadda inaššâ465 “The signs in the sky together with (those on) the earth give (us) signals.” – šamû u erṣetu ištēniš giskimma ubbalūni, aḫennâ ul zīzū – šamû u erṣetu itḫuzū466 “Sky and earth both produce portents. (Although they produce signs) separately, (they are) not separate: Sky and earth are interconnected.” – ittu ša ina šamê lemnetu ina erṣeti lemnet, ša ina erṣeti lemnetu ina šamê lemnet467 “A sign that portends evil in the sky is (also) evil on earth, one that portends evil on earth is (also) evil in the sky.” – dumuqšunu u lumuššunu *kaššidū468 “Their good and evil portents are exactly confirming one another.” Very much at the end of Babylonian civilization, Diodorus Siculus (1st cent. BCE)469 summarized the Babylonians’ understanding of the universe as a meaningful and coherent system, dominated by regularity and correspondence, rooted in divine will and hence not allowing of random coincidence, as follows:470

463 464 465

466 467 468

469

470

Koch-Westenholz 2000, pp. 12–13; Maul 1994, pp. 3–4; Maul 2003–2005 (RlA 10), pp. 47– 48; Maul 2013, pp. 278–279. Oppenheim 1974, pp. 200, 205, ll. 53–54; Maul 2013, pp. 282–283. Oppenheim 1974, pp. 199, 203, l. 24. The text formulates the same idea also the other way round: idāt erṣeti itti šamê ṣadda inaššâ “the signs on earth just as (those in) the sky give (us) signal(s)” (Oppenheim 1974, pp. 200, 204, l. 38). Oppenheim 1974, pp. 200, 204, ll. 39–40. Oppenheim 1974, pp. 200, 204, ll. 41–42. Oppenheim 1974, pp. 199–200, 203–205, ll. 23, 37, 54. – I understand *kaššidu as an enhanced adjective in *parris derived from kašādu “to arrive”, expressing a strong habit or a stress on its meaning, i.e. “(exactly) arriving (at the same conclusion)” or “(perfectly) matching”. The spellings in -di/-du-UM/-du-ú are various orthographies for *-dū, see Schaudig 2001, p. 129 (§ III.2.1.l), p. 189 (§ IV.3.3). On -um in final position used as vowel sign (-u16) see Schaudig 2001, pp. 113–114, § II.2.15.2, no. 4. It is not certain, but quite possible that Diodorus’ comments on the Chaldeans are excerpts from Ctesias’ Persica (early 4th cent. BCE), see Kuhrt 1982, p. 545; RochbergHalton 1988, p. 3 with note 5. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 2:30, 1. On the incompatibility of the concept of coincidence with this system see Maul 1994, pp. 3, 225; Maul 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 48.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Ibbi-Sîn Omens

99

“Now, as the Chaldeans say, the world is by its nature eternal, and neither had a first beginning nor will at a later time suffer destruction. Also, both the disposition and the orderly arrangement of the universe have come about by virtue of a divine providence, and today whatever takes place in the heavens is in every instance brought to pass, not at haphazard nor by virtue of any spontaneous action, but by some fixed and firmly determined divine decision.” Interestingly, Diodorus attributes here to the Babylonian scholars the view that the world (κόσμος) was eternal and had neither beginning nor end. However, according to the Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enūma elîš), at least the visible world – the one populated by gods and humans “now” – certainly had a beginning, since it had been created by Marduk from the body of Tiʾāmat. The idea that the universe had a beginning since it had once been created by the gods is firmly rooted in numerous Mesopotamian stories of creation.471 The notion that the universe was governed by divine will and that the gods had established the system of ominous signs and divination during its very the creation, is also found in quotations from the astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil:472 – enu Anu Enlil u Ea ilānū rabûtu [š]amê u erṣeta ibnû uwaddû giskimma “When Anu, Enlil and Ea, the great gods, created [h]eaven and earth, they (also) made manifest the (ominous) sign(s, …).” As Ernst Weidner (in AfO 17, 1954–1956, p. 89) had observed, this passage sounds like a reference to the very introduction of the series Enūma Anu Enlil:473 – enūma Anu Enlil Ea ilānū rabûtu ina milkīšunu kīni uṣurāt šamê u erṣeti iškunū “When Anu, Enlil and Ea, the great gods, established the layout of heaven and earth with their reliable counsel, (…).” In the Diviner’s Manual, the apprentice is told to check the omens against one another, and to check whether a counteracting omen or annulment had taken place.474 In the present corpus, we can observe this kind of cross-checking in the Religious Chronicle.475 According to this text, in the 24th year of the king Nabûmukīn-apli (ca. 955 BCE) an evil mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon was seen in the bed chambers of Nabû and was driven out. Subsequently, the evil omen was checked by divination and it was confirmed: The evil was also “seen in the meat” (ina libbi šīri ittanmar) of a sacrificial animal, i.e. in the liver and the entrails in extispicy. So, the mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon was not simply the daydream of some hysterical cleaner, but an actual threat.

471

472 473 474 475

On ancient Mesopotamian cosmogony see Lambert 1980–1983 (RlA 6), pp. 218–222; idem 2013, pp. 169–171. It is a different question what the Babylonains thought about the primeval universes in which the gods had been living an acting before the divine demiurge (Marduk, etc.) had forged the existing world. EAE tablet 22, subscript on text E from Aššur; after Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 270. Quoted after Verderame 2002, p. 9, tablet 1, § 0b. Oppenheim 1974, pp. 200, 204, ll. 43–46. Religious Chronicle (Source 37), III:17’–18’.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

100

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

6.2. Excursus: The Element “Four” and the “Four Winds of Heaven” There is one element in particular that appears repeatedly in omens of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, but also in other omens of disaster not connected explicitly to the name of this king. This element is the ominous number “four”.476 Looking for the element “four” in the Ibbi-Sîn omens and beyond, in particular in connection with the ominous element on the liver called gate-of-the-palace, most closely connected to kingship,477 we arrive at the following list: – Source 22 (omens B2 and C2): If there are FOUR elements called gate-of-thepalace: A rebel king will rise; the yield will not enter the palace; omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster. – Source 52: If the gate-of-the-palace is wide open towards the FOUR winds: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster. – Source 53: If the elements of the liver are present FOURfold: The gods will leave Babylonia and will dwell in Elam. – Source 36, line FOUR, omen no. FOUR: A ram with FOUR horns: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (meaning disaster = line 34 ). The example of the Old Babylonian omens of Source 22 demonstrates that in this case the chain of association had not been fully systematized yet. In the omens A and B1 of this source, there are 2 respectively 3 elements called gate-of-the-palace. The apodosis concludes from this in either case, that “the god(s) will take control”, and secondly, that these are “omens of Ibbi-Sîn meaning disaster”. Obviously, the line of association runs along the idea that there is “more than one access to the palace”, and that the king is no longer in control. The omens C1 and C2 straighten out the idea of B1 and B2 and assign “the gods taking control” to the element 3, and the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster to the element 4. The associative line of the omen of Source 52 is most illustrative. It combines the elements gate-of-the-palace, denoting kingship, the “four winds”, and the idea of being opened wide (petû D), taken over from actual gates and transferred to the divinatory element on the liver. The ominous meaning so conveyed closely matches the elements observed: It is the disastrous fate of a king like Ibbi-Sîn whose kingship was scattered to the four winds by enemies from all regions invading his unprotected homeland. The image of the invading, destructive storm also occurs in the Sumerian lamentations. In the Lament for Ur, the wail over the destructive power of the “storm” is the main topic.478 The Lament for Sumer and Ur479 describes how the storms gathered to destroy the foundations of Sumer (ll. 1–2, passim), how “Enlil threw open the door of the grand gate to the wind” (l. 292) and how the storm destroyed Lagaš and killed the goddess Baʾu (ll. 173–177; see p. 277 below). 476 477

478 479

The element “four” in divinatory texts has recently been discussed by Winitzer 2017, pp. 420–431, chapter 5.4.1.3.1, also with reference to the motif of the “four regions”. The gate-of-the-palace (bāb ekalli) is an element on the liver which symbolizes the palace, its internal affairs and income, see Jeyes 1978; eadem 1989, p. 60; KochWestenholz 2000, p. 46; Maul 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 79. Kramer 1940, pp. 3–5; latest edition by Samet 2014; excerpt here in Source 7. Edition by Michalowski 1989; see also the exceprts here in Source 4.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: The Element “Four” and the “Four Winds of Heaven”

101

There are also omens of disaster deduced from an anomaly having four jaws. Here too, the associative trigger appears to be the element “four”, evoking the idea of the four regions of the world devouring each other or Babylonia.480 In the omen of Source 53, the relationship between protasis and apodosis is characterized by the fact that there are four elements each of the parts of the liver observed. In the previous two lines the cases of two and three elements each are dealt with, leading to favourable apodoses (military success and longevity of the king and his reign). In the omens from Source 22, however, the cases with the gate-of-the-palace being present twofold and threefold also lead to the apodosis “omen of Ibbi-Sîn meaning disaster”. In the explicit omen of Source 52, the number “four” clearly recalls the “four winds” (šārū erbettu) into which the reign of the Third Dynasty of Ur was dispersed. There is also another variation playing on the element gate-of-the-palace being present fourfold,481 with the apodosis: “the land will not abide by one (single) order”. Whenever the element gate-of-the-palace is present more than once in the liver, the interpretation is not far away that there are more elements than just the king having control over the palace and the empire. And whenever the element “four” appears in the liver, in particular with the element gate-of-thepalace, we nearly always find an apodosis which either refers directly to Ibbi-Sîn, or to the elements characterizing his disastrous fate: losing grip on kingship, unrest, usurper king (= Išbi-Erra), diminution and want, and the gods leaving for Elam. Certainly, the number “four” triggers an interpretation playing on the “four winds” (šārū erbettu) and the “four regions of the world” (kibrāt erbetti) attacking. Highly interesting is the omen no. 4 in line no. 4 of the Book of Prodigies (Source 36) which has it that a “ram (immeru) with four horns” was seen in the city of Dēr. It is certainly no coincidence that this omen, dealing with the element “four”, is the omen no. 4 of the text and stands in line no. 4. The copies of the Book of Prodigies are completely identical as to their line numbering and layout. I do trust the Babylonians were fully capable of arranging a text according to esoteric principles of this kind. The same text also provides the following omen:482 “A wild ram (bibbu) standing on the (yonder) bank” of a certain canal in the area of Nippur. Both omens are listed by the heading and the rubrum of the Book of Prodigies as omens of Ibbi-Sîn, announcing the fall of Babylonia. These omens are, of course, highly reminiscent of the ominous vision which is reported in Daniel 8: Daniel sees a vision, with him being in the palace at Susa in Elam, by the river Ulay, and he sees a ram (‫ )איל‬with two horns standing before the river (‫אבל‬, Dan 8:3); the ram is attacked and subdued by a he-goat (‫ )צפיר־העזים‬with a single great horn, that horn is broken, but from its place four horns come up towards the four winds of heaven (Dan 8:5–8). In the book of Daniel, the vision is explained as follows: The ram with the two horns stands for the kings of Media and Persia. The he-goat with the single great horn is Greece (with the horn being 480

481 482

Šumma izbu 7:68’–70’ (Leichty 1970, p. 94, VII:60’–62’; De Zorzi 2014, p. 537); the omens of ll. 69’–70’ announce šaḫluqtu (níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma “annihilation, disaster”), the key term of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, see the overview in chapter 6.1 and the comments on p. 81. Quoted in the commentary on Source 52 on p. 479. The Book of Prodigies (Source 36), l. 20, omen no. 32.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

102

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

obviously Alexander), and the four (smaller) horns coming up instead of the broken single horn are four (smaller) kingdoms arising after him. The elements which appear in either omen are the ram waiting on the bank of a river, and the goat with the four horns. The omens from the Book of Prodigies (Source 36) have, of course, to be interpreted from a Babylonian perspective. So, the ram with the four horns seen at Dēr from omen no. 4 announces that the four regions of the world are about to attack Babylon. The wild ram standing on the (yonder) bank of a canal in the Nippur region from omen no. 32 announces an enemy from the (eastern) mountains waiting for his chance to attack Nippur. Either omen contains a hint to the Elamites, being the enemies or a major part among them. The area of Dēr is the classic gateway connecting Babylonia with Elam,483 and the wild ram (bibbu) is an animal naturally associated with the Iranian mountains. Nippur is in the central Babylonian homeland and the city of Enlil, where a wild ram looks as strange as any wild animal entering Esaĝil. There were two historical situations when Elam attacked Babylonia. The first one was during the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, and the second one was when Kutir-Naḫḫunte II invaded Babylonia. One of the Chedorlaomer Texts describes the destruction of Nippur by this infamous Elamite prince.484 We can safely surmise that in either setting, in the Babylonian omens and in the vision of Daniel, the horned ram or hegoat stands for a strong enemy attacking the homeland, i.e. Babylonia, respectively the Achaemenid empire with one of its centres at Susa. The four regions of the world which may safely be implied in the Babylonian omen are even explicitly named in the vision of Daniel (Dan 8:8). Either setting makes use of a readily understandable associative imagery. In the vision of Daniel, the individual omens interact and are combined into a more complex allegory. And here, the site given, Susa in Elam by the river Ulay, makes it clear that the vision pertains to the Achaemenid empire and its successors. In order to illustrate his vision of a disastrous “time of the end” (Dan 8:17), the author of the book of Daniel apparently made use of a fixed and well understood imagery of Babylonian omens of disaster, readily recognizable to his audience. The imagery of the “four winds”485 also had an important impact on the layout and function of holy cities and temples in Babylonia. In the following, I shall discuss the meaning of the idea of “opening towards the four winds”, which is verbally expressed in the omen from Source 52 and alluded to in the omens B2 and C2 from Source 22, within the scope of Babylonia’s self-perception as the centre of the divinely created cosmos. The omen of Source 52 verbally deals with the gate-of-thepalace, i.e. the most important designation for the indigenous centre in the pars familiaris of the liver in extispicy. In describing that this “gate”, i.e. a little piece of flesh on the liver, is “opening wide towards the four winds”, the omen demonstrates how closely the topography of the ominous liver was linked to the 483 484 485

See the commentary on the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), l. 4, omen no. 4. See p. 524 with note 1869 on text c and the discussion on pp. 533f. “The Image of the Winds in Babylonian Literature” is dealt with in the thesis of Enrique Jiménez-Sánchez (PhD. Madrid 2013, forthcoming).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: The Element “Four” and the “Four Winds of Heaven”

103

layout of the world and monumental architecture. I shall demonstrate the spiritual notion of “opening to the four winds” on the example of temples, since temples are more important than palaces as markers of the centre of the cosmos, and in their architecture the ideological implications are expressed more clearly. As early as 1883, the difference between Egypt and Mesopotamia in the orientation of monumental buildings was observed and discussed.486 As a rule, Egyptian buildings were constructed facing the astronomical east, whereas Mesopotamian temples were laid out with their gates facing the four winds, resulting in a shift of 45 degrees. Particularly in the first millennium, Babylonian temples were oriented with their corners towards the astronomical cardinal points. With their sides and gates they turned towards the four winds. Good examples among many more are the precincts of the following temples: – Kiš/Ḫursaĝkalamma (Heinrich 1982, fig. 380; see here fig. 2) – Eanna at Uruk (Heinrich 1982, fig. 372) – Ezida at Borsippa (Heinrich 1982, fig. 394) – Ebabbar at Sippar (Heinrich 1982, fig. 416) Babylonian temples faced the east-wind (šadû), descending into the plain from the Iranian mountains. According to our modern cardinal directions this is the northeast, and astronomically speaking it is the farest, most eastern east where the sun is seen rising at the winter solstice. The groundplan of the city of Babylon itself and of its main temple Esaĝil (see fig. 4 on p. 105) is not a perfect example, because the layout of the temple precinct of Esaĝil dominating the city was not determined by the directions of the four winds only, but was by the 2 river Euphrates. The river was apparently Figure 2: Temple at Kiš (1st mill. BCE), perceived as running exactly from the north opening its gates towards the four (wind) to the south (wind), as suggested by the winds (after Heinrich 1982, fig. 380). sketch on the Babylonian Map of the World (fig. 5 on p. 105). In the case of Babylon, the notion of “communicating with the four regions” by means of the layout is explicitly formulated by Esarhaddon, when he rebuilt the city after its destruction:487 – ana šārī erbetti ḫarrānātīšunu upattīma itti napḫar mātāti lišāna šitkuna ippušū takbitta “I opened roads for them (i.e. the Babylonians) towards (the directions of) the four winds so they may establish (their) important position by communicating with all countries.” 486

487

See Th.G. Pinches on the four winds and G. Bertin on the orientation of Egyptian and Mesopotamian buildings in: PSBA 5, 1883, pp. 74–76. See also Unger 1931, pp. 122–135. As opposed to the idea proposed by Bertin (op. cit., p. 76), the layout of Esaĝil is not the exception from the rule, but only somewhat blurred by its orientation towards the Euphrates. Martiny (1932 and 1933) argued for an astronomical approach which I cannot assess. However, the Babylonian terms expressively address the directions of the winds and not those of the stars. Borger, Asarh., pp. 25–26, ep. 37a, ll. 38–42; CAD L, pp. 212–213, s.v. lišānu 2d, 1’.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

104

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

The cardinal points of Mesopotamian geography and the “four winds” is a matter more complicated than one might expect.488 Sennacherib set up 14, 15 or as much as 18 gates in the walls of Nineveh, with roughly four gates opening towards one of the four winds each.489 However, this is perhaps not the best example, since Nineveh was an enormous city in need of many gates, and had an irregular layout. The layout of the newly constructed residence DūrŠarrukīn (see fig. 3) is more telling. Even though the excavation plan shows that the city was not exactly 3 regular, the city obviously was designed to form a Figure 3: Layout of Dūr-Šarrukīn square, with two gates each opening towards the (after Loud & Altman 1938, pl. 69). winds.490 In the walls of this city, king Sargon had eight gates set up opening to the four, respectively to the “eight” winds: – miḫret 4 šārī 8 abullāti aptēma491 “I opened eight gates towards the four winds.” – miḫret 8 šārī 8 abullāti aptēma492 “I opened eight gates towards the eight winds.” The manuscripts of the latter text write “eight winds” in all exemplars. This is probably not just a mistake for the classic “four winds”, but an attempt to express the overall sum of “eight directions” (see fig. 6 on p. 106) made up from the four regions corresponding to the four winds, plus the four astronomical cardinal points, with sunrise and sunset exactly in the east and in the west during the spring and autumn equinoxes.493 Sargon was probably inspired for his new capital by the layout of Babylon.494 The classic plan of Babylon as it is known from excavations was shaped by the Chaldean kings in the 6th century (see fig. 4). 488 489

490 491 492 493

494

Neugebauer & Weidner 1931–1932; Horowitz 1998, pp. 193–207; Jean 2006. The numbers and the names of the gates vary over time during Sennacherib’s construction work, see Reade 1998–2001 (RlA 9), pp. 401–403, s.v. Ninive (Nineveh), § 11.4. For our discussion it is important that he opened the gates “towards the four winds” (ana erbetti šārī; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, p. 211) and that among them there were altogether seven or eight gates facing “sunrise” (ṣīt Šamši), leading towards the south (šūtu) and east wind (šadû) respectively; see Luckenbill 1924, p. 112, VII:84(“7 gates”)–85; Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/1, p. 143, scores p. 336: all three exemplars read “7 gates”; Frahm 1997, pp. 77, 82, ll. 180(“8 gates”)–181; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, pp. 212, 215 on gate no. 7: “7 gates”, respectively “[8 gates]”. In addition to the seven gates excavated, one has to reconstruct the eighth gate in the north-eastern wall, probably in the corner north of the main palace. mi-iḫ-ret 4 immeš 8 abulmeš ap-te-e-ma (Fuchs 1994, p. 71, l. 82). mi-iḫ-ret 8 immeš 8 abulmeš ap-te-e-ma (Fuchs 1994, p. 42, l. 66; see also Pongratz-Leisten 1994, p. 210). Correspondingly, the Babylonian Map of the World knows eight “regions” (nagû), see Horowitz 1998, p. 24, rev. 24’. In Akkadian literature, there is also a group of “seven winds” (CAD Š/II, p. 136, s.v. šāru A, 1d). An earlier example of an Assyrian planned and square residence, modelled on the royal cities of the south with a regular layout, e.g. on Dūr-Kurigalzu, is Kār-TukultīNinurta. But this does not matter here.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: The Element “Four” and the “Four Winds of Heaven”

105

The city takes the form of a large square, matching its celestial counterpart, the constellation ikû.495 Already Esarhaddon, when he rebuilt the city in the middle of the 7th century, had expressed the idea that the layout of Babylon should form a large square with its walls 30 “ropes” (ašlu) long and 30 “ropes” wide (ca. 1800 meters square).496 As becomes apparent from the plan (see fig. 4), the city is oriented towards the river Euphrates which runs through the middle of the city. At the same time, the layout of the city is oriented towards the “four winds”, which makes it shift away from our cardinal points by roughly 45 degrees.

5 4

Figure 4: Layout of the city of Babylon in the Late Babylonian period, in the 6th cent. BCE (after Heinrich 1982, fig. 382).

Figure 5: Detail from the Babylonian Map of the World (8th or 7th cent. BCE; after CT 22, pl. 48, see also note 497). The city of Babylon (marked in grey) lies as a large rectangle on either side of the Euphrates.

Already the Babylonian Map of the World497 (8th or 7th cent. BCE, see fig. 5), sketched out before the massive rebuilding of the city by the Chaldeans, displays Babylon lying as a large rectangle in the centre of the world. In fact, the rectangle labelled “Babylon” is a little bit “up” from the exact middle, but the overall picture of Babylon being the centre of the cosmos can still be grasped. In this function, Babylon was called markas šamê (u erṣeti) “bond of heaven (and earth)” (Tintir I:6, 35) and rikis mātāti the “bond of (all) the lands” (Tintir I:51).498

495 496 497

498

The Pegasus square, made up from α, β, γ Pegasi and α Andromedae. On Babylon and Esaĝil as the earthly counterparts of the constellation ikû see George 1992, p. 244. Borger, Asarh., p. 25, episode 35. CT 22, pl. 48; Horowitz 1988; Horowitz 1998 (2nd edition 2011), pp. 20–42, pl. 2–3; Rochberg 2012, pp. 32–34; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, pp. 191–197. See, with a different perspective, Delnero 2017. George 1992, pp. 38–41, commentary on pp. 244, 261–262, 266–267. On Babylon, the “bond of the lands” as the cosmic capital see George 1997c. On the concept of the ancient Near Eastern capital as the navel and reflection of the world see Maul 1997. On either topic see Goodnick Westenholz 1998.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

106

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

A Neo-Babylonian letter, which urges the Assyrian king Sargon II to enter Babylon, formulates the concept of Babylon as the centre of the world clearly: – ḫanṭiš ana Bābil līruba kī ša ana Bābil īterba qabla ša mātāti iktabas499 “He may enter Babylon quickly. When he has entered Babylon, he will have set foot on the centre of the lands (qablu ša mātāti).” One of the Chedorlaomer Texts also expresses the notion that Babylon, being the centre of the universe, opens to the four winds: – [Bābi]l markas šamê ša ana erbet šārī nadâ[t]500 “[Baby]lon, the bond of heaven – laid out towards the four winds.” As becomes apparent from the way how the sketch of the Map of the World is positioned on its tablet, with the Euphrates running “down”, and the outlines of Babylon running parallel to the borders of the tablet, the Babylonians perceived the borders and walls of Babylon as lying parallel to the imagined borders of the four regions of the world.501 Only in our modern plans, oriented towards the cardinal points, the layout of the city of Babylon and the layout of Babylonian temples throughout the land seems to be diagonal. Babylonian temples opened their gates directly towards the “four winds”, blowing from north-east, south-east, south-west, and north-west (see fig. 6).502 The directions of the winds are dominated by 6 the course of the slopes of the Zagros mountains which Figure 6: The four cardinal run at an angle of 45 degrees along the eastern borders points and the four winds. of Mesopotamia. These slopes lead the winds from the east down into the plain at an angle of 45 degrees, and also give access to the south wind blowing in the same angle from the Arabian gulf. From an ideological and magical point of view, “opening towards the four winds” aimed at having the temple communicate with the four regions of the cosmos, and at having the wealth of all regions enter the temple freely. The gates of the temple leading out into the four directions made it possible for the divine orders to go directly anywhere, unhindered and without turning. Expressed in architecture, it is the same notion as the one we see in Ezekiel’s vision of the merkabah with the 499

500

501 502

Dietrich 2003, p. 75, no. 84, K 1105 (CDLI no. P237978), obv. 9’–12’: (9’) (…) ḫa-an-ṭiš a-na tin-tirki (10’) li-ru-ba ki-i šá a-na (11’) ká-diĝir-raki i-ter-ba (12’) murub4 šá kur-kur ik-ta-ba-as. See also George 1992, p. 267. Chedorlaomer Text “b” (see also p. 524 with note 1868): [ká-diĝir]-⌈ra⌉ki mar-kas an-e šá ana er-bet im šub-á[t] (BM 35404, obv. 3; formerly Sp. II, 987; copy: Pinches 1897, p. 84; edition: Jeremias 1917, pp. 92–93; translation: Foster 2005, p. 370). The city of Babylon is construed here as a feminine noun with a feminine stative, as in line 20 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), see the commentary on the line there. The slanting sketch presented by Horowitz 1998, p. 21 and pl. 2 is misleading, see the copy in CT 22, pl. 48, and the photograph in Horowitz 1988, pl. 10. For a brief but useful discussion together with meteorological data and modern Arabic designations of the winds of Mesopotamia see Neumann 1977.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: The Element “Four” and the “Four Winds of Heaven”

107

four four-faced503 and four-winged creatures moving with the four interconnected wheels into the four directions of the world without turning (Ezk 1:5–6; 15–17). Yet, opening to the four winds posed a problem at the same time. Unwarranted access or viewing had to be warded off magically by apotropaic figures, and practically by guards and bent axes. As an ideal building, the square temple depicts in its form the universe and corresponds with the four regions of the world. Opening to the four winds would also mean that the winds and the powers of chaos could make their entry into the temple’s midst if the centre was no longer occupied and controlled by the divine. Then, it would no longer be the god’s orders going out and the tribute of the four corners coming in, but the multitudes of the four 7 regions would stream into the centre of the world Figure 7: Model of a Neo-Babylonian unhindered, and the people of the land would be temple opening to the four winds, fit dispersed into the four winds. When Marduk left to send out orders towards the four his seat in Esaĝil, temple and city would be taken regions, and fit to take in the heavy tribute of the whole world. If the and the Babylonians would be scattered to Elam deity left, the system would implode, or Assyria. By the time of the Late Babylonian chaos would enter and the land empire, the Babylonians had experienced this would be scattered. peril on several occasions during their history.504

503

504

This appears to be a Babylonian imagery (even though there are, of course, differences in detail, cf. Bodi 1991, pp. 43–44), see the Janus-faced Izimu-Usmû, vezier of Enki-Ea, or even more so the four-faced statues in the round depicting a god and a goddess, surveying the four regions of the world (probably from Iščali, Diyāla region, Old Babylonian period, Frankfort 1943, p. 21, pls. 77–81). In the first millennium, these four-faced gods find their match in the description of Marduk as having “four (pairs of) eyes and four (pairs of) ears” (erbe īnāšu erbe uznāšu, Enūma elîš I:95; īnāšu and uznāšu are dual forms = “pairs”, strictly speaking), making him fit to see and hear everything that happens in the four quarters of the universe. The same image is also found with Ištar of Nineveh (Livingstone 1989, p. 99, no. 39, obv. 20; idem 1986, p. 233; I owe this reference to Stella Grammling, Heidelberg). The number “four” as a denotation of the “all-encompasing” or “all-powerful” capacities of the gods occurs also in a description of the Ištar of Nineveh with her “four breasts” in the Dialogue Between Aššurbanipal and Nabû from the mid-7th century BCE: “As a baby, Aššurbanipal, you used to sit in the lap of the (divine) Queen of Nineveh. Her four teats (erbe zīzīša) were placed in your mouth; two you were sucking, and two you were milking to your face” (Livingstone 1989, p. 34, no. 13, rev. 7–8). See the examples discussed in chapter 4.2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

108

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

6.3. Excursus: The “Oracle of the Square Temple” at Jerusalem After Babylonian civilization had declined and its temples had fallen into ruins, there was one late and prominent example of temple architecture that was still working according to the Babylonian concept of centre and periphery inherent in its square layout. This was the temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem. Originally, the temple at Jerusalem certainly had been a typical Levantine-Syrian temple in antis, opening east.505 In terms of archaeology, nothing is left of that “first” temple at Jerusalem, which is said to have been built by Solomon,506 and the descriptions of its form and layout may well have been redacted in later times. But even from these rather late and perhaps idealized descriptions we can at least deduce the basic information that the temple’s layout had been in line with the other temples of its time in Syria and the Levant. In the layout of the first temple at Jerusalem, as well as in 8 the layout of the likes of it in other cities of the Figure 8: Model of the ideal temple at Levant and Syria, the Babylonian philosophy of Jerusalem, opening towards the four 507 cardinal points; according to the the “four winds of heaven” did not play any role. Temple Scroll from Qumran (after It was only during and after the exile to Babylonia, that a new and ideal layout of the temple was Yadin 1983, p. 252, fig. 14). developed, inscribing the Levantine temple into a Babylonian set of courts, opening towards the four winds of heaven. In biblical literature, the term “the four winds” appears only rarely and late, probably as a Babylonian heritage, and most notably in the description of the layout of the ideal temple from the vision of Ezekiel.508 Surrounding the square temple of the vision of Ezekiel with a city wall and gates (Ezk 48:30–35), we arrive at a layout of an ideal 505

506 507 508

Busink 1970, p. 165 with plan in fig. 48, p. 252 on the orientation towards the east, p. 617 on the temple’s type, notwithstanding Busink’s opinion that the temple was a unique creation by Solomon himself. According to Josephus (Antiquities 8:3, 2), the temple built by Solomon was directed to the east. 1 Ki 6 and 2 Chr 3–4 are silent about the direction to which the temple opened. Nevertheless, one can deduce from 1 Ki 6:8 (entrance to the storerooms from the south) and from 1 Ki 7:39 ∥ 2 Chr 4:11 (the Brazen Sea set up south-east) that it had an east-west orientation, and that it opened to the east. See also the description in the first vision of Ezekiel (8:16). A recent discussion of the written evidence is given by Hurowitz 2010. Cf. also Busink 1970, p. 253. The temple precinct is measured out against “the four winds” (‫ארבע רוחות‬, Ezk 42:20), i.e. the “east-, north-, south- and west-wind” (Ezk 42:16–19). The four winds also occur in the vision of the resurrection in Ezk 37:9. – 1 Chr 9:24: The Levites guard the gates of the temple towards the four winds of heaven, after the exile. – Jer 49:36: The four winds scatter Elam. – Dan 7:2: Vision of the four winds of heaven stirring up the sea, with the four animals coming up from the sea. Dan 8:8: Vision of the he-goat with four horns meaning the four winds (Dan 11:4), another Babylonian motif, see pp. 101f. above. – Zech 2:1–4: The four horns that have scattered Israel are smashed by four workmen. Zech 2:10: Israel is scattered to the four winds, see pp. 111f. below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: The “Oracle of the Square Temple” at Jerusalem

109

square city which comes extremely close to the layout of a cult centre like Babylon.509 The layout and the dimensions of the ideal square temple and of the square city surrounding it are not suitable for a small, hilly and cleft site like Jerusalem, but are obviously derived from the layout of a Babylonian metropolis such as Babylon itself. From Babylon, Jerusalem had also inherited the concept of being the centre or “navel” of the world.510 Later, the Babylonian heritage of the “four winds” appears also in other Jewish writings. The Sefer har-Rāzîm I,511 an early medieval guide to Jewish magic, employs the topic of dispersing materia magica and thereby enemies into the “four winds of the world” (‫)הארבע רוחות העולם‬.512 Alongside the “four winds” also other magical elements well-known from Babylonia are attested, such as “taking water from several sources”,513 “smashing a clay pot”,514 and “leaving holy water under the light of the stars of the skies”.515 The book quite often leaves the impression that we are looking at Babylonian concepts preserved in Jewish traditions. This was also the case with the new, Babylonian layout sketched out for Jerusalem. Even though the ideal layout of the square temple and city could never be completely realized at the uneven, hilly city of Jerusalem, it dominated the concept of the ideal square temple as laid down in the vision of Ezekiel and in the temple scroll from Qumran (see fig. 8 on p. 108). Practically, the basic idea of the square temple was transformed into real architecture to some degree perhaps already in the course of the rebuilding of the temple by Zerubbabel and his successors, but clearly the more so in the course of the massive renovation of the temple by Herod the Great.516 Herod turned the temple area into an enormous rectangle, as square as possible given the natural obstacles of the site. After Jerusalem had been taken by the Romans in 70 CE and the temple had been destroyed, people started spotting ominous signs hinting at its destruction, as reported by Josephus.517 As we shall see, one of these signs was the very squareness of the temple. Yahweh, as a proper ancient Near Eastern god, was held to have 509 510 511 512

513 514 515 516 517

See also Busink 1980, pp. 724–726; Liverani 2005, p. 329. On Jerusalem and Babylon as the navel of the earth see Bodi 1991, pp. 219–230. On Babylon in particular see the discussion on pp. 105f. above. The “Book of Secrets”, edited by Rebiger & Schäfer 2009. Sefer har-Rāzîm I § 43: “(If you want to send certain angry angels of the second layer of heaven against your enemies), gather water from seven springs on the seventh day of the month, in the seventh hour of the day in seven clay pots not made by the light of the day, mix it and leave it seven nights under the stars. In the seventh night, take a bowl of glas written with the names of your enemies, and pour the water into it. Smash the pots of clay, cast them into the four winds of the world, and recite the following towards the four directions: (…)”. Sefer har-Rāzîm I § 51: “If you want to drive away (a person who hates you), cast the water into the four winds of the world.” In Babylonia e.g. from the rivers Euphrates and Tigris, or from wells designating the rivers within temples, e.g. in Esaĝil, see George 1992, pp. 278–279 on Tintir II:33. Symbolizing problems or enemies, see Becking 1990; Maul 1994, pp. 82–83. In order to gather their power, see Maul 1994, p. 45. Busink 1980, p. 832, fig 200 (pre-Herodian), p. 1179, fig. 253 (temple of Herodes). The following after Josephus, Jewish War 6:5, 3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

110

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

sent omens as warnings. He had sent terrestrial omens in the form of an earthquake accompanied by a great noise, widely understood in the ancient Near East as a classic sign of divine anger.518 He had sent celestial omens in the form of a star resembling a sword, and a comet.519 He had sent omens dealing with unnatural births, prominent among the Babylonian omens of disaster of the Šumma izbu type:520 At the last Festival of the Unleavened Bread521 before the destruction of temple, a cow, as she was led away to be sacrificed, brought forth a lamb in the midst of the temple.522 Finally, there were incidents that in fact were no omens in the strict sense, but the actual sight of the divine leaving the temple:523 The doors of the shrine were seen opening by themselves, a voice was heared saying “Let us remove hence”, and the heavenly hosts were seen departing in the skies.524 The most interesting and puzzling omen announcing the fall of the temple at Jerusalem is the famous Oracle of the Square Temple. Josephus reports that “the Jews, by demolishing the tower of Antonia, had made their temple four-square (τετράγωνον), while at the same time they had it written in their oracles (ἐν τοῖς λογίοις) that then should their city be taken, as well as their holy house, when once their temple should become four-square.”525 Since a passage containing an oracle like this cannot be found in the Hebrew Bible, it is commonly considered to be lost from the scriptures.526 However, looking for a passage running verbatim like the line in Josephus may be somewhat naive. One has to take into account that 518 519 520 521 522

523 524 525 526

Cf. the earthquakes in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), l. 6, omen no. 8. Cf. the falling stars in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), l. 19, omen no. 29, see the end of the commentary on the earthquake in l. 6, omen no. 8. See also chapter 10.5 with the omen announcing the fall of Babylon to the Persians, the mule giving birth to a foal, according to Herodotus, Hist. 3:151, 2 and 153–154, 1. In the days of Josephus (Antiquities 3:10, 5), this festival succeeded that of the Passover, fell on the 15th day of the month, and lasted for seven days. Josephus, Jewish War 6:5, 3. A cow giving birth to a lamb is an omen evil enough, but it may have been even worse. The Greek text which is extant to us employs in the phrase βοῦς … ἀχϑεῖσα the feminine participle aorist passive in ἀχϑεῖσα “led”, making that “piece of cattle” (βοῦς) a cow. However, the regulations for the (burnt) offering (‫קרבן‬/‫ )עלה‬in Lev 1:2ff. – and there is no reason to assume that the offering described by Josephus was not of this kind – demand an unblemished male domestic animal, in the case of cattle this means a bull. A male animal giving birth is an even more frightening omen, and it is also known from Babylonia, see the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), omens nos. 7 and 30, with a (male?) seed-crow and a male dog giving birth. Perhaps this was too incredible for Josephus’ Greek and Roman audience, and at some point in the tradition the supposed original masculine piece of cattle turned into a more plausible feminine by adding an α to *ἀχϑεὶς. On more omens of disaster of this type see chapter 10.5. Cf. the good genie departing from Esaĝil, Religious Chronicle (Source 37), l. III:16’–17’. Josephus, Jewish War 6:5, 3; Tacitus, Histories 5:13; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:8. Josephus, Jewish War 6:5, 4. Michel & Bauernfeind 1969, pp. 54–55, 190; Yadin 1983, pp. 197–198. Hahn (1962, pp. 131–135) unconvincingly tried to show that there is a connection between the burning of the cedar panelling of the temple, the cedar mount Lebanon (‫)לבנון‬, and the root *‫ לבן‬from which ‫“ לבנה‬brick” is derived, which Hahn understands as “square brick”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Excursus: The “Oracle of the Square Temple” at Jerusalem

111

the oracle might be hiding in an esoteric reading and explanation of some more inconspicuous verse. We will discuss a possible example below. Furthermore, there are some obvious inconsistencies in Josephus’ report. Allegedly, the temple area had become four-square only after dismantling the tower Antonia during the siege by the Romans. But Josephus himself reports that already Solomon had built around the temple an outer sacred precinct “in the form of a four-square (τετράγωνον) which was entered into by high gates, each of which had its front facing one of the four winds.”527 The tower Antonia was only a secondary element to the temple complex which had been four-square all the time, at least ever since it had been built by Herod. Since already the first temple was considered to have been four-square, and since also the layout of the ideal temple of Ezekiel and the temple scroll design the temple as a perfect square, with gates opening towards the four winds, it is clear that being four-square was not considered a baneful and fatal feature for the temple, but rather its ideal form.528 The idea behind the connection of the elements “square” and “being dispersed into the four winds” does not mean that Israel would be scattered if the temple becomes four-square, but because it is four-square and had been so from the very start, communicating with the four regions. Looking for a passage that may have been read as a warning in the aftermath of the destruction of the second temple, one comes across Zechariah, a Judean prophet who was probably born in Babylonia and who was active in Jerusalem shortly after the exile in Babylonia had officially ended (in ca. 520 BCE). In the third vision of Zechariah (Zech 2), we find a combination of the elements “measuring and laying out the city of Jerusalem”, “the Lord rising and departing from his shrine” and “the people being scattered to the four winds”. This passage also contains a section qualified as “word of the Lord” (‫נאם־יהוה‬, Zech 2:10), which is a perfect match to the term “oracle/word (of god)” (λόγιον) used by Josephus. In this vision, Zechariah sees a man with a measuring cord who is going to measure out Jerusalem, because Yahweh has decided to return to Jerusalem again and to gather his people from exile. The man with the measuring cord is a direct reference to the vision of Ezekiel (40:3), where the same figure is measuring out the ideal square temple at Jerusalem. The text of Zechariah 2 is not easy to understand, and may be corrupt in some places. But most importantly, the text uses two frightening images among an overall positive outlook. These images are the news that the “Lord has risen from his holy dwelling” (Zech 2:17), and that he has or will “spread out his people like the four winds of heaven” from Zech 2:10: – ‫( כי כארבע רוחות השׁמים פרשׂתי אתכם נאם־יהוה‬Zech 2:10) “For I have/shall spread you abroad like the four winds of heaven, word of the Lord.” The Septuagint reads instead: “For I shall gather (συνάξω) you from the four winds.” This variant originated perhaps from a misreading of ‫ פרשׂתי‬as ‫ כנשׂתי‬for 527 528

Josephus, Antiquities 8:3, 9. The biblical passages in 1 Ki 6 and 2 Chr 4:9 do not give any details on the layout of the courts. On the ideal square layout of the temples of Solomon, Ezekiel, the Temple Scroll, and Herod in the biblical literature and the writings of Josephus see Hahn 1962, p. 132.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

112

Chapter 6: The Tradition of the Historical Omens

‫“ כנסתי‬I have gathered”. But in any case the translation with a Greek future tense demonstrates that in this verse the perfect tense could be understood as a perfectum propheticum. And so the learned contemporaries of Josephus could understand the verse as a prophecy, announcing the second exile: “For I shall spread you abroad (again) like the four winds of heaven.” They might have understood the verse in this way the more so as Zechariah immediately afterwards reports that Yahweh has risen from his dwelling: “Be silent, all flesh, before the Lord; for he has risen from his holy dwelling” (Zech 2:17). Here, the image may mean that Yahweh spurs himself into action on behalf of his people. But normally, the god’s rising is an apocalyptic image denoting that Yahweh departs from his shrine and forsakes it. Furthermore, with the address “all flesh” (‫)כל־בשׂר‬, Zechariah uses is a flood motif. Before Yahweh had sent the flood, “all the flesh” had corrupted its ways (Gen 6:12), and so he did away with “all the flesh” (Gen 6:13, 17; 7:21). The Jews in the time of the destruction of the second temple had every reason to understand Zech 2:10 as a prophetic warning that Yahweh would rise again and remove his divine presence from the earth to the heavens, allowing another flood-like destruction of his city and his temple. The prophecy of Zech 2:10 is embedded in a larger imagery employing a man with a cord measuring Jerusalem, thereby connecting the “word of the Lord” to the architectural layout of the holy city and its temple. Being an ideological successor of the square temples of Babylonia, oriented towards the “four winds”, the temple at Jerusalem had the power to gather the people towards the centre, as well as to disperse them into the four winds. The prophecy announcing a second exile which one can read from Zech 2:10 finds its counterpart in one of the prophecies given ex eventu by Ezekiel for the first exile. The image used there is the one of Jerusalem set up as the centre of the world, with the foreign lands and people arranged around it (Ezk 5:5). It is the image of the sacred city as the navel of the world, and it had been transferred to Jerusalem from Babylon.529 This image does not dwell verbally on the element “four”, but it addresses another characteristic trait of the square temple in the centre of the cosmos, that is the tension between centre and periphery (see fig. 7 on p. 107). Jerusalem, being the sacred centre of the world (Ezk 5:5), but not behaving accordingly, unleashes the centrifugal powers of the temple. As their punishment, the inhabitants of Jerusalem who have survived the conquest of the city will be dispersed “to all the winds” (Ezk 5:12, ‫)לכל־רוח‬. And just like Zechariah 2:10, this sentence is also a “word of the Lord” (Ezk 5:11, ‫)נאם־יהוה‬, matching Josephus’ term “oracle/word (of god)” (λόγιον). With the Oracle of the Square Temple we have a remote successor of the Babylonian philosophy contemplating on the dangerous dual nature of a temple as the centre of the universe, on its power to mediate between centre and periphery, and on its inherent and omnipresent threat of imploding if the deity departed, turning the inside out and bringing the outside in.

529

See p. 109 above with note 510. On Ezk 5:5 in particular see Bodi 1991, p. 221.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

7. The Formation of a Rationale: The Esaĝil Chronicle In the ancient Near East the temples and the palace, the two main centres of power, often were suspended in a delicate balance. Whereas the king generally depended upon the ideological backing and approval of the temples and priests, they in turn found themselves frequently harshly subjected to the palace’s will. The most sensitive sphere was, of course, the temples’ economic strength, resting mainly upon large estates plus the income from various offerings, assigned and guaranteed in turn again by the king.530 The kings sought to control the temples by appointing family members or royal officials to important offices in the temples’ administration and hierachy. In order to guide the royal power, the priests or scribes working on behalf of the temples were eager and busy to provide the kings with warnings, as well with examples of proper conduct towards the gods and the temples. Examples of this kind of “wisdom literature” or “admonitions” can be found in the Advice to a Prince531 or in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Painting this picture so highly contrasted in black and white of only two antagonists is, of course, in order to sharpen our conception. It ignores the mutual interference of the two parties and the role of possible other participants. It relies heavily on the theocratic view that the world and human history were directed by divine will. There were certainly people even back then who would have clearly perceived the texts as blatant propaganda set up merely to serve the materialistic and financial interests of the temples or priests. However, atheists would not have written tracts kept in temple libraries. So we are left with texts written by priests or temple scribes focusing on throughout materialistic matters and warning the ruling king and those to be from tampering with the temples’ economy. That the warnings and admonitions of texts like the Esaĝil Chronicle and the Advice to a Prince were taken seriously by the ancient audiences becomes apparent from the royal inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II (Source 77) which intertextually refers to the part of the Esaĝil Chronicle dealing with the pious deed of queen Ku-Baʾu. The Advice to a Prince is quoted explicitly with full title (šarru ana dīni lā iqūl) in a letter of the Babylonian scholar Bēl-ušēzib to king Asarhaddon.532 In this letter, Bēlušēzib assures or rather warns the Assyrian king that if a king would not heed the privileges of holy cities like Nippur, Sippar or Babylon, divine alienation and punishment “will happen” (inneppe[š], rev. 6) exactly as it is written in the Advice to a Prince.533

530 531

532 533

For a detailed picture how a temple’s economy worked, exemplified by Nabû’s temple Ezida at Borsippa, see Waerzeggers 2010. See Böhl 1937; Lambert 1960a, pp. 110–115; Diakonoff 1965; Reiner 1982; von Soden 1990; Cole 1996, pp. 268–274, no. 128; Hurowitz 1998. On the impact of the composition on politics see also the brief discussion on p. 143 below. Reiner 1982; Reynolds 2003, p. 101, no. 124, rev. 3–7. The reading “(it is a) reliable tablet” (*ṭuppu kīnumma, rev. 7) proposed by Reiner (1982, p. 320) has been dropped by now. The respective signs (dup-pi ki!-num-ma) are to be read dup-pi liš-šu-nim-ma “they may bring the tablet” (Reynolds 2003, p. 101, rev. 7). But in turn, Reynolds (2003, p. 101, rev. 6) reads i-né-ep-pi[š] “it will happe[n]”,

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

114

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

The Esaĝil Chronicle is composed in the form of a letter of a king of Isin addressed to his colleague, a king of Babylon. The first line of the text dealing with the sender and the addressee is not well preserved, but it appears that the chronicle dealt with Damiq-ilīšu (ca. 1816–1794 BCE), the last king of the First Dynasty of Isin and with Apil-Sîn (ca. 1830–1813 BCE), king of Babylon. Although the text is very probably a fictional and late composition from the time of the Second Dynasty of Isin, the historical accuracy with the possible overlap of the reigns of these two kings is remarkable.534 The text’s view of history accepts Isin as the successor of the Third Dynasty of Ur but passes in silence over Larsa, the historical and mutual enemy of both the dynasties of Isin and Babylon. In many respects the text shares its religiously formulated historical view with the Sumerian King List (SKL), whose latest version ends with Damiq-ilīšu535, the last king of the First Dynasty of Isin, the very king who acts as the sender of the present letter. In portraying the rise of Babylon as a result of the promotion of Marduk by Anu, Enlil, and Ea the letter is consistent with the prologue of the Code of Hammurapi. Nevertheless, I think that the text is a product of the Second Dynasty of Isin, ruling at the end of the second millennium BCE with her centre at Babylon.536 Shifts in political power are understood as a reflection of divine grace, which is bestowed or withdrawn as a result of the individual kings right or sinful behaviour. The conduct of the kings is judged by their attitude towards the god Marduk and his city Babylon. In focusing so heavily on this god the text, of course, gives itself away as a product of the theology of Babylon. The topic of the Esaĝil Chonicle (Source 35) clearly is “heed Marduk!”. It is exemplified by “the ways how former kings fared” (alakti šarrī maḫri, ll. 40, 76) in heeding or not heeding the god Marduk and his city Babylon. The addressee, formally an Old Babylonian king of Babylon, but actually any future king or reader of this text, is advised “to learn” (lamādu, l. 9) from history “how to behave” (alaktu, l. 9) and to worship Marduk in order “to keep himself safe and sound” (ša *ramānšu šullumi, ll. 7, 81), as well as his troops (ummānu, l. 7) and his land (mātu, l. 81). In chapter 10.3 we shall see how Nebuchadnezzar II in fact learnt his lesson from the Esaĝil Chronicle and made up for the fish offering to Marduk which his legendary predecessor Puzur-ilī of Akšak had embezzled according to lines 48–55 of the chronicle. The term alaktu, which frames the main and educational part of the Esaĝil Chronicle (ll. 40, 76) is very interesting. Literally, it means simply “way”. But here, it designates “the ways” how former kings “behaved” towards Marduk, as well as “how they fared” in doing so. In this sense, the expression alakti šarrī maḫri (ll. 40, 76) is the Babylonian term which comes closest to the concept of

534 535 536

where Reiner (1982, p. 320) read i-né-es-su-[ú] “(the gods) will leave (their shrines)”, since there seems to be no room for [atmanīšun] on the margin. See the discussion on p. 376 below in the commentary on line 1 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). In text P5 (CBS 19797; Poebel, PBS 5, no. 5 rev. 23: da-⌈mi-iq-ì⌉-lí-šu), see Jacobsen 1939, p. 127, note 363. See the comment sub “date” of Source 35 and the discussion in the introduction to chapter 7.3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

115

“history of kings past”.537 The wise king of Isin who passes the doctrine on to his colleague, a king of Babylon (Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35, l. 1), says that he in turn “has been hearing” (šemû Gtn, Prs., l. 40) the numerous examples again and again. But hearing alone is not enough, it is also necessary to “repeat” the doctrine and “to transmit it” (šanû D, l. 40). Babylonian civilization had been a literary culture for millennia, but still, the concept of “wisdom” (ḫasīsu)538 was dominated by the aural and oral techniques of “listening” and “telling and repeating” (qabû, l. 9; šanû D, l. 40). The Esaĝil Chronicle uniquely conceptualizes the power and the right of Marduk to kill the gods who dare to oppose him. This is a very rare example when the common ancient Near Eastern practice of seizing and destryoing foreign gods and shrines is put into a line of arguments. Asking by what right foreign gods were captured and deported, we are given an answer which is, of course, within the horizon of the ancient Near East, dominated by patriarchal and royal authority. However, it is not as simple as “winner takes all” or “law of the jungle”. The power to capture or even to kill enemy gods was part of the supreme authority of the king of the gods, that is, Enlil in the Sumerian pantheon and Marduk and Aššur in Babylonia and Assyria respectively. Despite the bias which is bluntly apparent to the modern eye, authoritative divine hierarchy together with treaties sworn by the gods made up an early form of international law in those days. In the case of Marduk, his right and power is expressed verbally in lines 34–39 of the Esaĝil Chronicle:539 (34a) [a]na ili āli šâšu ilānū rabûtu ša šamê u erṣeti (34b) ûrta u[l iddinū] u ṭēm ūmīšunu ibašši ittī[šu] [“T]o the god of this city the great gods of heaven and earth do n[ot give] order, but (to give them) their daily order is up to [him (: Marduk).”] (35b) ana milkīšu nakli ilu mamman ul iʾâr (35c) šūma ša libbi b[arû ittīšu] “No god opposes his ingenious counsel, it is [up to] him (: Marduk) to s[can] the (thoughts) of the heart.” (36) epšu pîšu ikkammû ilānū nakrūtu labšū aršūti uktapparū kīma mēsī “At his command, the hostile gods are bound, and dressed in soiled garments, they are cut to pieces like (mere) mēsu-trees.” (37a) ilu ša ana ili āli šâšu ugallalu (37b) kakkabšu ina šamê ul izzaz ana aširtīšu liltammû rābiṣū “The god who sins against the god of this city, his star will no longer stand in the skies, and demons shall beleaguer his shrine.”

537 538 539

See also the discussion on pp. 21f. above at the beginning of chapter 1.6. The Akkadian term ḫasīsu and its Sumerian counterpart ĝeštug literally mean “ear”; see here on p. 234 below. Cf. from the same root taḫsistu? “reminder” in line 9. In the following, lines 34a and 37a have been slightly smoothed. See the commentary on l. 37 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) on the variations between the manuscripts.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

116

⌈šarrūssu iqatti⌉ ḫaṭṭašu inneṭṭir išittašu itâr ana tillī u k[armī] “(As to that god and his chosen king,) his kingship will cease, his sceptre will be taken, his treasury will turn into a heap of rubble and r[uins].” (39) [(…) ay] išmēšū́ma šar kišš[at šam]ê u erṣet[i] umma ilānū ša šamê u erṣeti šâšu ašruš [idâma] “The king of al[l heav]en and earth [may not] listen to him, (but say): ‘Gods of heaven and earth, [reject] him and his place!’” Under other circumstances, it could also be Marduk who had to roam the netherworld because he had dared to oppose a god stronger than him. After Babylon had been destroyed by Sennacherib, the scribe of the Assyrian Marduk Ordeal comments upon Meslamtaea, a name of the god of the netherworld: “Meslamtaea is Marduk who goes up and down to the netherworld because Aššur chased him into a hole and opened its gate.”540 The scenario sketched out in the excerpt above by the ideologers of Marduk crystallizes in fact in an act of urbicide (“city-killing”).541 Babylon itself suffered it in 689 BCE from the hands of the Assyrian king Sennacherib.The Babylonians returned the favour in 614–610 BCE, when they wiped out Assyria, in particular the sacred city of Aššur. In line 36 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Marduk’s power to give and to deny life is exemplified by the element “mēsu-tree”, which was the material the cores of the statues of Mesopotamian gods were usually made of. The line tells us that gods who would dare to oppose Marduk are denied existence and treated like a mere lump of wood, fit to be chopped up to pieces. The relief in figure 9 depicts Assyrian 9 soldiers chopping up the statue of a human king or Figure 9: Assyrian soldiers chop up the statue of a human king or warrior in the sacking of the sanctuary of the god warrior. Detail from a Neo-Assyrian Ḫaldi at Muṣaṣir by Sargon II. In this relief, the relief depicting the destruction of statue which is destroyed is not the statue of a god. Muṣaṣir by Sargon II (Botta & But being chopped up like this, and being sacked Flandin 1849 II, pl. 140). like Muṣaṣir is precisely what Marduk’s ideologists wanted to happen to the statues and shrines of rivalling gods. The wording of line 36, using kapāru D “to cut to pieces” and “mēsu-tree”, draws on a catchphrase which is used repeatedly in the cultic poetry of Babylonian lamentations. This phrase deals with the power of Enlil, respecticvely Marduk, and can be reconstructed in Sumerian and Akkadian as follows:542 – (umun eneĝani) mes galgala gugurušame : (ša bēli amāssu) mēsī rabbūti ukappar “He (/The Lord’s word) cuts the great mēsu-trees to pieces.” (38)

540 541 542

Livingstone 1989, no. 39; VAT 8917, r. 7. On this concept see the discussion on pp. 70f. above. The individual references for this phrase are given on p. 383 in the commentary on line 36 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

117

The “great mēsu-trees” are the other gods of the universe. The wood of the mēsutree, native to Babylonia, and that of the imported musukkannu (ĝišmes-má-kan-na) the “mēsu-tree-from-Makan”, probably a kind of teak, were prominent among the materials used for the statues of Mesopotamian gods and cultic furniture. The cores of these statues were carved from these kinds of wood, given the epithets šīr ilī “the flesh of the gods” and iṣu dārû “everlasting wood”.543 The Esaĝil Chronicle is backed up by another piece of quite anachronistic history from the late second or first millennium. This text is a fictional letter ascribed to the Old Babylonian king Samsu-iluna (Source 70). Whereas the Esaĝil Chronicle showed us how Marduk would exercise his divine supremacy, the fictional royal letter sets an example for kings how to deal with a priesthood that would not pay heed to Marduk. The accusations hurled against the priests are very general and sweeping. We are not told any details, but we understand that they are completely wicked in the eyes of the author. The basic crime with which the priests of all Babylonia are charged in this text was simply that they failed to acknowledge the supremacy of “Marduk, the great lord, the king of the gods, the supreme one, prince among his brothers, who, after he had created gods and humanity, had allotted them their destiny”.544 The text recalls the Myths of Conflict in which Marduk, the new king of the gods, subdues the old masters of the universe, be their names Anu, Enlil and even Ea. These gods, now dubbed “his enemies and rebels” (ayyābīšu lā māgirīšu), are subjugated, defeated, killed and sent down to the netherworld.545 These mythological statements are certainly to be interpreted as reflections of the conflicts between the individual priesthoods about the position of their gods in the pantheon.546 7.1. Sin and Sanction: Mirror Punishment The following two chapters deal with the effects of the principle of “sin and sanction” within Babylonian religious-political thought. This age-old and widespread principle is, of course, not peculiar to Babylonia, but is found all over in the civilizations of the ancient Near East. It basically demands that any violation of religious, political-social and also moral standards find its just punishment by the gods, the watchful and eternal guardians of the civilization they had once created. In Enūma elîš, Marduk’s 18th name is Šazu (dšà-zu “He-Who-Knoweth-the-Heart”). It is Marduk who has the power to observe and to check (barû) the thoughts of the heart (ša libbi) of gods and men:

543 544 545 546

See pp. 382f. with the commentary on line 36 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Letter of Samsu-iluna (Source 70), after text 1, obv. 12–14: bēlu rabû Marduk šar ilānī gitmālu etel aḫḫīšu ultu ilānī u amīlūta ibnû šīmta ⌈…⌉ išīmšunūti (skipped in the excerpt). For an overview see Livingstone 1986, pp. 151–153. A Neo-Babylonian mythological narrative describes how Marduk waged war against Enlil and Nippur, see Oshima 2010. Livingstone 1986, p. 154; Al-Rawi & George 1994, p. 137; Scurlock 2012.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

118

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

– Šazu (dšà-zu) mūdē libbi ilānī ša ibarrû karša ēpiš lemnēti lā ušēṣû ittīšu547 “(Marduk’s name is also) Šazu, He-Who-Knoweth-the-Heart of (or: among) the gods, he who checks the mind, who never ever let (even) a (single) evil-doer escape from his (punishment).” The theological programme laid out in the explanation of Marduk’s name Šazu as given in Enūma elîš may well pass as the very motto of the Esaĝil Chronicle. The whole chronicle is actually an elaboration on this thought enriched with examples from history. Nabopolassar played on exactly this idea when he described how and why Marduk called him to kingship:548 – (8) dšà-zu bēl mūdû libbi ilānī ša šamê u erṣeti (9) ša tākalāt nišī ibarrû kayyāna (10) (…) ša libbīya ibrēma (11) ina māt abbanû iškunanni ana rēšēti (8) “ Šazu (: Marduk), the lord who knows the heart of (or: among) the gods, (9) who constantly checks the inner mind of the people, (10) (…) scanned the (thoughts) of my heart and (11) placed me in the land where I was born into the most exalted position.” Nabopolassar also formulated a kind of creed which expresses the same idea:549 – Marduk bēlu iḫâṭ pī (*pâ) ibarri libba ša itti Bēl kīnu ikunnā išdāšu – ša itti Mār-Bēl kīnu ulabbar ana dārâti “The lord Marduk inspects the words (lit. “mouth”) and checks the heart. He who is true to the Lord (: Marduk), his foundations will be firm, he who is true to the son of the Lord (: Nabû) will live for ever.” The concept of Marduk-Šazu who sees everything and punishes the evildoer clearly underlies the line 76 (see also l. 35c) of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Although partly lost, it is the résumé of the composition and the moral of the text: ́ a ‹Šazu ibarri› (l. 76) – ‹alak›ti šarrī maḫri ālik pāni [li]tāmûka ša libbīkām “May (your advisors) tell you the ‹conduc›t (and fate) of the former kings (your) predecessors, and (may they tell you) that ‹Šazu› ‹(= He-Who-Knoweth-the-Heart) scans› the (thoughts) of your heart.”

547

548

549

Enūma elîš VII:35–36. In the second part, I understand the verbal form as a gnomic preterite (Mayer 1992) to formulate a universal rule: *ša lā ušēṣû “who never ever has let escape”. One of the manuscripts, however, uses the present tense: [ú-š]e-eṣ-ṣu-ú (Kämmerer & Metzler 2012, p. 288, l. 36, text Ga; Lambert 2013, p. 126, l. 36, text g). From the Eḫursaĝtila cylinder of Nabopolassar (Da Riva 2013, p. 58, no. C12/1, ll. 8–11 + variants; same phrase in his Imgur-Enlil cylinder: Da Riva 2013, p. 94, no. C32, I 15–20). Since a total of four cylinders spell the term in line 9 as ta-ka-la-at/-lat, it is not wise to emend it to tallaktu “way/conduct”. Pace Al-Rawi 1985, pp. 6–7 and Da Riva 2013, p. 99, who propose a new lemma *takkaltu “clever behaviour” (from nakālu), the term is certainly tākaltu “stomach/innards” (Starr 1983, pp. 53–54; see the term also here in note 1398), meaning the “inside”, the “mind” of the people, very much like libbu “heart” and kabattu “liver”. The imagery is taken from extispicy, performed by Marduk on living humans, not on slaughtered sheep, as the human diviner would do. The following from Nabopolassar’s Eḫursaĝtila and Imgur-Enlil cylinders, after Da Riva 2013, p. 61, no. C12/1, ll. 35–37; ibidem p. 95, no. C32, III 27–29.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

119

The Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) is a text that belongs to the body of Babylonian wisdom literature which was to teach future kings and their administration the proper conduct towards Marduk. The main topic of the chronicle is the status of the god Marduk. The reader is informed that, by supplanting Enlil, Marduk has risen to the head of the pantheon. Marduk is not to be ignored or even opposed. This is the rather simple and straightforward moral which the author wants us to learn. That part of the text is emphasized by terms characterizing it as a piece of wisdom literature. Namely, it is the terms “words of consultation” (amāt šitūlti, l. 3), and “instruction” (ûrtu, l. 4). The text is a “choice report” (ṭēmu nasqu, l. 5) which is to be heeded. The dear colleague, to whom the letter is addressed, is sharply rebuked for not having listened to this fine piece of advice from the very start (ll. 3–5). All this good instruction is given to be observed, so the king may live safe and sound and may not sin against Marduk, lest he be punished and his land go to ruin. These morals are given at the beginning of the text (l. 7), and they are repeated at the end (ll. 81–82). To strengthen his point, the author gives a short summary of the history of Babylonia. The examples of earlier kings and how they fared is the main topic of the second half of the text, and it is the part that earned the text the name chronicle. The examples start with Akka of Kiš and Gilgameš at the dawn of history, and run down to Ibbi-Sîn of Ur. The kings and their deeds are briefly introduced and assessed. The sole line of argument runs along the question as to whether they had either heeded Marduk, or not. Good kings get a good life and rule the world, bad kings are deposed or killed. The text shows, that any offence committed would be punished by Marduk harshly, but justly. No evildoer would escape from him.550 Sometimes, bad kings are simply deposed from office, sometimes they have to face illnesses or barbarian hordes invading. At the end of the story we see Marduk losing his temper. As the kings would not learn, death penalties increase, and finally disaster strikes during the reign of Ibbi-Sîn. This is when the gods leave their shrines, go into exile and deliver the land to destruction. Strangely enough, king Ibbi-Sîn still is not portrayed as a bad king, but as a poor wretch. This may be due to the early Old Babylonian traditions during the reign of the First Dynasty of Isin, whose scholars were very reluctant to discuss any sin because the rise of Isin was intimately connected with the fall of Ur (see p. 82 above). The traditions which become tangible for us slightly later, probably during the First Dynasty of Larsa, portray Ibbi-Sîn as a conceited ruler, unable to read the signs and to avert the downfall of his dynasty.551 According to the Esaĝil Chronicle, dating to the early first millennium, Ibbi-Sîn was not punished for a personal sin of his own. Punishment overcame him only as retaliation for a sin inherited from his ancestor Šulgi. According to the Esaĝil Chronicle, it was Šulgi who polluted his whole dynasty by polluting the purification rites of Marduk. The punishment brought about by Marduk is just. It comes about deliberately and consequently, and as a mirror punishment corresponding to the crime. The correspondences which produce the mirror punishment or mirror reward for a 550 551

See the quotation from Enūma elîš (VII:35–36) on p. 118 above with note 547. Most clearly in Source 3 (“Ibbi-Sîn’s Error”), see the discussion on pp. 86ff.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

120

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

particular deed of a king often display a highly philological character.552 This means that the correspondence is in particular expressions that describe the action or events. So when the Gutians took away (ekēmu, l. 67) the fish offering, Marduk took away their rule (ekēmu again, l. 68). And when Utu-ḫeĝal laid his hand on Babylon with evil intent (qāta wabālu, l. 69), the river carried off his corpse (w/tabālu again, l. 69). In the story about Ku-Baʾu we even find a nice example of applied Sumerology in an etiological legend for the royal office of the “provider”. As a reward for her pious deed, which consisted of providing the temple’s fishermen with “bread/food/fodder” (*ú) and “water” (*a), Marduk conveys to her the office of kingship, since she had proven herself to be fit to act as the “provider” (Sum. ú-a, Akk. zāninu) of the temples.553 Sometimes the correspondence is more illustrative. When Šulgi defiled and sullied the purification rites of Marduk, his body was sullied with leprosy in turn.554 In the story about Šulgi’s son Amar-Sîn, the king sins aginst the element “bull” (l. 72) and his punishment comes about by a “sandal” (l. 73), i.e. an item produced from cowhide. The tradition that Amar-Sîn died from a “bite of his sandal”, when a sandal was put on his foot, is very old.555 It goes back to the Old Babylonian period. Some scholars except this tradition as hard evidence that the king in fact died from blood-poisoning.556 While this interpretation might be possible, it misses the point of the legend, and that is: “The punishment of Marduk is just and inevitable, and even if you keep far away from goring bulls, do not feel safe, since Marduk has another weird and fatal accident coming for you.” Kings who would dare to oppress the people of Babylon would be punished with the element “people” or “masses”, that is by having barbarian enemy hordes sent against them. Such is the punishment of Enmerkar (l. 42) and Narām-Sîn (l. 62). And in the story of Narām-Sîn we can see another feature of Marduk’s perfect verdicts. The punishment may happen again, for a second time, in correpondence to the crime. When Narām-Sîn offended the people of Babylon, Marduk sent barbarian hordes against him, “for a second time”,557 after the god had done so already against Enmerkar, who in like manner had offended the people. As an expression of perfect divine justice, the punishments have a strong measurefor-measure character. This principle reminds us of the principle of talion, quite often found in ancient Near Eastern Law. Classic talion, as it is known from some ancient Near Eastern and biblical laws, is a principle characterized by equal correspondence, by equivalence and similarity of crime and punishment. It is the system of “an eye for an eye”, “measure for measure”, basically between equal partners of society.558 552 553 554 555 556 557 558

On the character of the various punishments see the overviews on pp. 140f. below. See in detail the discussion p. 146 with note 681. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 71; Source 49, obv. 16–20; see p. 131 below. See the Old Babylonian Source 28 and the discussion on pp. 161f. See Goetze 1947, p. 261 and also, with reservation, Michalowski 1977b, p. 156. adi šinīšu, Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 62. In the Hebrew Bible, the catchphrase is ʿayn taḥat ʿayn “an eye for an eye” (Ex. 21:24). In rabbinical literature the principle is formulated as middah ke-neged middah “measure

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

121

Talion as a principle of law appears in the Old Babylonian period most clearly in the Codex Hammurapi (CH)559. The principle works normally with crimes between free citizens (awīlu) of equal rank.560 There is a variation in the system, if the partners are not equal in status. Then, the punishment would vary according to the offended party’s social position. If the injured party is not an awīlu, but a “commoner” (muškēnu) or slave (wardum), the punishment is replaced by paying a compensation.561 In the earlier laws of Ur-Namma562 of Ur and the laws of Ešnunna563 such offences, when committed between free citizens, could be settled by paying compensations. There are three good reasons why that simple or classic talion is not applied in the storylines of the legends. The first one is that classic talion normally works with physical injuries. The catchphrases are: “an eye for an eye”, “a wound for a wound”, and “a blow for a blow”.564 But the chronicle does not deal with this kind of rather simple injuries inflicted during everyday pub brawls. The second good reason lies in the fact that, basically, talion is a system working between equal partners. It is a principle of equivalence. The principle allows for variations when the partners are not exactly equal. But in the case of the Esaĝil Chronicle, the culprit, i.e. the individual king, and the offended party, i.e. the god Marduk, are so utterly incomparably unequal in their status, that one cannot expect to see simple talion to take its toll. The third good reason is that the king, even if principally also subjected to the common system of ethics and justice as set up by the gods, was in fact actually never subjected to the law. So people desiring to see wicked kings to be punished had to look for these more accidental, anecdotal, more poetic ways of punishment that we see employed in historical omens and in the Esaĝil Chronicle. Even in the ancient Near East, with deities physically living and acting, the gods never actually opened the skies and held a divine court over a criminal king, for everyone to see. Instead, they preferred to send all kinds of weird accidents.

559

560 561 562 563 564

for measure”. There, however, it does not describe a normal legal practice, but the character of god’s punishments (Broyde 2011; numerous colourful examples from punishments in hell discussed by Lieberman 1974, pp. 29–56). This makes it very similar to the divine talion exacted by Marduk in the Esaĝil Chronicle, see p. 122 below. In the Middle Assyrian Laws the principle is expressed as miḫṣī kī miḫṣī “blow for blow” (MAL A § 52; Roth 1997, p. 174; Lafont 2003, p. 558). In the Codex Hammurapi, the expression “x for x” is found in § 231 (Roth 1997, p. 125): wardam kīma wardim (“a slave for a slave”), and in §§ 245 and 246 (Roth 1997, p. 127): alpam kīma alpim (“an ox for an ox”). – On the principle of talion in the ancient Near East and Israel in general see e.g. Cardascia 1979; Otto 1991; Haase 1997; Démare-Lafont 2011–2013 (RlA 13), pp. 421–422; Jacobs 2014, chapter 3: “Talion in Biblical Law and Narrative”. Inscription on a stele, issued and erected ca. 1750 BCE by king Hammurapi of Babylon; originally set up at Sippar or Babylon, carried off to Susa by Šutruk-Naḫḫunte in the 12th century BCE; recent edition and translation: Roth 1997, pp. 71–142. CH § 196 (eyes), § 197 (bones), § 200 (teeth). CH §§ 198, 199, 201. Ca. 2100 BCE, §§ 18–22; Roth 1997, p. 19. Ca. 1770 BCE, §§ 42–47, § 47a even deals with manslaughter; Roth 1997, pp. 65–66. Ex. 21:24–25; see notes 558 and 560.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

122

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

Mirror reward and mirror punishment are elements of poetic justice, a principle that within European thought ultimately harks back to the philosophy of Plato’s dialogues Laws and Republic.565 This principle demands that the wicked be punished and virtue rewarded. It became decisive to European drama and comedy during the 17th and 18th centuries. Today, its moral is probably best known from the final chorus of Mozart’s and Da Ponte’s opera Don Giovanni: “Such is the end of him who does wrong – the death of the wicked always equals their lives!” However, even if this principle has a strong literary character and appears here in the Esaĝil Chronicle also in a literary setting, the Babylonian audience certainly took the examples not only as dramatically satisfying but also as historically true, since the individual fates and punishments also occur in other chronicles and historical omens. Furthermore, it is inconceivable that sacred elements of Babylonian civilization, such as the institution of kingship and the god Marduk himself, could have been subordinated to the purely literary enjoyment of a witty punch line. Ironic mirror punishment was also a measure of contemporaneous politics. It is regularly found in royal inscriptions, particularly in the inscriptions of the Assyrian king Aššurbanipal. For example, he had the hands of the enemies burnt who had grasped the bow to fight his troops.566 Sometimes the punishment is executed in effigie.567 When Aššurbanipal got hold of a statue of Ḫallušu-Inšušinak king of Elam, he “cut off his nose, which he had turned up in a sneer, sliced off his lips, which had uttered insolence, chopped off his hands, which had grasped the bow in order to fight against Assyria”.568 So the mirror principle we see working in the Esaĝil Chronicle is a kind of “divine talion”.569 It is a hallmark of Marduk’s jurisdiction, and since it corresponds to the 565

566 567 568

569

See Zach 1986, pp. 25–107: “Poetic Justice: Theoretische und historische Grundlagen der Doktrin”. – On the principles of poetic justice and talion in the Hebrew Bible see Jacobs 2013. According to Haase (1997, pp. 195–196), the term “spiegelnde Strafe” in the history of German law goes back to Heinrich Brunner (1840–1915), Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte. Zweiter Band. Neu bearbeitet von Claudius Freiherr von Schwerin (Berlin 1928, reprint 1958), p. 767 with note 15. Brunner, in turn, referred to § 345 of the Allgemeine Gerichtsordnung for Austria from 1781 which calls for a “erspiegelnde Strafe” of undefined nature as a punishment for an offender guilty of contempt of court. As opposed to talion, which calls for strict equivalence, mirror punishment is to illustrate the offence: So the slanderer’s tongue is cut off, or the perjurer’s hand. Weidner in AfO 8, 1932–1933, pp. 194–195, nos. 59–60; similar Sargon II (Fuchs 1994, pp. 131, 325, Annalen l. 238). On punishment in effigie see Brandes 1980; May 2012, pp. 18–19. Streck 1916/II, pp. 214–215, no. 12, III:10–13; see also Borger 1996, pp. 54–55; Frahm 1997, p. 21–22; May 2010, pp. 108–109. – According to Reiner (2006), the flaying of Valerian by Šapur I and the subsequent dyeing of his skin with purple, as well as earlier Assyrian examples like the flaying of Ilu-bi’di of Hama by Sargon II, can be understood as an ironic punishment, i.e. as dyeing the skin of the defeated emperor or usurper king red “like (royal) purple wool” (Fuchs 1994, pp. 35, 291, Zylinder l. 25), as a mockery of royal insignia. Note that the principle middah ke-neged middah “measure for measure” in rabbinical literature is also typically used to describe divine punishments, not ordinary ones, see note 558 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

123

crime, Marduk’s punishment would come about again, “for a second time” (adi šinīšu, Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35, l. 62). This is an important element of the Esaĝil Chronicle and it corresponds to other cases when Babylonian history appeared to be repeating itself. These repetitions were by no means mechanical but mutually connected with the crime and finally dependent upon Marduk’s judgement. For the Babylonian audience of that chronicle, learning from history meant applying the rule learnt from the examples of kings of old to contemporary events. When the Assyrian king Sennacherib, who had taken Babylon and abducted the statue of Marduk, was killed by his own sons in 681 BCE, the Babylonians observed – or rather construed – that fate as a repetition of the punishment of TukultīNinurta I (ca. 1243–1207 BCE), who had committed the very same crime, and who had died the very same way. It was a story of crime and punishment, mutually connected with each other in divine will, and hence liable to recur again. The Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72) add to the bad example of Tukultī-Ninurta another two kings killed by their sons, among them Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, the infamous king of Anšan who brought the Ummān-Manda against Babylon. Last but not least, we may add to this list the wicked Persian king Xerxes, too.570 The sacrilege against Marduk and Babylon in its full form consists of plundering the city, destroying it, sometimes by making water run over it, and finally of abducting a statue of Marduk, probably either the seated cult statue, or the “walking” processional statue (see fig. 14 on p. 211). The sin of stirring up Marduk from his beloved abode would appear to have been the worst sacrilege. However, it is not always mentioned. The Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72) do not list this sin in the parts which are preserved, although it was an integral element of the traditions about Tukultī-Ninurta I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II. The element which is, however, always mentioned, is the plundering of the city and its temples. A preliminary list of rulers who had committed sacrileges against Babylon and who had been consequently killed by their own sons, runs like this: [statue? . . . . . . . .. ? . . . . . . ?] (Source 43) 1. [Ku-Baʾu?] 2. Tukultī-Ninurta I statue plunder (Source 71, A) Tukultī-Ninurta I plunder water (Source 72, A) plunder water (Source 72, B) 3. ITU-UD-ḪUL-A 4. Kutir-Naḫḫunte statue plunder (Source 33, obv. 10’–11’) Kutir-Naḫḫunte plunder (Source 72, C) 5. Sennacherib statue plunder water (Source 72, see pp. 525ff.) 6. Xerxes statue (Source 73, and chapter 10.6) Strangely enough, the pious queen Ku-Baʾu was perhaps also held by the Babylonians to have committed this particular sin against Marduk for the first time in history. At least the omen of Source 43 seems to report that she was killed by her sons. In keeping with the logic of the theological historiography sketched above, we should expect that Ku-Baʾu was among the kings who turned bad after Marduk had appointed them to kingship, and that she committed a grievous sin against Marduk, justifying the bad end she met. 570

See Source 73 with the Babylonian note on his death and chapter 10.6 with the discussion of the sacrilege ascribed to him.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

124

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

In the descriptions of the sacrileges, we find a number of catchphrases which describe in very similar terms the abduction of the cult statue, the plundering of the temples, and the flooding of the city. Some of these phrases occur also in the descriptions of the sins of other wicked kings like Šulgi. However, since these texts and their catchphrases are Babylonian constructions, the phrases do not appear in the inscriptions of Sennacherib in which he himself describes his destruction of Babylon. At the same time, the full range of actions (A–C) listed below can only be ascribed to Sennacherib, and this is also the only well-documented case.571 The other reports may have been arranged according to his bad example. A. Abduction of the Cult Statue: – bēla rabâ Marduk ina šubtīšu idkēma “He removed the great lord Marduk from his dwelling” = Tukultī-Ninurta I: Chronicle P (Source 71, A, IV:5–6). – [Marduk bē]la rabâ iddeki ina šubat [ilūtīšu] “He removed [Marduk], the great [lo]rd, from [his divine] dwelling.” = Kutir-Naḫḫunte (Source 33, obv. 10’). B. Plundering Esaĝil and Babylon:572 – makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati uštēṣi “He brought out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty.” = Šulgi: Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 48), rev. 6–7. = Šulgi: Religious chronicle from Uruk (Source 49), obv. 7. = Tukultī-Ninurta I: Chronicle P (Source 71), IV:5. There are also similar but more simple phrases that do not have the same amount of recognition value. The following two phrases describe in one of the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72) the deeds of Tukultī-Ninurta I (A), those of the enigmatic ruler ITU-UD-ḪUL-A (B) and those of Kutir-Naḫḫunte (C): – [šillat lā mi]nâti išlul “He carried off cou[ntless plunder.]” (A, B) – šillāti rabbāti išlu[l] “He carrie[d] off large amounts of plunder.” (C) C. Flooding Babylon: – mê eli Bābil u Esaĝil [ušardâ] “[He had] waters [flow] over Babylon and Esaĝil.” = the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72, A, B) on Tukultī-Ninurta I and the enigmatic ITU-UD-ḪUL-A; see p. 525 below. The punishment which is in stock for those kings who dare to harm Babylon and lay their hands on the statue of Marduk is also very typified. It calls for a “son who slaughters the king his father with his weapon”. The historical example documented best is the murder of the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705–681 BCE).573 We must, however, be aware that the combination of sin and punishment is a Babylonian fiction. Sennacherib was indeed killed by his son Urdu-Mullissu, but for intraAssyrian quarrels about the succession to the throne, not for the sacrilege. 571 572 573

See the discussion on pp. 525ff in the commentary on Source 72. See also the political letter to Sargon II quoted below on p. 213 with note 1000. See, also on the following, the discussion on pp. 526f. below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

125

The topos is also found with Tukultī-Ninurta I of Assyria (ca. 1243–1207 BCE) and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II of Elam (ca. 1155–1150 BCE).574 In the case of Tukultī-Ninurta the murder is very probable but rather ill-documented. In the case of Kutir-Naḫḫunte the deed is even not very plausible at all, but may well be the result of Babylonian wishful thinking and systematization. In any case, the reports obviously underwent literary shaping in order to work out the principle of the punishment. The excerpt from one of the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72) describes the deaths of Tukultī-Ninurta I (A), of an enigmatic king called ITU-UD-ḪUL-A (B), and of KutirNaḫḫunte (C) with the following phrases:575 – [mā]rušu ina kakki qātīšu kī asli uṭabbiḫšu (A) “His [so]n slaughtered him with his weapon like a sheep.” – mārušu ina kakki qātīšu muḫḫašu imḫaṣ (B) “His son smashed his skull in with his weapon.” – mārušu ina patar qablīšu libbašu ittak[ip] (C) “His son go[red] his heart with the dagger at his waist.” Some lines earlier in the same paragraph, the text also deals with a similar death of another wicked king whose name is not preserved in the fragment. However, it is very probable that this king was nobody else but Sennacherib himself:576 – malka lā zānin [Esaĝil mārušu] ina kakki ušamqit “The king who would not provide for [Esaĝil,] [his son] struck (him) down with the weapon.” The topos of the “son slaughtering his father with a weapon” is also employed in the description which Nabonidus gives of the murder of Sennacherib: – māru ṣīt libbīšu ina kakki urassibšu577 “His own son cut him down with the weapon.” In another step of historical interpretation, the topos was adopted by the Judeans at some point in time in the 7th or 6th century and transferred to Yahweh’s revenge on Sennacherib for insulting him and besieging his city Jerusalem in 701 BCE.578 Finally, the motif appears in the various versions dealing with the murder of Khosrau II in 628 CE, prompted by his son and successor, Siroes. In these reports, Khosrau, the conqueror of Jerusalem in 614 CE, is styled as a new Nebuchadnezzar, and as a new Sennacherib.579 The principles of repetition and typification also play a role in certain phrases which are used to assess the character of an individual king and his deeds. In the Hebrew Bible, the books of the Kings and Chronicles use a standardized phraseology when assessing a king’s behaviour and attitude towards Yahweh. 574 575 576 577 578 579

See p. 520 below on the murder of Tukultī-Ninurta. See pp. 529f. on ITU-UD-ḪUL-A and on the rather implausible murder of Kutir-Naḫḫunte. See the discussion on pp. 526ff. below in the commentary of Source 72. See the discussion on pp. 527f. below. Nabonidus, Babylon Stele I:35’–41’, see Schaudig 2001, p. 516. 2 Ki 19:37; 2 Chr 32:21; Isa 37:38; see the discussion on p. 527 below. See the excursus in the introduction on pp. 34f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

126

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

Good kings do “what is right (‫ )ישׁר‬in the eyes of the Lord”, and bad kings do “what is bad (‫”)רע‬.580 In Babylonian religious historiography, the terminology is not so consistently typified, but we can isolate some particular phrases which contain an assessment of a king’s reign, either as positive or as negative, by Babylonian priests and scholars. An exact verbal correspondence in Akkadian using the terms išaru “right” and raggu “bad” is not known to me. Rather, one might look for phrases like *īteneppuš ša eli Bēl (lā) ṭābu “he used to do what is (not) pleasing to Bēl”. These phrases exist,581 see in particular a negated phrase like: – ša eli Šamaš lā ṭābā ulā ēpuš 582 “I did not do what is displeasing to Šamaš” Or, with a focus on social order: – dīna u purussâ ša eli bēli rabî Marduk ṭābu ana dummuq ‹kiš›šat nišī u šūšub māt Akkadî šakna ina milki u šitūlti ištaṭṭarma 583 “With council and deliberation (Nabonidus) used to prescribe judgement and decision that is pleasing to the great lord Marduk, and suitable for the betterment of ‹a›ll the people and the settling of the land of Akkad”. However, phrases like these belong rather to the vocabulary of the self-praise of royal inscriptions and are not used to assess a king’s rule in historiographic literature. Instead, there seems to be a focus on the idea that a king should “execute (Marduk’s) rites in perfection” (*parṣī šuklulu). This phrase comes either in a positive or a negated form. Blanco Wissmann, also in discussing the Esaĝil ́ “(DN) looked upon Chronicle, refers instead to the phrase *ḫadîš ippalissū́ma/-sīma him/her favourably” which describes the election of a ruler by the deity from the third millennium onwards.584 The phrase has a negative counterpart,585 but neither phrase is used as an assessment of kings good or bad by a third party, i.e. by priests or scholars. The phrases are not used as a summarizing characterization of a king’s rule, but as an actual description of divine pleasure or displeasure, resulting either in support or repudiation of a particular king. As such, these phrases are mostly used either as royal self-praise or in curse formulas. The important point about the assessment in the Hebrew Bible is that Yahweh’s pleasure is no longer the reason why a king is appointed to kingship, as it is in Babylonia where the king is chosen by Marduk “looking upon him favourably”. In the Hebrew Bible, kingship is a system installed illegitimately by humans that works parallel to divine rule by means of simple succession. Whether a king did “right” or “wrong” in the eyes of Yahweh is a final evaluation of his rule, but it is no longer the reason why a king would have been chosen or repudiated by the god. This separation of merits, divine favour, and length of rule is also given in the late 580 581 582 583 584 585

For a recent treatment see Blanco Wissmann 2008. CAD Ṭ, p. 37, s.v. ṭâbu 1f; pp. 31–32, s.v. ṭābu s2’. Frayne, RIME 4, p. 267, no. E4.2.13a.2, ll. 6–7; Old Babylonian. Schaudig 2001, p. 582, P2 Nabonidus King of Justice, II:23’–25’; Late Babylonian. Blanco Wissmann 2008, pp. 47–49. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 54, 58. In the Sumerian inscriptions of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE the term is igi-sa6--bar. saĝ-ki--gíd/nekelmû “to frown”, see CAD N/II, pp. 152–154, s.v. nekelmû.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

127

assessment of king Šulgi. Although the Babylonians were convinced that “he did not execute Marduk’s rites in perfection”,586 they had to cope with the fact that Marduk nevertheless allowed him to rule for 48 years,587 one of the longest rules of Babylonian kings ever, very much like the wicked king Manasseh of Judah, who even ruled for 55 years. In the Esaĝil Chronicle, the phrase *parṣīšu ušaklil is used to contrast the good deeds of the exemplary good king Gilgameš who was ordered “to execute Marduk’s rites in perfection”588 with the bad deeds of the exemplary bad king Šulgi who “did not execute Marduk’s rites in perfection”,589 and with the bad deeds of the barbarian Gutians who did not do so either.590 A variant of the negative assessment is *parṣī unakkir “he altered the rites”, and again, it is said about wicked king Šulgi.591 This corresponds to a phrase in the vow the Babylonian king had to take in the Negative confession of Sins on occasion of the Babylonian New Year’s Festival: ul umašši parṣīšu “I have not assigned (Esaĝil’s) rites to oblivion”.592 Outside of the Esaĝil Chronicle, the phrase *parṣīšu ušaklil “he executed Marduk’s rites in perfection” is also used as an assessment in the entries of two chronicles dealing with the Babylonian king Adad-apla-iddina (ca. 1068–1047 BCE). Very much like the kings dealt with in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), covering the time from ca. 1033 to 943 BCE, he also had to face chaos, unrest, and rebellions. According to these chronicles, the Arameans and a usurper king rebelled against Adad-apla-iddina and desecrated all the sanctuaries of the land. In the aftermath of the devastation, the Suteans carried off the booty of Sumer and Akkad. But in the end Adad-apla-iddina must have prevailed. The assessment of Adad-aplaiddina in either chronicle is positive and virtually identical. The king is said to have “executed Marduk’s rites in perfection”. The only difference between the two notes is that one of them includes Nabû, the son of Marduk-Bēl: – ašrāt Marduk iš[teʾʾēm]a libbaš[u uṭīb pa]rṣīš[u u]šaklil 593 – [ašrāt Marduk išteʾʾ]ēma libbi Bēl u Mār-Bēl uṭīb [… par]ṣīšunu ušaklil 594 “He repeatedly visited the shrines of Marduk, and he appeased the heart of Bēl (and Mār-Bēl). He executed his (/their) rites in perfection.”

586 587 588

589 590 591 592 593 594

parṣīšu ul ušaklil, Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 71. Source 49, rev. 3’; see the discussion on p. 132 below. parṣīšu šu[klula], Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 45. There, the line in fact tells us only that Gilgameš was ordered by Marduk to execute his rites in perfection, but we can also be sure that he did so. parṣīšu ul ušaklil, Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 71. parṣī … šuklula lā īdû “they did not know how to execute the rites in perfection”, Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 64. See Source 49, obv. 13–14. See the discussion of this passage (l. 425) on p. 225 below. Chronicle 24, obv. 11: (11) (…) áš-rat damar-utu k[in-m]a šà-bi-š[ú du10 ĝa]rza-š[ú ú]-šaklil; Walker 1982, p. 416; previously edited by Grayson 1975a, p. 181. Chronicle 25 (Walker 1982, pp. 399, 401), ll. 33–34: (33) [áš-rat damar-utu iš-te-ʾe]-⌈e⌉-ma šà-bi d+en u dumu-d+en ú-ṭi-ib (34) [. . . . . . . par]-⌈ṣi⌉-šu-nu ú-šak-lil.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

128

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

Using an element of cultic character here in assessing the king’s reign is the much more telling, since the two chronicles (nos. 24 and 25) might pass as fully “historical” at first sight. There is a last phrase that is to be mentioned here, which describes the good deeds of perfect kings, that is *Bābil u Esaĝil kīma šiṭir šamāwī ubanni “he embellished Babylon and Esaĝil like the celestial writing”. This phrase does not simply mean that the king adorned the city and its main temple. It also means that the king acknowledged and appreciated the cosmic religious significance of Babylon and Esaĝil as much as the eternal divine regulations, written with stars into the skies. This phrase describes the exceedingly good deeds of the model king Gilgameš, as well as those of Šu-Sîn,595 who dedicated himself to Marduk. Apart from the Esaĝil Chronicle, this phrase is used, apparently exclusively, by Nebuchadnezzar II,596 who also proved to have taken the moral of the Esaĝil Chronicle to heart in imitating the pious deed of Ku-Baʾu by paying off the sin of Puzur-ilī of Akšak against the fish offering to Marduk (see chapter 10.3). And it is also Nebuchadnezzar II who demonstrated, by embellishing Marduk’s city Babylon like no other city in all the world, that he loved the Lord Marduk like his precious life:597 – kīma napšatī(ya) aqarti arâm elâ lānka eli ālīka Bābil ina kal dadmī ul ušāpi āla “I do love your lofty figure like (my) precious life, I have not embellished any city in all the world more than your city Babylon, (oh Marduk)!” 7.2. Sin and Sanction: Collective Punishment Texts like the Esaĝil Chronicle focus so heavily on individual sins of single kings and their punishment, that the fact that the divine punishment often affected the whole society and not only the royal culprit can escape attention. However, in particular in the punishment of Enmerkar, Narām-Sîn and Ibbi-Sîn, the elements “masses”, “hordes”, and “people” come in on various stages. The Esaĝil Chronicle touches upon the catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn in only one line (l. 75), but the devastating consequences for the whole country were proverbially well known and formed the tradition about the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster. In the story about Narām-Sîn, the fate of his people is directly addressed and incorporated into the mirror punishment which the king’s sin deserved. Narām-Sîn had sinned against the good people of Babylon, and so Marduk called up against him a horde of barbarians (l. 62), as he had done so with king Enmerkar (l. 42): – (62) Narām-Sîn nammaššê Bābil ušalpitma adi šinīšu ummān Qutî idkâššumma “Narām-Sîn wrecked the people of Babylon, and so he (: Marduk) summoned up against him the horde of the Gutians for a second time.” 595 596 597

Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 46 (Gilgameš), l. 74 (Šu-Sîn); see pp. 144 and 164. Examples collected in CAD Š/III, s.v. šiṭirtu b. See p. 387 in the commentary on l. 46 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). See also Schaudig 2010, pp. 159–163. Quotation from Langdon 1912, p. 140, Nbc. no. 15 IX:52–56; see also ibidem pp. 114–115, Nbc. no. 14 I:52–53; pp. 134–135, Nbc. no. 15 VII:30–33: same phrase, addressing Marduk and his son Nabû.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

129

But this time, the mirror imagery playing on “people, masses, flocks, herds, hordes” is expanded. The author adds a phrase (l. 63), stating that “(Marduk) hit his (: Narām-Sîn’s) people as with a goad”. This, of course, plays on the cruel image of people being driven away by soldiers into exile like animals, a topic well-known from Neo-Assyrian reliefs. The important point about this is, that this phrase is not in all the manuscripts. It is missing from the Sippar manuscript: – (nišīšu makkarāniš ittaṭi, S omits) šarrūssu ana ummān Qutî ittadin (l. 63) (“[Marduk] hit his people as with a goad”, S omits this phrase). “His kingship he handed over to the horde of the Gutians.” There are five manuscripts extant for this part of the text. Three manuscripts (A, C, F) had the phrase, and one more manuscript (B) had it probably, too, as can be judged from the spacing. So why does the Sippar manuscript leave this impressive and concise image out? It happens every now and then that a word is left out or replaced by another term in the manuscripts, but here a whole sentence is omitted, and an image which captures the mirror punishment brilliantly. I think it is because this is the only case in the chronicle that the line of thought explicitly leaves the topic of individual punishment of individual kings. Here, for the only time within the framework of the Esaĝil Chronicle, we see other people suffering punishent from a king’s personal misdeed. In another text, in the note of the Chronicle of Early Kings on Sargon of Akkade, a very similar collective punishment of the wicked king’s poor people appears. As a punishment for a sacrilege committed by Sargon against Babylon, Marduk not only punished Sargon himself, but also annihilated his people by a famine:598 – ana ikkib īpušu bēlu rabû Marduk īgugma ina ḫušaḫḫi nišīšu igmur “At the sacrilege he committed the great lord Marduk became enraged and with a famine he exterminated his people.” However, collective punishment and punishing innocent people probably did not meet with the expectations some people had of divine justice. After all, Sippar was the cult centre of Šamaš, the divine judge of heaven and earth. I can imagine that his temple housed a school of jurisprudence in particular, and that the Sippar tradition judged that verse to be incompatible with divine justice. Although it is obvious that in a war everyone could be killed, no matter whether “guilty” or “innocent”, Babylonian sources regularly and already very early on voice their disappointment at the fact that the righteous is killed alongside the wicked. In the descriptions of chaos and disaster the Sumerian city laments bewail the sight of corpses lying indiscriminately upon each other, and streams of blood running side by side, with the blood of the wicked (lú lul)599 mixing with the blood of the righteous (lú zi).600 The Lament for Sumer and Ur, composed in the aftermath of the destruction of the land under Ibbi-Sîn, grieves that the storm ordered by An, Enlil, Enki and Ninmaḫ would slay the wicked and the righteous without distinction: 598 599 600

See Source 44, obv. 20–21; Sargon’s personal punishment follows in ll. 22–23. lú lul “wicked, lying, deceiving person”, see Lämmerhirt 2010, pp. 270–271. lú zi “righteous person”, see Lämmerhirt 2010, pp. 41–43. On the descriptions of chaos in the city laments see also briefly Lämmerhirt 2010, p. 42 with note 212.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

130

–

lú lul lú zi-ra an-ta nú-ù-dè (111) ùri lú lul-*la lú zi-ra ugu-a-na du-šè601 “So that (the corpse of) the wicked would lie on top of the righteous, making the blood of the wicked run over the righteous, all over him.” Phrases like this also occur in the Curse of Akkade602 from the Ur III-period, in a royal inscription of Šu-Sîn603 from the Ur III-period, too, and in the Lament of the Goddess Nin-Isina604 from the Old Babylonian period. In the first millennium, the Poem of Erra formulates the same idea when Išum rebukes Erra for causing disaster randomly:605 – qurādu Erra kīnamma tuštamīt lā kīnamma tuštamīt ša iḫṭûka tuštamīt ša lā iḫṭûka tuštamīt “Warrior Erra, you let die the righteous, and the wicked, you let die the one who sinned against you, and the one who did not.” The disappointment felt when socially good behaviour was not rewarded is also expressed in the Dialogue of Pessimism. In this satirical conversation between a master and his servant a couple of patterns of behaviour are discussed, which either conform with social norms or run against them. In one case, the servant advises his master not to do any good deeds at all. He asks him to go to the ruin hills and to try to tell apart the bones of the wicked and the righteous. Obviously this is an impossible thing to do, and so the bitter piece of advice consists in not to bother for doing good deeds:606 – (76) elīma ina muḫḫi tillānī labīrūti itallak (77) amur gulgullī ša arkûti u pānûti (78) ayyu bēl lemuttimma ayyu bēl usāti “Go up on to the ancient ruin hills and walk about. See the skulls of high and low. Which is the malefactor, and which is the benefactor?” In the story about Šulgi and his grandson Ibbi-Sîn, we can see a variation in the rivalling principles of individual and collective punishment. In the case of Ibbi-Sîn, kin liability takes its toll. In the end, Ibbi-Sîn gets punished for a sin inherited from 601 602

603

604

605 606

(110)

After Michalowski 1989, pp. 42–43, 129 (scores), ll. 110–111, slightly idealized. “The righteous (saĝ zi) was confounded with (/ turned into) the wicked (saĝ lul), (the corpse of) a young man lies on top of (another corpse of) a young man, the blood of the wicked (lú lul) runs over the (blood of the) righteous (lú zi)” (Cooper 1983, pp. 58– 59, ll. 190–192). Šu-Sîn uses the gruesome and rather negative imagery of having slain his enemies indiscriminately – “whether strong or week, whether righteous or wicked (saĝ zi saĝ lul)” – in boasting of his fine and godly military successes (Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 303, no. 3, III:16–19). “(The corpse of) a young man lies on top of (another corpse of) a young man, streams of blood run side by side in the steppe, the blood of the wicked (mu-lu lul) runs over the (blood of the) righteous (mu-lu zi)” (Krecher 1966, pp. 55, 59, 68, 72, on VS 2, no. 25, III:1–3 ∥ VI:12–14). Poem of Erra, tablet IV:104–107; Cagni 1969, p. 114; Krebernik 2008, p. 62. Dialogue of Pessimism, after Lambert 1960a, pp. 148–149, ll. 76–78.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

131

his ancestor Šulgi. According to the Esaĝil Chronicle, Šulgi sullied the purification rites of Esaĝil. In turn, Marduk “made the sin of Šulgi apparent in his body” as his punishment. This would, of course, mean that Šulgi was sullied with some kind of skin disease and thus became ritually impure: – parṣīšu ul ušaklil šuluḫḫīšu ulaʾʾīma annašu ina zumrīš[u i]štakkan607 “(Šulgi however) did not perform his rites perfectly, but defiled his purification rites, and so he (: Marduk) made his sin manifest in his body (in form of a skin disease).” This legendary tradition is backed up by another Babylonian chronicle which makes it quite clear that Šulgi’s punishment was leprosy (saḫaršuppû).608 But with the personal punishment of Šulgi matters are not settled. When Šulgi polluted the purification rites, he had polluted the whole cult, and what is more, he had undone the very means of cleansing the pollution ever again. In doing so, he had contaminated the state and his dynasty, and his successor Ibbi-Sîn had to bear the consequences: – ‹lemuttu ša› Šulgi īpušu aranšu Ibbi-Sîn mārašu ī‹missū́ma›609 “(But Marduk) i‹mposed› the penance for ‹the evil that› Šulgi had done upon his (grand)son Ibbi-Sîn.” This kind of kin liability is quite well known in the civilizations of the ancient Near East. However, it is primarily a principle of divine punishments, not so much an element of common juridicial procedures.610 In this respect, it is quite similar to the principle of “divine talion” discussed on pp. 120ff. above. The idea of collective sin and punishment tries to digest catastrophes that befall a group of people or a whole nation in the larger framework of divine justice. Being punished for an inherited sin is quite in line with the Babylonian concept of sin, curse or illness, as becomes clear from the description of the Babylonian disease māmītu, that is “curse”. The sins of father and mother, kin and folk were considered contagious. A Babylonian could fall ill due to a sin committed by anyone in his family: – arnū abi u ummi aḫi u aḫati kimti nišūti (u) salāti iṣbatūšu611 “The sins of father and mother, brother and sister, family, kin, and folk have reached him.” In particular with kings, their families, and their realms, this kind of inherited sins, which have a continued effect over generations, are quite well known. Apart from the sin of Šulgi, that was supposed to have brought down the Third Dynasty of Ur, one might think of the sin of Šuppiluliuma which was held to have caused the 607 608 609 610 611

Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 71. Source 49, obv. 19. On this line, on leprosy and what it meant in the societies of the ancient Near East, see p. 157 below with note 739. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 75. On collective guilt in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East see recently Konrad Schmid (1999) and Jan Dietrich (2010, pp. 4–19 and passim). After Köcher, BAM 3, no. 234, obv. 11–12: ár-ni ad u ama šeš u nin9 / im-ri-a im-ri-a imri-a dab-šú-ma; Maul 2010, p. 137; Sallaberger 2011, pp. 34–35.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

132

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

plague in Ḫatti during the reign of his son Muršili II.612 One might think also of the sin of Saul against the Gibeonites that caused a famine in the reign of king David (2 Sam 21:1).613 Or one might think of the sin of Sargon II which cast its gloomy shadow over the whole dynasty of the Sargonids.614 The historical king Šulgi was one of the most famous rulers of the ancient Near East and, according to his own testimony, he was a king as perfect as divine Gilgameš himself. By the first millennium, he had turned into the absolute antipode of Gilgameš. According to the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 70–71, 75), he is the worst king of all and it is because of his sin, that disaster strikes in the reign of his grandson Ibbi-Sîn. And yet, deep in the first millennium, the Babylonians still knew that Šulgi had ruled all the world for 48 years.615 Aššurbanipal had ruled for 42 years, and the good king Nebuchadnezzar II for 43 years, one year more. King Rīm-Sîn of Larsa had even ruled for 60 years, but this historical figure appears to have been of no concern any more to the Babylonians of the first millennium. But how was it possible that Marduk allowed the most wicked king of all to rule for 48 years, one of the longest reigns ever? Up to now, we in fact do not know at all. But we know of a typological parallel in the story about the wicked king Manasseh of Judah.616 According to the Deuteronomist, it was the sins of Manasseh which led to the fall of Judah and Jerusalem under his sons and successors (2 Ki 21:10–15; 24:3). The sins of Manasseh (2 Ki 21:2–8 ∥ 2 Chr 33:2–9) consist of acts of idolatry in the first place, i.e. of sinning against the only true god and of polluting his temple and cult. Very much like Manasseh, Šulgi was held by the Babylonians to have introduced false and improper cults (Source 49, obv. 13–17). Manasseh restored the high places, set up altars for Baal, he made an Ashera and brought her into the temple of Yahweh. In doing so, he led astray the people so they committed worse crimes than those nations which Yahweh had destroyed before them. This is stated in the description of the reign of Manasseh in 2 Ki 21:9 ∥ 2 Chr 33:9, and it is complemented in 2 Chr 36:14–16. There we are told that all the people took part in the sacrileges, the upper class, the priests, and the ordinary people, and that they continued to do so until the end of Judah, with no repentance. In 2 Ki 21:8 ∥ 2 Chr 33:8 Israel’s right to occupy the land is tied to its obedience to Yahweh and his law, and the exile is indicated there as the penalty. Since Yahweh’s punishment would strike the whole people, it was necessary to demonstrate that the whole people had sinned. This is the same logic as the one displayed in the reports of Nebuchadnezzar I, of Esarhaddon, or of Nabonidus, explaining historical cases

612 613 614 615 616

Schmid 1999, pp. 208–210; Dietrich 2010, pp. 209–222; Klinger 2012, pp. 484–491. Schmid 1999, pp. 210–211; Dietrich 2010, pp. 209–213. Landsberger, Tadmor & Parpola 1989. See Source 49, rev. 3’. A similar but plainer narrative appears in the story of Ahab and Naboth’s Vineyard (1 Ki 21). The punishment for Ahab’s sin was suspended and came upon his son Joram (1 Ki 21:29; 2 Ki 9:24–26). Within the narrative, reference is made to the sin of Jeroboam I which led to the fall of his house (1 Ki 13:1–6, 34 prophecy against the altar at Bethel, divine verdict on the house of Jeroboam; 15:25–28 Jeroboam’s son Nadab assassinated; 21:22; 2 Ki 23:15–18 altar at Bethel destroyed).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

133

when Marduk punished all the land of Babylonia, including priests and ordinary people, and not only an individual culprit.617 In the Esaĝil Chronicle and the Hebrew Bible as well, the line of royal sinners leading their people into disaster is interrupted by a shining example of righteousness. The arch-malefactor, who distressingly rules for the longest time ever, is succeeded by his son who turns out to be wicked as well. But then, surprisingly, from this spoilt root the best king ever arises. In the Hebrew Bible, this is the good king Josiah who completely restored the cult of Yahweh in exemplary fashion. In the Esaĝil Chronicle, it is king Šu-Sîn who “embellished Esaĝil like the celestial writing for the sake of saving his life”, a feat attributed elsewhere in the chronicle only to divine Gilgameš who “executed Marduk’s rites in perfection”.618 These good kings can save themselves by their piety, and in doing so they show a way of saving oneself from the divine wrath to come. But after them, the sins of the wicked forefathers are nevertheless avenged relentlessly on their grandsons: Šulgi Amar-Sîn Šu-Sîn Ibbi-Sîn most evil (longest reign ever)

Manasseh

most evil (longest reign ever)

wicked

Amon

wicked

very good

disaster

Josiah

Jehoiachin/Zedekiah

very good

disaster

With the legend of Manasseh’s repentance the biblical story presents at last a reason,619 explaining why Yahweh allowed Manasseh to rule for 55 years, the longest reign ever of the kings of Israel and Judah. This obviously invented story has it that Manasseh experienced his personal Babylonian exile when he was said to have been deported by the king of Assyria(!) to Babylon(!) at some time roughly during the mid-7th century BCE. According to the legend, Manasseh was released only after he had turned remorsefully to Yahweh again. In the case of Šulgi, we do not know of a similar explanantion yet, but it is inconceivable that the Babylonians would not have discussed why Marduk allowed a wicked king to rule all the world for 48 years, one of the longest reigns ever in Babylonia.620 In fact, there is a composition which portrays Šulgi in a very favourable light, the pseudoepigraphic Šulgi Prophecy.621 However, in this text Šulgi is not presented as a king who did wrong, who underwent a crisis and turned to Marduk again repentantly, thereby explaining why Marduk pardoned his sins. So, the Šulgi Prophecy cannot be understood as the Babylonian counterpart of the Prayer of Manasseh. So, according to the logic of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Ibbi-Sîn had to bear the consequences of the sins of his grandfather Šulgi as a result of kin liabilty. The same complex of kin liability, of the question whether it really means to render divine justice when children have to bear the consequences of their fathers’ mistakes, is also addressed by the famous proverb quoted by Ezekiel: “The fathers 617 618 619 620 621

See the discussion on pp. 74ff. and 79f. above; see also p. 135 below. See the discussion on pp. 127f. and 164 on the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 45–46, 74. 2 Chr 33:11–13, 19, referring to the apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh. See Source 35, l. 70, Source 49, rev. 3’ and the comments on pp. 127 and 132. Edited by Borger 1971. See on the same topic p. 160 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

134

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

eat the sour grapes, but the children’s teeth are set on edge.”622 In Babylonia, too, the principles of kin liability and collective punishment had been criticized. The classic and first divine punishment which drowned the wicked and the righteous indiscriminately was the flood. In the Epic of Gilgameš, Ea reproaches Enlil, the king of the gods, for having nearly drowned all humanity collectively. Ea tells Enlil that he should have targeted the specific evil-doer instead and that he should have used restrained and moderate punishments:623 abūba tašk[un]? – (184) kī-kī lā tamtalikma (185) bēl arni (var. ḫīṭi) emid ḫiṭâšu! (186) bēl gillati emid gillas[su]! (187) rummi ay-ibbatiq šudud ay-i[rmu]! (188) (189) ammaki taškunu abūba nēšu litbâmma nišī liṣaḫḫi[r]! (190) (191) ammaki taškunu abūba barbaru litbâmma nišī liṣa[ḫḫir]! (192) (193) ammaki taškunu abūba ḫušaḫḫu liššakinma māta liš[giš]! (194) (195) d ammaki taškunu abūba Erra litbâmma māta li[š]giš! (184) “How could you com[mand] the flood without deliberation? (185) Impose the sin (only) on the culprit! (186) Impose the penance (only) on the evil-doer! (187) Slack off, lest it be snapped! Pull taut, lest it become [slack]! (188) Instead of the flood you caused, (189) a lion could have arisen to dimini[sh] the people! (190) Instead of the flood you caused, (191) a wolf could have arisen to dimi[nish] the people! (192) Instead of the flood you caused, (193) a famine could have occurred to slaugh[ter] the land! (194) Instead of the flood you caused, (195) Erra could have arisen to s[la]ughter the land!” The afflictions supplanting the deluge in lines 188–195, i.e. lions and wolves, famine and plague, display exactly the range of punishments and evil omens representing divine wrath in the Book of Prodigies, the Religious Chronicle or other texts of their kind.624 The same line of thought appears already, slightly differently, in the Old Babylonian Epic of Atra-Ḫasīs:625 – [bēl arn]im šukun šēretka [u] ayyu ša ušassaku awātka “[On the (individual) cri]minal impose your penalty, [and] (on him) whoever disregards your command!” 622 623 624 625

Ezk 18:2, discussed by Schmid 1999, pp. 196–197. Epic of Gilgameš, Standard Babylonian edition, tablet XI:184–195; George 2003/I, pp. 714–717. See also pp. 179f. below for the warning omens and the danger building up in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37) just ahead of the fateful lightning reported in III:19’. Epic of Atra-Ḫasīs, Old Babylonian version, tablet III, col. VI:25–26; Lambert & Millard 1969, pp. 100–103. At the beginning of tablet VII regulations are made to prevent humanity from multiplying beyond control: The gods install demons and classes of women who do not bear children.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

135

And we also find the same line of thought again in Deuteronomy (24:16):626 “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.” This beautiful thought, however, appears to have been valid for kings only with restrictions. Since the king does not act only on his own behalf, but as an intermediary and representative for his whole country, his personal punishment can also become a collective punishment for his people. After all, if a good king means a blessing for his people, how can a bad king not mean a curse? Although in the context of sins committed by kings the elements kin liability and collective punishment were never eliminated from the argument, Babylonian scholars obviously were not at ease with the idea that innocent people should be punished, without any sins of their own. When disaster also affected the people, they tried hard to identify also sins of the people.627 Nebuchadnezzar I, in explaining why Babylonia was devastated by the Elamites in the 12th century BCE, states that the Babylonians were “incited to falsehood” and “behaving like mad” before the gods left the land to destruction. He summarizes: “Good departed and evil was constant”.628 In his apologetic interpretation of the devastation of Babylon by his father Sennacherib, Esarhaddon is keen to list a whole range of sins allegedly committed by the Babylonians.629 According to him, they committed moral, social, and simple criminal offences, topped by sacrileges such as laying hands on Marduk’s treasury, stealing his possessions and squandering them as hire for Elam. In a situation like this, when humanity would neglect proper behaviour and divine orders, and when everyone would just do what was pleasing to him, it would be quite understandable that the gods would reject all people collectively. That negative attitude towards humanity is verbally expressed in a passage from the Poem of Erra. Erra, in talking to Išum and to himself, argues bitterly for smiting depraved humanity who would show nothing but disdain for divine command, while anyone “would act as he likes” (“ippuš kī libbuš”):630 – (119) ilānū napḫaršun ṣalta šaḫtū (120) u nišū ṣalmāt [qa]qqadi leq[û] šēṭūta (121) anāku aššu lā išḫutū zikrī (122) u ša rubê Marduk amāssu iddûma – “ippuš kī libbuš” (123) rubâ Marduk ušaggagma ina šubtīšu adekkēma nišī asappan (119) “All the gods were afraid of the strife, (120) yet the black-[h]eaded people631 show[ed] but contempt! 626 627 628 629 630 631

Discussed by Schmid 1999, pp. 199–200; Dietrich 2010, pp. 21–22, 26. See the overview on p. 80 above. Source 32, ll. 16, 18, 22; see the discussion on pp. 74f. Source 74; see the overview on p. 76 above. Poem of Erra, tablet I, ll. 119–123; after Cagni 1969, p. 70. The term ṣalmāt qaqqadi “black-headed people” probably conveys a slightly pejorative attitude towards the limited intellectual capacities of the “gloomy” and “feeble-witted” humans (see chapter 11.3, C) which matches the negative attitude towards humanity expressed here.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

136

But I, since they did not fear my name, and since they neglected the word of prince Marduk, (living by the motto:) ‘As you like it!’,632 (123) I will stir up prince Marduk in wrath from his dwelling, and I will strike the people to the ground!” In the Hebrew Bible, the collective sins of all the people and all the animals633 and in fact of all the earth finally became the reason why Yahweh would do away with the entire world. As opposed to Enlil, who had to bear the reproach of Ea for sending the flood, Yahweh’s decision is justified by the Midraš. As we shall see, the Midraš adduces elements which have their direct counterparts in the Book of Prodigies. When Yahweh saw that the human race turned bad, he planned to destroy humanity again and also all the animals (Gen 6:5–7), because before him “all the flesh was spoilt” (Gen 6:12). So what was it about “all the flesh” that stirred up in Yahweh the desire to annihilate not only all the humans, but also the animals and the entire earth? The Midraš gives deviant, unnatural sexual behaviour as one of the reasons why Yahweh sent the flood:634 “Rabbi ʿAzariah said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda b. Simon (4th cent. CE, Palestine): And all corrupted their ways in the generation of the flood: the dog (‫ )כלב‬used to copulate635 with the wolf (‫)זאב‬, and the cock (‫ )תרנגול‬with the peacock (‫)טווס‬.” And it was not only “all the flesh” (i.e. humans and animals), but also the earth itself that was spoilt. The Midraš goes on: “And Rabbi Luliani b. Ṭabrin said in the name of Rabbi Yiṣḥaq (Nappāḥā, 3rd cent. CE, Palestine): Also the earth was spoilt and acted lewdly (‫)הארץ זינתה‬: When it was sown, it did not produce wheat, but ryegrass (‫זונין‬,636 lolium).” This explanation is given by rabbis who taught in Palestine, but the tradition they teach may well go back to Babylonia. Its closest parallels come from the Book of Prodigies (Source 36). Among the omens announcing disaster the text lists socially prohibited, deviant, and unnatural sexual behaviour of humans and animals in the same way as described in the Midraš. The text even also deals with plants bringing forth unnatural fruit or plants of other species:637 (121) (122)

632

633 634

635 636 637

The phrase ippuš kī libbuš (l. 122), literally “he does according to his heart”, is clearly singular, in the verb as well as in the suffix on libbu. It cannot be part of the sentence of line 122 with “the people” being subject of the clause. It is probably some kind of saying or motto, meaning “anyone is doing as he likes”, showing absolute disregard of human society and divine order. Stipp 1999 discusses the “sins” comitted by the animals and focuses on the role of blood and the topic of bloodshed. Midraš Berēšît rabbah 28:8 on Gen 6:12. The Midraš Tanḥūmā B 1:33 on Gen 6:2 also interprets the flood as a punishment for deviant sexual behaviour. According to Tanḥūmā, the sons of God married not only human women, but also males and animals, since it is written: “any of them they choose” (Gen 6:2). Literally “to go with/to have one’s way with” (‫)הלך אצל‬. This means that the earth’s “harlotry” (‫זנה‬, pi.) is mirrored in its products. See also the list of unnatural births from the Book of Prodigies in chapter 10.5.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

137

– A man having sexual intercourse with his mother, sister, daughter, or mother-in-law (l. 14, nos. 18–21). – Animals of different races having sexual intercourse with one another: An ox with a donkey, a fox with a dog, a dog with a pig (l. 15, nos. 22–24). – Male animals giving birth: A male dog giving birth (l. 19, no. 30). A (male?) seed-crow giving birth (like a mammal?, l. 6, no. 7). – Even the plants of the earth would produce bastards: A male date palm bearing fruit (l. 8, no. 10). Date palms growing other plants (l. 30, no. 44). In the Midraš, these acts are the reason why Yahweh drowned the world with the flood. In the Book of Prodigies, the corresponding entries are listed as “omens” (ittātu), i.e. as indicators of the disaster that is about to come. However, the “omens” of the Book of Prodigies dealing with a man having incestous intercourse638 are in fact also rather the cause of divine wrath than only its indicator. As in many other civilizations, incest was condemed as a sin in Babylonia and was often punishable by death.639 The same topic of incest as in the omens of the Book of Prodigies is addressed in the Standard Babylonian Prayer to the Gods of the Night from the first millennium. In searching for the reason why the gods have rejected him, the petitioner lists a full register of possible sins he might have committed. Among them, he ponders: – ina šuttīya ana ummīya bānitīya ana ummi emētī‹ya› ana aḫātīya lū aṭḫi “(Or be it that your wrath and punishment has overcome me because) in my dream I have approached my mother who begot me, (or) my mother-inlaw, (or) my sister (with sexual intent).”640 Here, it is perfectly clear that these acts – even though only committed in a dream – were not omens, but offences liable to be punished by the gods. The wicked or amoral conduct of humans is less an omen, but more a cause of divine wrath. A similar transition between the ominous indicators and the evil indicated by them is also found in a letter of the Assyrian scholar Balasî to king Esarhaddon. In that letter, Balasî tries to calm the king who is worried about the evil indicated by an earthquake. He explains to the king, that the evil indicated by the earthquake was the earthquake itself, which was only meant to “open the king’s ears”, to make him pray and to be alert.641 Balasî’s interpretation in fact mixes the ominous indicator and the evil indicated. The same attitude, which mixes cause and effect 638 639 640 641

Source 36, omens nos. 18–21 in line 14. Petschow 1976–1980 (RlA 5), in particular pp. 144–146, §§ 1–2; ibidem p. 149 § 6, Petschow refers to the “omens” from the Book of Prodigies. Oppenheim 1959, pp. 285, 288, ll. 85–86. See in more detail the commentary on the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), l. 14. Parpola 1993, p. 41, no. 56, reverse. Maul 1994, p. 24–25 gives a fuller interpretation of Balasî’s explanation. Parpola 1983, p. 40 in the discussion of the letter (no. 35) interprets it as giving testimony to the moral content of the ominous signs, understood as signs of divine displeasure with the personal conduct of the king, prompting him to revalue his way of life.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

138

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

and which lacks the necessary intellectual acuteness in analysing ominous events as warnings and not as the original power producing events, can be found in certain descriptions of “signs” (or “powers”, ittātu – idātu) that introduce Heilszeiten and Unheilszeiten in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon.642 Another blur between offence and warning omen can be found in the apodosis of a celestial omen from the first millennium which connects divine wrath to the sins of the cultic personnel. Being the very cause of the divine wrath to come, the sins are fundamentally in the wrong place in the apodosis of any omen altogether: – ēnētu ana ḫāʾirīšina iḫaṭṭâ (Source 57, l. 3, see also p. 228) “The high priestesses will sin against their (divine) husbands.” As it seems, morals are also tackled in the Esaĝil Chronicle, when we are told that Akka of Kiš did something abominable to or with buried corpses (qebrūtu), if the passage is understood correctly.643 The same applies to the figure of Šulgi who not only committed sacrileges, but also displayed a morally wicked character.644 7.3. Historical Part The chronicle deals with Sumerian and Akkadian kings from the third millennium, starting with legendary figures like Akka of Kiš and Gilgameš of Uruk, and it ends with the Ibbi-Sîn-Disaster which finished off the Third Dynasty of Ur, just prior to the First Dynasty of Isin. The author made no silly mistakes by incorporating later material. Furthermore, with the frame story set into the reigns of Damiq-ilīšu of Isin and Apil-Sîn of Babylon, the author cleverly picked two kings who were in deed actually reigning at the same time in the 19th century BCE. Nevertheless, the more probable date of the composition is the time when the kings of the Second Dynasty of Isin were ruling from Babylon, combining the claims to power of these two cities. This combination fits perfectly, since in this text, a royal letter, the king of Isin rebukes his colleague from Babylon for not paying heed to the fact, that he, the king of Babylon, has now been chosen to rule the world, because Marduk, the god of Babylon, has become king of the universe. This weird argument makes only sense in a historical situation when the kings of the Second Dynasty of Isin could admonish the kings of Babylon as their direct successors. The Second Dynasty of Isin, with her centre at Babylon, was in fact talking to herself in this text.645 The dynasty originated from Isin, but her most famous offspring, Nebuchadnezzar I, prided himself as being born at Babylon and promoted Babylon’s cosmic preeminence like no king before.646 642 643 644 645 646

See the discussion on pp. 77f. and the commentary on phrase A 1 of Source 74. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), line 41. See the discussion of Šulgi (king no. 11) in the following chapter 7.3. See p. 376 with the commentary on line 1 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). He called himself ṣīt Bābil “scion of Babylon” (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 33, no. B.2.4.11, I:2) and the Epic of Nebuchadnezzar imagined him as dwelling in Babylon (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 18, no. B.2.4.5, obv. 1). On Nebuchadnezzar’s I religious policy and the consequences for Marduk’s status see Lambert 1964 and the summary on p. 68 above. On the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and the elevation of Marduk see recently Nielsen 2018.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

139

In the following overview, I shall arrange the kings dealt with in the Esaĝil Chronicle in a common time-frame irrespective of the fact that among the kings of the Archaic and Early Dynastic periods only Akka of Kiš has some claim to historicity via his father En-me-barage-si:647 3000 BCE

2400 BCE

2100 BCE

2000 BCE

1100 BCE

Archaic and Early Dynastic Periods Akka (Kiš) Enmerkar (Uruk) Gilgameš (Uruk) Puzur-ilī (Akšak) Ku-Baʾu (Kiš) Ur-Zababa (Kiš) Old Akkadian Period Šarru-kīn (Akkade) Narām-Sîn (Akkade) Gutians Neo-Sumerian Period / Ur III Utu-ḫeĝal (Uruk) Šulgi (Ur) Amar-Sîn (Ur) Šu-Sîn (Ur) Ibbi-Sîn (Ur) (Fictional Setting of the Composition:) Old Babylonian Period Isin I (Larsa ignored) Babylon Damiq-ilīšu Apil-Sîn (ca. 1816–1794 BCE) (ca. 1830–1813 BCE) (Overlap: ca. 1816–1813 BCE) (Actual Religious-Historical Setting:) Early Neo-Babylonian Period Isin II, ruling from Babylon Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE)

Since the Esaĝil Chronicle covers only the period from after the flood to the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur, several famous crimes and punishments are absent from the list, such as the deaths of Tukultī-Ninurta and Sennacherib, both killed by their sons as a punishment for harming Babylon and Esaĝil.648 Nevertheless, the chronicle clearly wanted its audience to pursue the lessons learnt from Marduk’s repeated punishments well into the presence of their time in the Neo- and Late Babylonian period.649 An overview of the good and bad kings dealt with in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) runs like this:

647 648 649

See the discussion on p. 141 below with note 653. See Source 71 and Source 72, A. See in particular p. 120 and the list of kings killed by their sons on pp. 123ff.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

140 (41) (42) (45) (48) (53) (56) (57) (62) (64) (65) (70) (72) (74) (75)

King of

City650

Conduct

Offence

Akka Enmerkar Gilgameš Puzur-ilī Ku-Baʾu Ur-Zababa Šarru-kīn Narām-Sîn Gutians Utu-ḫeĝal Šulgi Amar-Sîn Šu-Sîn Ibbi-Sîn

(Kiš) Uruk (Uruk) Akšak (Kiš) (Kiš) Akkade (Akkade)

bad bad good bad good bad good > bad bad bad good > bad bad bad good poor wretch

graves people

(Uruk) (Ur) (Ur) (Ur) (Ur)

Punishment / Reward

kingship taken barbarians invading kingship given fish offerings kingship taken kingship given wine offerings kingship taken city of Babylon sleeplessness people barbarians invading fish offerings kingship taken city of Babylon death purification rites leprosy bull offerings death life granted (sin of Šulgi) disaster ?

As a kind of divine talion, Marduk’s rewards and punishments work according to the mirror principle of correspondence and retaliation. As discussed on p. 120 above and demonstrated below in the paragraphs dealing with the individual kings, the corresponding elements of Marduk’s divine justice display either a strong philological or an illustrative character. In the following overview, an asterisk (*) indicates that in the philological examples the given term is not verbally employed, but tacitly implied. That we are entitled to do so becomes obvious e.g. from the examples of Ur-Zababa and Sargon where the legends are overall dominated by the topics of “altering, exchanging and becoming hostile” (šupêlu and nakāru) even though the Akkadian terms are not used explicitly at every single turn of the stories.651 It becomes virtually proven by the Utu-ḫeĝal omen of Source 30. There, the combination of naparqudu (“lying flat”) and nabalkutu (“turning over”) which is crucial for the associative chain of the omen is fully spelled out only in a minority of the manuscripts. The reasons for comprehending the critical terms are discussed in detail in the paragraphs on the individual kings below. Since the Esaĝil Chronicle intended its audience to complete the turns of divine justice in their minds and to contemplate upon the morals laid out in the text anyway, the occasional absence of a verbal correspondence does not harm the composition’s line of argument. On the contrary, the sudden aha experience when the reader detects a structural element which is not plainly, verbally expressed in the lines of the text for all to see, is even liable to strengthen the impact of this kind of wisdom literature. So our sources did not always formulate every element plainly and explicitly but left parts of their stories “to be seen” or to be explained “orally by the scholars” (ša pī ummânī). 650

651

The round brackets mean that the dynastic city can be restored from other texts, but it is not given by name in the Esaĝil Chronicle, which focuses on Babylon and tends to ignore other local concepts such as “king of Ur” or “king of Akšak”. See the comment on the shift of power from Puzur-ilī to Kubaʾu on p. 145 below, and the comment on the story of Ur-Zababa and Sargon on p. 152. For a similar case in the Hebrew Bible, dealing with the shift of priesthood from the House of Eli to Samuel, see p. 173 with note 819 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

141

Philological Examples Puzur-ilī Ku-Baʾu Ur-Zababa Sargon

takes (ekēmu/nakāru) the fish provides bread and water (*ú-a) alters (šupêlu) the wine offerings changes (*nakāru) his attitude

Gutians Utu-ḫeĝal

take away (ekēmu) the fish touches Babylon (qāta wabālu)

kingship is taken (*ekēmu/nakāru) gets office of the provider (*ú-a) is exchanged (*šupêlu) for Sargon Bēl changes (nakāru) his attitude people become hostile (nakāru) kingship is taken (ekēmu) is carried off (wabālu) by a river

Illustrative Examples Enmerkar Sargon Narām-Sîn Amar-Sîn Šulgi

harms the PEOPLE (of Babylon) gets TIRED of Marduk harms the PEOPLE of Babylon alters the OXEN for the offering SULLIES the rites

has to face enemy HORDES is stricken with SLEEPLESSNESS has to face enemy HORDES dies from a sandal (COW-HIDE) is SULLIED (by leprosy)

1. Akka (of Kiš, l. 41) Akka of Kiš, son of En-me-barage-si, was the legendary opponent of Gilgameš king of Uruk, best known from the Sumerian epic Bilgameš and Akka.652 Akka and his father En-me-barage-si also appear in the Sumerian King List. En-me-barage-si is also attested in at least one, perhaps two, votive vessel inscriptions dedicated in his name, establishing him as a historical figure.653 Unfortunately, the report on Akka’s offence is badly broken in the chronicle (l. 41). One may guess that he committed some sin against “buried (corpses)” (qebrūtu), which recalls a rather similar tradition about Enmerkar, who was held in the first millennium to have tampered in some unclear way with a corpse and its grave.654 If restored correctly, this story does not deal with a direct offence against the cult of Marduk or the city of Babylon, as the other stories do, but rather with ethics, and perhaps with impurity resulting from contact with a corpse.655 The punishment by Marduk is rather simple. Marduk is said to have “set aside his reign” (palâ sakāpu, l. 41), a standard phrase, well-known e.g. from curse formulas. Probably due to the fragmentary state of the line, there seems to be no obvious 652 653

654 655

Römer 1980; Katz 1993; George 1999, pp. 143–148: summary of the plot and translation of of Bilgameš and Akka; George 2003/I, pp. 8–9: summary of Bilgameš and Akka. The inscriptions have recently been edited by Frayne, RIME 1, pp. 55–57, nos. E1.7.22.1–2. There, his name is written ME-bára-si, demonstrating that the element en “lord” was his title or epithet, not part of his actual name. Marchesi & Marchetti (2011, pp. 98–99, with note 18) think that the two inscriptions are be attributed to two different persons by the name ME-bára-si; see also Andersson 2012, p. 247, note 1454. Although “En-me-barage-si” is the traditional reading of the ruler’s name, established in Assyriology and adopted here, his name may rather be read as En-išib-barage-si “Lord: Purification-Priest-Fit-for-the-Throne” (Michalowski 2003). Earlier treatments by Edzard 1959 and Edzard 1987–1990 (RlA 7, p. 614). See p. 144 immediately below on Enmerkar and p. 387 with the commentary on line 44 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). On the topic of impurity transmitted by physical contact with a corpse, menacing the Israelite high priest in particular, see van der Toorn 1985, pp. 36–37.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

142

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

deeper figurative coherence between the offence and the action taken by Marduk. In looking for a hint what his offence might have been, one wonders whether his name might give some clue. That is to say, whether the Babylonians might have derived his sin from the meaning of his name. Unfortunately again, the type and the meaning of the name Akka are not well understood.656 2. Enmerkar (of Uruk, ll. 42–44) In the tradition of the first millennium, the legendary king Enmerkar of Uruk is the archetypal wicked king.657 According to the Cuthean Legend, it was partly because Enmerkar was considered not to have left an account of his history and fate behind in writing.658 So future kings could not turn to it and learn. In contrast, the author of the Esaĝil Chronicle is very concerned about providing a written account so that contemporary and future kings may read and learn,659 lest they commit the mistakes and even sins of their predecessors again. The issue can be dubbed the “catastrophe of forgetting”.660 Although the Esaĝil Chronicle does not explicitly refer to Enmerkar’s failure to leave a written account, it probably tacitly implies it, since committing the same sin as his predecessor Enmerkar is in fact exactly what Narām-Sîn does. Narām-Sîn did in fact not commit a sin of his own but he repeated the sin of Enmerkar who had not left any warning to a future ruler behind. Narām-Sîn’s sin and punishment in the Esaĝil Chronicle (l. 62, see on king no. 8 below) are identical with the sin and punishment of Enmerkar. According to the Esaĝil Chronicle, the offence of Enmerkar consists in wrecking (lapātu Š) the people (nammaššû)661 of Babylon or Babylonia. The verb (lapātu Š “to ruin”) is usually employed with divine structures or institutions, such as temples, cults, regulations, and traditions. Here, used with the term “people”, it most probably means that Enmerkar was held to have violated the traditional rights of the citizens of particular cities such as Babylon or Sippar, by imposing taxes or

656 657

658

659 660 661

See the commentary on the name in line 41 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Here in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 42–44), in the Cuthean Legend, and in another legendary text dealing with Adapa and Enmerkar, see below and the commentary on line 44 of the Esaĝl Chronicle; see also Katz 2017, pp. 205–209. On Enmerkar in the Sumerian tradition, which is quite different and not as negative, see Wilcke 1969a, pp. 41–48 and Mittermayer 2009, pp. 8–17; see also Katz 2017, pp. 201–205. Civil (2013, pp. 21–22, 43–44 on ll. 71–72) identifies the figure of Enmerkar in the Late Uruk composition Ad-Gi4 (earlier known as “Archaic Word List C” or list “Tribute”). So already by this early date Enmerkar was a legendary figure. Not preserved in the Old Babylonian version, but in the Middle and Standard Babylon recensions of the Cuthean Legend; see Goodnick Westenholz 1993; eadem 1997a, pp. 284–287, text 21A, side b, ll. 2’–4’; pp. 306–307, ll. 28–30. See also the commentary on l. 44 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) on pp. 386f. below. Source 35, ll. 2–7, 9, 40, 81–82. I borrow the term from Jan Assmann (1991) in his discussion of the story how the Book of the Law was retrieved under Josiah. On this use of the term nammaššû (literally “moving, living beings”) see in more detail chapter 11.3, B.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

143

corvée labour.662 This kind of violation, i.e. infringing on the privileged status (kidinnūtu) of certain holy cities, is also characterized as a crime that crosses the border to a sacrilege in the Advice to a Prince,663 in the Aššur Charter of Sargon II,664 and in the Cyrus Cylinder.665 In either case, infringing on the (financial) status of holy cities is given as the reason why the reign of the wicked king is set aside by the gods. The Advice to a Prince contains a number of tenets which are rather close to the examples taught in the Esaĝil Chronicle, and which are also shaped according to the mirror principle.666 There is one tenet in particular, which is virtually identical with the punishment of Enmerkar and Narām-Sîn,667 and that is: If the king unjustly convicts the citizens of Nippur and harasses them, Enlil “will bring against him a foreign enemy”.668 As his punishment for oppressing the people,

662

663

664

665

666

667 668

On this privileged status (kidinnūtu) see the comment on pp. 229f. The topic of violating a person of the privileged kidinnu status also appears in the Negative Confession of Sins (l. 426), see here p. 225. Cole 1996, pp. 269–272: passim in ll. 9–59, but most elaborately in ll. 24–34, dwelling on the status of Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon. For more literature on the Advice to a Prince see note 531. Very similar ideas are also put forth in the Neo-Assyrian copy of a text extolling Babylon as the twin of Nippur, see Lambert 1992b, pp. 123–125 on VAT 9724 (Ebeling, KAR no. 8). According to the Aššur Charter of Sargon II (Saggs 1975), Sargon’s predecessor and (half?)-brother Shalmaneser V (726–722 BCE), dubbed in the text lā pāliḫ šar gimri “who did not fear the king of the universe (i.e. Aššur)” (l. 32), had imposed corvée labour on the holy city of Aššur (Saggs 1975, p. 14; ll. 30–35), which enjoyed the privileged kidinnu status (āl kidinni, ibidem ll. 12, 29). In consequence, the Enlil of the gods (Aššur) does away with his rule and appoints Sargon II: Enlil ilānī ina uggat libbīšu palâšu iskip “The Enlil of the gods (i.e. Aššur) overthrew his reign in the rage of his heart” (Saggs 1975, p. 14, pl. 9, l. 34: d+en-líl dingirmeš ina ug-gat šà-šú bala-⌈šú⌉ ⌈ís-kip*⌉, photo: CDLI no. P393884). According to the Cyrus Cylinder, Nabonidus imposed inappropriate duties, probably taxes, on the citizens of Babylon, and ina abšān lā tapšuḫti uḫalliq kullassin “with a yoke of no relief he ruined them all” (Schaudig 2001, p. 552, l. 8). So Marduk does away with Nabonidus and appoints Cyrus to save them and to restore their status: mārī Bābil [… š]a kīma lā libbi ilīma abšān lā simātīšunu šuzuzzu anḫūssun upaššiḫ ušapṭir sarmāšun “The people of Babylon, […] onto whom (Nabonidus) had imposed an inappropriate yoke without divine consent – I (Cyrus) brought relief to their exhaustion and did away with their toil” (Schaudig 2001, p. 553, ll. 25–26). On the sins of Nabonidus according to the Cyrus Cylinder see in more detail the discussion on pp. 204f. below. After Cole 1996, pp. 269–270: If the king acquits a foreigner (aḫâ idīn), Šamaš will set up foreign justice (dīna aḫâ) in his land (Advice to a Prince, ll. 9–10); if he takes silver from the citizens of Babylon, Marduk will give his property to his enemy (ll. 16–19); if he imposes forced labour on the people of Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon, Marduk will turn the king’s land over to his enemy, so that his troops do forced labour for his enemy (ll. 24–29); if he feeds the fodder of the citizens of Sippar, Nippur, and Babylon to his horses, his horses will be harnessed to the yoke of his enemy (ll. 32–34). See also Hurowitz 1998 and 2000, pp. 83–86. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 42 and 62. After Cole 1996, p. 269: nakra aḫâ idakkâššumma (Advice to a Prince, l. 14).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

144

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

Marduk sends the barbarian hordes of the Ummān-Manda against Enmerkar (l. 42).669 Marduk will do so later also with Narām-Sîn of Akkade (l. 62). Enmerkar commits also another sin (l. 43), which is lost in a break and in which the sage Adapa plays an unclear role. In consequence, Marduk becomes enraged and curses Enmerkar (l. 44). I surmise that, as a result, Enmerkar “turned into a corpse” (*šalamtaš īmi) when he was still alive. However, this phrase is completely lost in a break. Its restoration is inspired by a similar chain of events in a narrative told about Enmerkar in the Cuthean Legend.670 There is another ill-preserved story from the first millennium about Enmerkar, his sage scholar Adapa, and probably some sacrilege involving a corpse stirred up from its grave by the king.671 Apparently, the corpse leaves the grave and the sage Adapa meets severe problems in trying to consign it to the netherworld again. The story recalls the likewise illpreserved tradition about Akka and the “buried ones (?)” in l. 41 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (see above, sub Akka, king no. 1). 3. Gilgameš (of Uruk, ll. 45–46) The legendary king Gilgameš of Uruk was one of the few absolutely good kings. Marduk gave him kingship over all the world and ordered him “to execute his rites in perfection” (*parṣī šuklulu, l. 45). Obviously, Gilgameš did so, and he also “embellished Babylon like the celestial writing” (kīma šiṭir šamāwī bunnû, l. 46). Both phrases characterize the pious deeds of a Babylonian model king, see the discussion on pp. 127f. The historical omens on Gilgameš do not add anything substantial to his role in the Esaĝil Chronicle, and so they are omitted here.672 4. Puzur-ilī of Akšak (ll. 48–50) The sin of Puzur-ilī673 of Akšak provides the background and the base line for the story about Ku-Baʾu (king no. 5). The Esaĝil Chronicle has it that his officers took a fish caught for the offering to Marduk from the fishermen of Esaĝil, thus stealing it from the god. The theft plays an important role in the reorganization of the fish offering to Marduk by Nebuchadnezzar II (see chapter 10.3). With the help of KuBaʾu the alewife, the fishermen of Esaĝil managed to deliver another fish promptly and properly to Esaĝil a week later. In consequence, Marduk took the office of kingship from Puzur-ilī and gave it to Ku-Baʾu. The mirror punishment of Puzur-ilī dwells on the element “taking”. Since the king’s officers, acting on his behalf, “took” (ekēmu/nakāru D, line 50) the fish from Marduk, the god in turn took Puzurilī’s kingship away and gave it to Ku-Baʾu, the pious alewife (lines 54–55). In these lines, the action of “taking away” (*ekēmu/nakāru D) Puzur-ilī’s kingship is not

669 670 671 672 673

On the Ummān-Manda see the discussion in chapter 11.4, B. On the Ummān-Manda here in the Enmerkar narrative see also Adalı 2011, pp. 71–73. See the commentary on l. 44 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). See p. 387 below with the commentary on l. 44 of the Esaĝil Chronicle. Usually, they simply state that “he had no rival”; see Tigay 1982, pp. 14–15; Lambert 1960b, pp. 43–46; Metzler 2002, p. 222; George 2003/I, pp. 112–117. Probably corrupted from Puzur-Niraḫ/-Irḫan, see the commentary on l. 48 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

145

expressed verbally, only its reallocation to Ku-Baʾu. However, we are certainly right in understanding it here, as in the story of Ur-Zababa and Sargon.674 5. Ku-Baʾu (of Kiš, ll. 51–55) Ku-Baʾu, the alewife who became “king” of Kiš, is a very popular legendary figure in the history of Babylonia, in the past as well as today. We do not know whether Ku-Baʾu, or a person like her, ever existed historically.675 She only appears as a rather literary figure in the Sumerian King List (ll. 224–229, see note 677), the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 52a–55), and eight historical omens.676 The literary tradition about her agrees that she had originally been an alewife and that she had later become “king”. According to the older, more locally focused tradition of the Sumerian King List, “Ku-Baʾu became ‘king’ in Kiš”, being the one “who consolidated the foundation of Kiš”.677 The Sumerian King List maintains that she had ruled for a hundred years. Afterwards, Kiš was smitten with weapons and the kingship was transferred to Akšak. According to the Sumerian King List, kingship came full circle at this point in the sequence of Mari – Kiš – Akšak – Kiš. When the kingship returned to Kiš, her son Puzur-Sîn and, after him, his son Ur-Zababa became kings.678 Later tradition has it that Ku-Baʾu was “king” of Babylon, respectively of Babylonia. In the Esaĝil Chronicle, the story of Ku-Baʾu is fitted into the first episode dealing with the fish offerings to Marduk, which is dated to the reign of Puzur-ilī 674 675

676 677

678

See the comments on p. 140 above and on p. 152 below on the shift of power from UrZababa to Sargon. Hallo (1976, p. 28) rightly stresses the fact that we have only legendary information about her. Edzard (1980–1983b [RlA 6], p. 299] briefly sums up the Babylonian sources dealing with her. Lambert (1987, p. 125) took her for a historical person, with “no reason to doubt”, but with no positive arguments either. In 1985, Asher-Greve (1985, p. 148 with note 22) listed her among royal women who were well-documented in Early-Dynastic texts. In 2002, she was more hesitating and spoke of the possibility that Ku-Baʾu had been a historical figure (Asher-Greve 2002, pp. 19–20). According to Marchesi (2004, p. 167, note 93), the onomastic type kù-DN (Limet 1968, pp. 268–270) is not attested before Ur III and Ku-Baʾu’s name would thus represent an anachronism in the Early Dynastic period, which, of course, adds to her legendary character. KBO 1–8: Source 17, Source 18, Source 19, Source 36 (l. 4, omen 5), Source 40, Source 41 (A), Source 42, Source 43. See the overview on p. 147 below. Jacobsen 1939, pp. 104–105, V:36–41. Online edition ETCSL, text: 2.1.1, ll. 224–229. SKL ll. 224–227 are best preserved in manuscript S (BM 108857): kiški-a kù-dba-ú flú-kurunna suḫuš kiški mu-un-gi-na / lugal-àm 60+40 mu in-a5 (Gadd 1921, pl. 1, obv. 9–10). In the Ur III manuscript, the entry is partly broken: [kù-dba-ú] / mu 60+40 ì-na (Steinkeller 2003, p. 271, II:16’–III:1). The Ur III manuscript is more concise than the later copies, and does not give the legendary information on the rulers as the later manuscripts do. The manuscript of the SKL from Tell Leilan writes her name kù-dbu-ú, see Vincente 1995, p. 242, II:32’: kù-dbu-ú; III:10: kù-dbu-[ú]; the lines correspond to lines 224 and 245 of the reconstructed version. An overview of Ku-Baʾu in the Sumerian King List is also given by Marchesi 2010, pp. 242–243, no. 8. The Sumerian King List calls this dynasty the “dynasty (bala) of Ku-Baʾu”, see the online edition ETCSL, text: 2.1.1, l. 249a.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

146

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

of Akšak.679 According to the story, Puzur-ilī or his officers embezzled the fish caught for the fish offering to Marduk, but Ku-Baʾu the alewife supported the fishermen of Esaĝil with food and drink and helped them to smuggle a new, fresh fish as an offering into the temple. Consequently, Marduk invested her with kingship. Ku-Baʾu provided the fishermen of Marduk with “bread and water”, and in doing so, she enabled them to do their proper work for Marduk.680 In Akkadian, “bread” and “water” is akalu and mû. Their Sumerian counterparts are ninda “bread”, respectively ú “food/fodder”, and a (/e4) “water”. The very terms ú and a make up the Sumerian royal title ú-a = zāninu “provider”, i.e. the one who provides a city, its temples and stockyards with “food/fodder and water”.681 The title survives correctly understood into the first millennium. The list Izi = išātu explains the compound ú-a correctly as akalu u mû “bread and water”.682 The Late Babylonian king Nabonidus even revives the ancient title “provider of Ur” (zānin Uri),683 which mirrors the Sumerian title ú-a úriki-ma from the Old Babylonian period. So, the political implications of the term ú-a, respectively of akalu u mû “bread and water” never were forgotten. Marduk, of course, also understood the Sumerian title, and, as a reward mirroring Ku-Baʾu’s pious deed, he called her to kingship. He used the words: umma šī lū kīʾam “May it be her!” The sentence literally means: “May she be so (i.e. king) accordingly!” This means: “May she exercise the office of the provider”, in accordance with her qualifications and her pious deed. As she has given bread and water (*ú a), she may act as provider (Sum. ú-a, Akk. zāninu) for the temples. The phrase properly expresses the idea that divine punishment or reward should be a perfect match to a person’s offence or pious deed. Turning to the spelling of her name in cuneiform (kù-dba-ú), a Babylonian scholar interested in esoteric linguistics could have even found the character of her deed hidden in the signs that write her name. He might have isolated the signs kù “holy”, diĝir “god”, ba “to give”, and ú “food”, arriving at a translation like “Theholy-one-providing-the-gods-with-food”. Nevertheless, the philologically correct meaning of her name – “Baʾu-is-holy” – was still known in the first millennium. Two peculiar texts from Nineveh which list Ku-Baʾu among the “kings after the 679 680 681

682

683

Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 48–53. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 52a–55. The title ú-a (Seux 1967, pp. 456–458) is first attested in the late Early Dynastic period (Lugal-zage-si), with a gap during the Akkade and Ur III-periods; then, the title saĝ-ús “steady (supporter)” was preferred (Seux 1967, p. 440: Amar-Sîn). The use of the title starts again in the early Old Babylonian period, and is still attested in the first millennium (Aššurbanipal). The Early Dynastic attestations (ú-a dinanna “provider of Inanna”) come from the inscriptions of Lugal-zage-si of Uruk (Frayne, RIME 1, p. 435, no. E1.14.20.1, I:25; p. 438, no. E1.14.20.2, I’:2’). The Akkadian equivalent zāninu was in use from the middle Old Babylonian period (Hammurapi) on, down to Antiochos Soter (Seux 1967, pp. 372–375). ú-ae = ninda ú a (Izi = išātu, tablet E VI:279; MSL 13, p. 193). The gloss e in ú-ae is to remind us to read a “water” properly as e4 in Sumerian, which is, however, otherwise neglected throughout in this study. Schaudig 2001, p. 18, § I.4.1i; p. 340, no. 1.7a, l. 2: za-nin úriki.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

147

flood” translate her Sumerian name correctly as Baʾu-ellet “Baʾu-is-holy”.684 The spelling of the name of Ku-Baʾu spans from classic orthographies to rather unorthographic forms. In the first millennium, her name is written inconsistently with the divine determinative: Old Babylonian Period – kù-dba-ú (var. kù-dbu-ú) SKL, ll. 224, 245, 249a, see note 677. – ⌈ku-ub⌉-ba-bu-ú Source 17 (l. 13). – ku-up-pa-[bu] Source 18. – ku-ub-‹ba›-a-ba Source 19. First millennium – fkù-dba-ú Source 35 (ll. 52a, 53, 55), Source 41 (A 2), also in V R 44, I:9’, see note 684. Source 40 (A–B). – dkù-dba-ú (var. fkù-dba-ú) Source 42 (A). – dkù-[dba-ú] Among the historical omens dedicated to her character, there are two omens which deal explicitly with the sexual ambiguity of a female taking over the male office of kingship (Source 41, A = KBO 6; Source 36, l. 4, omen no. 5 = KBO 4).685 Another omen simply deals with her “taking kingship” (Source 19 = KBO 3): Ku-Baʾu Omen Date Topic KBO 1 (Source 17) OB “Rise, (you) corpse! Face the battle!” KBO 2 (Source 18) OB “Rise, (you) corpse! Face the battle!” KBO 3 (Source 19) OB “who seized kingship” (omen of disaster) KBO 4 (Source 36, 1st mill. l. 4, omen 5) “Rise, (you) corpse! Face the battle!” KBO 5 (Source 40) 1st mill. “who ruled the land” KBO 6 (Source 41, A) 1st mill. […] KBO 7 (Source 42) 1st mill. killed by her sons (?) KBO 8 (Source 43) 1st mill. Three other omens obviously refer to an anecdote which is otherwise not attested in the written tradition. On some occasion, Ku-Baʾu was apparently told: “Rise, you corpse! Face the battle!”686 The first millennium omen of Source 42 may deal with hiding something, which perhaps hints at the story about Ku-Baʾu hiding the fish for Marduk in a beer jar and smuggling it into Esaĝil.687 Otherwise, her famous feat is not mentioned in the omen tradition. 684

685

686 687

kù-dba-ú = f.dba-ú-el-let (V R 44, I:9’; traces of line in II R 65, no. 2 obv. 4’). Limet (1968, pp. 268–270) understands the type kù-DN as a vocative: “oh-pure-DN!”, and there are also cases of genitive constructions like kù-nin-ĝá “pureness-of-my-lady”. See in more detail below in this paragraph. Source 41 (A = KBO 6): an anomaly with penis and vulva. – Source 36 (l. 4, omen 5 = KBO 4): woman with penis and vulva, growing a beard and moustache; the omen does not give the name of Ku-Baʾu, but is virtually identical with Source 41 (A). Preserved in the Old Babylonian (Source 17), (Source 18) and the Neo-Babylonian (Source 40) omen tradition. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 52a–53. f

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

148

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

Although the Esaĝil Chronicle lists Ku-Baʾu as a good ruler, in the end something must have gone terribly wrong. According to the omen from Source 43 it was apparently Ku-Baʾu who was killed by her own sons, a harsh divine punishment typically reserved for wicked kings who would dare to harm Babylon and to lay their hands on the cult statue of Marduk.688 The most interesting point about Ku-Baʾu is, of course, that she in fact became “king” (lugal) not “queen” (nin), according to the Sumerian King List.689 Although the term lugal literally means “great person” (*lú gal), with no gender indicated, the person nevertheless was meant to be male. In Mesopotamia, kingship was a male profession.690 There were no “queens” in the sense of “ruling female person”, but only as “wife of a ruling king”.691 The only ruling queens known in the ancient Near East were the – to Mesopotamian eyes certainly exotic – queens of the Arabs in the first millennium.692 Figures like Sammu-rāmat (“Semiramis”) or NaqīʾaZakūtu were not ruling queens but made the most of their position as mothers of the ruling king after the death of their royal husbands.693 688 689 690

691

692

693

See the discussion of this sin and its punishment on pp. 123ff. above. See p. 145 above with note 677. See Edzard 1972–1975 (RlA 4), pp. 335–336 on the term lugal, the lack of evidence for ruling queens (nin), and on the case of Ku-Baʾu. Seux 1980–1983 (RlA 6), in his article on Mesopotamian kingship, did not discuss the male character of the office explicitly, but the fact becomes apparent from his paragraphs on the position of the “queen” (ibidem pp. 160–162, §§ 67–73) meaning nothing but “wife of the king”. Pace McCaffrey 2008, discussing Ku-Baʾu on p. 201. Her back-to-front reading (ibidem pp. 205–206) of the legend on the seal of A-kalam-du (Frayne, RIME 1, p. 389) and her interpretation fail because of the clear syntax of the well-known title lugal uri5(ki-ma) “king of Ur” used there, setting the direction in which the seal is to be read. Understanding uri5 as a free genitive (“of Ur”) with a postpositive lugal “king” defies style and grammar and is no option. – On the role of Neo-Assyrian queens in particular see Melville 1999 and 2004; Kertai 2013; Svärd 2015. There are quite a number of “queens of the Arabs” documented in Neo-Assyrian sources. The term “Arabs” is used rather sweepingly. The Arabs the Assyrians came in contact with settled or roamed in the area of Adummatu in north-east Arabia and the south-west of Babylonia. “Arabs” probably quite often designates the tribe Qedar. Among the female leaders of the “Arabs”, there are Zabībe and Samsī in the time of Tiglathpileser III. In the time of Sennacherib there are Teʾelḫunu, Yatīʾe and later Tabūʾa who was raised as a hostage at the court of Sennacherib and who was installed as queen of the Arabs by Esarhaddon (Ephʿal 1982, pp. 82–86, 224–225; Frahm 1997, p. 16). The name of the spurious queen *Iskallatu (Borger, Asarh., p. 53, episode 14, IV:4) is to be read apkallatu “wise woman” (Borger in OrNS 26, 1957, pp. 9–10; PNA 1/I, p. 113). This, in fact, is the title of Teʾelḫunu which the Assyrians mistook for her name. See Melville 1999 in detail on Naqīʾa; Melville 2004, pp. 52–53 on the role of the mother of the king; Macgregor 2012, pp. 82–85 on Sammu-rāmat; pp. 95–122 on Naqīʾa; Siddall 2013, pp. 86–100 on Sammu-rāmat. – Characteristically, these NeoAssyrian royal consorts do not bear the title “queen” (šarratu), see Melville 2004, p. 43; Kertai 2013, p. 109; Svärd 2015, p. 39. There is no “queen of Assyria” parallel to the “king of Assyria” (šar māt Aššur). The royal wives identify themselves as “palacewoman” (munus-é-gal = *segallu), “daughter-in-law” (kallatu) or “mother” (ummu) of their (sometimes deceased) royal husbands, fathers-in-law or sons, see the overviews

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

149

Furthermore, although Ku-Baʾu was held to have had children, she was not imagined as a married wife – there is no husband ever mentioned. The dynasty she founded, with her son Puzur-Sîn and her grandson Ur-Zababa, is properly called hers.694 It is clear that the Babylonian scholars who either created her figure or had to deal with it opened a box full of problems. According to the perception of the Sumerian King List, according to historical omens and according to the Esaĝil Chronicle, KuBaʾu who became the only “female king” of Mesopotamia had formerly been an alewife, running a tavern.695 In Babylonia, the tavern (aštammu) was some kind of inn. However, it was not what we understand by a restaurant, but rather a bar. It was a place run by a barkeeper (sābû), or even more often so by an alewife (sābītu).696 It is a place where men would come to “disport themselves”697 and where criminals would meet (CH § 109). It is a place where the wife of a citizen was in danger of being mistaken for a woman a man could have sex with freely.698 There is not much reference to eating there, but to drinking, in particular beer. With the beer, there was the opportunity

694 695

696

697 698

in Melville 1999 and 2004; PNA 2/II, pp. 929–930, PNA 3/II, p. 1433 for Naqīʾa-Zakūtu and PNA 3/I, pp. 1083–1084 for Sammu-rāmat. – Pace Svärd (2012, pp. 69–70; 2015, pp. 55, 82), the term palû in some votive inscriptions of Assyrian queens is not to be translated with “reign”, but with “dynasty” (Siddall 2013, pp. 93–94; see also Melville 1999, pp. 43, 72). Ever since the third millennium, the term bala/palû had been oscillating between the meanings “reign” and “dynasty” (Finkelstein 1966, pp. 105– 106; Schaudig 2001, p. 11). Queens, however, i.e. the wives of ruling kings, did not “reign” in their own right. Apart from the legendary figure of Ku-Baʾu, they were never included into the king lists of Babylonia or Assyria. Neither were they acknowledged as rulers in year names or date formulas. The “dynasty (bala) of Ku-Baʾu”, SKL, ETCSL, text: 2.1.1, l. 249a; Klein 2008, pp. 83, 87. “Alewife” (flú-kurun-na/munus-kurun-na = sābītu) is the classic profession of Ku-Baʾu, see the Sumerian King List: Ku-Baʾu the alewife (flú-kurun-na, ll. 224–225, quoted after the online edition ETCSL, text: 2.1.1). Historical omens: Source 40, partly broken in Source 43. The tavern is implied in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 52a: “in the house of Ku-Baʾu, the alewife”. In the Codex Hammurapi (§§ 108, 109, 111), only the female tavern-keeper (munuskurun-na/sābītu) is dealt with. – On the tavern, the alewife and Ku-Baʾu see also Glassner 2002b, pp. 157–158; Worthington 2009–2011 (RlA 12), p. 133–134, § 3 “sābītu”. ana mēlulim, see CAD S p. 9, s.v. sābû in bīt sābî, b: bīt sābīti. On the tavern as a social space see also Maul 1992. Middle Assyrian Laws § 14, see Roth 1997, p. 158. The tavern is also a place where a nadītu or ēntu-priestess was not to go by penalty of death by burning (CH § 110). Formerly, this has been understood as a punishment of illicit sexual behaviour of the priestesses. Roth (1999, p. 461), however, argued that the paragraph dealt with illegal economic engagement of the priestesses. However, I am still inclined to understand the paragraph as a punishment of a sexual behaviour which would make the priestesses ritually impure.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

150

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

to see girls, i.e. prostitutes, who were either working there or were coming to the place looking for customers.699 This view on the tavern (aštammu) as sort of a brothel, on the alewife (sābītu) coming very close to a “madam”, and on the prostitutes (ḫarimtu), has been challenged by Julia Assante.700 She argues that this view is part of a highly maledominated and sexualized attitude towards all kinds of not-married female personnel or personage in the ancient Near East, a particular Assyriological delusion in the wider stream of a 19th century attitude full of projections, in particular sexual ones, known as Orientalism. Assante was on the right track when she challenged the view that most of the female temple personnel had been engaging in sacred prostitution. But she went too far when she concluded that even the rather clear term ḫarimtu meant “single woman” and not “prostitute”, and that there were no terms at all for “prostitute”, “prostitution” or “bordello”, perhaps not even the concept.701 It is true that the field of studies of female personnel of palaces and temples, of women in general and sexuality on the whole is crowded with projections. But one among these is also the modern concept of the self-determined, independent, unmarried woman with no restriction by a patriachal system projected into a highly restrictive patriarchal society like the one of the ancient Near East. Assante’s opinions have been refuted by a short, yet thorough and clear article on prostitution in Mesopotamia by Jerrold Cooper.702 There is overwhelming evidence that the female person called ḫarimtu, as her characteristic, indeed made her living by selling sexual intercourse. However, with the self-determined, independent, unmarried woman with no restriction by a patriachal system we are back at Ku-Baʾu, the alewife. If Assante’s study would have deliberately been into the notion of uneasiness, ancient or modern, with women transgressing the “borders of their sex”, Ku-Baʾu could have been her chief witness. As a woman exercising power, dominance703 and kingship – a thoroughly male conceived office – the figure of Ku-Baʾu is sexualized and construed in the ambiguity between male and female. Her figure is sexualized, because the only other major piece of information which is given about her and which never falls into oblivion is the tradition that she was an alewife, or to put it bluntly, a “madam”. She was apparently conceived unmarried, though she had children, and given that “vita”, running a brothel was an occupation that the ancient audience would have assumed an “independent, self-supporting” woman to have held. In fact, there would have been no need at all 699

700 701 702 703

Lambert 1992a; Roth 1999, p. 448; Cooper 2006–2008 (RlA 11), pp. 14–15 (§ 5), p. 17–18 (§ 7), p. 20 (§ 11): “Brothels, madams, and procurers”; Worthington 2009–2011 (RlA 12), pp. 133–134, § 4 “Taverns and sexuality”. Assante 1999 and 2007. Assante 1999, p. 86; eadem 2007, pp. 129–130. Cooper 2006–2008 (RlA 11), pp. 12–21; see also Roth 2006. On omens dealing with sex and hegemony in another context see Guinan 1998. Many of the omens discussed by Guinan show that a female taking an active part or exercising dominance over a male was considered as upsetting the “proper” order and led to negative apodoses.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

151

to attribute to her a profession. There are only very few kings to whom the Sumerian King List attributes a profession before they became king.704 Among them, there are shepherds and a fisherman, fullers, a (black)smith, a leatherworker, a boatman, a jeweller, a cupbearer, and even once a priest, although this is liable to have occurred more often in reality. The shepherd corresponds to a prominent ancient Mesopotamian concept of rulership, but the other professions, notably the fuller, leatherworker, (black)smith, do obviously not locate the persons who were to become kings in the social strata that were liable to produce rulers. Certainly the alewife was also an occupation held in rather low esteem. The tradition could have done without attributing a profession to Ku-Baʾu. And if so, they might have made her a female scribe or a priestess, like En-ḫedu-anna, the daughter of Sargon of Akkade. But all these examples of rulers coming from a background unlikely to bring forth future kings are but to show that, by divine will, anyone can be put at the head of the state – even a woman, even an alewife, even a “madam”, once in history, but also just for once. There is no other example. Furthermore, the figure of Ku-Baʾu is construed ambiguously as being male and female, because the tradition attributes to her omens of the Šumma izbu type dealing with anomalies having both male and female sexual markers or organs.705 An anomaly born with both penis and vulva (Source 41, A) hints at the ambiguity of the woman Ku-Baʾu occupying a male office. The variant of this omen (Source 41, B) deals with an anomaly having both penis and a vulva, but having no testicles, and arrives by means of association at the logical apodosis: “a (castrated) courtier will govern the land, or will revolt against the king.” Another omen of this kind, though not giving the name of Ku-Baʾu in this case, deals with a woman growing a beard and a moustache, and having a penis as well as a vulva.706 This last omen in fact is listed in the Book of Prodigies among the omens of disaster indicating the fall of Babylonia. This underlines the negative association the Babylonians had with ruling women, turning female into male.707 704

705 706 707

Giving the former professions of the kings or their background is a rather rare and “ancient” feature in the Sumerian King List. It only appears among the early rulers from the time before the flood (Dumuzi the shepherd from Bad-tibira, l. 15) and from the time after the flood until Sargon of Akkade. From Sargon on, there are no former professions of the kings given any more. – Professions of the kings according to the Sumerian King List, after the online edition ETCSL, text: 2.1.1: Shepherd (sipa): Dumuzi (Bad-tibira, l. 15), Etana (Kiš, l. 64), Lugalbanda (Uruk-Eanna, l. 107). – Fisherman (šuku6): Dumuzi (Uruk-Eanna, l. 109). – “His father was a phantom (líl-lá)”: Gilgameš (Uruk-Eanna and Kulaba, ll. 112–113). – Smith (simug): Meš-ḫe (Uruk-Eanna, l. 126). – Fuller (lúázlag): Susuda (Kiš, l. 160), Zizi (Mari, l. 216). – Boatman (lúmá-laḫ4-e): Mamagal (Kiš, l. 164; his profession might be spun out from his name: má-má-gal “BigBoats”). – Leatherworker (lúašgab): Bazi (Mari, l. 215). – Priest (gudu4): Lim’er (Mari, l. 217). – Alewife (flú-kurun-na): Ku-Baʾu (Kiš, ll. 224–225). – Jeweller (zadim): Nanniya (Kiš, l. 254). – Cupbearer (sagi), father was a gardener (nu-kiri6): Sargon (Akkade, ll. 266–268). Hallo 1976, p. 28. In the Book of Prodigies, Source 36 (l. 4, omen 5). See also Asher-Greve 2002, pp. 19–20.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

152

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

The omen series Šumma ālu lists another case of bearded women as an evil omen announcing hardship for the land.708 The Ku-Baʾu omen quoted above (Source 41, A) contains a second apodosis stating that “the land of the king will become waste” under this sign. Obviously, Ku-Baʾu was not a role-model for Babylonian women. She rather was an exotic rarity, a kind of carnival, the one exemption that constitutes the rule, liable to never ever occur again. Not even those women who actually exercised power on behalf of their minor sons or grandsons, such as Sammu-rāmat (“Semiramis”) or Naqīʾa-Zakūtu,709 ever referred to Ku-Baʾu as their source of inspiration. The “female king” Ku-Baʾu is the world’s first literarily formed figure of a sexualized female ruler like Hatshepsut who had herself portrayed as a male pharao with a beard, or figures like Semiramis, Dido and Cleopatra. If Giovanni Boccaccio had known of the figure of Ku-Baʾu, he would have made her a prime example of a “harlot’s rule” (pornocracy) in his book on Famous Women,710 a slanderous treatise on unnatural female dominance rooted in female lust. His chapter on the mother of Elagabalus, Semiamira from Messana, is rather close to what his treatise on Ku-Baʾu might have been: Although she came straight from the brothel, she had herself called augusta and assumed the power in the emperor’s palace. 6. Ur-Zababa (of Kiš, l. 56) Very much like Puzur-ilī of Akšak (no. 4), Ur-Zababa of Kiš mainly serves as background for the good deed of Sargon that earned him kingship. Ur-Zababa is well known as Sargon’s lord from various fragments of legends, most notably the Sumerian Sargon Legend.711 According to the Esaĝil Chronicle, he ordered his cupbearer Sargon to “change” (šupêlu) – and that certainly means “to reduce” – the wine offerings which were to be delivered to Esaĝil (l. 56). However, Sargon did not do as he was told. As a reward, Marduk exchanged Sargon for Ur-Zababa as king of Babylonia. The term šupêlu (“to exchange”) is not verbally used in Marduk’s reaction, but we may surmise that it was understood.712 After all, the term is used in this sense e.g. in the curse formulas of the epilogue of the Codex Hammurapi: šarrūssu šupêlam … liqbi “(Enlil) may order his kingship to be replaced (by someone else’s)”.713

708

709 710 711

712 713

[šumma ina] āli sinnišātu ziqna zaqnā māta dannatu iṣabbat “[If] women [in] a city have beards, hardship will afflict that land” (Šumma ālu tablet 1:153, Freedman 1998, pp. 36– 37; line copied as complete in CT 38, pl. 5, l. 124. Guinan 2002, p. 31). See p. 148 above with note 693. Giovanni Boccaccio, De mulieribus claris (Florence 1361–1362). On the Sumerian Sargon Legend, dealing with Sargon the cupbearer and his lord UrZababa king of Kiš, see Cooper & Heimpel 1983 and Alster 1987. This text is omitted in the edition by Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 51. Online edition: ETCSL, text: 2.1.4. See the discussion above on p. 140. Codex Hammurapi, rev. 26:75, 80; CAD Š/III, p. 322, s.v. šupêlu 2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

153

7. Sargon of Akkade (ll. 56–61) Sargon of Akkade is one of the good kings of the Esaĝil Chronicle who turned bad after he was appointed to kingship by Marduk. Sargon is said to have “forgotten about the word that Bēl had told him” (l. 60). Furthermore, Sargon turned hostile against Babylon. He took earth from its pit, probably after conquering the city, took it as spoils and built another town called “Babylon” next to his city Akkade, probably using the earth magically in the building process. In turn, Marduk “denied (nakāru) what he had said to him, too”, and “all the people from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun became hostile (nakāru) to Sargon”.714 In doing this, or as a little extra, Marduk imposed on Sargon sleeplessness.715 This is a whole bundle of complicated and interwoven motifs. Although we are not told any details about the “word Bēl told him”, we may surmise that it consisted of the two main orders “execute my cult in perfection!”716 and “provide for Babylon!”.717 But Sargon forgot this and changed his attitude towards Marduk. “Changing” would be expressed by *nakāru, which is not used verbally in the first part of the legends. However, I think we are free to imply the term, as in the case of *šupêlu “to exchange (a king)” in the case of Ur-Zababa above (no. 6).718 In consequence, Marduk became to him hostile (nakāru) as well, and changed (nakāru) the firm “yes” he had earlier given to his kingship into a “no”, so all the world became hostile (nakāru) to Sargon, too.719 The motif of “sleeplessness” is probably the mirror element of “forgetting the word of Bēl”. It is the negative counterpart of the positive restlessness good rulers like Gudea of Lagaš would display towards the orders of their lords: In performing the orders “tirelessly”, they “would not let sweet slumber enter their eyes”.720 But Sargon became negligent, and so Marduk determined for him restlessness in its most painful form. As becomes apparent from the Gudea examples, this storyline would work in an older (Ur III/Old Babylonian) version of the legend, too.721 714

715 716 717 718 719 720 721

Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 61; Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 44), obv. 22–23. The complex dealing with nakāru “to become hostile” in the Sargon tradition had perhaps been spun out of the inscriptions of Sargon’s grandson, Narām-Sîn of Akkade, using the nakāru motif “when the four corners of the world became hostile” to this latter king during the “Great Revolt”; cf. *inu kibrātum arbaʾum ištēniš ikkirāniššu, Frayne, RIME 2, p. 113, Narām-Sîn no. 10, ll. 5–9 and passim; ibidem p. 192, no. 5, ll. 9–13 also in a late copy of an inscription of Šar-kali-šarrī. On the “Great Revolt” see Westenholz 1999, pp. 51–54. On the reflections of the “Great Revolt” in Old Babylonian literary texts see Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, chapter 9, in particular p. 239 on no. 16b, obv. ́ 10–11 (*inūma kibrāt arbaʾi ištēniš ibbalkitūninni); no. 19, obv. 3 (*ikkirūninnīma). Esaĝil Chronicle, l. 61; Chronicle of Early Kings, obv. 23. As Marduk had told Gilgameš, see the Esaĝil Chronicle, l. 45. Executing the office of the “provider” (zāninu) of the temples was the most important task of the Babyloian kings, see the discussion on p. 146 above with note 681. See immediately above and the discussion on p. 140. Esaĝil Chronicle, l. 61; Chronicle of Early Kings, obv. 23. See also Source 59, l. 12: šarru ša annâ iqbûšu “the king, to whom (Bēl once) said “yes” (, he has rejected by now).” See the commentary on line 61 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). For more elements that might work in an older version see note 1456 on p. 341.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

154

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

The other complex deals with the motif “taking the earth of a conquered city hostage”, and “building a (rivalling) counterpart (gabarû/tamšīlu) elsewhere”,722 preferably in or near the capital of the victor. These actions were often taken in the aftermath of a conquest. They aimed at obstructing or diminishing magically the powers of the original city. Obviously, Sargon was held to have been one of the first kings to do so. Sargon’s taking the earth of Babylon captive is reported in: – the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 60) – the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 44, obv. 18–19) – and in an elaborate liver omen (Source 45, ll. 9–10). The Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 44, obv. 20) clearly denounces Sargons’s deed as a sacrilege (ikkibu “taboo/sacrilege”). The liver omen even gives the name of the place where Sargon was thought to have taken the earth from. Local tradition had it that Sargon took the sacred earth from the “Meadow of (the goddess) Katuna” at Babylon (Source 45, l. 9). The story is certainly dependent upon a legend that offered an etiology for a kind of pit or depression on the “Meadow of (the goddess) Katuna”, projecting the sacred status that Babylon held in the first millennium back into the time of Sargon of Akkade. This is not to say that the historical king Sargon did not rule over the village or small town that was Babylon in the third millennium. But since Babylon had no religious or political importance then, it is highly unlikely that it indeed had become a target for such an extravagant symbolic act as taking its soil captive and “creating its likeness”, i.e. doubling the sacred navel of the earth.723 In the third millennium, this is an action to be performed on a city like Nippur. Probably in imitation of Sargon’s legendary deed, Sennacherib also took the earth of Babylon hostage after destroying the city, and heaped it up in the akītu temple at Aššur (Source 46). Aššurbanipal did very much the same with the dust of the Elamite royal cities, after his devastation of Elam in 646 BCE (Source 47). The earliest firmly datable example, however, comes from the inscriptions of the Middle Assyrian king Shalmaneser I (ca. 1273–1244 BCE) who took the soil of the city Arinnu in Muṣri as spoils (Source 31). Shalmaneser also scattered salt or salty plants over the ruins of the city, an action which is first attested in the tabooing of Ḫattuša by Anitta of Kuššara,724 and so one may wonder whether these motifs had more than one root. The rest of the historical omens about Sargon does not add any further information that matters in the present framework.725

722 723 724 725

See on this topic also p. 205 below in the discussion of the sins of Nabonidus. On the concept of Babylon as the “cosmic bond and centre of all the lands” in the first millennium BCE see pp. 105f. below. See the commentary on Source 31. On the omens see Hirsch 1963, pp. 7–8; Metzler 2002, p. 223; Sommerfeld 2009–2011 (RlA 12), pp. 47–48, § 5.2. See also the discussion of the historical omens dealing with Sargon of Akkade in the context of ancient Near Eastern historiography by Finkelstein 1963, pp. 465–470.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

155

8. Narām-Sîn (of Akkade, ll. 62–63) According to the Esaĝil Chronicle, Narām-Sîn of Akkade committed the same sin as Enmerkar of Uruk (no. 2). He, too, “wrecked the people of Babylon” (nammaššê726 Bābil ušalpit, l. 62), i.e. he infringed on the rights of the privileged citizens of Babylon, and “for a second time” (adi šinīšu)727 after Enmerkar he was punished by having sent against him hordes of barbarians.728 This time, it was not the UmmānManda, but the barbarian Gutians, which, however, made no difference. The fact that Narām-Sîn repeated the sin of Enmerkar can be explained by a passage from the Cuthean Legend which has it that Enmerkar did not leave a written account of his history and fate behind, and so later kings could not read it and learn from Enmerkar’s example.729 The other historical omens about Narām-Sîn do not deal with the tradition covered by the Esaĝil Chronicle and are not discussed here.730 9. The Gutians (ll. 63–68) According to the Babylonians, the Gutians were but a bunch of uneducated barbarians who had not been taught to serve the gods properly (l. 64). But ignorance of the crime did not save them from punishment, and so Marduk took away (ekēmu, l. 68) the kingship of the Gutians when they took away (ekēmu, l. 67) a fish offering prepared for Marduk by the pious fisher Utu-ḫeĝal. On the structure and the meaning of the story about the embezzlement of the fish offering by the Gutians see in detail the discussion on pp. 170ff. On the historical Gutians and their image in Babylonian literature see the discussion in chapter 11.4, B. 10. Utu-ḫeĝal (of Uruk, ll. 65–69) In addition to Sargon of Akkade (no. 7), Utu-ḫeĝal is the other good king listed in the Esaĝil Chronicle who turned bad. After he had been appointed to kingship by Marduk as a reward for his fish offering, “he laid his hand on his (: Marduk’s) city with evil intent” (qāssu ana ālīšu ana lemutti ūbilma, l. 69)731 and so “the weirs of the river car[ried] off his corpse” (miḫrēt nāri šalamtašu itb[alā], l. 69).732 726 727 728 729 730

731

732

On this use of the term nammaššû (literally “moving, living beings”) see in more detail chapter 11.3, B. On the importance of that term see the comment on p. 122 above. On the reasoning see pp. 143f. above. See the discussion on p. 142 above. Hirsch 1963, p. 26; Leichty 1970, p. 201, BM 41548, ll. 11–12; Glassner 1983; Frayne 1998–2001 (RlA 9), p. 174, § 5; Metzler 2002, pp. 223–224. The omens dealing with Narām-Sîn have been discussed in the context of ancient Near Eastern historiography by Finkelstein 1963, pp. 465–470. The catchphrase qāta ana Bābil ana lemutti wabālu “to lay one’s hand on Babylon with evil intent” occurs also in Chronicle P (Source 71, B, IV:9–10) in the summary of the crimes of Tukultī-Ninurta I: (IV:9b) Tukultī-Ninurta ša ana Bābil ana lemutti (10) [qāt]ī ūbilu (…) “Tukultī-Ninurta who had laid (his) [hand]s on Babylon with evil intent (…)”. See also the commentary on line 7 of the Sargon omen of Source 45. Thus after manuscripts S and F. Manuscript A and probably also B, C and D had it that “the river car[ried] off his corpse” (nāru šalamtašu [var.: pagaršu] it[bal]). The version of manuscripts S and F conflate the breaking of the weirs and the drowning of the king, see the commentary on the line on p. 396.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

156

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

This is a very educational example because it contains an obvious philological mirror element in the root w/tabālu “to carry” (*ūbil : *itbalā). The same strange legendary tradition about the death of Utu-ḫeĝal is also told, and a little bit elaborated on, in the historical omen of Source 30, which has it that Utu-ḫeĝal “died during damming a river, when a weir collapsed on him.” The historical king Utu-ḫeĝal of Uruk, who left to posterity a magnificent inscription celebrating his victory over the Gutians,733 probably did not guess that he would rather be remembered for a fish dish and a slapstick death. Apart from these two bits of information, the Babylonians in the first millennium still knew that Utu-ḫeĝal was related to the Third Dynasty of Ur, even if the memory seems to have become a little bit blurred over the centuries: The Babylonians had it that Šulgi was “the son of a daughter of Utu-ḫeĝal”.734 We, however, have evidence that Utu-ḫeĝal and UrNamma, the father of Šulgi, were brothers. So, if the Babylonians were right, UrNamma would have married his niece, which is perhaps a little bit too close.735 There is also an omen dealing with Utu-ḫeĝal who killed a certain Puzur-Šara. However, this is omitted in this study since its topic does not belong to the strand of motifs discussed here.736 11. Šulgi (of Ur, ll. 70–71, 75) The Esaĝil Chronicle acknowledges that Marduk gave to Šulgi the “kingship over all the lands” (Source 35, l. 70). From a chronicle found at Uruk it becomes clear that the Babylonians even late in the first millennium still knew that Šulgi ruled for 48 years, one of the longest reigns of a Sumerian or Babylonian king ever.737 Usually, the length of a king’s reign can be understood as a sign of divine favour and approval. But with Šulgi, matters are dramatically different. The Esaĝil Chronicle accuses this king of having been one of the worst and most evil kings of all: – parṣīšu ul ušaklil šuluḫḫīšu ulaʾʾīma annašu ina zumrīš[u i]štakkan738 “(Šulgi however) did not perform his rites perfectly, but defiled his purification rites, and so he (: Marduk) made his sin manifest in his body (in form of a skin disease).” With the statement parṣīšu ul ušaklil “he did not execute his rites in perfection” the chronicle uses a very negative assessment, which turns Šulgi into the negative counterpart to Gilgameš, the perfect king. The mirror element, however, consists in another topic. Since Šulgi polluted the purification rites of Marduk, he was polluted by Marduk with a skin disease, probably leprosy, in turn. This is what the text means with “Marduk made the sin of Šulgi apparent in his body”. 733 734 735 736

737 738

Frayne, RIME 2, pp. 283–293, Utu-ḫegal no. 4. Šulgi mār mārti ša Utu-ḫeĝal šar Uruk (Source 49, obv. 10). See the discussion in the commentary on Source 49, obv. 10. Moreover, it is in fact an “omen of Puzur-Šara”: “If an ox has two tongues and both of their surfaces are worn out, it is an omen of Puzur-Šara whom Utu-ḫeĝal killed” (De Zorzi 2014, pp. 126, 798, Šumma izbu 19:52’: šumma alpu šitta lišānātūšu ṣērū kilallān kabsū amūt Puzur-Šara ša Utu-ḫeĝal idukkū́šu). See Source 49, rev. 3’ and, for the following, the discussion on pp. 132f. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 71.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

157

This would, of course, mean that Šulgi became ritually impure, that he would no longer have been able to perform his royal tasks, and that he could not partake in normal social life any more.739 In the Hebrew Bible, there is the example of king Uzziah of Judah who was stricken with leprosy by Yahweh because he tried do offer incense as if he was a priest. He stayed impure until he died, he was ousted from society, dwelt in an isolated house, and his son acted on his behalf. When he had died, he was buried in the plain, in a grave set apart from the normal graves.740 The Chronicle of Early Kings also notes that Marduk frowned at Šulgi and so his body was consumed by some illness, probably leprosy again:741 – Bēl ikkelmēšū́ma pagaršu ušākil (Source 48, rev. 7) “Bēl frowned at him, and he caused his body to be consumed.” The information that Šulgi was smitten with a disease is also given in a chronicle from Uruk, which explicitly states that Šulgi’s fatal illness was leprosy (saḫaršuppû). The term is now broken, but traces remain, and the verbal base lubbušu (“to clothe”) and the stock epithet šērtu rabītu “great punishment” make it clear that it was indeed leprosy which “clad” Šulgi’s body at divine command.742 The chronicle is from Uruk and it is preoccupied with Šulgi’s offences against Uruk’s tutelar god Anu. So this time it is also Anu who punishes Šulgi:743 – (16) [ina p]alêšu narâ surrāti ṭuppi šillāti (17) [ša šul]uḫḫī ilūti išṭurma īzib (18) [An]u šarru ša šīmātūšu rabbâ ikkelmēšū́ma (19) [saḫaršupp]â šēressu rabīta (20) [ša Šulg]i zumuršu ulabbiš “[During] his [r]eign (Šulgi) wrote and left (to posterity) a stele (full) of lies, and a tablet of blasphemy [dealing with] the divine rites of [puri]fication. [An]u, the king whose lots are great, frowned at him, and clad the body of [Šulg]i in [lepros]y, his great punishment.” As becomes apparent from the quotation above, the chronicle from Uruk also relates the punishment of Šulgi to his upsetting the divine purification rites (šuluḫḫū ilūti) in the same way as the Esaĝil Chronicle does. The only difference is that the chronicle from Uruk is concerned with the divine rites of Anu and Uruk,744 not those of Marduk and Babylon. But, nevertheless, it is obvious that the Urukean 739

740 741 742 743 744

On bodily imperfection, impurity and illness, leprosy included, being obstacles preventing a citizen to be initiated as a priest or a diviner, see Waerzeggers & Jursa 2008, pp. 4, 22; Lambert 1998, pp. 144, 149, 152, on l. 32 of the Enmeduranki Text naming saḫaršuppû “leprosy”. See also van der Toorn 1985, pp. 72–75 on leprosy as an incurable illness and a classic divine punishment in the ancient Near East, ousting the leper from society. On the Babylonian concept of (im)purity and its social implications see Sallaberger 2006–2008 (RlA 11, pp. 295–299) and Sallaberger 2011. 2 Ki 15:5; 2 Chr 26:16–21, 23. The chronicle then makes a further, but ill-understood comment, perhaps on some kind of treatment which finally killed Šulgi. See the commentary on Source 49, obv. 19. The following after Source 49, obv. 16–20. [pa]raṣ Anūti uṣurāti ša Uruk “the [ri]tes of the office of Anu, the ordinances of Uruk” (Source 49, obv. 13).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

158

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

chronicle displays the same attitude towards Šulgi as the Babylonian Esaĝil Chronicle. The text has it that Šulgi laid down his heretical changes in writing, supplanting the true regulations with false ones. In the text, Šulgi’s sacrilege directly precedes (obv. 16–17) his punishment (obv. 18–19). It is, of course, in the very nature of these disputes about what is “false” and “true”, that the “true” traditions are recovered after some time. In the perception of the clergy and the scholars of Uruk, the merits for restoring many of the true, old regulations of the cult of Anu were to be credited to the Urukean family of Kidin-Anu. The colophon of another tablet dealing with the cult of Anu, which was written by a member of the same family, tells us that Nabopolassar had given these tablets away to Elam 300 years earlier.745 We do not know whether the accusations against Šulgi are historically true, but interestingly the topic of the “purification rites” (šuluḫḫū) leads us back to Šulgi’s eccentric self-praise which had become the background of Ibbi-Sîn’s Error in the Old Babylonian tradition of Larsa.746 According to Šulgi’s self-praise, his most astonishing and all-surpassing skills in divination directly affected the very heart of the cult. Establishing the divine orders by extispicy was of the highest importance for the correct performance of the hand-washing (šu-luḫ-ḫa = šuluḫḫū) and purification rites (nam-išib):747 – šu-luḫ-ḫa nam-išib šu du7-dè (…) (l. 133) enim diĝir-re-e-ne níĝ kal-kal-la-àm (l. 140) “The(se) words of the gods are of pre-eminent value (…) for the exact performance of hand-washing and purification rites.” Even if portrayed as positive achievements in texts written in his praise, Šulgi’s obvious interference with traditions and cults is liable to have provoked opposition. During his reign, the voice of this opposition could be suppressed, but with the catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn at last the “sins of Šulgi” would have been spotted as the very reason why the empire of the Third Dynasty fell. We only grasp this answer in the Esaĝil Chronicle from the early Neo-Babylonian period, but it perfectly matches the lack of any sin ascribed to Ibbi-Sîn himself also in the earlier stages of the tradition. As discussed in detail on pp. 86ff. above, he is only the hapless and conceited ruler who could not read the signs on the wall. It seems that Šulgi’s negative image, which is so prominent in the tradition of the first millennium, is a late echo of a much earlier, and in its time suppressed opposition, not despite, but actually because of Šulgi’s excessive self-promotion. The chronicle from Uruk (Source 49) also has it that Šulgi “brought out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty” as an act of blasphemy.748 At the time when that chronicle was copied, the local Urukean religious focus had shifted 745 746 747 748

See the commentary on Source 49, obv. 13. See Source 3 and the discussion in chapter 5.2 on pp. 86ff. above. Excerpts from Šulgi’s Self-Praise B, after ETCSL, text: 2.4.2.02; see also the older edition by Castellino 1972, p. 44. Source 49, obv. 7: makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati uštēṣi. On the pun playing on the relationship between šillatu I “blasphemy” and šillatu II (*šallatu) “booty” see the commentary on Source 48, rev. 7.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

159

away from Marduk and Babylon towards Anu and Uruk again. Nevertheless, that tradition was left unaltered and not adjusted to the actual situation. It is still verbally identical with its older model from the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 48, rev. 6–7). Chronicle P attributes exactly the same offence to Tukultī-Ninurta I, describing it with the very same phrase.749 After Šulgi had polluted the purification rituals, it was only a matter of time before the cult and the state would collapse. The catastrophe was briefly suspended during the reign of Šu-Sîn, who managed to save himself by the utmost piety towards Babylon, Esaĝil and Marduk.750 But in the reign of Ibbi-Sîn, although this poor wretch committed no particular new sin at all, disaster struck: – ‹lemuttu ša› Šulgi īpušu aranšu Ibbi-Sîn mārašu ī‹missū́ma› 751 “(But Marduk) i‹mposed› the penance for ‹the evil that› Šulgi had done upon his (grand)son Ibbi-Sîn.” The texts describes the punishment of Ibbi-Sîn with only one line, yet any Babylonian would have understood its meaning: The destiny of Ibbi-Sîn was disaster and ultimate destruction. The land and the city, Babylon, would be devastated by barbarian hordes. The king would be killed. The Babylonian gods would be abducted from their shrines and taken to enemy country. Any king whose sins would cause the destiny of Ibbi-Sîn to occur again, would bring ultimate destruction on his people. However, disaster would not strike without warning, it is announced by omens. And this is what the Book of Prodigies (Source 36) is all about. The nature of Ibbi-Sîn’s punishment is characterized by two elements. The one is Ibbi-Sîn’s relationship to Šulgi whose penance is imposed upon him (*arna emēdu). According to the chronicle, Ibbi-Sîn is the māru “(grand)son” or “descendant” of Šulgi. So the punishment is justified by the principle of kin liability, which has been discussed above.752 The other element is the character of Šulgi’s sin. As opposed to the offences of the other kings, which notwithstanding their wickedness, had a rather limited effect because they consisted of single and short-term interferences with the temple’s offerings and income, Šulgi committed a systematic sin. That is to say that Šulgi, in polluting the purification rituals, damaged the very heart of the cult and the state. Šulgi ruined and undid a most important steering element, making it virtually impossible to cleanse the polluted system ever again. According to the late and legendary tradition, Šulgi’s bad character also showed on other occasions. An anecdote that can be reconstructed from a chronicle and a historical omen probably has it that Šulgi caused Bangar and Rabsisi, brothers and princes of Subartu, to fight against one another.753 One brother killed the other in the quarrel, and we may surmise that, according to the logic of the anecdote, it 749 750 751 752 753

Source 71, IV:5. On the “booty phrase” see the overview s.v. “Plundering Esaĝil and Babylon” above on p. 124. See the discussion of Šu-Sîn as king no. 13 below in this chapter. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 75. See in more detail the discussion on pp. 131ff. in chapter 7.2. Source 49, see the commentary on obv. 5.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

160

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

was Šulgi who benefitted from the family drama and took over the kingdom after their death. The anecdote recalls the story of Eteocles and Polynices, the sons of Oedipus. Fighting for the throne of Thebes, brother killed brother in a duel, and the kingdom fell to their uncle Creon. As is the case with Creon, there is no actual and tangible guilt one could put one’s finger on, but one senses a moral deficiency in the character of Šulgi as portrayed in this anecdote. There is also another thread of tradition that does not follow the interpretation of the Marduk cult as preserved in the Esaĝil Chronicle and which presents Šulgi in a very positive light. The most important witness to this tradition is the pseudoepigraphic Šulgi Prophecy.754 However, this text does not offer any explanation for the disparate traditions about Šulgi, nor does it explain why Marduk allowed this most wicked king to rule for as long as 48 years. The Šulgi Prophecy cannot be read as a report on the catharsis of a bad king who finally turns good, as the Prayer of Manasseh in the Hebrew Bible.755 This type of a bad king turning good is the one which is still missing from the examples of good kings, bad kings, and good kings turning bad in the Esaĝil Chronicle, see the overview on p. 140. Among the historical omens dealing with Šulgi756 one strange example stands out which apparently has it that Šulgi “dropped his crown”:757 – amūt Šulgi ša agâšu indi‹yū›ni (*iddi‹yū›ni) “Omen of Šulgi who dropped his crown.” Obviously, this is a bad omen, arousing the idea of “losing one’s rule”, but a more specific meaning of this event eludes me.758 754

755 756 757

758

Edited by Borger 1971. Another pseudoepigraphic inscription portrays Šulgi even as a patron of the cults of Marduk and Nabû and as victor over Aššur and the Scythians, see Frahm 2006. This text claims to be a copy of an inscription of Šulgi, but it is obviously a fraud. See the discussion on pp. 132ff. above, in particular p. 133 with the legend of “Manasseh’s repentance”. See the overview given by Metzler 2002, p. 225. a-mu-ut šul-gi sá a-ga-a-šu in-dì-‹u›-ni (“Mari liver model no. 5”); earlier editors read indì-ì (Rutten 1938, p. 42 and pl. 3, no. 5; Meyer 1987, p. 193, pl. 14:8–9; Metzler 2002, p. 225; CAD A/I, p. 156, s.v. agû A 1b, 2’). Apparently, the verbal form in-dì-‹u›-ni is an archaizing preterite of nadûm (*ndy), with a subordinative in -ūni (von Soden 1995, § 83b; Hilgert 2002a, p. 163). The [n] is not assimilated to the [d], and the scribe apparently “lost” the sign u = [yu] by haplography at the end of ti = dì. Despite the peculiar orthography which might speak in favour of a partial assimilation ([mṭ] > [nṭ]), the verb is probably not to be derived from maṭûm “to decrease” (*inṭiʾūni). “Šulgi grew smaller with regard to his crown” would be an awkward construction and does not make any sense. One may wonder whether this ominous incident was later taken to have announced the final fall of Šulgi’s empire under Ibbi-Sîn. There is a line in the Lament for Sumer and Ur that may refer to the “[dropping] of the crown(s) of Sumer”: u4-ba nam-lugal kalam-ma-ka šu pe-el-lá ba-ab-du11 / aga men saĝ-ĝá ĝál-la-bi téš-bi ba-ra-a[n-šub] “In those days the kingship of the land was defiled, its crown(s) and diadem(s) that used to be on the head(s of its princes) [dropp]ed all together” (after Michalowski 1989, p. 42, ll. 99–100).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

161

The death of the historical king Šulgi was described with the peculiar phrase “when Šulgi went up to heaven” in contemporary sources, meaning the apotheosis of the divine elements of the sacred king.759 The phrase was later also conferred on Išbi-Erra.760 As it appears, this element did not leave any traces in later traditions. 12. Amar-Sîn (of Ur, ll. 72–73) Amar-Sîn (or more properly Amar-Suʾena), the son and successor of wicked king Šulgi, was not much better than his father. At least, he did not commit another “systematic” sin, i.e. he did not ruin another regulating element of the cult. But he committed another “simple” sin when he “altered the great bulls for the offering for the New Year’s festival of Esaĝil” (l. 72). “Altering” would mean reducing the number or changing the quality of the sacrificial animals. Here again, as in the story of Ur-Zababa (king no. 6), the verb used is šupêlu “to alter/to exchange”, but this time, the punishment has not a philological, but an illustrative character. The king is not just exchanged for another one, but he is punished with the mirror element “bull”.761 Marduk ordained for him that he die from the “goring of an ox” (nikip alpi, l. 73), and he finally died from the “bite of his sandal” (nišik šēnīšu, l. 73).762 By stating verbally that the punishment was ordered (iqbīšumma, var. qabīšu[mma], l. 73) by Marduk this way, the Esaĝil Chronicle makes it clear that the original punishment, or rather the “heart” of the punishment consisted in “a bull killing the king”. However, the death of the king takes an unexpected variant form that nevertheless keeps to the basic elements of Marduk’s verdict. The punishment is characterized by an element of surprise, since everyone would have expected to see the king die from an attack of a living bull. But instead, he dies from the product of a dead bull, from a sore wound caused by a sandal made from cow-hide. This rather silly accident is to demonstrate that Marduk’s punishment cannot be avoided and may come about unsuspectedly, but still literally in correspondence to the crime. The tradition that has it that Amar-Sîn died from a “bite of his sandal”, i.e., medically speaking, from some kind of blood-poisoning or gangrene, is very old. It is already attested among the historical omens from the Old Babylonian period (Source 28). However, this older tradition does not contain any reference to a sacrilege Amar-Sîn might have committed, nor does it transport the idea that by divine decree Amar-Sîn was doomed to die – originally – from “the goring of an ox”. The story makes proper sense only in the late tradition of the first millennium that combines the sacrilege against the bull offering and the punishment in its two versions – the original divine verdict (nikip alpi “goring of an ox”) and the actual incident (nišik šēni “bite of a sandal”) – in one narrative. The logic is fully fleshed out only in the Esaĝil Chronicle (ll. 72–73). The same narrative is also referred to in the first millennium omen of Source 50. 759 760 761 762

Michalowski 1977a; Wilcke 1988b; Sallaberger 1999, pp. 161–162; Steinkeller 2013. Steinkeller 1992 and 2013. Only as a sideline, one might note that the name of Amar-Sîn incorporates the element “bull”, too: “Bull-calf-of-Sîn”. On the death of Amar-Suʾena see Michalowski 1977b; Sallaberger 1999, p. 167.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

162

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

However, the mere fact that we grasp the full storyline only in the late version of the first millennium does not mean that it could not have been invented and told in an earlier setting before. Looking for an older version of the legend about AmarSîn’s death – perhaps circulated by his ill-disposed successor Šu-Sîn763 – we should bear in mind that the connection between the elements “bull offering” and “sandal” (= leather product) reflects the archival situation of the main stockyard at Puzriš-Dagān, with the “shoe archive” attached,764 under the Third Dynasty of Ur. Also the type of footwear (kuše-sír = šēnum “sandal”) Amar-Sîn is said to have died from is well attested in the 3rd millennium BCE in Sumer, in particular in the texts from the archives of Puzriš-Dagān.765 The economic problems during the later half of the reign of the Third Dynasty of Ur brought about the decline of the stockyard at Puzriš-Dagān – documentation ends by the years Ibbi-Sîn 2–3766 – and this must have meant cuts in the offerings for Enlil at Nippur. This in turn may well be the origin of the story that had it that Amar-Sîn reduced the number or quality of the bulls which were to be offered to the “Enlil of the gods”, and that this sacrilege eventually led to his death. This does not necessarrily mean that the legend of Amar-Sîn’s silly but fatal accident is “historically true”. It only means that we perhaps can identify historical elements on which the legend formed. Asking how the nikip alpi elaboration of the first millennium tradition was construed, one notes the phonetic similarity between nikip and nišik in the vocalization (i-i) and in some of the root consonants (nkp : nšk). But there is probably also an orthographic connection. The Old Babylonian omens write ni-ši-ik (Source 28: B, C, broken in A), whereas the first millennium texts consistently write ni-šik. Simultaneously, the first millennium texts also write ni-kip in all cases we can observe: alpi nišik šēnīšu Sources nikip kuš ni-kip gu4 ni-šik e:[si]r-šú (Source 35: 73, text S) [ni]-šik še-ni-šú (Source 35: 73, text C) [ni-kip gu4] [ni-šik še-ni-šú] (Source 35: 73, text D) [ni-k]ip gu4 ni-šik še-ni-[šú] (Source 35: 73, text F) ⌈ni⌉-kip gu4 kuš ni-šik e-sír (Source 50, text A) ni-kip g[u4] [n]i-šik kuše-sír (Source 50, text B) [ni-kip gu4] [ni-šik] ⌈kuše-sír⌉ (Source 50, text C) [ni-ki]p [gu4] The signs kip and šik have some features in common, i.e. the vertical in the front, and the two long slanting wedges from above. It is quite possible that the ni-kip tradition might have been triggered by a Vorlage in which the word ni-šik was damaged.767 However, since the Babylonian scholars certainly knew their lore by 763 764 765 766 767

See pp. 164f. below. For other elements that might work in an older framework see note 1456 on p. 341. Sallaberger 1999, p. 253; Paoletti 2012a, in particular chapter 3. Paoletti 2012b, pp. 275–278. Sallaberger 1993/I, pp. 26–27; Paoletti 2012a, p. 341. Cf. Wilcke (1977, pp. 213–214) who suggested that certain differences between the Old Babylonian and the Standard Babylonian version of the epic of Etana were due to a damaged Vorlage.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

163

heart, such a simple misreading is not very likely to have changed the tradition on the whole. The orthographies ni-kip and ni-šik are so firmly established and so consistently employed that there may well have been some other, more esoteric reason to preserve them. Looking for a 10 deeper or hidden meaning, ancient Figure 10: The nikip-nišik equivalence. Babylonian philology very often ignored what we would accept as proper historical or etymological analysis of form and meaning of a sign or word.768 Applying the highly associative methods of that esoteric philology, the signs šik and kip can be explained as “meta-graphical” equivalents to one another in Neo-Babylonian cuneiform (see fig. 10). In a first move, one has to shift the first vertical wedge of šik to the rear. This is no big deal, since it does not increase or reduce the number of wedges. A similar method lies behind the anta-kita manipulation that allows to write or read a cuneiform sign back to front. The most famous example of this method is Marduk’s manipulation of the number of years Babylon was doomed to lay waste.769 Simply by moving the vertical wedge of the number 70 (𒐕𒌋) to the rear, merciful Marduk turned the number of years into 11 (𒌋𒐕), without cancelling a single wedge he had written. In our case, the sign now looks a little bit like erim. In a second move, we add the sign tab and arrive at kip. Adding tab means in fact adding wedges, but it does not necessarily count as such. Since the Sumerian term tab and the Akkadian loanword tabb/ppātu basically mean “corresponding element”,770 the sign kip in the Amar-Sîn omen can simply be understood as the “equivalent” of šik, being a “tabbed” šik.771 This is, of course, flaming madness to us, but, to an ancient Babylonian scholar, it might have made perfect sense. In terms of story-telling, it would be more elegant if the variation would run the other way, from kip to šik, since the “tabbed” sign should rather be the second, modified one. To the modern eye, this may also be a hint that the ni-kip variation was in fact derived from and secondary to the 768 769 770

771

Many examples collected by Frahm 2011, pp. 70–76. According to Esarhaddon’s report (Borger, Asarh., p. 15, episode 10a), see here p. 193. tabbātu “correspondences” (Livingstone 1986, p. 34; see also CAD T, p. 24, s.v.); tappātu “corresponding object / counterpart” (CAD T, p. 181, s.v. tappātu 2a). – The term also occurs in the title of the learned esoteric treatise I-NAM-ĝišḫur-ankiʾa that frequently applies esoteric mathematical and philological hermeutics in order to explain the secrets of heaven and earth: I-NAM-ĝišḫur-ankiʾa tabbāt (tab-ba-a-ti) šamê u erṣeti šūt apsî mala bašmū “… plans of heaven and earth, correspondences of heaven and earth, things of the deep (apsû), as many as were (divinely) designed”. A variant uses the term ur5-ur5-ra = mitḫārātu “mutually corresponding things” instead of tabbātu, see Livingstone 1986, p. 34. Analysing and dissecting cuneiform signs into graphic elements, ignoring their original formation, is a method frequently employed in Babylonian philology. Good examples using the sign tab are the Babylonian names of the signs ĝeštin and dúb: ĝeštin = tab+tin = tab-tinnakku “tab plus tin”; dúb = tab+tin+u-gunû+diš = tab-tin-u-gunûdiššekku “tab plus tin, plus u-gunû, plus diš” (Gong 2000, pp. 184–185).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

164

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

original ni-šik phrase. But to the ancient mind, the phonetic and orthographic similarity between ni-kip and ni-šik might still have offered enough cabbalistic ambiguity to set an example demonstrating how a divine verdict would be inevitably executed, with a slight variation in manner, sound and writing. Apart from the omens dealing with Amar-Sîn’s death, there are two more AmarSîn omens from the Old Babylonian corpus of the texts published in YOS 10. However, they are severely broken and largely unintelligible. The one of them is YOS 10, no. 33, rev. IV:28–30.772 Of its apodosis, there is not much more intelligible than the phrase “omen of Amar-[Sîn]”. The other omen (Source 27 = ASO 1) is sometimes considered in modern scholarly literature to provide evidence that Amar-Sîn did something to his father, i.e. Šulgi, the nature of which is, however, completely unclear. Since there have been persistent rumors that Amar-Sîn might have killed his father Šulgi, I have discussed this omen (Source 27) in the appendix below. However, the suspicion that Amar-Sîn killed his father Šulgi is not supported by other sources. A last unusual Amar-Sîn omen comes from the first millennium (Source 51, B = ASO 6). It does not deal with the classic Amar-Sîn tradition but has it that some misfortune happened to him in his palace. As it appears, this omen is not an original Amar-Sîn omen but results from a mix-up with the Old Babylonian king Būr-Sîn of Isin (Source 51, A). Amar-Sîn Omen Date Topic ASO 1 (Source 27) OB “who [killed] his father” (??) ASO 2 (Source 28, A) OB “who died from the ‘bite’ of his sandal” ASO 3 (Source 28, B) OB “who died from the ‘bite’ of his sandal” ASO 4 (Source 28, C) OB “who died from the ‘bite’ of his sandal” ASO 5 (Source 50) 1st mill. goring of an ox > ‘bite’ of his sandal ‘misfortune’ in his palace ASO 6 (Source 51, B) 1st mill. 13. Šu-Sîn (of Ur, l. 74) King Šu-Sîn comes as a big surprise. Although he does not play any role in the historical memory of Babylonia at all, he prominently figures in the Esaĝil Chronicle as the best king ever after Gilgameš. The chronicle reports that he “embellished Esaĝil like the celestial writing, in order to save his life” (l. 74). In turn, Marduk increased his lifespan as his reward (l. 74). The phrase dealing with embellishing Babylon or Esaĝil like the celestial writing (kīma šiṭir šamāwī bunnû) is a catchphrase that connects Šu-Sîn (l. 74) with Gilgameš (l. 46), and either one of them with Nebuchadnezzar II.773 The exceedingly positive role which Šu-Sîn occupies arouses suspicion. The historical Šu-Sîn apparently obstructed and even vilified the memory of his father and predecessor AmarSîn,774 who likewise is portrayed as a scoundrel in the Esaĝil Chronicle. At the same 772 773 774

Goetze 1947, pp. 260–261, no. 28; Metzler 2002, p. 224. See pp. 128, 144 and 387 on line 46 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Sallaberger 1999, p. 167; Waetzoldt 2008, p. 248. Most notably, Šu-Sîn appears to have formed the negative image of Amar-Sîn as a hapless and passive king in the composition Amar-Sîn and Enki’s Temple (see here on p. 275 with note 1307).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

165

time, Šu-Sîn appears to have aggressively cultivated a personality cult in his own favour.775 Although the Esaĝil Chronicle in the form in which it has come down to us dates to the late second or early first millennium, it is quite conceivable that individual topics and parts of it hark back to an older version that would have dealt with wicked kings who had offended Enlil and Nippur. In this hypothetical older version, which could be dubbed the *Ekur Chronicle, the portrayal of a perfect, Gilgameš-like, king Šu-Sîn, in contrast with his wicked predecessors, would make good sense.776 Furthermore, the phrase ana (balāṭ) napištīšu “in order to save his life” (l. 74) may be a hint of an older, Sumerian version, too. In fact, although the phrase is given a rather clumsy re-translation from Akkadian into Sumerian with zi-ni-šè in manuscript D, it nevertheless recalls the classic Sumerian votive formula nam-tila-ni-šè “for (the sake of) his life” (see p. 339 with note 1449), and so this element would make good sense in a supposed older version. 14. Ibbi-Sîn (of Ur, l. 75) Finally, the sin of Šulgi reached Ibbi-Sîn, his grandson. According to the Esaĝil Chronicle (l. 75), Marduk imposed the penance for the evil that Šulgi had done upon his descendant and successor Ibbi-Sîn. During his reign, disaster struck, devastated the civilized world and terminated the Third Dynasty of Ur. So Ibbi-Sîn is quite logically the last king dealt with in the framework of the Esaĝil chronicle. Since IbbiSîn had to bear the consequences of Šulgi’s sin, the whole complex of sin and punishment has been discussed in the part dealing with Šulgi (king no. 11).

775

776

Sallaberger 1999, p. 170; Brisch 2006, p. 164; Waetzoldt 2008, p. 248. Šu-Sîn’s propaganda may have missed its aim. Waetzoldt (2008, pp. 248–249), in discussing a number of peculiar spellings of the king’s name from Umma which omit the divine determinative the royal name is usually marked with, reconstructs a wordless protest among the members of the administration against the king, disputing his divinity. On Gilgameš as a model king, in particular for the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur, for whom he was their “brother” and “friend”, see Sallaberger 2008, pp. 56–57; George 2003/I, pp. 7, 108–112. For more elements that might work in an older version see note 1456 on p. 341 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

166

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

7.4. The Abuse of the Fish Offering to Marduk According to the Esaĝil Chronicle one very particular sin is among the many misdeeds of kings which finally provoked Marduk to punish Babylon. This is tampering with the fish offerings to Marduk. The “fish tribute” (nūn tāmarti) is the most important of the offerings to Marduk. The chronicle deals with it twice, and at large. It is a tribute brought to Marduk from the watery realm of his father Ea, and it is the only offering that was originally taken care of by a god, and that is Nabû, Marduk’s son. In the chronicle, he bears the sumptuous theological, programmatic name Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti “Son-of-the-House-of-all-Heaven-andEarth”, the firstborn of Esaĝil.777 When human kings came to take care of this fish offering, they abused it most grievously, at least according to the Esaĝil Chronicle. In Ancient Mesopotamia, gods used to eat and drink. Due to the anthropo– morphous image of the divine, the gods and their households – i.e. their temples and, secondarily, also their human personnel – were provided with foodstuffs and all other necessities of life on a daily basis.778 Fish offerings have a long history in Mesopotamia. In particular in the south of Babylonia, a land dominated by marshes and close to the sea, fish was a staple diet for humans and also played a major role in the food offerings for the gods.779 In the Sumerian debate poem Bird and Fish, the fish proudly declares that he is present among the offerings to lustrous Ekur, and that it is he who satisfies the hunger of the land, just like Ašnan, the goddess of bread.780 The most ancient examples of fish offerings are found in the temples at Eridu and date to the Ubaid period.781 Taking into account the long and persistent cult traditions of Babylonia, it is quite conceivable that these temples were probably already then dedicated to the worship of Enki, the tutelar deity of Eridu who later became the father of Marduk of Babylon. At least from phase XI on (Ubaid 3, ca. 4500 BCE) the layout of the temples at Eridu was the same as the layout of private houses for humans in the Ubaid period. This indicates, that, at least from this time on, the deity as the master of the house was 777 778

779

780 781

Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 47. On the topic and the character of sacrifices in Mesopotamia on the whole see the overview by Mayer & Sallaberger 2003–2005 (RlA 10, pp. 93–102). On food offerings to the gods see still also Oppenheim (1964, pp. 183–198): “The Care and Feeding of the Gods” and Lambert 1993: “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods of Ancient Mesopotamia”. On fish offerings see in detail van Buren 1948; see also the rather short remarks by Ebeling 1957–1971 (RlA 3), p. 67, and by Mayer & Sallaberger 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 95, § 4.1.a. On fish as part of the everyday diet and as offering materia see Englund 1998, pp. 128–143 on the fishing industry in the Uruk period, and on the significance of fish as part of the diet in Mesopotamia; pp. 130–132 on the fish offerings found at Eridu, Uruk, Ĝirsu, and Lagaš from the Ubaid, Uruk, and Early Dynastic periods; Bauer 1998, pp. 542–551 on the fishing industry at Early Dynastic Lagaš; p. 550 on fish as offering materia in Lagaš; on fishermen in the Old Babylonian period see Stol 2004, p. 818–823. Vanstiphout 1997, p. 583, ll. 98–99; Herrmann 2010, pp. 160–161, ll. 96–97. Heinrich 1982, pp. 28–29, figs. 60–68; Lloyd & Safar 1947 and 1948; Lloyd 1974; Danti & Zettler 1997.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

167

probably imagined in human form. The idea of the temple being the dwelling and the household (Sumerian é = “house”, also “temple”) of the deity is central to Sumerian religious thought in the later, historical times. The postaments of the temples of the phases VIII–VII (Ubaid 4, ca. 4000 BCE) – the element (a) in fig. 11, backing onto the southwestern wall – are about 1.80 × 2 meters wide, providing ample space to set up a cult statue even of human size. The ashes from the offering tables in the middle of the main hall – the element (b) in fig. 11 – contained large numbers of fishbones,782 demonstrating that the tables were used for preparing the sacred meals. This fits nicely into the data from later, historical times, when Enki clearly was a “fish-eating” deity.783 The warrior-god Nin- 11 Ĝirsu, who in the Early-Dynastic period had Figure 11: Eridu, temple of phase VII, Late been considered to be Enki’s son before he Ubaid (Ubaid 4, ca. 4000 BCE; after was attributed to Enlil, was a fish-eating Heinrich 1982, fig. 67; Sumer 3, 1947, fig. 3, deity, too, just like his father Enki.784 As after p. 235 in Arabic). Element a) is the postament where the cult statue was set opposed to this more original and southern up, element b) is the offering altar. situation, at Nippur in the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, Ninurta the son of Enlil, with whom Nin-Ĝirsu had by then been syncretized, had a temple by the name é-ku6-nu-gu7 “House-that-would-not-eatFish”, where eating fish was apparently banned.785 The division of Oriental deities into those who would eat fish and those who would not do so persisted also – or still – in Late Antiquity. In the cult of the Syrian Goddess (Dea Syria – Atargatis – Astarte) worshipped at Hierapolis (“the Holy City” – Mambug – Βαμβὺκη) on the Euphrates well into the 2nd century CE, fish were held sacred and eating them was forbidden.786 As befits the status of an institution as ancient and important as the fish offerings in Mesopotamia, there were divine patrons assigned to take care of it. According to the Sumerian poem Enki and the World-Order, which is preserved in Old Babylonian

782 783

784 785 786

Heinrich 1982, pp. 28–29; Lloyd & Safar 1947, p. 104 (temple VI), p. 105 (temple VII); Lloyd & Safar 1948, p. 119 (temple VIII). See e.g. the offering-lists from Old Sumerian Lagaš, where among other offerings bundels of fish were distributed to Enki and his sanctuaries (abzu, etc.), Selz 1995, pp. 120–121, no. 8–9, tables on pp. 324–331, 341–343. In Nin-Ĝirsu’s sanctuary Baĝara at Lagaš large amounts of fishbones were found, as in Enki’s temples at Eridu, see Hansen 1980–1983 (RlA 6), p. 428. Salonen 1953; Salonen 1970, pp. 20, 256–257, also on occasions when eating fish was banned; George 1993, p. 115, no. 669. See Lightfoot 2003, pp. 65–72, on the intimate connection of the Dea Syria to fish, and on the ban of fish-eating in her cult; pp. 254–255, § 14: edition and translation of the report of Lucian on the meaning of fish in her cult.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

168

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

manuscripts, it is the goddess Nanše, Nin-Ĝirsu’s sister, who is in charge of bringing in the fish offerings for her father Enlil: – (418) dnanše nin uru16-e u5‹mušen› kù-ga ĝìri-ni-šè ba-an-gub 787 (419) enku [a]-abba-ka ḫé-em (420) ku6 níĝ du10-du10 mušen níĝ ku7-ku7 (421) a-a-ni den-líl-ra nibruki-šè šu ḫu-mu-na-ra-gíd-i “Nanše, the august lady, who has stood the holy goose by her feet, is the fisheries inspector of the sea. She is responsible for accepting delectable fish and delicious birds from there to go to Nippur for her father Enlil.” In the Sumerian composition Home of the Fish Nanše is called “queen of the fisherman”, or perhaps better “the lady who is (also) a fisher”:788 – (16) [g]a-ša-an lúšu-ku6-da (17) [dnanše] (…) (17) [“Nanše,] (16) [the l]ady who is (also) a fisher (…)” Here, Nanše bears the professional title lúšu-ku6-da “fisher”. This term had been adopted as a loanword into Akkadian, in the form šukudakku “(temple) fisherman”. In Akkadian, this more elevated term supplemented the common, native Akkadian term bāʾiru “fisherman”.789 In the Esaĝil Chronicle, the term šukudakku is also the usual job title for the fishermen who catch fish for the offering to Marduk.790 In the historical times, which the Esaĝil Chronicle deals with, the human fishermen of Esaĝil had taken over the task of catching fish from Marduk’s son, Nabû, called in the chronicle Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti “Son-of-the-House-of-all-Heaven-andEarth”,791 the firstborn of Esaĝil, who had been taking care of the fish offerings in times primordial. 787

788

789

790

791

Enki and the World-Order, ll. 418–420; Benito 1969, pp. 110, 135 (“ll. 417–420”, transliteration outdated); online edition: ETCSL, text: 1.1.3; Veldhuis 2004, p. 24. On Nanše and her fish see also Alster 2005. Home of the Fish (segment C, ll. 16–17; Gadd & Kramer, UET 6/1, no. 45, rev. IV:16–17), probably addressing Nanše, although her name is broken off at the beginning of line 17; online edition: ETCSL, text: 5.9.1; Civil 1961, p. 164 (“ll. 152–153”); Thomsen 1975; Heimpel 1998–2001 (RlA 9), p. 153, § 4 on Nanše in connection with fish; Veldhuis 2004, p. 25. Following the edition by Civil, the phrase ga-ša-an lúšu-ku6-da has often been translated as “queen of the fishermen”. This, however, should be ga-ša-an lúšu-ku6-dake4-ne(-k). It may stand for gašan šukuda(k) “lady of the fisherman”, but I prefer “lady who is a fisher (herself)” = gašan šukuda(m), following Thomsen’s considerations. See the discussion of the term in the commentary on l. 48 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). See also CAD Š/III, p. 227, s.v. šukudakku “(temple) fisherman”. Charpin 1986, pp. 119–120 refers to a fisher of Nanna (šu-ḫa6-ḫád-da dnan[na], Figulla & Martin, UET 5, no. 411, seal l. 3) among the personnel of the temple Ekišnuĝal at Ur, and to Adapa who “exercised the office of the fisher for Eridu” (šu-ku6-ḫád-da-ku-tam [= šukudakkūtam] šá eri-du10 ip-pu-uš; Adapa and the South Wind, fragment A, obv. I:15’; Izre’el 2001, p. 9, pls. 1–2; CAD Š/III, p. 228 s.v. šukudakkūtu reads this reference šu-ku6ud-da-ku-tú; for another reference of this rare word see here p. 197 with note 932). Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 48, 50, 51, 53, see also the Brisa Inscription (Source 77), ll. 9, 11. The most prominent šukudakku was king Utu-ḫeĝal, see Source 30 (C), and again the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 65, 69. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 47.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

169

As opposed to Nanše, Nabû had no obvious connection to fish, neither is he called šukudakku in the text. Nabû oversaw the fish offering for Esaĝil only because he was the son of the house. The fish caught in the story of the Esaĝil Chronicle and dealt with in the offering list of Nebuchadnezzar’s Brisa Inscription (Source 77) is simply called “fish” = nūnu. The Esaĝil Chronicle implies, however, that it was a “unique” fish.792 The unique fish that springs to our minds is, of course, the “Euphrates carp”, growing up to a man’s size, and probably called purādu in Akkadian.793 The sheer size of these creatures may have given rise to the legend of the humanlike fish-men (apkallu)794 who taught all civilization to humanity at divine command. At least the fish-skins worn by the apkallus on pictorial representations in the first millennium appear to have been inspired by these carps. In the Esaĝil Chronicle however, that unique fish is small enough to be hidden in a beer jar (ammammu), matching the profession of Ku-Baʾu the alewife.795 One might have expected to see a beer vat employed, but this is not the case and so we have to leave the idea of the “big fish” behind. Since it is hardly conceivable that the fishermen of Marduk caught only one fish per week, this fish must have been “unique” in another way – if not in its size, perhaps in its colour. As a sacrificial animal, it must have been of unblemished physical appearance in any case. The fish which the fishermen of Esaĝil caught during the reign of Puzurilī of Akšak according to the legendary report of the Esaĝil Chronicle were certainly thought to have come from the Euphrates.796 The same applies to the fish to be caught by the fishermen assigned to Esaĝil by Nebuchadnezzar II.797 Utuḫeĝal the king of Uruk, however, is reported to have caught the fish “at the edge of the open sea”.798 This detail may be an ancient part of the legend, since Uruk, though located on the Euphrates, like Babylon, is not far from the sea either. It also recalls the figure of “Dumuzi the fisher from Kuʾara” who became king of UrukEʾanna according to the Sumerian King List,799 and it recalls the story of Adapa who was catching fish on the open sea for the tables of the gods.800 Talking about fishofferings in epics, one may also think of Lugalbanda II. In this story, the goddess Inanna advises king Enmerkar to catch a certain fish which is (horned? like) “a god among the suḫur-maš-fishes”. Having caught that fish, and having it cooked and served to the weapon of Inanna, Enmerkar is able to subdue Aratta, since by doing so he has ended Aratta’s power of life.801 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801

Source 35, l. 51: (ištēn) nūna “a (unique) fish” (S: 1-kam ku6meš; A: ⌈nu⌉-na). See p. 391 below with the line commentary on the peculiar orthography ku6meš for the singular. Arabic farḫun (‫ﻓﺮخ‬, luciobarbus esocinus), living in the rivers of modern Iraq. Wiggermann 1992, pp. 76–77; Green 1993–1997 (RlA 8), p. 252, § 3.8. See the commentary on the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 52a. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 48–51. See the fish episode of the Brisa Inscription (Source 77). Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 65: ina pāṭ irat tâmti. Online edition: ETCSL, text: 2.1.1, ll. 109–111; see also note 704 on p. 151 above. Adapa and the South Wind, fragment A, obv. I:15’ (Izre’el 2001, p. 9); fragment B, rev. 50’–51’ (Izre’el 2001, p. 18). Wilcke 1969a, pp. 126–127, 219, ll. 404–408.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

170

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

In the Esaĝil Chronicle, the fish offering is dealt with twice: Once with Ku-Baʾu (ll. 47–55), and the second time with the Gutians (ll. 64–68). In either story, the point is that the fish offering is to be offered to Marduk first and in fact only to him, and without delay. Highly interesting is the second passage which deals with the sin of the Gutians, kings of a foreign and barbarian people which Marduk had called to kingship. So, in those days the Gutians were the ruling house in charge of taking care of the offerings. But instead, the Gutians abused it. Although the fish offering is a meal offering that is to be presented to Marduk first, they take the prepared but not yet offered fish away for themselves. In turn, Marduk takes their kingship away and gives it to Utu-ḫeĝal, the pious fisherman who brought in the fish:802 – Qutû nūna bašla lā ṭuḫḫâ ina qātīšu īkimma ina qibītīšu ṣīrti ummān Qutî šarrūt mātīšu īkimma ana Utu-ḫeĝal ittadin “The Gutian(s) took the fish which was already cooked, but not yet offered (to Marduk), from (Utu-ḫeĝal’s) hands. (And so Marduk,) by his august command, took away the kingship over his land from the Gutian Horde and gave it to Utu-ḫeĝal.” The Gutian king could have taken his share of the leftovers of the meal offering after it was presented to Marduk, but he takes it prematurely, even before it is properly offered. The passage is about “taking away”, ekēmu in Akkadian, and this verb occurs in the description of the sin, as well as in the mirror punishment. The story deals with the delicate moment when a meal offering is finished and turns as “leftovers” into food for humans, most prominently kings or temple personnel, but also for holders of temple prebends.803 The topic also had reflections in the private or domestic religion. The motif of a man who – probably prematurely – consumes the offerings which he has presented to his god occurs in an Old Babylonian omen.804 The leftovers were considered to be particularly healthy or invigorating since they had been blessed when they had been offered ritually to the gods.805 In a letter to Esarhaddon the sender tells the Assyrian king that “[who]ever [e]ats his (: Marduk’s) leftovers will live”.806 The leftovers constituted commensality with the divine.807 In the political realm, this meant also that the gods would acknowledge the ruler as a proper Babylonian 802 803

804

805 806 807

The following, slightly smoothed, after the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 67–68. CAD R, p. 340, s.v. rīḫtu 2a); Oppenheim 1964, p. 189; Mayer & Sallaberger 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 98, § 6; Parpola 2004, p. 289 with note 13; Kleber 2008, pp. 292–310; Gaspa 2012, pp. 37–44. Apodosis of an oil omen: (…) a-wi-lum ik-ri-bi-šu ša i-lam {⌈x⌉} ú-ka-li-mu i-ku-ul “(…) the man ate the offerings that he had served to the god” (CT 5, pl. 6, BM 22446, rev. 62; parallel from YOS 10, no. 58, rev. 8’ with lú ik-ri-bi; CAD I–J, p. 65, s.v. ikribu 2c; Pettinato 1966/II, pp. 23, 30; Metzler 2002, p. 219). This is one of the rare omens whose apodosis makes a statement on the past. Oppenheim 1964, p. 189; Kleber 2008, p. 293 with note 843. [mamma] ša rīḫētīšu [ik]kalu iballuṭ, after Reynolds 2003, pp. 108–109, no. 133, rev. 2’–3’. On various aspects of commensality, in the ancient Near East and beyond, see the contributions collected by Milano 1994 and Dietler & Hayden 2001. For a general

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

171

king and that the king in turn would take care for the maintenance of the temples of the gods. Among the Neo-Assyrian kings,808 it was most prominently Tiglathpileser III809 and Sargon II810 who were offered the leftovers of Bēl (rīḫāt dBēl) by the temple personnel (ēribūt-bīti), and who subsequently took part in the akītu festival of Marduk as kings of Babylon. From the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, there is a detailed list of dishes sent to the king from the temple Eanna at Uruk, including a selection of cakes, bread, dates, beer, various cuts of mutton, and a dove. In that text, the food is called kurummat šarri (“provisions of the king”), and it is very probably the leftovers of Ištar of Uruk.811 The story about the “fish offering” deals with the critical moment when an offering is regarded as completed, and the offering materia may turn into food to be eaten by humans. This is certainly a problem in any civilization that would use food offerings in the cult. And so we find the matter also discussed in Hittite and Egyptian texts. In the Hittite Instructions for Temple Personnel the matter is addressed in detail. The text probably harks back to the Middle Hittite Kingdom, but the extant manuscripts date to the New Hittite Kindom (13th cent. BCE).812 The priests are warned not to consume the food designed for the offerings without serving it to the gods first: “If ever you take it (: the offering), set up (for the gods), and you do not deliver it forth for the souls of the gods, but rather keep it away at your houses, and your wives, your children and your female and male slaves eat it up […], you are taking it from the soul of the god.”813 Furthermore, the possible transgressor is reminded that, by way of kin liabilty, the gods would punish not only the evildoer, but his whole family, household and livestock.814

808

809

810 811

812 813 814

introduction to “Feasting in the Ancient Near East” see Schmandt-Besserat 2001. On “Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia” see recently and in detail Wright 2010. Apart from the following, see also: Adad-nārārī III received the leftovers of Bēl, Nabû, and Nergal (Grayson, RIMA 3, p. 213, no. A.0.104.8, l. 24); leftovers from the temple of Aššur (or Aššur-Enlil at Nippur?) sent by the governor of Nippur to the king (Tiglathpileser III or Sargon II; Luukko 2012, pp. 141–142, no. 139); Aššurbanipal received the leftovers of the gods of Sumer (Streck 1916/II, p. 270, IV:9–13). The temple personnel of Esaĝil, Ezida, and E[meslam] brought the leftovers of Marduk, Nabû, and Nergal to Tiglath-pileser (Tadmor 1994, pp. 86–87, Ann. 8:6–7; Tadmor & Yamada, RINAP 1, p. 65, no. 24, ll. 6–7). The leftovers of Bēl, Zarpānītu, Nabû, and Tašmētu brought to the king; entry into Babylon offered (Fuchs 1994, pp. 154, 332 with note 349, Annals 311–313). See Beaulieu 1990. As Beaulieu has shown, the portions of meat listed also appear among the daily offerings to Ištar and Nanaya of Uruk, as stipulated in a NeoBabylonian tablet from Uruk (McEwan 1983). The tablet specifies the portions which go to the king and those which go to the temple personnel. CTH 264; Taggar-Cohen 2006, pp. 34, 91. After Taggar-Cohen 2006, p. 72, § 5, I:50–55; translation slightly smoothed. Taggar-Cohen 2006, pp. 71–72: §§ 2–3, I:30–38.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

172

Chapter 7: The Formation of a Rationale

In Egyptian texts from the Ptolemaic age, there are admonitions warning the priests not to neglect the true character of the meal offerings: Food is only what comes down from the altar, after the god has eaten his fill: “Do not reach out for the goods of the god’s temple, do not let yourself go to rob the offerings, lest the foolish one (among you) may say in his heart: “We live on the food of the gods”. ‘Food’ is only called what comes down from the altar after presenting the offerings, after the god is satisfied.”815 In Egypt, the events when these warnings were to be heeded were the rituals known today as the “reversion of offerings”. During these rituals, food offerings were first offered to the gods and to the deceased, among them the kings, and only then were they free to be consumed by the priests of a temple as part of their daily provisions.816 In the Hebrew Bible, the problem of food offerings eaten by humans is tackled e.g. by the stories about David and the shewbread (1 Sam 21), or about Daniel and the meal offering for Bēl (Dan 14:1–22). All these stories treat the topic of meal offerings from a different angle. But, to the best of my knowledge, there is only the story about the sin of the Gutians from the Esaĝil Chronicle, and the biblical story of the sin of the house of Eli (1 Sam 2:12–36), which treat the problem of taking a meal offering prematurely and by force together with a mirror punishment dwelling verbally on the element “taking”. That is ekēmu in Akkadian, and laqaḥ (‫ )לקח‬in Hebrew. In the biblical story, it is the sons of Eli the priest who take their share of the meal offering prematurely, before the offering is completed, before the fat is burnt, and by force. Furthermore, the abuse of the offering is also the outset for the catastrophe in the following battle with the Philistines, when the ark is taken on the battlefield. Here the sin of the house of Eli is complemented by a sin of the people, explaining why not only the house of Eli was punished, but also why the events led to a national catastrophe. The sin of Israel consists in “taking” (‫לקח‬/laqaḥ) the ark from Šiloh, in order to make use of it as a war palladium against the Philistines on the battle field. But Yahweh is not to be taken and used as a tool, and so he allows his ark to be taken again in turn by the Philistines. In that whole passage, the root laqaḥ appears as a mirror element again.817 The Israelites should have waited for the ark to go on its own, as it did with the cloud in the desert of Paran, when it was addressed by Moses: “Rise up, my lord! May your enemies be scattered, may your foes flee before you!” (Num. 9:15–23; 10:33–36). This imagery employs the common ancient Near Eastern notion that gods would go on their own accord.818 The same motif occurs again when the ark returns, actually not 815

816 817 818

Gutbub 1973, p. 150: text B, col. 3: Les monographies de la porte d’entrée des offrandes: Passage dogmatique relatif au virement des offrandes; commentary on pp. 165–168. Same phrase from Edfu: Alliot 1949, p. 185. – I owe these references to Joachim Quack (Heidelberg). On these rituals see Nelson 1949 and recently Tacke 2003. 1 Sam. 4:3 (‫)נקחה‬, 11 (‫)נלקח‬, also 17 and 21. See here p. 55 with note 260. A good example of this idea is the chariot of Marduk-Bēl going to the akītu temple and returning from there without a visible, human driver: narkabtu ša ana bīt akīti tallakūni tallakanni bēlša laššu “the chariot which goes to the

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Esaĝil Chronicle

173

driven by the kine, but driving them against their will away from their calves to Beth-Šemeš (1 Sam. 6:10, 12). The Sin of the Gutians The Gutians

take away (ekēmu) the offering

(Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35, ll. 67–68) Bēl takes (ekēmu) the kingship away and gives it to

⇒

The Sin of the House of Eli and the Sin of Israel The House of Eli

Israel

takes away (‫)לקח‬ the offering

Yahweh takes [‫]לקח‬819 the priests’ office away and gives it to ⇒

takes along (‫)לקח‬ the ark from Šiloh

Yahweh allows the ark to be taken (‫)לקח‬ on the battlefield

Utu-ḫeĝal, the fisherman

(1 Sam 2:12–36)

Samuel, the servant

When we compare the stories and their structure, we find in either case an abuse of the meal offering, with the people in charge taking their share prematurely. We find in either case a mirror punishment, dwelling on the element “taking”, and we find in either case the office taken and given to a quite unexpected, but worthy candidate. In the Babylonian story, kingship and the office of caring for the offerings is given to an alewife, a cupbearer, and a fisherman respectively. In the biblical story, the office is given to Samuel first, and eventually to the house of Zadok. And in either case, the sin of “taking” is among the sins which eventually lead to a model disaster.

819

akītu temple and comes back has no driver/lord” (after Livingstone 1986, pp. 220, 230 l. 90; Livingstone 1989, p. 86, no. 34:66, p. 91, no. 35:65). This piece of information is taken from a Neo-Assyrian invective dealing with the cult of Babylon. It aggressively reinterprets the divine chariot going without a driver (bēl) as going without the god (Bēl) at all. The mirror element “taking away” is not verbally represented by the root ‫ לקח‬here in 1 Sam. 2:30–36, but the idea dominates the whole speech of Yahweh. For similar cases in the Esaĝil Chronicle see the discussion on pp. 140f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

8. More Disaster: The Religious Chronicle & The Book of Prodigies The Religious Chronicle (Source 37) gives a detailed and dated list of evil portents which had been observed during the reigns of Nabû-šumu-libūr (I:16; 1033–1026 BCE) and Nabû-mukīn-apli (III:6; 978–943 BCE). The authors were obviously interested in omens indicating Marduk’s growing wrath and the fall of Babylon looming on the horizon. As the omens are virtually identical with the dramatic Ibbi-Sîn omens listed in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), we may deduce that the aim of either compilation was to observe the return of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster in a new historical situation. In particular, the Ibbi-Sîn omen of the Book of Prodigies dealing with a badger (kalab-urṣi) seen inside of houses is identical with a sign listed in the Religious Chronicle.820 The same applies to the omens dealing with water entering the encircling walls of Ezida at Borsippa or of Esaĝil at Babylon.821 Most threatening were omens posed by wild animals that no one had seen entering the city. Since already the entering of a wild animal was ominous, overlooking this incident would mean carelessly to have missed a sign the gods had sent before. In the Poem of Erra, the utmost disaster looms when Erra announces that he will have strange beasts enter the country and the cult centres unseen, i.e. that he will maliciously conceal their entering from the inhabitants of the cities where they will be appearing.822 It was of foremost importance that at least when the animals were finally spotted they were “seen” and killed. “Seeing” these animals would, of course, mean “finding” them, but also “becoming aware” of their ominous significance. Killing the animals would, of course, mean “removing” the threat. This becomes also perfectly clear in the case of a panther floating adrift in the river, as reported by the Religious Chronicle.823 As a terrestrial animal appearing in water it had to be killed and to be brought back onto dry land, too. Only then were things straightened out again. This attitude towards animals from the wilderness as symbols of chaos becomes tangible also in the following two animal omens from the Ritual of the kalû.824 The second omen in particular is highly interesting, since it condenses the various individual events into a general rule: 820 821 822 823 824

Book of Prodigies (Source 36), l. 12, omen no. 15; Religious Chronicle (Source 37), ll. II:7–8. Book of Prodigies (Source 36), line 27, omen no. 41; Religious Chronicle (Source 37), II:15. Poem of Erra (Source 39), tablet IIc: 37–41, in particular l. 38. Religious Chronicle (Source 37), II:9–11. On the Ritual of the kalû in general see Ambos 2004, pp. 10–13; on the omens see briefly Ambos 2004, p. 12 with note 71. Another fragmentary exemplar of the ritual gives an additional line dealing with “a pig entering the palace”: šumma šaḫû ana ekalli ī[rub] (diš šaḫ ana é-gal k[u4]; van Dijk & Mayer 1980, pl. 12, no. 11, piece no. 1, rev. 3’; Linssen 2004, p. 291, in commentary on line 4). Thureau-Dangin 1921, p. 57, note 97 refers to Boissier 1905, pp. 33–34, an edition of various omens dealing with dogs entering the palace (= Šumma ālu tablet 48, Freedman 1998, p. 335). See also Šumma izbu 22:164–165 (Leichty 1970, p. 191, XXII:19’–20’; De Zorzi 2014, p. 882): wild pigs approaching or entering a city = devastation and famine. See also Beaulieu 2000b, p. 360 on two incidents when a fox and a wolf entered Babylon, respectively Borsippa, noted in a diary dealing with the 37th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar II.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Religious Chronicle & The Book of Prodigies

175

– šumma kalbu ana bīt ili īrub ilānū ana māti rēma ul išakkanū825 “If a dog enters a temple, the gods will not show mercy to the land.” – šumma umām ṣēri aḫû aqru ana libbi āli īrubma innamir mimma ušalpit nadê āli ḫalāq nišīšu826 “If a wild animal, strange and rare, enters the city, and is seen, and defiles anything: ruin of the city, dispersal of its people.” The same idea also appears in the Diviner’s Manual, a hand-book listing “25 tablets with signs (occurring) in the sky and on earth whose good and evil portents are in correspondence (with each other)”.827 According to its incipit, one of the tablets listed there deals with “wild animals of the steppe appearing in the city”.828 The interest in the ominous meaning of wild animals entering the city, a temple, or a palace, is highly reminiscent of the Old Babylonian letters from Mari to the king Zimrī-Līm dealing with lions which had been trapped on roofs (rugbu, probably used as storerooms, which may have attracted the animals) and in a pen at a place called Bīt-Akkakka, or resting at a city gate at Mari.829 Whenever possible, the officials were careful to catch the lions alive and send them in cages to the king, probably so he could kill them. If the animals either died in captivity or were killed by someone else, the officials clearly were in trouble and had to explain. These letters to the king probably do not just pass on local anecdotes. They may well be dealing with incidents of ominous and magical relevance, combining the elements “wilderness attacking” and “king warding off evil”. The killing of wild animals which had entered Babylon is in some way contradictory to the idea expressed in a Neo-Babylonian letter, stating that even a dog that enters Babylon would be safe and was not to be killed. The citizens of Babylon spoke the following words to the Assyrian-Babylonian king Esarhaddon: 830 – mamma mala ana libbi irrubu kidinnūssu kaṣrat u PŪR KALAB ENLIL Bābilu šumšu ana kidinni šakin kalbu mala ana libbi irrubu ul iddâk

825 826

827 828 829

830

diš ur-gi7 ana é diĝir ku4 diĝirme ana kur arḫuš(4)! nu ĝarmeš (TCL 6, no. 45, rev. 3; Thureau-Dangin 1921, pp. 8, 36–37, rev. 3; Linssen 2004, pp. 284, 286, rev. 3). diš ú-ma-mu edin bar-ú aq-ru ana šà eri ku4-ma igi-ir mim-ma ú-šal-pit šub-e eri záḫ ùĝmeš-šú (TCL 6, no. 45, rev. 4; Thureau-Dangin 1921, pp. 8, 36–37, rev. 4; Linssen 2004, pp. 284, 286, rev. 4). Oppenheim 1974, pp. 200, 205, ll. 53–54. Oppenheim 1974, pp. 199, 203, l. 19b: diš (…) máš-anše edin ina eri igimeš = šumma (…) būl ṣēri ina āli innamrū. Durand 1997, pp. 344–352: “La faune sauvage”, nos. 214–217; no. 214 (ARM 2, no. 126): a lion found on a roof, put in a cage alive and sent to the king; no. 215 (ARM 14 no. 1): an old lioness is caught on a roof and dies; its hide is peeled off and tanned; no. 216 (ARM 14, no. 2): a lion attacking a pen is caught in a pit, which is set afire by the shepherds, the lion is killed and his hide is peeled off; another information is given about a lion attacking humans; no. 217 (ARM 26, no. 106 [A.438]): two lions lying down to rest at the city gate (of Mari), one is chased away, one killed, the person who has killed it is sent to the king. The following after Reynolds 2003, p. 130, no. 158, obv. 9–11.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

176

Chapter 8: More Disaster

“Whoever enters inside it (: Babylon), his privileged status is secured. Also, Babylon (is) the “BOWL OF THE DOG OF ENLIL.”831 Its (very) name is set up for protection. Not even a dog that enters inside it is killed.” Here, the image of the dog probably does not serve as a symbol for the powers of wilderness and chaos, but as a symbol for the most humble human being and the subject of the king. Chaos invading order, represented in the guise of wild animals entering a city from the outside, had to be hindered from turning the created world and civilization into the beasts’ resting place (narbāṣu) by lying down (rabāṣu).832 It is the classic topic of fox and owl taking over the city. In the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), the notes about the wilderness attacking are grouped side by side with notes about disturbances of the cults of the gods (ibidem II:1–5; II:16–17), most dangerously leading up to interruptions of the Babylonian New Year’s festival.833 The Religious Chronicle (Source 37, II:20b–26) reports a particularly severe case when chaos attacked even during a religious festival. When Marduk-Bēl was going out in procession through the Ištar Gate on some occasion, a wild animal, probably a lion, was lurking in the west and hiding in the canebrakes of the Euphrates. When the procession went down to the river, the beast attacked and killed two soldiers, before it could be trapped and killed in turn. The topic of lions attacking people as a divine punishment is also found in the Hebrew Bible. In Lev 26:22, Yahweh’s threat to punish the Israelites if they would not obey him comprises the menace of wild animals attacking.834 Another important topic of the Book of Prodigies (Source 36) comprises unnatural births and sexually deviant behaviour. These omens are discussed in detail on pp. 136f. above and in chapter 10.5 below. 8.1. The Tower of Babel: When Adad smote Etemenanki The Religious Chronicle also records at least one case when rising water inundated parts of a temple (Source 37, II:15). The city and the temple are not specified, but it is clear that, when the author of this chronicle does not feel it necessary to give names, the topic is certainly Babylon and its main temple Esaĝil. Another case is listed as a bad omen in the Book of Prodigies, when waters are said to have flooded the temple of Marduk’s son Nabû, Ezida at Borsippa (Source 36, l. 27, omen no. 41).

831 832

833 834

The simile dealing with the “bowl of the dog of Enlil” eludes me. It certainly goes back to an esoteric interpretation of the name of Babylon. The wild “outside” (Sumerian: bar) also becomes manifest in the logograms used to write the animals’ names, e.g. in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37). The wolf (barbaru, II:6, III:2’) is written ur-bar-ra and the deer (ayyalu, II:12, III:3’) is written dàra-maš, with maš = bar. Religious Chronicle (Source 37), II:18, III:5’–10’, 13’b–15’a. On the danger posed by the cancellation of the akītu festival see here on pp. 190 and 227. This punishment is contextualized e.g. in 2 Ki 17:25: The deportees from Syria and Babylonia do not fear Yahweh, and so lions are sent to them to kill them. 2 Ki 2:23–24: Two she-bears sent by Yahweh kill boys who had been mocking the prophet Elisha.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Tower of Babel: When Adad smote Etemenanki

177

Waters flooding the city ground must have been a rather frequent sight in a country like Babylonia, nevertheless it was taken as an ominous sign. It was probably interpreted as a sign of a new flood coming, or of watery Tiʾāmat trying to make up for ground lost in the cosmic battle against Marduk. In this context, one has also to keep in mind that Sennacherib and other kings of his like either indeed flooded Babylon after destruction or were held to have done so.835 Among the celestial omens, the Religious Chronicle reports that Adad smote the temple on top of the ziqqurrat (i.e. Etemenanki) with lightning, on the 21st of Šabāṭ in the 26th year (953 BCE) of Nabû-mukīn-apli (978–943 BCE):836 – ina (araḫ) Šabāṭ 21. ūmi ša 26. šatti (ša) Nabû-mukīn-apli šarri Adad rigimšu iddīma išāssu ina nuḫar [ušamqit] “On the 21st day of (the month) Šabāṭ of the 26th year of the king Nabûmukīn-apli, Adad thundered and [he let] his fire [fall] into the nuḫar (, the temple on top of the ziqqurrat, at Babylon).” This is one of the most threatening omens reported in the chronicle and it looks very much like the climax of the composition, or at least close to it. Due to the fragmentary state of the chronicle, we do not learn what disaster the omens were announcing to come. For the time being, Nabû-mukīn-apli’s reign is not known for any particularly interesting catastrophe or crisis, apart from the increasing intrusions of Arameans.837 An incident very similar to the flash of lightning that struck Etemenanki occurred in Assyria probably shortly before the reign of Shalmaneser I (ca. 1273–1244 BCE), when the temple of Aššur was struck by lightning and burnt down.838 A flash of lightning was a matter quite different from other ominous incidents. It did not stand as a sign for something else to be announced, but was in itself one of the most direct punishments a god could bring about. It was the physical realization of the god’s fiery wrath, and if a temple was struck, it meant rejecting and burning down the divine abode. There are more cases of lightning striking Babylon and buildings of the temple Esaĝil, such as three flashes that struck the kitchen and a storage room, as well as the Uraš Gate. These events are reported as omens of disaster in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36). But the flash that struck the temple (nuḫar) on the top of the ziqqurrat Etemenanki is certainly the most important one. A list of flashes of lightning which struck Babylon and its temples, as recorded in the Religious Chronicle and in the Book of Prodigies, runs as follows:839 835

836 837 838 839

See the overview on pp. 123f. above and the commentary on p. 525 on Source 72. Discussing the flooding of Babylon in Source 72, Jeremias (1917, p. 81, note 2) has pointed out that the motif of Babylon being destroyed by waters, in particular those of the sea (‫ = ים‬Tiʾāmat), is also employed in Jer 51:42, 55; see also Isa 14:23. Religious Chronicle (Source 37), III:19’. See the summary of his reign given by Brinkman 1968, pp. 171–174. Report of Shalmaneser I (Grayson, RIMA 1, p. 185, no. A.0.77.1, ll. 112–128), recapitulated by Esarhaddon (Borger, Asarh., p. 3, Ass. A, III:16–32). Numerous other flashes of lightning (“falls of fire”) that struck Babylon are recorded in the astronomical diaries from the Seleucid period, see George 1997b. See also the

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

178

Chapter 8: More Disaster

The Religious Chronicle (Source 37) – the nuḫar (of Etemenanki), on the 21st of Šabāṭ, 953 BCE (III:19’) The Book of Prodigies (Source 36)840 – the Uraš Gate (at Babylon; l. 18, omen no. 27) – the kitchen (bīt tinūri) of Esaĝil, in Araḫsamna (l. 17, omen no. 26) – the house of Esaĝil where the copper pots are kept (= bīt ruqqi), in Tašrīt (l. 22, omen no. 34) The information that Adad smote the ziqqurrat with a flash of lightning is, of course, highly interesting, since otherwise the topic of the tower of Babylon being destroyed by a thunderstorm occurs only later, preserved in (local Babylonian) Jewish traditions, presented, among others, by Josephus (1st cent. CE) and Benyamin of Tudela (12th cent. CE).841 These traditions were probably not just made up from nothing, but were part of a discourse playing on elements which were historical and meaningful to the Babylonians themselves. Apart from the ominous lightning sent by Adad, certainly ordered by Marduk, the other Babylonian element in the later stories on the tower of Babylon is the trope that the tower was planned and built as an artificial mountain to safe humanity from some future flood.842 According to these extra-biblical sources, such as Josephus and rabbinical literature, it was Nimrod who started to build the tower.843 This topic seems to be directly related to the function of Babylon and the epithet given to the city by Nebuchadnezzar II as the “Mountain saving the life of all humanity”. Babylon had inherited the idea of being a “mountain of life” from Nippur, and shared it at times with the temple Ezida at Borsippa: – Nippur ḫursaĝ namtila “Nippur, the Mountain of Life”844 – Ezida šad balāṭi “Ezida, the Mountain of Life”845

840

841

842 843 844 845

flash of lightning that occurred on the 17th of [Nissān or Ayyār, ca. after 293 BCE] at Babylon in the quarter of Eridu, which was important enough to be documented in obv. 9’–10’ of the Ruin of Esaĝil Chronicle (BM 32248+), published by Bert van der Spek and Irving Finkel on the internet (www.livius.org). The fact that the Book of Prodigies gives the month only and not a specific historical date is in accordance with the nature of the text as a collection of omens, liable to occur any time again. See the following chapter 8.2. On the classical and Jewish traditions about the tower, see in detail the monograph Uehlinger 1990, in particular chapters 3–4, and the summary given by Schmid 1995, pp. 3–9. Uehlinger 1990, pp. 68–69. Uehlinger 1990, pp. 65–68. nibruki-a ḫur-saĝ nam-ti-⌈la-ka⌉ (JCS 20, 1966, p. 139, l. 12). From an inscription of Nabonidus: é-zi-da šá-ad ba-la-ṭu (Schaudig 2001, p. 346, no. 2.1 1 I 15). The usual translation and explanation of Ezida as bītu kīnu “true house” is not found in the inscriptions of Nabonidus. Instead, we find the more elaborate exegesis “mountain of life”. This explanation rests on the eccentric equation of é (actually = bītu “house”) = e (actually = īku “canal”) = šadû “mountain” (e = ša-du-ú “mountain”, MSL 11, p. 55, II:13), and on the simple translation zi = napištu > balāṭu “life”, see Schaudig 2002, p. 643.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Tower of Babel: When Adad smote Etemenanki

179

In the first millennium, Babylon was the source and “abode of life” par excellence. The famous list Tintir praising the holy names of Babylon gives the following explanation on the name Tintir in the opening lines of its first tablet:846 – Tintir : Bābil šubat balāṭi “Tintir (means) Babylon (as) the abode of life.” Playing on this idea, Nebuchadnezzar II referred to Babylon as the “mountain of life for (all) people” when he was rebuilding the walls of the city. In his inscriptions, he used two slightly varying phrases: – ana šadî gāmil napišti [nišī Bābil aškun]847 “[I made Babylon] the mountain which saves the life [of (all) people.]” – ana šadî napišti nišī Bābil aškun848 “I made Babylon the mountain of life for (all) people.” Within the city of Babylon, there was no structure that deserved the epithet “mountain” more than the ziqqurrat Etemenanki. Since times immemorial the Babylonians had been likening buildings of this kind to mountains, calling them ekur or e-ḫursaĝ “house-(which-is-a)-mountain”. The concept that the ziqqurrat at Babylon contains the promise to save humanity from a future flood is esoterically expressed in the layout and the measurements of the ziqqurrat Etemenanki as given in the Esaĝil Tablet.849 As Jean-Jacques Glassner has observed,850 the measurements and the layout of the ziqqurrat match closely those of the ark851 of the flood-hero Ut-napišti. Either structure had a base of one ikû and was divided into seven storeys. Glassner understands the form of a cube which circumscribes the ziqqurrat as well as the ark as an image of the cosmos, made up from seven layers and divided into nine compartments. Hence the ziqqurrat and the ark formed a microcosmos fit to save a condensed universe in case disaster and chaos might return. After humanity had survived the flood only with a little help from Ea, the gods promised not to send a flood again, as stated in the eleventh tablet of the Epic of Gilgameš.852 Instead, they would rather send a devouring lion, or a wolf, a famine or a plague, when humanity was to be punished. By the third column of the Religious Chronicle, the gods had already used all these measures. They had sent lions and wolves, panthers, and all kinds of wild animals strange and rare to announce that 846 847 848

849 850 851 852

George 1992, p. 38, Tintir I:3; quotation included in a royal inscription of Šamaš-šumuukīn: tin-tirki ∥ šu-bat ba-la-ṭu (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 250, no. B.6.33.1, l. 14). a-na ša-di-im ⌈ga⌉-mi-⌈il⌉ na-pí-iš-ti [ni-ši] / [ká-diĝir-raki aš-ku-un] (Weissbach 1906, p. 27, pl. 33 (nB) VI:78–79; Langdon 1912, p. 168, B VI:78–79. a-na ša-di-im na-pí-iš-tì ni-ši (var. ni-šì) ká-diĝir-raki aš-ku-un (Sumer 3, 1947, p. 8, II:10f. ∥ p. 16, II:13f.; Berger 1973, pp. 252f, Nbk.-Zyl. II, 5). – a-na ša-da na-pí-iš-ti ni-ši6 ba-bi-la12 aš-ku-nù (I R 65, II:15; Langdon 1912, p. 92, II:15; Berger 1973, pp. 287f, Nbk.-Zyl. III, 4). George 1992, pp. 114–117, ll. 16–42: the measurements of Etemenanki. Glassner 2002a. See also George 2005–2006, p. 77. In the Standard Babylonian recension of the Epic of Gilgameš, tablet XI:58–63; George 2003/I, pp. 706–707. Epic of Gilgameš, Standard Babylonian edition, tablet XI:188–195; George 2003/I, pp. 714–717. See the discussion on p. 134 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

180

Chapter 8: More Disaster

chaos was about to invade cosmic order. In the temples, protective genies were seen swaying, trembling and leaving their place, and evil genies were seen entering. The New Year’s festival had been cancelled for some time, year after year, and disaster was creeping from all sides up on Babylon. In all this chaos and danger the ziqqurrat at Babylon contained the promise of the gods to safe humanity from a future flood or a similar disaster. So let us imagine what might have happened in 953 BCE, when the nuḫar, the divine dwelling of Marduk on top of the ziqqurrat at Babylon was hit by a flash of Adad’s lightning. The ziqqurrat, the “mountain that is to save all humanity” from another flood like the ark of Ut-napištim, had been abandoned and smitten by the gods. The promise of the gods not to send another flood was void. After decades of seeing omens of disaster, with wild animals running into Babylon, with the walls swaying and protective genies leaving, the people had to face a catastrophe to come that mirrored the first deluge. Panic-stricken the king would have had the priests perform namburbi rituals against the evil indicated by lightning without end.853 Of course the king would also have had to renovate the destroyed temple on top. And in order to pacify Adad, he might well have wrought a golden votive image of the ziqqurrat to be fastened to the god’s breast, as a plea not to strike the temple again. And furthermore, the king might have had a votive seal made to be dedicated to Adad, with an image of the god displaying his new votive ziqqurrat on his chest. And that is – I contend – the seal of Adad-of-Esaĝil, found at Babylon and kept at Berlin (see fig. 12).854 From its style, the seal probably dates to the 10th–9th centuries BCE, matching the time of Nabû-mukīn-apli. This seal is unique in that it depicts the god with a large ziqqurrat on his chest. The ziqqurrat on the breast of Adad-of-Esaĝil would be most probably not his own, but the one of Esaĝil, that is Etemenanki. Looking for temples with ziqqurrats that might belong to Adad, one turns to the ziqqurrat lists of the first millennium. They give two ziqqurrats located at a Babylonian city written imki (= Karkar?),855 a cult centre of Adad southeast of Adab,

853

854

855

The namburbi-rituals to undo the evil indicated by lightning (miqit išāti/izišubbû) form a very substantial group among these rituals, see Maul 1994, pp. 115–156, chapter V: “Feuer fiel vom Himmel herab”; Matuszak 2012. Weissbach 1903, p. 17, no. VII with fig. 2; Wetzel 1957, pp. 36–37, no. 14, pls. 43, a–d, 44 a. – Had the ziqqurrat been recut into the girdle of Adad? – The seal bears an original label and a secondary inscription of Esarhaddon (681–668 BCE), see Weissbach 1903, pl. 6, no. 3; Borger, Asarh., p. 29, § 12; Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 165–166, Esarhaddon no. 1 (B.6.31.1); Leichty, RINAP 4, pp. 248–249, no. 118. – The seal had been found together with the large cylinder seal dedicated to Marduk by Marduk-zākir-šumi (I, ca. 851–824 BCE), see p. 211 below with fig. 14 and note 986. For imki (= Karkar?), the ziqqurrat list from Nineveh gives two ziqqurrats: é-u6-di-galan-na and é-arattaki-ki-šár-ra (George 1993, p. 46, ll. 22–23). Both names have been partly restored also in the Neo-Babylonian ziqqurrat list (George 1993, p. 49, ll. 13’–14’). The temple list from Khorsabad gives a temple of Adad (called *é-ní-gal-kur-kur-radul-la) located at Dunnu or Zabbān in the area east of the Tigris and north of Babylonia (George 1993, p. 41, l. 34’; see also Schwemer 2001, p. 610).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Tower of Babel: When Adad smote Etemenanki

181

attested from the third millennium onwards.856 Although the city is still mentioned in first millennium texts, opinions are diverted as to whether the city and the cult of Adad were still flourishing then.857 But even if there may have been ziqqurrats in Babylonia dedicated to Adad, this would not have been any reason to display them on the garment of the Adad-of-Esaĝil. Among the many depictions of deities from the first millennium and other periods as well, there is not a single further case of another god displaying a building on his dress. There must have been a very good reason to place the image of a ziqqurrat there. There are, of course, garments of humans decorated with small applications depicting stylized cities, but these decorations are very different from the single large image of a ziqqurrat on Adad’s chest. At Babylon, there was only one ziqqurrat, Etemenanki. It is this ziqqurrat only which might have possibly been 12 displayed on the chest of the Adad-of-Esaĝil. According to Figure 12: Seal of Adad-of858 the depiction on the “Etemenanki Stele”, the ziqqurrat Esaĝil with a ziqqurrat on th built by Nebuchadnezzar II (6 cent. BCE) had six storeys his chest (Weissbach 1903, above ground level, plus the temple on top. The ziqqurrat p. 17, fig. 2). depicted on the cylinder seal of Adad-of-Esaĝil (10th–9th cent. BCE) has only five storeys. This, however, may well be due to a simplifying stylization in the process of carving the seal, or it may testify to an evolution of the ideal form of Etemenanki over the centuries.859 So, the image of the ziqqurrat is probably an early rendering of Etemenanki, attached like a trophy to the breast of Adad who smote the temple on top with a flash of lightning in the 26th year (953 BCE) of Nabû-mukīn-apli (978–943 BCE).

856

857 858 859

See Edzard 1976–1980a (RlA 5, pp. 63–65). Still attested in the Middle-Babylonian period (Nashef 1982 [RGTC 5], p. 156, written imki and kar-ka-raki), and in the NeoBabylonian period (Zadok 1985 [RGTC 8], p. 195: imki). Summaries by Edzard 1976–1980a (RlA 5, pp. 63–65) and Schwemer 2001, p. 638. George 2011a, pp. 155–157, with pl. 64; see ibidem also his comments on the Esaĝil Tablet, which gives the same layout for Etemenanki. The esoteric connection of the seven-storey ziqqurrat to the seven-storey ark of Utnapištim (see note 850) is an interpretation developed in the latter half of the first millennium. – See also George 2011a, p. 156: “It cannot be excluded that both the relief [on the “Etemenanki Stele”] and the E-sangil Tablet present the ziqqurrat in idealized form and, therefore, cannot be slavishly followed by those who wish to make scale models of how the tower really looked”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

182

Chapter 8: More Disaster

8.2. The Tower of Babel: Jewish-Babylonian Traditions In telling the story of how the building of the tower was disturbed by god, the traditional account of Genesis gives only a rather faint description, reporting that “the Lord came down”, confusing the languages of the builders and scattering them abroad upon the face of all the earth (Gen 11:7–8). The apocryphal Book of Jubilees (2nd cent. BCE) preserves another tradition, according to which the tower was destroyed by a storm: “The Lord sent a wind at the tower and tipped it to the ground.”860 In the third book of the Oracles of the Sibyls (ca. 150 BCE), the Assyrian or Persian sibyl Sambethe attributes the destruction of the tower to “winds and storms” sent by the gods.861 This version is also quoted by Polyhistor862 (1st cent. BCE) and by Josephus (1st cent. CE) in his paraphrase of Genesis.863 Quoted in the Babylonian Talmud, Rabbi Joḥanan b. Nappāḥā (3rd century CE) gives a colourful account: “The tower, a third was burnt, a third was swallowed (by the earth), a third is still standing.”864 The report given by Benyamin of Tudela who visited Babylon and Borsippa during his journey in the 12th century CE obviously falls into line with this BabylonianJewish local tradition.865 Benyamin connects his report to the sight of the vitrified ruins of the ziqqurrat at Borsippa. He describes the ruins of the tower (‫ )מגדל‬as follows: “And into its (: the tower’s) midst fell fire from heaven and split it to the very depth.”866 It would appear that the tradition of the Babylonian Talmud dating back to the 3rd century CE was already modelled on the appearance of the burnt ruins of the tower at Borsippa, but recent archaeological investigations on the ruin quite surprisingly show that this is to be ruled out. Over the centuries, the ruins of the ziqqurrat of Borsippa were taken to be the remains of the “tower of Babel”. This interpretation was partly due to the fact that the remains of the ziqqurrat were visible and well preserved as opposed to the remains of the ziqqurrat of Babylon. Furthermore, the enormous measurements given by Herodotus for the outline of 860 861 862 863 864

865 866

Book of Jubilees, chapter 10:26; Vanderkam 1989a, p. 64–65; Vanderkam 1989b, p. 63; Uehlinger 1990, p. 107. Uehlinger 1990, pp. 93–94. Uehlinger 1990, p. 136. Josephus, Antiquities 1:4, 3; Uehlinger 1990, p. 134. Talmūd Bavlî/Sanhedrîn 109a: ‫מגדל שׁלישׁ נשׂרף שׁלישׁ נבלע שׁלישׁ קיים‬. Explanation given by Rabbi Joḥanan b. Nappāḥā (school of Tiberias; died in 279 CE), also quoted by Rabbi Ḥiyyā b. Abbā (II, ca. 280 CE; originally from the Babylonian school of Sura) in the Midraš Berēšît rabbah 38:8 on Gen 11:4. See Uehlinger 1990, pp. 184–185, also on the Babylonian character of the tradition. Benyamin of Tudela (journey ca. 1165–1173 CE), the Massaʿôt printed at Constantinople in 1543. – Uehlinger 1990, pp. 182–184; Schmid 1995, p. 9. Edition by Adler 1907, p. ‫מג‬, manuscript p. ‫סו‬: ‫ובתוכו נפלה אשׁ מן השׁמים ובקעה אותו עד התהום‬. Adler gives the minor variants ‫ ובתוכה‬and ‫אותה‬, as well as the variation ‫“ עד היסוד בה‬to its foundation” at the end. – The edition by L’Empereur 1633, p. 77, writes ‫ אותם‬instead of ‫ ;אותו‬if not a mistake for the singular, the plural suffix on ‫ אותם‬certainly refers to the bricks (‫ )לבנים‬mentioned some lines ahead.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Tower of Babel: Jewish-Babylonian Traditions

183

Babylon misled earlier visitors into mistaking Borsippa as a part of Babylon. Last but not least, the ziqqurrat of Borsippa had obviously been struck by a scorching fire, turning parts of the brickwork into a glass-like mass. This was taken as evidence for the fire sent down from heaven to destroy the tower, as related in the legends quoted above. However, as recent investigations have shown, this burning occurred only very late, in the late Sassanian or early Islamic period, around 700 CE, when the local population used the remains of the ziqqurrat as a huge kiln to burn synthetic basalt.867 This means that the legends about a fire from heaven striking the tower of Babel could not have originated from the burning of the ziqqurrat of Borsippa. By then, the legends had been circulating for centuries. The stories about fire falling from heaven cannot have been called forth by the scorched ruins of Borsippa, but are more liable to be a prolonged Babylonian tradition about Adad smiting the ziqqurrat as proposed above. Apart from that, the note on a flash of lightning smiting the temple on top of the ziqqurrat at Babylon in the 26th year (953 BCE) of Nabû-mukīn-apli (978–943 BCE) is hitherto the earliest reference to Etemenanki. Up until now, the earliest datable historical evidence was from the inscriptions of Sennacherib, which is, of course, only a very rough terminus ante quem, since the ziqqurrat may well have been subsumed under “Esaĝil” as the overall term for the temple complex.868 Probably stimulated by the account given by Benyamin of Tudela in his itinerary, the tradition about the tower of Babel struck by lightning finally became part of the European history of art. During the Middle Ages, Christian tradition and art had been dominated by the classic account of Genesis (11:7–8) when illustrating the story about the tower of Babel and the “confusion of tongues”. Medieval paintings often depict god looking down from heaven to the tower, and sending his angels to confuse the languages of the builders and to scatter them over the face of the earth. In some rare illuminations from the late 14th century CE, one can find a more concrete materialization of god’s wrath in the form of flames or a sword drawn against the tower.869 The dramatic lightning, which harks back to the cuneiform Babylonian tradition and was preserved in Jewish-Babylonian tales on the tower, seems to appear first in an etching (see fig. 13 on p. 185)870 by Cornelis Anthonisz from 1547 – just four years after Benyamin’s itinerary had first been printed in 1543 in Constantinople. In the picture by Anthonisz, the tower is smashed by flashing light and lightning, with angels blowing trumpets and pulling swords. In the following centuries, the lightning appears in the pictures regularly, e.g. in the works of Philipp Galle after Maerten van Heemskerk,871 Karel van 867 868

869 870 871

As shown by the magnetization of the vitrified bricks, see Allinger-Csollich 1991, p. 387, note 4, summarizing Becke 1987; Allinger-Csollich 2008, p. 580. On the history of Etemenanki, see George 2005–2006; see also von Soden 1996. The earliest mentioning of the ziqqurrat Etemenanki by name appears to be in the Poem of Erra, whose date is, however, a matter of debate itself, see the commentary on the date of Source 39. Minkowski 1960, Bild 41 (illumination: angel sending flames?, Hamilton-Bible, Italy, ca. 1360 CE); Bild 52 (illumination: god with sword, France, ca. 1390 CE ). Minkowski 1960, p. 43, pl. X. Babylon: Mythos, p. 128, no. 75. Late 16th century; Minkowski 1960, Bild 121.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 8: More Disaster

184

Mander,872 or Gérard de Lairesse.873 In the first half of the 19th century, the artist John Martin enthralled his audience with a series of highly dramatic pictures indulging in the downfall of Babylon.874 They are icons of apocalyptic disaster and annihilation. Lightning flashes the scene, and an enormous thunderstorm encircles two grotesquely large towers. The pictures illustrate the destruction of Babylon and its famous tower conflating the accounts of the Apocalypse – dealing with the fall of the great city – and of the Book of Genesis – dealing with the tower proper. Separated from the historical event by three millennia, and at the very end of quite an intricate tradition, these pictures nevertheless capture very well the sense of catastrophe that must have been raging in Babylonia in 953 BCE. Overview: The Tradition of the Motif “The Tower of Babylon struck by Lightning” 1831

CE

Pictures by John Martin

fire from heaven

1547

CE

Picture by Cornelis Anthonisz

fire from heaven

1543

CE

Benyamin’s Journeys printed in Constantinople

fire from heaven fire from heaven

12

cent. CE

Benyamin’s journeys, copies

8th

cent. CE

burning of the ziqqurrat of Borsippa

rd

3

cent. CE

Talmud quoting Joḥanan b. Nappāḥā

fire (from heaven)

1st

cent. CE

Josephus quoting the Sibyl

(thunder-)storms

2

cent. BCE

Sibylline Oracles, Book 3

(thunder-)storms

cent. BCE

Book of Jubilees

(thunder-)storm

cent. BCE

Religious Chronicle

fire from heaven

BCE

Nabû-mukīn-apli

(event: lightning)

th

nd

2nd (8 )–3 th

953

872 873 874

rd

Late 16th century; Minkowski 1960, Bild 300. Frontispiece for Athanasius Kircher, Turris Babel sive archontologia (Amsterdam 1679) = Minkowski 1960, Bild 295. Babylon: Mythos, p. 122, no. 72: “The Fall of Babylon” (mezzotint, 1831). There is also a version in oil from 1819 and a corresponding pair on “Belshazzar’s Feast” (oil, 1820/21; mezzotint, 1832; see Babylon: Mythos, pp. 119–120, nos. 69–70).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Tower of Babel: Jewish-Babylonian Traditions

13

185

Figure 13: The tower of Babel, destroyed by God’s lightning and attacked by angels with drawn swords (Cornelis Anthonisz, Amsterdam 1547; after Babylon: Mythos, p. 128, no. 75). In the upper right corner, Anthonisz quotes the book of Genesis with the classic report on the tower of Babel. However, the idea for this dramatic scene was not derived from the biblical account, but certainly from the itinerary of Benyamin of Tudela. At Amsterdam with its flourishing Jewish community, Anthonisz may have taken the inspiration from the book printed in 1543 (in Constantinople), from handcopies of the account of the voyages undertaken by Benyamin of Tudela, or from an oral report.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

9. Periodicity of Disasters? In the rabbinical literature dealing with the flood and the construction of the tower of Babel, there is one more element that may date back to a Babylonian origin, and that is the idea of divine wrath, of the flood or another major catastrophe recurring after a fixed period of time. The Midraš preserves the tradition that the – pagan, Babylonian – people feared that once in 1656 years the firmament would totter and a new flood would come over the world. So the people started to build towers to support the heavens lest they collapse.875 1656 years is the number of years from the creation to the flood, as counted according to the list of generation in Genesis,876 and so this tradition has it that those who built the tower were expecting another flood to come in a fixed cycle spanning creation and annihilation, i.e. they had the idea of a periodicity of floods. This leaves the impression that the Jewish authors had attributed to the Babylonians the idea of a cosmic Great Year, an element of Stoic philosophy. One of the basic notions about the Great Year is that it is a fixed period of time tied to the movements of the planets, after which the planets will have returned to their original position. The end of such a cycle is marked by a flood (cataclysm), respectively by a conflagration, after which the earth is recreated. Individual elements of this cosmic theory appear to have been taken over from Babylonia in antiquity.877 According to Seneca (Naturales quaestiones III:29), it was Berossos, the Babylonian priest of Marduk-Bēl, who attributed certain disasters to the movement of the planets: “(Berossos) maintains that the earth will burn whenever all the planets, which have now different orbits, converge in Cancer and are so arranged in the same path that a straight line can pass through all their orbs, and that there will be a further great flood, when the same planets so converge in Capricorn. For under the sign of Cancer occurs the change to summer, under Capricorn the change to winter.”878 The basic idea appears to be that the power of the planets would be added together when they occurred in a straight line. In the summer solstice this would produce a disastrous heat and in the winter solstice a devastating humidity. 875

876 877 878

Uehlinger 1990, p. 69; Midraš Berēšît rabbah 38:6 on Gen 11:1; Midraš Tanḥūmā B 2:24. – The tower of Babel serving as a support for the heavens recalls the name of the ziqqurrat: Etemenanki “House (being the) Foundation of Heaven and Earth”. Uehlinger 1990, p. 69; Frank 1956, p. 11 after the list of generations given in Gen 5:3ff, and after Gen 7:6 (Noah). See Waerden 1952. After Verbrugghe & Wickersham 1996, p. 66, fragment F19. Also edited by Burstein 1978, p. 15, no. 3: “The Great Year”. Discussed by Waerden 1952, p. 140; Drews 1975, pp. 51–53. – A reflection of this cosmic theory may lie behind the summary given by Diodorus Siculus on the views held by the Chaldeans on the nature of the universe: “[…] for at one time they [i.e. the planets] show forth mighty storms of winds, at another excessive rains or heat, at times the appearance of comets, also eclipses of both sun and moon, and earthquakes […]”(Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, 2:30, 5).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Typified or Cyclical History?

187

It appears that Seneca, in his teaching a system of recurring disasters, only quoted Berossos as an astronomical authority.879 It does not become clear from this quotation whether Berossos meant a cycle of cataclysms. However, in connecting disasters to the movement of the stars, the idea of mechanical repetition comes in. Among the civilizations of the ancient Mediterranean, a cyclical notion of history is probably best attested in ancient Egypt. There, the accession to the throne, the reign and the death of the pharao appears to have been embedded in a reenactment of the cosmic cycle of creation, order and the return to chaos.880 The Babylonian notion of history, however, is not cyclical, but fundamentally linear.881 Babylonian historiography of the second and first millennia is not only void of any distinct and evident cycles, but a firmly cyclical view would even run contrary to the Babylonian belief that a looming disaster could be averted by heeding the omens sent by the gods as warnings. This does not exclude the typification of historical figures or situations. As Jacob Joel Finkelstein (1963) has argued, this typification of exemplary figures and situations lies behind the system of the Babylonian historical omens.882 According to Ephraim Avigdor Speiser, the Mesopotamians conceived the past in terms of ebb and flow, of rise and decline of dynasties, of recurring cycles and of alternating periods of bliss and disaster.883

879

880

881 882

883

In Jacoby’s edition (FGrHist, III C1, p. 397 sub no. 680), the passage quoted above is listed as “(Pseudo-)Berossus”, no. 21. Drews (1975, pp. 51–52) argued that the splitting up of the writings of Berossos into those of a Berossos the historian and those of a Pseudo-Berossos of Cos dealing with astronomy, astrology and philosophy is unconvincing since the classical authors were interested in “Berossos” because of what he had written on these latter topics, and not on Babylonian history. Lambert (1976), answering the article by Drews, pointed out that there is no cuneiform text corroborating the statements attributed to Berossos. Some years earlier, Lambert acknowledged the possibility that the idea of a final catastrophe like that expressed by “Berossos” might have emerged in Late Babylonian times (Lambert 1970, p. 177). See D. Wildung, “Geschichtsbild” and “Geschichtsdarstellung”, in: Lexikon der Ägyptologie, herausgegeben von W. Helck und W. Westendorf, Band II (Wiesbaden 1977), pp. 562–566. – On various Egyptian concepts of time, among them a number of cosmic eras or cycles which, however, do not appear to have had any impact on the notion of history, see Quack 2002. See also Assmann 2002, pp. 13–14, 18 on linear and cyclical time and on the “two eternities”; Dunand & Zivie-Coche 2004, pp. 64–70 on time and eternity, periodicity and continuity. See Albrektson 1967, pp. 93–95; Lambert 1976, p. 173; Van Seters 1983, pp. 56–57, discussing Speiser 1955 and Albrektson 1967; Michalowski 1999, p. 75. On the “historical omens” see chapter 6. – Contrary to Michalowski 1999, p. 75, I cannot see that Finkelstein thought that the Mesopotamians had a cyclical notion of history. “Typified situations” alone do not constitute a “cycle”. – See also Glassner 2005a, p. 10 on similarity instead of strict repetition of historical events. Speiser 1955, pp. 55–56; idem 1957–1971 (RlA 3), p. 218. Speiser was heavily influenced by the scheme of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) and Güterbock’s (1934, pp. 13–16) “Segens-” and “Fluchzeiten” (see p. 6 above), see Speiser 1955, pp. 59–60.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

188

Chapter 9: Periodicity of Disasters?

Also Albert Kirk Grayson once had argued for a cyclical view in Babylonian historiography,884 but he probably rather meant its typifying attitude already then. Later, he resolutely revoked his earlier opinion.885 Likewise, Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in an article on “Babylonian Antiquarianism”, uttered the opinion that the Babylonians originally held a cyclical view on history.886 He assumed that only during the late first millennium, under the influence of calculating astronomy, a linear notion of history had emerged.887 Two decades later, in a thorough reassessment of his earlier musings, Beaulieu appears to have nuanced his view on Babylonian historiographical thought.888 Only recently, Hannes Galter (2006, p. 281) described the Babylonian notion of time and history as a combination of a cyclical, mythical time-circle, and of a linear, historical time-line. I think, however, that the elements which Grayson, Beaulieu and Galter understood as “cyclical” are better described as “typified”, since the Babylonian concept of time and history does not imply the notion of firmly established, repetitive circles. To the Babylonian mind, “typical” situations recurring were not dependent on some kind of natural cycles which would repeat themselves mechanically, but upon human misbehavior and deliberate divine punishment, mutually connected to each other in the system of sin and sanction. Only very late in the first millennium BCE, with the discovery of the predictability of lunar eclipses, the notion of a cycle of divine wrath and reconciliation begins to evolve.889 This cycle, however, would in fact run contrary to the more ancient Babylonian view that eclipses were direct expression of divine wrath. The achievements of Babylonian astronomy in the first millennium, in particular the discovery of the predictability of eclipses, is liable to have undermined the logic and legitimacy of traditional astral divination. If eclipses would occur in fixed cycles and could be predicted, how could they still be understood as the immediate expression of divine anger? This possible change, however, is largely hidden from our sight, due to the fading use of cuneiform in the late first millennium BCE. In the historical literature of the third millennium, there are some few cyclical elements to be found. These elements, however, are not rooted in natural cycles. The clearest of these cycles is the “term of office cycle” around which the Sumerian King List is organized. As Claus Wilcke has shown, this list has it that after having descended from heaven after the flood, the one and undivided kingship moved around between certain city states in rather fixed circles. At the beginning of a given cycle, kingship would be located in a northern Babylonian city such as Kiš, later Akkade and eventually Babylon, then it would move to the south, residing for some time at Uruk, then at Grayson & Lambert 1964, p. 10. Grayson 1975b, p. 21, note 34; idem 1980, p. 191. 886 Beaulieu 1994, p. 40. 887 Beaulieu 1994, p. 41. – With regard to the impact of calculating astronomy, I arrive at the opposite interpretation, see immediately below and the discussion on pp. 191ff. 888 Beaulieu 2013; as far as I can see, Beaulieu does no longer maintain the notion of a cyclical view of history in Babylonia. 889 See the discussion on pp. 191ff. below. 884 885

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Typified or Cyclical History?

189

Ur, and then at some other southern Babylonian city. A typical succession would run like this: Kiš/Akkade – Uruk – Ur – Adab/Isin.890 This idea of a rotating system corresponds to the notion of kingship being a “turn of office” (bala) which is held temporarily by individual cities.891 The origin of this idea may lie in the so-called “bala-system”, which appears to have organized the task of serving and maintaining Enlil’s sanctuary at Nippur as the centre of the Sumerian amphictyony.892 Mediated by the Sumerian and later Babylonian King List, a late reflection of this cycle is still conceivable in the Esaĝil Chronicle. The part dealing with earlier kings employs two rounds of this cycle, and from the logic of the frame story we can add the dynasties of Isin I and Babylon I: Kiš – Uruk – Akšak – Kiš – Akkade – Uruk – Ur (– Isin – Babylon). Another kind of cycle which is connected to the restoration of sanctuaries occurs in the structure of the Tummal Chronicle, a short text from the early Old Babylonian period. It relates the building of a temple of Enlil and a temple of Ninlil in pairs of father and son, with Ninlil’s temple Tummal falling into ruins five times in between.893 Neither the cycle of the Sumerian King List, nor the cycle of the Tummal Chronicle is a “natural” cycle determined by the seasons of the year or by human, animal or plant life. They are technical cycles characterized by the urban ideas of organizing and dividing tasks and labour. Even though in the latter cycle there is the element of “decay”, the focus is on “keeping up the functional components of civilization” in combination with the element of “rank”: It is the father who restores the temple of Enlil, king of the gods, and it is the son who does the same for Ninlil, his divine spouse. Both cycles were intellectual constructs of the third millennium,894 and were not productive in later periods. Other regular phenomena in the course of Babylonian historiography, such as types of wicked kings who meet an end matching their sins, are a product of typification and of the notion of deliberate divine punishment. The elements “rise” and “fall” of empires, or “good” and “bad” reigns taking turns which can be found in the Esaĝil Chronicle or in the Akkadian Prophecies of the first millennium are not crucial and not regular enough to constitute a cycle. Nor do the prophecies have any eschatological or apocalyptic character.

890 891

892 893 894

Wilcke 1988a, pp. 116–117, also on the sequence Kiš – Uruk – Akkade at the beginning of the Curse of Akkade (ed. Cooper 1983), p. 131; Wilcke 1989, p. 559. Michalowski 1983, p. 242. Already Güterbock (1934, p. 15) referred to this cycle in his discussion of “Segens-” and “Fluchzeiten” in Babylonian historical literature, see p. 6 above. See also Glassner 1986, pp. 64–65; idem 2005a, p. 8. Hallo 1960. See also Jacobsen 1957, p. 109; Englund 1998, p. 19, note 2; Sallaberger 1999, pp. 195–196. Sollberger 1962; Edzard 1980–1983a (RlA 6), pp. 85–86 § 3; Oelsner 2003; Glassner 2005a, pp. 156–159; Pruzsinszky 2009, p. 122. The Sumerian King List had been drafted probably during the rule of the Old Akkadian empire and was clearly in use under the Third Dynasty of Ur (Steinkeller 2003, pp. 268, 282–284). The Tummal Chronicle was designed probably under Išbi-Erra of Isin (Pruzsinszky 2009, p. 122).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

190

Chapter 9: Periodicity of Disasters?

While some of them do clearly belong to the category vaticinium ex eventu,895 other prophecies appear to be real attempts to foretell the future, most prominently by means of astrology.896 They are in fact but elaborated omens like those of Source 54, Source 56 or Source 58, just without a historical setting in the past. So the Babylonian notion of history is neither cyclical, nor telic. From time to time it may take an “apocalyptic” turn, but only in the modern illustrative sense of devastating punishments imposed by the gods for outrageous sins. After the universe and civilization as a divine institution had been put into place and action by the gods, no development and no “aim” is to be sought in history according to the Babylonian view. Neither is there any place for eschatology in this framework. Historical events, either good or bad, are but minor variations on an overall rather stable and fixed system which is meant to organize the working of the universe without end.897 Half a century ago, Wilfred G. Lambert (1972, p. 71) coined an image which captures the Babylonian take on history and its events very well: “History on this view is like the vibrations of a taut string when plucked – in due course the string ceases to vibrate and returns to the state it was in at the beginning.” There appears to be only one element which, if neglected, could trigger the decomposition of the fabric of the universe. That is the cultic cycle of akītu festival, the New Year’s festival at Babylon.898 On the occasion of this annual cultic event the cosmic battle of Marduk against Tiʾāmat which Marduk once had fought in times primordial was to be re-enacted ritually.899 The Religious Chronicle (Source 37) has it that after the akītu festival had not been celebrated for nine years in succession (III:13’b–14’b),900 the protective genie of the right side of the cella gate of Marduk-Bēl was seen moving (III:16’–17’), i.e. departing, only to demonstrate that Marduk-Bēl must had left even earlier. The evil omen was underlined by the vision of an evil demon seen entering the bed chambers of Nabû, who had not come to Babylon in order to attend the festival. So the place left empty by the gods was taken over by evil demons. Last but not least the absence of the gods was made apparent most harshly when Adad smote with his lightning the nuḫar (III:19’), the temple on top of the ziqqurrat at Babylon where Marduk was supposed to dwell. The universe collapsing is the main topic of the Poem of Erra,901 and of certain omens from the Book of Prodigies.902 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902

See e.g. the Dynastic Prophecy, Grayson 1975b, pp. 24–37. On the Akkadian Prophecies depending on astrological omens see Biggs 1985 and 1987. Lambert 1970, p. 177; Borger 1971, p. 24; Lambert 1972, pp. 70–72; Grayson 1980, p. 191; Dietrich 2001, p. 38. See also, from a slightly different angle, Beaulieu 1994, p. 40. Pongratz-Leisten 1994, pp. 74–78; Pongratz-Leisten 1998–2001 (RlA 9), pp. 295–296, end of § 2.2.1.a; discussed in detail by Zgoll 2006. Lambert 1963; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, pp. 74–75; Zgoll 2006, pp. 54–57, 60. See the discussion on pp. 227f. below. See Dietrich 2001, p. 38, discussing the Poem of Erra and the topic of eschatology. See Source 36: earthquakes (l. 6, omen no. 8) and stars falling from the skies (l. 19, omen no. 29); see in the commentary on l. 6, omen no. 8.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Typified or Cyclical History?

191

Since Babylonia was steeped in the idea of anthropomorphous gods governing the cosmos with justice and mercy, an automatic periodicity of catastrophes does not seem to be consistent with the Babylonian way of thinking. The whole system of omens sent by the gods as warnings and the various magic means – prayers, incantations, rituals – taught to humanity by the gods in order to avert disaster, seems to be contradictory to the idea of catastrophes occurring mechanically and as regularly as clockwork.903 However, in the course of the first millennium BCE, the idea seems to have evolved that periods of divine grace and periods of wrath have their time and take their turns, determined by some kind of cosmic, above all celestial mechanics. This changing attitude probably emerged with the increasing success of astrological studies from the 8th century BCE on and with the discoveries of fixed phases and cycles of the heavenly bodies. When eclipses of the moon or the sun could be calculated and predicted years in advance,904 spontaneous divine wrath, which had a particular reason and which could be appeased, turned into inevitable fatal disaster. A good example how historical events started to be perceived as results of the celestial mechanics is the restoration of the city of Ḫarrān and the temple Eḫulḫul in the reign of Nabonidus in the middle of the 6th century BCE. Nabonidus connects the end of the period when Ḫarrān and Eḫulḫul were to lie in ruins due to the wrath of the moon-god Sîn to the expiration of three saros cycles of the moon: – Ḫarrān Eḫulḫul ša innadû 54 šanāti ina šalputti Ummān-Manda *uštaḫribā ešrētu ītekpuš itti ilānī adanni salīmi 54 šanātu enūma Sîn iturru ašruššu inanna ana ašrīšu itūramma Sîn bēl agî iḫsusa šubassu ṣīrta905 “As to Ḫarrān and Eḫulḫul, which had been lying waste for 54 years, whose sanctuaries had been devastated by the destruction wrought by the Ummān-Manda, and to which the sign of the gods had drawn near, the date of reconciliation – i.e. 54 years, after which Sîn would return to his place – now he had returned to his place, and Sîn the lord of the crown remembered his lofty dwelling.” The topic of the adannu the “appointed time” is particularly frequent in the inscriptions of Nabonidus. Apart from the phrase quoted above using ekēpu “to draw near”, the term often appears in phrases like ikšudamma adannu imlû ūmū “the appointed time arrived, and the days were fulfilled”.906 The same phrase is

903

904

905 906

See Maul 1994. See Isaiah 47:8–12 for a mockery of Babylonia’s optimistic confidence by an embittered contemporary, ridiculing her as a sorceress who imagines she has got an incantation against every evil. Hunger & Pingree 1999, pp. 154–156 and 181–182 (observed and predicted eclipses), 200 (saros cycle); Hunger 1993–1997a (RlA 8), pp. 355–356, §§ 4–5. – But see also the comment on “impossible” eclipses apart from predictable dates on p. 29 above. Nabonidus, Babylon Stele X:12’–24’; Schaudig 2001, p. 521. ikšudamma adannu imlû ūmū ša iqbû šar ilānī Nannār “the appointed time arrived, and the days were fulfilled as ordered by the king of the gods, Nannār”, Schaudig 2001, no. 3.1 1 II 11–12, similarly no. 3.1 1 III 3, no. 3.3a I 26’–27’, no. 3.5 I’ 1, no. 3.5 II’ 5.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

192

Chapter 9: Periodicity of Disasters?

also found in an inscription of Marduk-apla-iddina II.907 Very similar phrases using ekēpu (ekēbu) D “to come very close” occur in inscriptions of Esarhaddon908 and Aššurbanipal.909 As Hayim Tadmor has shown,910 the 54 years mentioned by Nabonidus which had passed from the destruction of the city in the 16th year of Nabopolassar (610 BCE) to the accession of Nabonidus (556 BCE) constitute a complete triple saros cycle of the moon’s eclipses at 18 years each, after which the eclipses will recur at the very same date again. So, by then the moon had literally “returned to its place”. Sîn’s returning (târu) announces forgiveness (tayyartu) and with Nabonidus’ miraculous accession a new Heilszeit begins. Relying so heavily on the celestial mechanics means, of course, that in the perception of disasters the direct and mutual dependence of sin, punishment and reconciliation begins to fade. Taking things a little bit too far, one might say that divine wrath and forgiveness were turning into a game of numbers, and until the right date came up there was nothing left to do but wait. The dwindling use of cuneiform in the second half of the first millennium BCE perhaps hides from our view the full evolution of this philosophy which may have taken the shape of a highly erudite fatalism.911 So, late Babylonia perhaps may have actually developed a new and for once a truly cyclical notion of history. Against this background, the dates of other disasters can be explained in more “classic Babylonian” ways: The round number of thirty years during which the Babylonian gods stayed in Elam according to a historical omen (Source 58, l. 5) after the devastation of Babylonia by Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II match the historical experience on the one hand (see p. 67). On the other hand they form the period of time during which the wicked and guilty generation in Babylonia, which had triggered the wrath of Marduk (see pp. 74f.), would have passed away.912 The famous “seventy years”, turned by Marduk’s mercy into “eleven years”, during which Babylon was to lie desolate after its destruction by Sennacherib according to the report of Esarhaddon are triggered by the historical experience of the decade from the destruction of Babylon in 689 BCE to the early years of

907 908

909 910 911 912

[ad]i ūmū imlû ikšuda adannu “[unt]il the days were fulfilled and the appointed time had arrived”, after Frame, RIMB 2, p. 137, no. B.6.21.1, l. 10. ūmū[ka imlû šanat]ka ikšudamma ukkiba adanka “your days have become full, your year has arrived, your appointed time has come very close”, Borger, Asarh., p. 105, II:32; the restoration follows CAD A/I, p. 98, s.v. adannu 1a. ūmū imlû ukkipa adannu “the days have become full, the appointed time has come very close”, Streck 1916/II, pp. 178, 180, obv. 15. Tadmor 1965, p. 355. See also Hunger & Pingree 1999, pp. 183–188, 200. See also Maul 2013, pp. 274–275 on lunar eclipses and the ritual for the substitute king. Similar considerations about the number of 70 years (see immediately), being a “lifetime” and an appropriate period of divine punishment appear to underlie biblical reports about the temporary desolation of cities by divine wrath, see Luckenbill 1925, p. 167; Ackroyd 1958, pp. 23–26; Roberts 1977, p. 187; Malamat 1982, pp. 217–218; Bedford 2001, p. 166.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Typified or Cyclical History?

193

Esarhaddon (680–669 BCE) after the murder of his father.913 The round number 70 (𒐕𒌋) is the mirror of 11 (𒌋𒐕) in cuneiform script. In an act of theological interpretation of the events, merciful Marduk was held to have turned the numbers upside down himself after his wrath had relented, without deleting a single wedge which he had originally written on the tablet of destinies. The number of “seventy years” for Judah’s exile seems to be shaped partly by the topic of the “seventy years” in the Esarhaddon episode,914 and partly by actual history, with the restoration of the temple roughly after seventy years, ordered by Cyrus and completed in the early years of Dareios.915 As an internal reasoning, the book of Chronicles explains the seventy years ordered via the mouth of Jeremiah as a compensation for the lost “shabbat years” which the Judeans did not keep when they had been in the land.916 Any single one of these numbers has a better reasoned origin than the mechanical cycle of the moon’s eclipses, so impressive in its scholarship and so void in its silence as to why Sîn allowed Ḫarrān to be destroyed at all. Perhaps Nabonidus simply did not want to enter into an embarassing reasoning with his beloved city of Ḫarrān, but wished to state that good times were coming up again.917 In the case of the Babylonians, however, Nabonidus – like Esarhaddon before him – was quick to explain why they were smitten by Sîn during his reign: Of course, it all happened only because of their wickedness towards Sîn’s great godhead:918 “The Babylonians sinned against Sîn’s great godhead, they neglected him and committed sacrileges. They did not know Sîn’s raging wrath, they forgot their cultic duties and would talk lies and untruths, devouring each other like dogs.”

913

914 915 916 917

918

70 šanāti … išṭurma … elîš ana šapliš ušbalkitma … 11 šanāti … iqbi “(Marduk) had (in fact) written seventy years (for Babylon to lie desolate), but he turned over above and below and (gracefully) ordered eleven years (only, without deleting a single wedge)” (Borger, Asarh., p. 15, episode 10a). For the reversal of the numeral see Luckenbill 1925, pp. 166–167; Nougayrol 1945–1946, pp. 64–65; see Livingstone 1986, pp. 22 (obv. 14–17), 32 (rev. 4), 41 on this procedure in esoteric-mathematical texts. For writing in reverse see also the discussion on pp. 408f. below. Borger 1959; Weinfeld 1972, pp. 144–146; Leuchter 2004. See in detail e.g. Whitley 1954 and 1957; Orr 1956. See 2 Chr 36:21, commenting on Jer 25:11; 29:10. The exile and its duration is in accordance with Yahweh’s threat of punishment in Lev 26:34–35. Similarly, the First Dynasty of Isin (see chapters 3 and 5.1) and also Nebuchadnezzar I (see pp. 74ff.) had avoided to discuss the reasons for divine wrath which had struck Babylonia prior to their reign. The following paraphrase after Nabonidus’ Harran Stele (H2, A) I:14–22; Schaudig 2001, pp. 488–489. See the full quotations and the discussion on pp. 79f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

10. The Impact of the Compositions on Politics The importance and meaning of the religious-political texts introduced in the chapters above is underscored by the use made of them in the day-to-day powerpolitical struggle for hegemony in or over Babylonia. This becomes most tangible in the examples from the reign of the Sargonid Assyrians over Babylonia (chapters 9.1 and 9.2). Chapter 10.1 demonstrates how Babylonian citizens who were discontent with the rule of Marduk-apla-iddina II tried to lure the Assyrian king Sargon II into invading Babylonia by quoting omens like those from the Book of Prodigies that would announce the fall of Babylon. In chapter 10.2 we see how the scholars of Aššurbanipal tried to deconstruct the image of the “humble fisherman called to office” of an unnamed Babylonian usurper who apparently played on elements of the figure of Utu-ḫeĝal from the Esaĝil Chronicle. A prime example how Babylonian rule and prosperity was thought to have been stabilized by adhering to the lessons taught by the Esaĝil Chronicle is presented in chapter 10.3. Chapter 10.4 demonstrates how the fall of the Babylonian empire to the Persians and their allies was interpreted as a divine punishment of the wicked king Nabonidus by the barbarian “Ummān-Manda”. Chapters 10.5 and 10.6 show how motifs taken from the literature centred on Marduk and Babylon were employed to describe the grip of the Persian empire on Babylon. Sub-Chapters & Participants 1 Sargon II & Marduk-apla-iddina II 2 Aššurbanipal & Bēl-ēṭir 3 Nebuchadnezzar II & fish offering 4 Nabonidus, the sum of wicked kings 5 Dareios & the fall of Babylon 6 Xerxes & the statue of Marduk

Motifs & References Omens of disaster (Book of Prodigies) The humble fisherman (Utu-ḫeĝal) (Esaĝil Chronicle) Ku-Baʾu & the fish offering (Esaĝil Chronicle) Sins & Guti, Anšan, Ummān-Manda (Esaĝil Chronicle) Omen of disaster (Book of Prodigies) “Plotting evil” (lemutta kapādu), abduction of Marduk’s statue, father killed by his son (pp. 123ff.)

10.1. Sargon II and Marduk-apla-iddina II: The New Ibbi-Sîn? When Sargon II set out in 710 BCE to reclaim Babylonia for the Assyrian throne from Marduk-apla-iddina II, he did not meet unanimous refusal from the population of Babylonia. In particular the urban elites of the northern Babylonian cities – Babylon included – were not all content with Marduk-apla-iddina’s rule. They rather favoured to be ruled by Sargon and even invited him to invade Babylonia.919 In a letter addressed to the vizier of an Assyrian king – probably Sargon II – a certain Bēlšunu gives a report on the situation in Babylon, based on 919

See Dietrich 2003, p. xviii, and nos. 20–25, 84 mainly about “Inviting the King to Babylon”. Dietrich’s no. 24 is the letter discussed below as Source 38. On the military stages of Sargon’s II conquest of Babylonia see Fuchs & Parpola 2001, pp. xiv-xxii.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

195

letters that had been sent to him by a group of Babylonians. It deals with the fading fortunes of Marduk-apla-iddina II, called the “Yakinite” by his clan name, and narrates his impending flight from Babylon as well as the subsequent entry of Sargon as events ordered by Marduk himself:920 – [ḫalāqa ša] Mār-Yākīn [ultu] Bābil iqtabi [ana m]uḫḫi erēbi ša šarri bēlīya ana Bābil iqtabi “(Marduk) has ordained for the Yakinite [to vanish from] Babylon, and he has ordained [for] the king my lord to enter Babylon.” In another letter from Babylonia (Source 38), the Assyrian king is informed that Marduk has dismissed the Babylonian king wrathfully. His fall is indicated by omens, which are quoted extensively in the letter. The name of the sender of the letter is broken but restored by Manfried Dietrich as Bēl-iqīša who was apparently an official of unknown duties and rank active in Babylonia during the reign of Sargon II.921 The letter depicts the Babylonian king (i.e. Marduk-apla-iddina II) as an evildoer. Marduk, however, has become reconciled with his city Babylon again, and so the punishment of Marduk (enēn Mardu[k], obv. 21) is about to reach Marduk-apla-iddina. The report on the omens is partly lost, but one can still see that it is virtually identical with those dealt with in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37) and in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), see chapter 8. The part of the letter that matters here runs as follows (Source 38): (obv. 23) [ana ā]līšu Bābil salīma irtaši an[a muḫḫi] – (24) [sakāp] kussî ḫalāq palê ša māt tâmti pān[īšu iltakan] (25) [iltapra it]tāti lemnēti mādāti ša ana āl[i u māti] (26) [(illikā) iṣṣūr]ū aḫûtu ana Esaĝil u Bābi[l] (27) [u (mimma) um]āmū ṣēri aqrūtu ana libbi āli [īteterrubūni] (28) […] ḫilēpū aḫûtu ina āli imt[īdū] (29) [iṣṣīḫ qaqqad]u naksu mukīl-rēš-lemu[tti] (30) [ina E- / bīt …] kan(kan)na ultabalkitū […] (obv. 23–24) “(Marduk) has become reconciled [with] his [ci]ty Babylon again, [and he has made up his] mind (and ordained) the throne (of Marduk-apla-iddina) [to be overthrown] and the dynasty of the Sealand to vanish. (25–27) [He has sent] numerous evil [p]ortents which [(have come)] regarding the cit[y (of Babylon) and the land.] Strange [bird]s [and (all kinds of)] rare wild [b]easts of the steppe [kept entering] Esaĝil and Babylon, right into the very heart of the city: (28) […] strange willow trees have become nu[merous] in the city; (29) a severed [hea]d [laughed]; mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demo[ns] (30) overturned the pot stand [in the temple …]

920

921

[záḫ šá] dumu-Iia-ki-na (2’) [ul-tu] tin-tirki iq-ta-bi (3’) [a-na u]gu e-re-bi šá lugal be-lí-ía a-na tin-tirki iq-ta-bi (Harper, ABL, no. 844, rev. 1’–4’); previous editions: Dietrich 2003, p. 22, no. 20; Vera Chamaza 2002, pp. 252–254, no. 6. See the discussion in the commentary on Source 38. (1’) (4’)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

196

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

Although in the preserved part of the letter under discussion, there is no direct reference made to king Ibbi-Sîn, we may nevertheless surmise that the copies of the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), which in fact does collect 47 Ibbi-Sîn omens that are very close to the omens reported in the letter, were prepared by the famous Neo-Assyrian scholar Nabû-zuqup-kēnu as a reaction to letters like this, luring the Assyrian king into intervention in Babylon with omens and prophecies. It is probably in this historical situation, i.e. during the struggle for Babylonia between Sargon II and Marduk-apla-iddina II in 710 BCE, that the Book of Prodigies was copied by Nabû-zuqup-kēnu.922 Obviously, the Assyrian king Sargon II had his chief scribe cautiously check these omens announcing the fall of Babylon, in order to investigate whether Marduk-apla-iddina truly was the “new Ibbi-Sîn”. In the end, Sargon’s scholars must have answered this question positively, since Sargon did attack Marduk-apla-iddina and took Babylon. Marduk-apla-iddina went to Elam, as Ibbi-Sîn had done – but he was neither imprisoned, nor killed. This turn of events may have triggered a late addition to the traditional narrative of Ibbi-Sîn’s fate. The omen of Source 54 (line 6) offers the variant that Ibbi-Sîn “stayed alive and saw the light”. This reading appears only in a single late manuscript from the library of Aššurbanipal at Nineveh, see the discussion on p. 46 above. After all, the actual aim of “historical omens” was not to impart historical information, but to show what divine providence had in stock for kings of the “Ibbi-Sîn” or the “Gilgameš type”. Sargon II, in turn, is thought to have modelled himself as a “new Sargon of Akkade”.923 10.2. Aššurbanipal and Bēl-ēṭir: The New Utu-ḫeĝal? A certain Bēl-ēṭir, a local ruler of Bīt-Ibâ in the vicinity of Uruk during the time of Aššurbanipal, who obviously dared to interfere with the Assyrians’ interests in Babylonia, became the addressee of two very peculiar pieces of Late Assyrian literature.924 Presumably, he played on certain elements known from the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) when backing up his claims to leadership, since the Assyrian diatribe harshly and sarcastically attacks a number of elements of that text. It opens with a mocking reference to the beginning of another famous piece of

922 923

924

See the commentary on the date of the Book of Prodigies (Source 36). See Galter 2006: “Sargon der Zweite. Über die Wiederinszenierung von Geschichte”. The name of Sargon II (*[DN]-šarru-ukīn “[Deityxy]-has-established-the-king”) bears actually only a superficial similarity to the name of Sargon of Akkade (*Šarrum-kīn “The-king-is-firm”), see Fuchs 2009–2011 (RlA 12), p. 51–53, § 2; idem in PNA 3/II, pp. 1239–1240, s.v. Šarru-kēnu, Šarru-kīn, Šarru-ukīn, no. 2. Although it appears that there was no programmatic intention from the very start, the similarity probably came in handy, in particular when the difference between the two names could be levelled off by logographic spellings of the type Ilugal-gin/gi-na. Livingstone 1989, pp. 64–66, no. 29: “Warning to Bēl-ēṭir”, no. 30: “Magic against Bēlēṭir”; Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 263. On Bēl-ēṭir of Bīt-Ibâ see PNA 1/II, p. 299, no. 17; on Bīt-Ibâ see Zadok 1985 (RGTC 8), p. 91.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

197

Babylonian admonition literature, the Cuthean Legend,925 which is quite close in topic and style to the Esaĝil Chronicle:926 – ṭupšinna pitēma narâ šit[assi]927 “Open the tablet-box and re[ad aloud] the stele!” In a context similar to the present one, in discussing the intertextuality of the Cuthean Legend with the Assyrian invectives at issue (Livingstone 1989, no. 29 and 30), Piotr Michalowski has drawn attention to the writing of Bēl-ēṭir’s name. It is written with the elements EN (= bēlu) and KAR (= eṭēru). This spelling is quite habitual and completely consistent with the orthography of the first millennium, but it is nevertheless probably also to be read as a pun on the infamous king Enmerkar of Uruk, who also figures prominently in the Cuthean Legend.928 Apart from infamizing Bēl-ēṭir (I.den-kar) orthographically as the “new Enmerkar”, the Assyrian parody apparently turns the following topoi, which have probably been taken from the motifs of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), back against Bēl-ētir. Apparently, the first element to be attacked is the role model “fisherman” (šukudakku/bāʾiru), which is prominent because it was held to have been the original profession of the Urukean king Utu-ḫeĝal,929 who drove the foreign and barbarian Gutians out of the country.930 I suppose that Bēl-ēṭir had deliberately been playing upon the motif of the “humble fisherman” called to kingship by Marduk in order to style himself as the new Utu-ḫeĝal. That is why the Assyrian invective attacks this element and perverts it from “humble fisherman” to “lowly fisherman”: – ardu dāgil pān Šamaš-ibni mār šukudakki (/ bāʾiri) šapli l[ā simat šar]rūti931 “A servant waiting upon Šamaš-ibni, the son of a lowly fisherman, n[ot suitable for kin]gship” In the same text, the fisherman motif is furthermore expanded in broken context by referring to “his marsh” (ambar-šú = appāršu, rev. 14) and to “his trade of fishing” (ina níĝ-šu-ku6-šú = ina šukudakkūtīšu, rev. 15).932

925 926 927 928 929 930

931 932

See Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 300, beginning of the Standard Babylonian recension. The Esaĝil Chronicle shares some peculiar topics or phrases with the Cuthean Legend, see the commentary to lines 42, 44, 51 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). dub-šen-na bad-ma na₄na-rú-a ši-t[as-si] (Livingstone 1989, no. 29, obv. 1). Michalowski 1999, pp. 84–87: on literary parodies, the Cuthean Legend, and Bēl-ēṭir; see also Radner 2005a, p. 157; Katz 2017, p. 208. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 65. See the “victory inscription” of the historical Utu-ḫeĝal (Frayne, RIME 2, pp. 283–293, Utu-ḫegal no. 4). His victory over the Gutium is still discernible in the story line of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 64–68. After Livingstone 1989, no. 29, obv. 3: ìr da-gíl pa-an I.dutu-dù dumu lúšu-ku6 šap-lu4 l[a si-mat lug]al-ú-te. The abstract term šukudakkūtu “office/trade of the fisher” occurs only rarely, but prominently also with Adapa, see note 789 on p. 168 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

198

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

10.3. Nebuchadnezzar II and the Fish Offering to Marduk By the time of the Late Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II (acc. 605, 604–562 BCE), the wrath of Marduk had punished Babylonia a couple of times.933 At least on four major occasions Marduk had repudiated Babylonia and gone into exile. It was the most important task of a good Babylonian king to take care that this would not happen again. Nebuchadnezzar II sets a fine example of how “learning from history” would work in Babylonia (see on this topic pp. 21f. above). Obviously, Nebuchadnezzar had read the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) and had learnt his part. In a section of his inscription at Brisa (Source 77), Nebuchadnezzar tells us how he came to improve the fish offering for Marduk. He reports that up to his reign fresh fish as “fish tribute” (nūn tāmarti) was not offered in Esaĝil. It was only he, who had employed additional fishermen for the temple, to bring in fresh fish for the daily offerings: – (1) [in]a šiṭir šumi ša šar pā[ni ma]ḫrî (2) [ . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈. .⌉ [. . . ām]urma (3) [ša? . . . . . . . . . . ] . . . nūn [tā]marti (4) ana Esaĝil ul ī[r]umma (5) nūnu ša ūm balṭu [ul] uṭṭa[ḫ]ḫi (6) šelāšā nūna balṭa ana ginê Marduk bēlīya (7) ša ištu ūmī rūqūti ipparkû (8) Marduk bēl(ī) libbā yāti [u]šadkâ[n]ni (9) eli šukudakkī E[saĝ]il (10) ešrā mārī Bābil (11) mārī šukudakkī labīrūti (12) [a]na šuḫmuṭ nūni balṭi š[a] ūm (13) ana ginê ́ (15) nūna balṭa ana ginê Marduk bēlīya (16) Marduk bē[l]īya (14) umaʾʾiršunūtīma (ina) naptan šēri u līlāti u[ṭaḫḫ]û “(1–2) [I lea]rnt [fro]m an inscription of a [for]mer king of ol[d, . . . . . .] (3) [that formerly and up to my reign] fish as an [of]fering gift (4) did not e[n]ter Esaĝil and (5) fresh (‘living’) fish of the (same) day was [not] offe[r]ed. (8) (But) Marduk, (my) lord, [p]laced into my mind (the idea to bring in) (6) thirty fresh fishes for the regular offering to Marduk, my lord, (7) (a custom) that had ceased since distant days. (9) In addition to the (former) fishermen of E[saĝ]il (14) I assigned (10) twenty citizens of Babylon, (11) descendants of fishermen from old (12) [t]o rush fresh fish o[f] the (same) day (13) for the regular offering to Marduk, my lor[d], and so (15–16) they [(constantly) bring in] fresh fish for the regular offering to Marduk, my lord, for the morning and the evening meals.” In this paragraph, we can see a unique example of ancient Near Eastern intertextuality. Nebuchadnezzar states that he learnt about all this from an inscription of a former king of old. The inscription he quotes is without doubt the Esaĝil Chronicle. This text actually urges its audience to learn from the historical examples of kings it deals with.934 Nebuchadnezzar uses all the catchwords of the chronicle’s episodes (ll. 47–55, 64–69) dealing with the fish offering for Marduk:935 nūn tāmarti “fish tribute”, nūnu balṭu (ša ūmi) “fresh fish (of the same day)”, šukudakku “(temple) fisherman”, ḫamāṭu Š “to bring in quickly”, and ṭeḫû D “to offer”. And what is more, a phrase from Nebuchadnezzar’s Brisa inscription is fitted into the late versions of the Esaĝil chronicle in turn. In those days before 933 934 935

See the overview in chapter 4.2. See the discussions on pp. 22 and 114 above. See p. 562 in the commentary on Nebuchardezzar’s Brisa inscription (Source 77).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

199

Nebuchadnezzar reorganized the fish offerings for Marduk, fresh fish as “fish tribute” was not delivered to Esaĝil. In his inscription, Nebuchadnezzar states:936 – (3) nūn [tā]marti (4) ana Esaĝil ul ī[r]umma (5) nūnu ša ūm balṭu [ul] uṭṭa[ḫ]ḫi (3) “ Fish as an [of]fering gift (4) did not e[n]ter Esaĝil and (5) fresh fish of the (same) day was [not] offe[r]ed.” In order to compensate for this deficiency, Nebuchadnezzar assigned additional fishermen to bring in fresh fish to be offered to Marduk. In fact, this innovation was an alteration of the cult, and as such it was in danger of being stigmatized as an illegitimate novelty. Nebuchadnezzar clearly states that this offering did not exist before. In order to meet the possible accusation of introducing a novelty, Nebuchadnezzar’s idea is portrayed as inspired by Marduk himself (l. 8). Furthermore, it is described as a most welcome restoration of an old and original custom which only had ceased (naparkû, l. 7) since times immemorial, certainly due to the negligence of a careless royal predecessor. Temples and cults were considered elements of the divine layout of civilization as revealed by the gods to humanity shortly after creation. Any possible flaw could only be understood as a loss in divine perfection caused by human deficiency. That is why innovations were regularly presented as restorations of an earlier, more perfect state of affairs, which had only been “forgotten” (mašû N) or “fallen out of use” (naparkû).937 This philosophy becomes tangible in a paradoxical pair of phrases used in Babylonian restoration reports. The pious work is always done “exactly like in the olden days” (kīma labīrimma), and yet at the same time “greater than ever before” (eli ša pāni šūturu). So, although the improved fish offering did not exist in historical times, it was considered to have existed in times primordial when Marduk’s son Nabû himself took care of it, of course in the most perfect and ideal way.938 After Nebuchadnezzar’s improvement on the cult had been made, the pious deed was incorporated by his scribes into the text of the Esaĝil Chronicle. A new line (52b) was added as a gloss, commenting on those days before Nebuchadnezzar, though not giving his name, but quoting verbally the lines from his Brisa inscription: – inūšu nūnu ‹ša› ūm ana Esaĝil ul īrub nūnu balṭu ‹ul› uṭṭaḫ[ḫi]939 “In those days, fish of the (same) day did not enter Esaĝil, fresh fish was ‹not› offer[ed].” 936 937

938 939

Brisa inscription (Source 77), ll. 3–5. See also Schaudig 2010, pp. 150–152. A famous example is the introduction of the Babylonian New Year’s Festival into the cult of Aššur by Sennacherib, accompanied by the building of the New Year’s Temple outside the city of Aššur, which was said by Sennacherib to have just been “forgotten (mašû N) since days of old” (Luckenbill 1924, p. 136, ll. 26–27, p. 139, obv. 2; Frahm 1997, pp. 173–177, 285–286; Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2, p. 223, no. 160, obv. 2; p. 248, no. 168:26–27). The situation seems to be rather close to the negative connotation of “innovation” (‫ )ﺑﺪﻋﺔ‬crossing the borders to “heresy” in Islam. See the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 47 and pp. 166 and 168. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 52b.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

200

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

This line 52b occurs only in the Late Babylonian versions (manuscripts S and B). It is not found in the older version from Aššur (manuscript A), predating the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. To the best of my knowledge this is the only time in Babylonian literature when a traditional text was updated with the accomplishments of a historical king. But Nebuchadnezzar is not done yet with the fish offering. He even tells us the exact number of fishes which are to be offered to Marduk:940 – (6) šelāšā nūna balṭa ana ginê Marduk bēlīya (7) ša ištu ūmī rūqūti ipparkû (8) Marduk bēl(ī) libbā yāti [u]šadkâ[n]ni (8) (But) Marduk, (my) lord, [p]laced into my mind (the idea to bring in) (6) thirty fresh fishes for the regular offering to Marduk, my lord, (7) (a custom) that had ceased since distant days. Why does Nebuchadnezzar bring in exactly thirty fishes for the offering? He does not tell us straightforwardly, but he leaves it for us to see. In the Esaĝil chronicle (Source 35), the gloss (l. 52b) dealing with the improvement of Nebuchadnezzar is fitted into the first story about the fish offerings. It is the passage dealing with Puzur-ilī of Akšak (ll. 48–55), who embezzled the fish of Marduk’s offering for the first time in history. According to the chronicle, the fishermen of Esaĝil managed to deliver the fish a week later with the help of Ku-Baʾu the alewife. But nevertheless, that earlier fish was still missing. Then, it was one fish. Now, it is thirty fishes. According to Codex Hammurapi § 8, a law still in use in the Late Babylonian period,941 he who stole one animal from the livestock belonging to a god had to replace it thirtyfold.942 Thirty fishes, that is the fish of old payed back

940 941 942

Brisa inscription (Source 77), ll. 6–8. Figulla 1951, p. 100; San Nicolò 1932; Dandamaev 1977; Wells in Oelsner, Wells & Wunsch 2003, pp. 962–963. Roth 1997, p. 82. CH § 6: If a man steals (personal) property of a god (makkūr ilim) or of the king (“the palace”), that man is to die. – CH § 8: if a man steals livestock or a boat of a god or of the palace, that man is to replace the items thirtyfold. If he cannot pay the fine, he is to die. – The difference in the punishment of §§ 6 and 8 is probably due to the different proximity to the deity, and hence to a different state of sacredness. § 6 deals with items stolen from a temple or even perhaps from the cult statue itself, whereas § 8 deals with livestock and implements of the temple’s economy, not regarded “sacred” in a narrow sense. Westbrook (1988, pp. 121–122) suggests that these items may had been found by the thief in considerable distance from the temple, somewhere in the fields, and so the thief might have not known whose property he was stealing. Although this is possible, there are many cases when a thief stole animals which were clearly marked e.g. with the star of Ištar (the case of the infamous Gimillu, see San Nicolò 1933, pp. 62, 67 with note 1 on I:30 and passim, p. 72 on the fine and CH § 8; Dandamaev 1977, p. 157 with note 3 and passim; on Gimillu see recently in detail Kozuh 2014, pp. 159–176). In these cases, too, the animals were to be replaced thirtyfold. So it seems more plausible to distinguish between personal and more remote property of the deity. I think the difference is not in the question as to whether the thief knew whom he was stealing from, or not. I think it is in the question whether the thief laid his hands on the deity proper. The Codex Hammurapi does not

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

201

thirtyfold, the penance for stealing it from Marduk. It was not Nebuchadnezzar who took that fish, but one of his royal predecessors. As a distant successor of Puzur-ilī, it is Nebuchadnezzar who stands in and pays off the debt, in order to redeem his country from Marduk’s wrath to come. On the cabbalistic level,943 this “fresh fish” (nūnu balṭu) was truly a “fish offering to make the dynasty safe and sound” (*nūn palê šulmi). Perhaps one might argue that there was another fish embezzled and that this one had to be restored thirty-fold, too. That was the fish in the story about the Gutians and Utu-ḫeĝal.944 There, we find a gloss in the text as well, turning line 66 secondarily into a commentary on those days before Nebuchadnezzar by adding inūšu “in those days”. This addition, too, can only safely be identified in the Late Babylonian versions. It is absent from the older version from Aššur. But there are important differences. The first case with Puzur-ilī is far more severe. After all, the simple fact that line 52b was fitted into the Puzur-ilī story shows that Nebuchadnezzar aimed at that episode. Puzur-ilī was a proper Babylonian king and hence a proper ancestor of Nebuchadnezzar as opposed to the Gutians who were but a bunch of barbarians “to whom respect towards the gods’ desires had not been taught, who did not know how to perform the rituals properly” (l. 64). Secondly, the fish is taken from the fishermen of Esaĝil (l. 48), so it is a real theft, as opposed to the embezzlement of the fish of Utu-ḫeĝal which appears to have been a voluntary gift. Furthermore, the story about Puzur-ilī and Ku-Baʾu contains the motif “bread and water” (l. 53) which turns the story into a kind of an etiological legend of the origin of the title zāninu (Sum. ú-a), the foremost title of the Late Babylonian kings.945 And if one still wants to see that second fish to be repaid as well, one can refer to line 16 of the Brisa inscription (Source 77) which stipulates that the fish is to be served on the morning and on the evening meals. So perhaps Marduk was served thirty fishes each. 10.4. The Sins of Nabonidus When the Babylonians first made direct contact with Cyrus “the Great” in the summer of 539 BCE, it was on the banks of the Tigris near Opis, when Cyrus was invading Babylonian soil. The Nabonidus Chronicle tells us,946 that he battled against the Babylonians and drove them back. He slaughtered the fleeing masses and plundered them. On his first onslaught, he had demonstrated what he was able to do. Some days later Sippar and Babylon were taken without any further resistance.

943 944 945 946

specify how the culprit who could not pay the fine was to be put to death. In some cases, thieves who stole from a temple or a deity were burnt, see note 1822. See p. 562 below on the hidden meaning of the spelling ku6 bal-ṭi = BALA SILIM in the fish episode of Nebuchadnezzar’s Brisa inscription (Source 77). Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 65–68. See the discussion on p. 146 above. The following summarized after Grayson 1975a, pp. 109–110, chronicle no. 7, III:12–20. In III:14 the chronicle reports that he “killed the people” (nišī idūk). Since “killing” always happens in battles and mostly passes unmentioned in the chronicles, this killing must have been a massacre.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

202

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

When entering Babylon, Cyrus was hailed as a friend and a saviour. What might appear quite brutal and cynical to us, is presented as a miracle of cheerfulness and bliss in the ancient “press release”, that is the Cyrus Cylinder.947 Cyrus king of Anšan had conquered Babylonia, with just one stroke of his sword, assisted by the troops of the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda. Later civilizations knew Cyrus, king of Persia, who conquered Babylonia with his Median allies. So why did the Babylonian scholars or priests who drew up the text of the cylinder, use the terms “Anšan”, “Gutium”, “Ummān-Manda”,948 terms that meant terror to the Babylonians, instead of the more neutral terms “Persia” or “Media”? When the question is addressed, it is often stated, that these terms are archaizing and historical. This is always a good choice to make in Assyriology and it is true in the sense that these terms have a history. But it does not mean that they are simply older versions of “Persia” or “Media”. In the time of Nabonidus, the UmmānManda in fact meant the Medes, at least in a certain role. And so the term UmmānManda used in chronicles and royal inscriptions is regularly and straightforwardly translated with “hordes of the Medes” or “Median troops” in modern literature.949 Although this translation is not all wrong, it is not all right, either. It misses an important point. At first sight, the equation with the Medes seems to be perfectly justified. After all, the terms Medes and Ummān-Manda alternate in the Fall of Nineveh Chronicle, as does the name Cyaxares and the title “king of the UmmānManda”.950 In like manner, in the inscriptions of Nabonidus the term UmmānManda clearly designates the Medes, and their king Astyages is called “king of the Ummān-Manda” on several occasions.951 Yet, even if the term Ummān-Manda could designate the Medes, it meant more than the Medes. By calling the Medes – or in Neo-Assyrian sources the Cimmerians952 – “Ummān-Manda”, the texts assign to them a certain role in the Assyro-Babylonian mental world history, operated by gods. The term “Ummān-Manda” was not an ethnographical term, but it was a religious-historical term, designating barbarian hordes created by Enlil and sent by him against the Mesopotamian homeland from time to time in order to punish wicked kings.953 Translating the Ummān-Manda simply with “the Medes” is historizing mythology, whereas the Babylonians were mythologizing history. In the days of Cyrus, “king of Anšan” was his official title.954 The title “king of Persia”, which is given to him – later – in the Nabonidus Chronicle,955 a title Cyrus 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954

Recent editions by Schaudig 2001, pp. 550–556, no. K2.1; Finkel 2013a, pp. 4–7 (translation); Finkel 2013b, pp. 129–135 (transliteration); Schaudig 2019a. On Anšan, Gutium and the Ummān-Manda see the discussions in chapter 11.4, A–B. So did I, too, in my translations of the inscriptions of Nabonidus and Cyrus the Great: Schaudig 2001, p. 714, s.v. Ummān-Manda (hier:) “Meder-Haufen”. Zawadzki 1988; text: Grayson 1975a, pp. 90–96, chronicle no. 3. See the examples in Schaudig 2001, p. 714 s.v. Ummān-Manda. See Adalı 2011, pp. 107–132. See Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, pp. 265–266 and here p. 242 above on the role of the Ummān-Manda in the Cuthean Legend. In the Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus is called Kūraš šar āl Anšan “Cyrus king of the city of Anšan” (Schaudig 2001, p. 552, l. 12). The title šar āl Anšan “king of the city of Anšan” appears three times with his ancestors in his genealogy (ibidem l. 21). The variant title šar māt

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

203

himself never used, is on the one hand a description of his actual status after the deposition of Astyages, and a reflection of the modern title “king in / of Persia” on the other hand, used only later by Dareios I.956 Cyrus had inherited the title “king of Anšan” from his ancestors, for example from his grandfather, Cyrus I, who calls himself on his seal “Cyrus, the Anšanite, Son of Teispes”.957 The title “king of Anšan and Susa” (or the other way round), was among the foremost titles borne by various Elamite kings from the Old-Elamite to the Neo-Elamite period.958 So the official title of Cyrus was indeed “king of Anšan”. But the important question, however, is, what feelings did that title together with the terms “Gutians and Ummān-Manda” arouse in the minds of the Babylonian audience? “King of Anšan” may well have been an honorific title in Elam, but after all, the Cyrus Cylinder is not a Persian or Anšanite text. It is a Babylonian text, written by Babylonians for Babylonians, in Babylonia in Babylonian. And for Babylonians, the term Anšan was closely connected to at least two major devastations of Babylonia. The more recent one had occurred in the 12th century, when Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and his son Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, “kings of Anšan and Susa”, had conquered Babylonia.959 The destruction wrought by these kings must have been considerable. Their rule in Babylonia gave rise to a group of texts known today as Chedorlaomer Texts, lamentations bewailing the disaster done to the cult centres of Babylonia.960 Among the most famous misdeeds was the abduction of a statue of Marduk to Elam. In one of these texts, Kutir-Naḫḫunte the evil-doer is closely connected to the Ummān-Manda, as is later Cyrus. The god Enlil himself calls for

955 956

957 958

959 960

Aššan “king of the land of Anšan (/Aššan)” is used twice in a brick inscription of Cyrus from Ur (Schaudig 2001, p. 549, ll. 1, 3). So, in Babylonian sources, Cyrus’ title “king of Anšan” is spelled with the determinatives – or rather determining nouns – eri = ālu “city” and kur = mātu “land” indiscriminately. Apart from Anšan, the determinatives eri = ālu “city” and kur = mātu “land”, respectively šadû “mountain”, interchange freely in a wide range of foreign names in Neo-Babylonian texts, such as the Medes, the city or the land of Gaza, the land Ḫumē, Lydia, and even mount Amanus (Schaudig 2001, pp. 231–232). According to archaeological evidence, the Marvdašt plain, including the city of Anšan, became deserted roughly from the 10th century BCE onwards (Miroschedji 1990, p. 53; Carter 1994, p. 65; Waters 2000, p. 16). From the perspective of Babylonian orthography, however, the alternation between “city of Anšan” and “land of Anšan” has no bearing on the question whether the city proper was actually deserted during the first millennium BCE or not. Grayson 1975, p. 107, no. 7, II:15, as opposed to “king of Anšan”, ibidem p. 106 in II:1. Schaudig 2001, pp. 26–27; Henkelman 2003, p. 193. For Dareios using the title “king in Persia” see e.g. DB pers. § 1 (Kent 1950, p. 119). The two inscriptions (Kent 1950, p. 116) of Ariaramnes (Cyrus’ brother?) and Arsames, his son, which also display the title “king in Persia”, are quite probably fakes, ancient or modern. Henkelman 2003, p. 193; Kuhrt 2010, pp. 54–55, no. 3 with fig. 3.2. On the history of the title sunkik Anšan Šušunka “king of Anšan and Susa” see the discussion by Shayegan 2011, pp. 283–284, with a list of rulers on p. 265 (Ebarat II, ca. 18th cent. BCE), and on pp. 269–277 (Middle and Neo-Elamite periods). See chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3, the discussion on pp. 533f. and Source 33, Source 58 and Source 72 (C). See Source 72, in particular paragraph C for the misdeeds of Kutir-Naḫḫunte.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

204

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

Kutir-Naḫḫunte and the barbarian hordes of the Ummān-Manda to smash Babylonia:961 – ayyū Kudur-nuḫuĝa [ē]piš lemnēti idkâmma Ummān-Manda [ispu]n māt Enlil “‘Which one is Kudur-nuḫuĝa (i.e. Kutir-Naḫḫunte), the evil-[d]oer?’ (Enlil then) summoned the Ummān-Manda, [and he (: the Ummān-Manda)] [devasta]ted the land of Enlil.” It is of course clear, that the Ummān-Manda cannot mean the Medes here, but any kind of barbarian invaders from the East. The more ancient disaster, to which the conquest by Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and his son Kutir-Naḫḫunte II was very much a second go, was the “Ibbi-Sîn Disaster”, the šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn. So, a “king of Anšan” leading “the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda” against Babylonia could not mean any good. It could not mean anything but utter disaster. According to the ideologers, scholars, and priests of Marduk, Nabonidus had committed sins over sins. He was the sum of his wicked predecessors. The accusations against the heretic king are spread out in Cyrus’ famous cylinder inscription: Sins of Nabonidus (Cyrus Cylinder)962 (5) tamšīl Esaĝil īte[pušma …] “he ma[de] a counterfeit of Esaĝil” (6)

(7)

(8)

(8)

(9)

=

paraṣ lā simātīšunu = “rites inappropriate to them” (i.e. to the gods or the cult centres) sattukkī ušabṭil = “he brought the daily offerings to a halt” lemutti ālīšu [īt]eneppuš ūmišamma = “he [d]id yet more evil to his city every day” [… nišī]šu ina abšāni lā tapšuḫti uḫalliq kullassin “he brought ruin on all of his [people] with a yoke with no relief” ana tazzimtīšina Enlil ilānī ezziš īgugm[a …] “at their complaints the Enlil-of-the-Gods became furiously enraged a[nd …]”

=

Sins of Kingxy (Esaĝil Chronicle) Sargon of Akkade (Source 35, l. 60) (cf. Source 44, obv. 19) (cf. Source 45, l. 10) Šulgi (Source 35, ll. 70–71) (cf. Source 49, obv. 13–17) Ur-Zababa & Amar-Suʾena (Source 35, ll. 56, 72) Utu-ḫeĝal (Source 35, l.69) (cf. Šulgi, Source 48, rev. 6) Enmerkar & Narām-Sîn (Source 35, ll. 42, 62)

⇒ Marduk summons the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda, as before (Source 35, ll. 42, 62)

Among these sins, Nabonidus had committed the sin of Sargon of Akkade when he restored the temple of the moon-god at Ḫarrān and decorated it excessively and unduly, creating a copy (tamšīlu, Cyrus Cylinder l. 5), a counterfeit of the true centre of the world, the temple Esaĝil at Babylon. The Verse Account also sharply rebukes 961 962

See p. 533 below with note 1913; Lambert 1994b, p. 70, BM 34062, rev. 21’–22’. After Schaudig 2001, pp. 551–552, no. K2.1, ll. 5–9; see also Schaudig 2019b, pp. 80–84.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

205

Nabonidus to have built and decorated Eḫulḫul at Ḫarrān as a copy (tamšīlu) rivalling Esaĝil.963 The Esaĝil Chronicle and some historical omens have it that Sargon tore out the soil from the pit of Babylon and that he built a rivalling “counterpart” (gabarû, Source 44, obv. 19) of Babylon, next to Akkade. The Chronicle of Early Kings calls Sargon’s deed explicitly a “sacrilege” (ikkibu, Source 44, obv. 20). Nabonidus committed the sin of Šulgi when he did not keep the divine rites in order, but defiled or changed them so they were not befitting any more (Cyrus Cylinder l. 6). Furthermore, Nabonidus introduced and fostered the cult of the moon-god of Ḫarrān, who was alien to Babyonia.964 A religious Chronicle from Uruk accuses Šulgi very much of the same sins: He is said to have altered the cults in an unbefitting way and to have unduly fostered the cult of a moon-god, in this case, however, the cult of the moon-god of Ur.965 Nabonidus committed the sins of Ur-Zababa and Amar-Suʾena, that is, he cut the offerings (Cyrus Cylinder l. 7). He committed the sin of Utu-ḫeĝal, that is, he laid his hand on Babylon with evil intent (Cyrus Cylinder l. 8).966 And Nabonidus committed the sins of Enmerkar and Narām-Sîn, that is, he oppressed and wrecked the people of Babylon (Cyrus Cylinder l. 8) when he imposed on them inappropriate duties and infringed on their privileged status (kidinnūtu).967 And it is at “their complaints” (ana tazzimtīšina, Cyrus Cylinder l. 9) that Marduk spurred himself into action. Since Nabonidus had offended the people of Babylon, Marduk summoned the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda against Babylonia, just as he had done before twice with Enmerkar and Narām-Sîn, as a mirror punishment (see pp. 120 and 140f.). The Babylonian ideologers who drafted that text of the Cyrus Cylinder were not interested in a Persian king, leading his Median and Trans-Tigridian allies against Babylonia. They needed a “king of Anšan” bringing down the “hordes of the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda” against a wicked king as a divine punishment. Of course, Cyrus came with this title, but the ideologers of Marduk seized their 963

964

965

966 967

The Verse Account (Schaudig 2001, p. 567) puts the following quotation into Nabonidus’ mouth: ana Ekurri ešša tamšīl simāti lumeššil (II:6’) “I will make a shrine, rivalling Ekur (= Esaĝil) as a counterpart of its (holy) insignia.” The same text also rebukes Nabonidus for decorating Eḫulḫul exactly like Esaĝil: rēma ekda kīma Esaĝil ušaṣbit pānuššu (II:15’) “He installed a fierce bull in front of it, just like (the bull installed in) Esaĝil.” Recent summaries by Beaulieu 1989, pp. 43–65; Schaudig 2001, p. 21. In the words of the Verse Account (I:22’–24’, after Schaudig 2001, p. 566): (I:22’) [ila ša pānā]́ ma ina māti lā īmuruš mammān (23’) […] kigalla ušarme (24’) […] Nanna ittabi zikiršu “[(The statue of) a god whom] nobody had seen in the country [ever before …] he placed on a pedestal […] and called him by the name (of the Babylonian moon-god) ‘Nanna’.” Source 49, obv. 13–14: (13) [pa]raṣ Anūti uṣurāti ša Uruk (14) [n]iṣirti ummânī ša lā simāt unakk[ir(ma)] (15) [pa]lāḫ Sîn bēl Uri išṭur[ma] “(Šulgi) altered the [ri]tes of the office of Anu, the ordinances of Uruk, the [s]ecret of the scholars in an unbefitting way, [and] he wrote (instead the order) to [re]vere Sîn the lord of Ur.” See p. 213 below with note 996 on similar crimes attributed to Šulgi (Chronicle of Early Kings, Source 48, rev. 6) and Tukultī-Ninurta I (Chronicle P, Source 71, B, IV:9–10). On the privileged status of sacred cities like Babylon see pp. 142f. and chapter 11.3, A. The topic of violating a Babylonian of the privileged kidinnu status also appears in the Negative Confession of Sins (l. 426), see p. 225 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

206

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

chance and fitted “Cyrus king of Anšan” and the terms “Gutians” and “UmmānManda” into their religiously dominated system of thought. They needed the Ummān-Manda to turn Nabonidus into a new Narām-Sîn or Enmerkar in the tradition of the Esaĝil Chronicle, and they needed them to paint the picture as black as possible. They needed the terms “Anšan” and “Ummān-Manda” in order to create the tension between the slaughter and devastation which was to be expected to happen, and the miraculously peaceful course of the actual events, at least in Babylon proper. In order to feel the surprise that must have struck the Babylonians, when the king of Anšan, the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda entered Babylon peacefully and payed hommage to Marduk and Esaĝil, we should translate the elements into a tale about the king of the Huns leading Gog and Magog against Rome and turning all of a sudden into a woolly lamb only at the gates of Saint Peter’s Basilica. 10.5. Dareios and the Fall of Babylon Among the omens collected in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), announcing the fall of Babylon, one group in particular merits attention. This is the group of omens dealing with strange or unnatural births (see also the discussion on pp. 136f.). Unnatural births: – l. 5, no. 6: (dead) roof beams sprouting twigs968 – l. 6, no. 7: a (male?) seed-crow giving birth (like a mammal?) – l. 8, no. 10: a male date palm bearing fruit – l. 19, no. 30: a male dog giving birth – l. 23, no. 35: [a woman] giving birth to an anomaly – ll. 24–26, nos. 36–40: [a woman] giving birth to an anomaly Strange products of date palms: – l. 8, no. 11: a date palm growing 6 tops – l. 9, no. 12: a date palm growing another date palm growing a spadix – l. 10, no. 13: a date palm growing a fiber in winter – l. 29, no. 43: date palms growing fruit without end – l. 30, no. 44: date palms growing other plants – l. 32, no. 46: a date palm growing a horn Most prominently, the omens deal with plants or animals producing sprouts or giving birth which are not expected to do so at all. They deal with roof-beams, i.e. dead plants sprouting, with male animals giving birth, or with date palms producing strange fruit or other kind of plants. This kind of omen also appears in the report on the conquest of Babylon by Dareios, as it is told by Herodotus (Hist. 3:151, 2 & Hist. 3:153–154, 1). This narrative has it that when Dareios had laid siege to the city, one of the Babylonians yelled from the battlements to the enemies:969

968 969

The “dead” stick sprouting is also known from the Tannhäuser legend. The following two quotations from Herodotus, Hist. 3:151, 2 and 153, 2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

207

“Why do you sit there, Persians? Why don’t you go back to your homes? Till mules (ἡμίονοι) foal you will not take our city!” This was by a Babylonian who thought that a mule would never foal. However, after twenty months a miraculous omen (τέρας) occurred. A mule gave birth to a foal that was taken as a fateful (μόρσιμος) sign that Babylon was doomed: “For it seemed it was by divine providence (σὺν γὰρ θεῷ) that the Babylonian on the wall had used the phrase, and that the mule had foaled.” In Cuneiform, no omens dealing in this way with mules or hinnies (parû or kūdanu) are extant. There is an omen from the series Šumma izbu, dealing with a woman giving birth to a baby with the face of a agālu-donkey,970 with a negative apodosis: “The king will not administer his land; the country will devour its friends and its foes.” Another omen deals with a woman giving birth to a donkey (imēru),971 with the apodosis: “A despotic972 king will be in the land”. Either omen is rather unspecific and does not exactly compare to the omen reported by Herodotus. In Herodotus’ narrative, the important item is certainly not the particular element “ass, mule, donkey”, but the action of giving birth by an animal that is normally incapable to do so, just as in the omens of the Book of Prodigies listed above. I think that the story about the mule foaling during the siege of Babylon goes back to a Babylonian omen of disaster which indicated the fall of the city. Secondarily, and for a Greek audience, the omen was remodeled into the anecdote which Herodotus reports. A late example of the same type of Šumma izbu omen is found in an incident reported by Josephus, announcing the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70 CE: Tradition has it that during the last Festival of the Unleavened Bread before the destruction of temple, a cow which was led away to be sacrificed gave birth to a lamb in the midst of the temple.973 10.6. Xerxes and the Statue of Marduk According to a story reported by Herodotus (Hist. 1:183, 1–3), Xerxes (486–465 BCE) is said to have taken a statue referred to as ἀνδριάς from Esaĝil and to have killed the priest who tried to prevent him from moving it. Since this alleged sacrilege, reported by a Greek author, bears a very close affinity to the negative image of Xerxes as a destroyer of cults in classical literature, Herodotus’ report has quite often been rejected as negative propaganda.974 If this sacrilege is correctly ascribed 970 971

972 973 974

Šumma izbu 2:63’ (Leichty 1970, p. 52; De Zorzi 2014, p. 403). Šumma izbu 1:13 (Leichty 1970, p. 33; De Zorzi 2014, pp. 345–346). – Omens dealing with a woman giving birth to various animals (lion, wolf, dog, pig, bull, wild bull, elephant, ass, ram, cat, snake, tortoise, bird; but no “mouse or rat”) are also listed in the first half of the first tablet of Šumma izbu, ca. tablet I:5–23 (Leichty 1970, pp. 32–34; De Zorzi 2014, pp. 344–348). Literally: šar kiššati “king of All”, respectively “a king executing complete and harsh control”, see the discussion on pp. 44f. above. See in more detail p. 110 above with note 522. On the doubts about the historicity of the event see, among others, Rollinger 1998, p. 353; Scheer 2003; Höffken 2005; Heller 2010, pp. 290–305; Henkelman et al. 2011, p. 451;

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

208

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

to Xerxes, it would have occurred in the aftermath of Xerxes’ suppression of the Babylonian rebellions of Šamaš-erība and Bēl-šimânni during the summer months of Xerxes’ 2nd regnal year (484 BCE).975 Herodotus’ report runs as follows: “(1) Within the sanctuary in Babylon there is also another temple below (the temple-tower), in which there is a huge sitting (κατήμενον) image (ἄγαλμα) of Zeus of gold, and next to it a huge table of gold is set up; and its footstool and throne are also made of gold; and, as the Chaldeans say, (all) this is made of 800 talents of gold. […] (2b) Within this sacred precinct there was at that time976 also a statue (ἀνδριάς) of 12 cubits (height) of massive gold. (3) I did not see it, but I report what is reported by the Chaldeans. Dareios, the son of Hystaspes, had (already) had designs upon that very statue, but he did not dare to take it; but Xerxes, the son of Dareios, took it and killed the priest who forbade him to move that statue. […].”977 The temple of Marduk must have been teeming with cult statues of gods and votive statues dedicated by humans – by kings and more ordinary people. In the past, scholars have concluded that the statue which Xerxes is said to have taken away, called ἀνδριάς, was an image of a king. Etymologically, ἀνδριάς means indeed “image of a man”, but quite often it is used in a more general way as a term

975

976

977

Kuhrt 2014. A most influential study into the topic is Kuhrt & Sherwin-White 1987. Kuhrt and Sherwin-White (Kuhrt & Sherwin-White 1987, pp. 71–72; Kuhrt 2014) reject the report by Herodotus as unhistoric and as a piece of negative propaganda in the wider framework of the image of Xerxes as a destroyer of cults. Kuhrt and SherwinWhite are right in rejecting the idea that Xerxes took away the cult statue (ἄγαλμα) of Marduk, which depicted him sitting enthroned in Esaĝil. This statue was still in its place in the time of Herodotus. However, the sheer existence and the religiouspolitical meaning of the “walking” processional statue of Marduk (i.e. the ἀνδριάς in the report) is often overlooked. The whole debate is characterized by the notion that there was only one “cult statue” of a given deity in a given temple at a given time. It ignores the fact that there could be several consecrated statues at a time in different settings and for different occasions, see e.g. p. 521 below with note 1862. Minor objections, such as the astonishing size of the statue (ca. 6 meters high, in the report of Ctesias even 12 meters, see immediately below), or the fact that the statues of Babylonian gods were actually not made of massive gold but rather of a wooden core with a metal coating, do not matter here. According to the recent and thorough study by Waerzeggers 2003–2004, p. 151. Waerzeggers (2003–2004, pp. 161, 162) also discusses briefly the report of Herodotus (Hist. 1:183, 1–3) in connection with the severe consequences which Xerxes’ reorganization had for the old elites holding administrative and cultic functions. However, the reorganization of Babylonian economy and administration which Waerzeggers scrutinizes bears in fact no evidence on the question whether Xerxes did commit that sacrilege or not, pace Kuhrt 2014, who – if I understand her right – seems to acclaim Waerzegger’s study as a confirmation of her own work from 1987 (Kuhrt & Sherwin-White 1987). This chronological reference is often taken to refer to the times of Cyrus the Great, who is mentioned last, though, in I:178. I suppose it may equally refer very generally to those days prior to the sacrilege of Xerxes, to which this introduction leads. Herodotus, Hist. 1:183, 1–3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

209

for “statue”,978 or “Standbild” in German. Although Esaĝil must have been packed with statues of all kinds, the ἀνδριάς is the only other statue singled out and described by Herodotus in the temple of Marduk next to the ἄγαλμα “(richly decorated divine) image” (in sitting posture) of Marduk. I do not think that Herodotus was talking about some votive statue of a Babylonian king. He probably wanted to explain that, unlike in a temple as the one of Zeus at Olympia, there was another, equally impressive and no less important statue of Zeus-Marduk at Babylon. I contend that this ἀνδριάς statue cannot reasonably be anything else but another statue of Marduk, differing from the ἄγαλμα in this context by its posture and purpose. As opposed to the ἄγαλμα which depicted Marduk as an enthroned king and head of the divine household, the ἀνδριάς showed him standing or walking, i.e. “in action”. This was the statue that was used when Marduk was to rise, to go in procession, to fight Tiʾāmat and to stand in victory on her watery body. The same, inadequately noticed fact, namely that there was not just the one seated cult statue of Marduk in the sacred complex of Esaĝil and Etemenanki, has also triggered the partly misguided discussion on the “overlapping” abductions of “Marduk’s statue” by Tukultī-Ninurta I (ca. 1210 BCE) and by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II (ca. 1155 BCE).979 There is also another reference in classical literature to a Marduk statue of this type at Babylon. According to the description of Babylon in the Persica of Ctesias (early 4th cent. BCE), transmitted by Diodorus Siculus (1st cent. BCE), there was in the days of “Semiramis” (i.e. roughly during the Late Babylonian Empire in the 6th cent. BCE) in the temple on the top of the ziqqurrat a statue of “Zeus” (Marduk), upright and in walking position, together with statues of “Hera and Rhea”, all covered with gold:980 “Zeus” = Marduk, weighing 1000 talents, 40(!) feet high, upright and in walking position (“erect and striding forward”). “Rhea” = Erūa(-Zarpānītu), weighing 1000 talents, seated on a golden chariot (δίφρον), at her knees two lions couching, at her sides large serpents (i.e. mušḫuššu) made of silver, weighing 30 talents each. “Hera” = Ištar?, weighing 800 talents, upright, holding with her right hand a snake at its head, and with her left a sceptre decorated with precious stones. One expects “Hera” to be the spouse of “Zeus”, but her place is obviously taken by the seated statue of “Rhea”, who is in fact the mother of Zeus in Greek mythology. The strange replacement has probably been triggered by the similarity of the names “Rhea” and “(E)rūa”. It was probably also furthered by the image of the lions couching at the feet of the goddess, which are also typical for Rhea. 978

979 980

J.E. Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge 1938), p. 25 s.v. As a matter of method, we have to leave Powell’s examples of ἀνδριάς = ἄγαλμα (no. 3) aside, since these are the examples under discussion. But there are enough other examples (no. 2: “statue in general”). See in this respect already Rollinger 1998, p. 353, note 45. See the discussion on pp. 521f. below. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica 2:9, 5–6; König 1972, p. 143.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

210

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

As to “Hera”, high-ranking Babylonian deities grasping beasts or animals directly with their hands are very uncommon. It is probably a description of the goddess Ištar in standing position, holding a bow with snakes’ or dragons’ heads at its tips.981 Also, her standing position is not befitting the status and character of Marduk’s spouse. “Rhea”-Erūa is a lady, whereas Marduk and Ištar are actively fighting heroes, going to battle. But apart from that, the appearance of another female deity (“Hera”) next to “Rhea”-Erūa, turning Marduk’s abode on the ziqqurrat literally into a ménage à trois, is in line with the character of Ištar of Babylon as Marduk’s concubine, as documented in the Divine Love Lyrics, whose setting is very probably the New Year’s Festival at Babylon, the very occasion when these processional statues were put to use.982 The description of Marduk in standing position and his seated spouse bears a very close resemblance to the depiction of the statues of Aššur and his spouse Mullissu on a Late Assyrian relief.983 This is certainly no coincidence, since it is well known that the Assyrian king Sennacherib had modelled his new version of the god Aššur on Marduk.984 As stated by Ctesias, after the time of “Semiramis” the statues and the rest of the vessels and the furniture had been taken as spoils by the Persians. All these statues were processional statues, presenting the deities as “moving”, i.e. either in walking position, or mounted on wheels, as “Rhea”. On the occasion of the new year’s procession, Marduk would go out physically, not just in some figurative sense. This is made clear beyond any doubt by the Babylonian Processional Omens.985 They treat the appearance of the statue of Marduk sitting enthroned (ina ašābīšu) on the dais of his temple Esaĝil (13 omens), they comment on him going out (ina aṣîšu) in procession at the New Year’s festival (22 omens) and on various accidents happening to his ceremonial ship (10 omens) used for taking the statue to the akītu house. The omens also comment on the appearance of the statue’s face, on its position and movement, and on its turning or bowing down to the right or left when carried in procession. It is perfectly clear that only the statue – although never explicitly distinguished from “Marduk” – could be worn, dusty or damaged, not the transcendent deity proper. And the question arises whether the texts deal with one statue or more. I think they deal with two: The one depicting Marduk as an enthroned king in his cella and the processional statue which was taken out into the streets and showed him standing, walking and finally trampling down the body of Tiʾāmat. One might argue now, that it might have been the seated statue of Marduk which could have been taken out on its throne as on a wheelchair. However, there is at least one clear depiction of the processional statue of Marduk. 981

982 983 984 985

Cf. the statue of Ištar, holding a bow (without animal heads, though), on the stele of Šamaš-rēš-uṣur (Weissbach 1903, frontispiece and p. 11, caption 1a). The bows of the Late Assyrian kings often sport lions’ or ducks’ heads at their tips (Hrouda 1965, pl. 20, figs. 2–5). For the bow of the Ištar of Babylon, a mušḫuššu-head seems fit. Lambert 1959, pp. 1, 3–7 (summary). Andrae 1938, pl. 74b = fig. 210 on p. 233 of the second edition from 1977 (Berlin, VA 6726, found at the city of Aššur); Schaudig 2012b, pp. 134–137 with figs. 5.3–4. See the summary by Frahm 1997, pp. 223, 282–288. Last edition and discussion by Sallaberger 2000. More circumstantial evidence for the actual enactment of the cosmic battle has been presented by Lambert 1963.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

211

This is the one engraved on the cylinder seal of fig. 14.986 It displays a statue of Marduk in standing or walking position, mounted on the mušḫuššu and triumphing in victory over the watery body of the vanquished Tiʾāmat – physically a dais in the akītu house – on occasion of the Babylonian New Year’s festival.987 As one can see from the line separating the two layers of water, Tiʾāmat has already been split by Marduk into two halves, in oder to be transformed into the “upper” and the “lower waters”. So, the statue incorporates the very moment after Marduk had vanquished Tiʾāmat and before he started to create the cosmos. In line with the Babylonian Epic of Creation it illustrates why Marduk had every right to claim the title “king of the gods”. The Babylonian new year’s procession was the occasion for a possible usurper to legitimate his 14 rule by “taking the hand of Bēl” and leading the god Figure 14: Processional statue of out in procession. Events like this had occurred e.g. Marduk; from a cylinder seal, king in 721 BCE when the Assyrian king Sargon II had dedicated by the Babylonian th failed to participate personally in the Babylonian Marduk-zākir-šumi (9 cent. BCE; New Year’s Festival after the death of Shalmaneser Weissbach 1903, p. 16, fig. 1). V. Filling in the gap, Marduk-apla-iddina II grasped his chance, “took the hand of Marduk-Bēl” and became king of Babylon. So the Persian kings were not just “longing” for these statues, but they took them into a kind of custody in order to prevent aspiring usurper kings from installing themselves as kings of Babylon. In the report of Herodotus (Hist. I:183, 3), the verb used to describe the plans of Dareios, ἐπιβούλειν, does not simply mean “to strive for”, suggesting that Dareios had “longed” for the statue because of its value or beauty. In fact, ἐπιβούλειν means “to have designs upon someone” or “to plot against someone with evil intent”.988 This term appears to be a rather direct reflection of the Babylonian phrase *lemutta (ana Bābil) kapādu “to plot evil (against Babylon)”. This phrase is a hallmark of the descriptions of the destructions of Babylonia by Kutir-Naḫḫunte and Sennacherib. A historical epic dealing with the devastation done by KutirNaḫḫunte II explains that the Elamites could succeed only because Marduk let it 986

987

988

Weissbach 1903, p. 16–17, no. VI with fig. 1, pl. 6, no. 2; Wetzel 1957, pp. 37–38, no. 15, pls. 43, e–h, 44 b; Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 104–105, Marduk-zākir-šumi I, no. 1 (B.6.7.1). – The same type – perhaps even the same statue, wearing another dress – is depicted on a kudurru of Meli-Šipak (late 12th cent. BCE; King 1912, pl. XXI). See George (1992, pp. 44, 268) on the cultic structure Tiʾāmat šubat Bēl “Tiʾāmat, the seat of Bēl” (Tintir II:1), referring to the very seal of fig. 14; Pongratz-Leisten 1994, pp. 74–75; Zgoll 2006, pp. 54–57. The structure called Tiʾāmat has been briefly discussed by Lambert 1963. George argues that this structure is to be sought inside Esaĝil, but I still favour the old suggestion by Lambert who locates it in the akītu house. J.E. Powell, A Lexicon to Herodotus (Cambridge 1938), p. 34 s.v.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

212

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

happen. Literally, Marduk had the evil plotted (kapādu Š) without resistance, and Kutir-Naḫḫunte was the god’s tool to put the punishment into effect: – u Bēl ana Bābil ušakpid lemutta 989 “And Bēl allowed evil to be plotted against Babylon.” A historical-literary text on the raid of Kutir-Naḫḫunte states: – [lemn]ēti ukappida ana māt Akkadî (Source 33, obv. 5’) “(Kutir-Naḫḫunte) plotted evil against Babylonia.” When Esarhaddon interpreted the destruction of Babylon by his father Sennacherib as a punishment designed by Marduk for the guilty city, he put the blame on Marduk alone, covering up the sacrilege of his father: – īgugma Enlil ilānī Marduk ana sapān māti ḫulluq nišīša iktapud lemutta990 “Marduk, the Enlil of the gods, became enraged and plotted evil in order to smite the land and to destroy its people.” At first sight, the iktapud lemutta phrase using the basic G-Stem is virtually identical with the first example above that used the causative Š-stem (ušakpid). But for Babylonian ears, the allegation that Marduk himself had been plotting evil actively – as opposed to only allowing it to happen – must have been an outrageous interpretation of the sacrilege committed by Sennacherib. The more so, as Esarhaddon deliberately adopted a verse from the Poem of Erra and used it virtually verbatim in his inscriptions.991 In doing so, Esarhaddon attributed the deeds of malevolent Erra to benevolent Marduk.992 In the Poem of Erra, Išum addresses Erra:993 – (102) bēlu Erra minsu ana il[ānī lemut]ta takpu[d] (103) ana sapān mātāti ḫulluq [nišīšin lemut]ta takpudma “Lord Erra, why did you plo[t evi]l for the god[s], (why) did you plot [evi]l in order to smite the lands and to destroy [their people]?” After Assyria had fallen, her crooked view on history was straightened out again by the Babylonians. We see the very misdeed and the very phrase reinterpreted in a more Babylonian-friendly way in the résumé of Nabonidus on the sacrilege of Sennacherib. The passage comes from an inscription of the problematic king Nabonidus which had been drafted during the beginning of his reign when he obviously was still seeking the understanding and the support of the Babylonians: – [ik]tappud lemutta (…) lem[n]iš ana Bābil [isn]iq994 “(Sennacherib) plotted evil, (…) [he appr]oached Babylon with evi[l] intent.” 989 990 991 992 993 994

One of the Chedorlaomer Texts, see p. 524 below with note 1869; Lambert 1994b, p. 70, rev. 5’: u d+en ana eki ú-šak-pi-du le-mun-tu4. Source 74, A 7, similar in C 14–15. See p. 550 below with note 1952 in the commentary on Source 74, A 7. As to the opposition of Marduk and Erra, cf. Frahm (2010, pp. 6–8; idem 2011, pp. 347– 349) who deals with the Poem of Erra as a “counter-text” to Enūma elîš. Poem of Erra, tablet I:102–103; Cagni 1969, p. 68. Schaudig 2001, pp. 515–516, no. 3.3a I 1’, 6’–7’.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Literature and Politics

213

With another verb but very much in the same tone, Cyrus later denounces the sacrileges allegedly committed by Nabonidus in turn against Marduk and Babylon: – lemutti ālīšu [ī]teneppuš995 “(Nabonidus) [c]ommitted evil for his (: Marduk’s) city (Babylon) over and over again.” In doing so, the Babylonian scribes who composed the text of the Cyrus Cylinder positioned Nabonidus as the successor of other wicked kings like Utu-ḫeĝal, Šulgi or Tukultī-Ninurta who were held to have “sought evil” (lemutta šiteʾʾû) and to have “laid hands on Babylon with evil intent” (qāta ana Bābil ana lemutti wabāblu).996 The topic of plotting evil against Babylon and plundering the treasures of Marduk’s temple Esaĝil is also the subject of a Neo-Babylonian fragment of a letter to a king of Assyria. The addressee is either Shalmaneser V or Sargon II, since the letter contains a reference to their father Tiglath-pileser III.997 I think that Sargon II is more likely and that the text belongs to those letters sent to Sargon from members of the urban elite of Babylon who tried to lure the Assyrian king into taking control in Babylonia at the expense of Marduk-apla-iddina II.998 The sender of the letter appears to be worried about a gang of “12 kings” (l. 7’), who are about to attack Babylon in order “to bring out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty” (makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati šūṣû). This is another well-known topos of the narrative dealing with wicked kings who turn against the holy city of Babylon, its temples and gods:999 – (8’) [… l]emutta a[n]a Bābil u ilānī āšib libbī[šu ikpudūma]1000 (9’) […] ⌈…⌉ šuk[utt]a šillat Bābil išallalūma u[šeṣṣû] (10’) [… Bābi]l makkūr Esaĝil u Bā[bil …] (8’) [… “They have plotted e]vil ag[ain]st Babylon and the gods dwelling therein. (9’) […] they plan to plunder the tre[asu]re, the booty of Babylon, and to b[ring it out.] (10’) [… Babylo]n, the property of Esaĝil and Ba[bylon” …]

Schaudig 2001, p. 552, no. K2.1 (Cyrus Cylinder), l. 8. See chapter 10.4 on the sins of Nabonidus. See the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 69 on Utu-ḫeĝal and the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 48) rev. 6 on Šulgi. The catchphrase qāta ana Bābil ana lemutti wabālu “to lay one’s hand on Babylon with evil intent” which describes Utu-ḫeĝal’s sacrilege occurs also in Chronicle P (Source 71, B, IV:9–10) in the summary of the crimes of Tukultī-Ninurta I: (IV:9b) Tukultī-Ninurta ša ana Bābil ana lemutti (10) [qāt]ī ūbilu (…) “Tukultī-Ninurta who had laid (his) [hand]s on Babylon with evil intent (…)”. See also the commentary on line 7 of the Sargon omen of Source 45. 997 Text: Gurney, OECT 11, no. 95. – Reference to Tiglath-pileser III: “[Tukultī-ap]il-Ešarra, the ki[ing, your father]” (ibidem l. 3’: [Itukul-ti-dumu]-nita-é-šár-ra lu[gal ad-ka]). 998 See the discussion in chapter 10.1 and Source 38 in particular. 999 On this sacrilege see p. 124 above sub B. 1000 Gurney, OECT 11, no. 95, ll. 8’–10’: (8’) [… l]e-mu-tu4 a-[n]a tin-tirki u diĝirmeš a-šib šà-bi-[šú ik-pu-du-ma] (9’) […] ⌈x⌉ šu-k[u-ut-t]ú šil-lat tin-tirki i-šá-al-la-lu-ma ⌈ú⌉-[še-eṣ-ṣu-ú] (10’) [… tin-ti]rki níĝ-ga é-saĝ-íl ù ti[n-tirki …]. 995 996

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

214

Chapter 10: The Impact of the Compositions on Politics

Understanding ἐπιβούλειν in Herodotus’ Hist. I:183, 3 as a resonance of Babylonian lemutta kapādu “to plot evil”, the impassioned overtone of the phrase can be taken as another hint that the ἀνδριάς statue was indeed an image of Marduk and not simply a statue of some king or any other kind of a votive gift. Taking away the processional statue of Marduk would have aimed at preventing the Babylonians from celebrating the New Year’s festival in its full form and from enthroning a native king. Controlling the means of legitimating royal rule would, of course, have been a goal for the Achaemenid kings.1001 This does not mean that the cult at Babylon would cease. But it means, that there was no cultic setting any more for the elevation of future usurper kings. According to a Babylonian text (Source 73), and in agreement with the Babylonian perception of divine justice, Xerxes finally met the end he deserved: He was killed by his own son, the classic punishment for those who plot evil against Babylon and lay their hands on the statue of Marduk.1002 Certain Greaco-Roman stories about the death of Xerxes know of a palace intrigue stirred by courtiers, who succeeded in killing Xerxes and in putting the blame on his eldest son and heir Dareios. According to these stories, Dareios in turn was killed by his younger brother Artaxerxes, who is said to have believed the lies of the courtiers and to have mistaken Dareios for the murderer.1003 However, according to the entry in a Babylonian astronomical tablet (Source 73), Xerxes was killed by a son of his, and not by courtiers. Taking into account the rather flowery character of the Graeco-Roman stories, the tales may well be an elaborate cover-up put into circulation by the younger son Artaxerxes, the true and only beneficiary of the plot.1004 On the other hand, “death from the hands of one’s own son” also harks back to a long line of literarily formed royal vitae – or rather royal deaths.1005 Although the terse note in the Babylonian diary looks so much more sober than the verbose Graeco-Roman mini-dramas, we should bear in mind that we are dealing with elements of literature in either case.

1001 Cf. the similar case of the Stone of Scone, used originally in the coronation of the kings

1002 1003 1004 1005

of Scotland, and brought to Westminster Abbey by Edward I as spoils of war. There, the stone was fitted into the wooden Coronation Chair which the British monarchs use to be crowned king or queen of England and Scotland. See the discussion on pp. 123ff. above. See the summary by Kuhrt 2010, pp. 242–243, and the texts on pp. 307–309. As suggested by Kuhrt 2010, p. 243. See the overview on p. 123 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

11. The Participants In this chapter, I shall discuss the role of the three major groups which appear as participants in the texts discussed, that is the gods (chapter 11.1), the kings and priests (chapter 11.2), the people (chapter 11.3) and the enemy (chapter 11.4). The focus will shift away from the historical figure of Ibbi-Sîn. The discussion will centre on the large groups of participants and antagonists mentioned above that form stable and decisive elements of Babylonian civilization. 11.1. The Gods By the term “god” I mean the construct of an entity which is thought to be powerful and superior to humans and which is usually called diĝir in Sumerian or ilu in Akkadian. These terms correspond to the West Semitic, Greek and Latin terms *ilah, θεός and deus. During the historical periods that matter here, Mesopotamian gods1006 were mostly anthropomorphous. Also figures and objects which we would rather call “saints” or “sacred”, such as minor spirits or holy harps, beds or weapons could be considered “divine” and were written with the divine determinative. In certain societies, also ruling, human kings were considered “divine” or “holy”.1007 Gods were not “singular” or “single”, but came as male and female, and as matrimonial couples. They would eat, drink and sleep. They were born, although this was considered to have happened outside of human experience, in times primordial. They could also die, and this in fact could happen in human, historical times and caused by human effects.1008 As a rule, Mesopotamian gods were not omnipotent. They all had to face setbacks from time to time or were in need of help by their divine colleagues.1009 Only rare specimens like Marduk were explicitly described as omniscient.1010 Divine households or courts were a reflection of human social order, in particular of the stratum of the ruling elites. At the same time, they were the source of legitimation of human, often royal power. This is also why the “kings of the gods” – Enlil, Marduk or Aššur – were male, as were their human counterparts. In all of the sources from the Old Babylonian period, Enlil of Nippur is the king of the gods. Enlil’s kingship is a topic in the letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur (Source 1, Source 2 and Source 3) and in The Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4). The 1006 See Hrůša 2015, pp. 23–38, chapter 1: “Concept of Divinity in Mesopotamia”. 1007 See pp. 43f. above and the discussion of the sacred king in chapter 11.2 below. 1008 See p. 277 below on the Death of the Goddess Baʾu described in the Lament for Sumer and

Ur, ll. 173–177.

1009 See e.g. Ea and Anu who turn back from fighting Tiʾāmat in Enūma elîš (II: 79–118) or

the embarrassing incident told in the Myth of Anzu when Anzu snatched the tablets of destiny while Enlil was bathing (Standard Babylonian recension, tablet I: 65–83; Vogelzang 1988, pp. 33, 136). 1010 See pp. 117f. above on the Šazu-theology of Marduk. According to Enūma elîš I:95, Marduk was born with “four (pairs of) eyes and four (pairs of) ears” (erbe īnāšu erbe uznāšu), making him fit to see and hear everything that happens in the four quarters of the universe. See also note 503 on p. 107 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

216

Chapter 11: The Participants

fictional letter of Samsu-iluna is an exception, in that the king calls on Anu and Enlil (Source 70, B 7), but probably means to support the cult of Marduk. The original Enlil from Nippur is also meant in the texts from the first millennium, such as in the blessings of Marduk in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 25, 27a). The Book of Prodigies (Source 36) refers to Enlil once (omen no. 42), and a couple of times to his Nippur or its region (omen nos. 16, 32, 42). According to its first line, the Book of Prodigies deals with omens observed in the time of Ibbi-Sîn. Although the collection has a strong first millennium character and even refers to the land of Chaldea twice (omens nos. 30, 46), one wonders whether its Enlil and Nippur omens may be the remains of an older tradition. In particular omen no. 32, hinting at Elam attacking Nippur, may either hark back to the first invasion in the time of Ibbi-Sîn, or to the second one under Kutir-Naḫḫunte II.1011 The Religious Chronicle, though preoccupied with Marduk and Babylon, and secondly with Nabû and Borsippa, mentions the Nippur region once (Source 37, I:14). The time the chronicle refers to is the time when the syncretism between Enlil and Marduk was in progress, and so it is certainly an outcome of this theological concept. In the sources from the first millennium, Marduk of Babylon takes over Enlil’s role as king of the gods,1012 most prominently in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), but also in the Chronicle of Early Kings,1013 and passim in many other texts. The Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 78), develops the topic of Marduk’s divine family and pedigree starting with his father Ea. Ea1014 is considered the greates creator in all heaven and earth (l. 77). Marduk, his firstborn, is “the god of the gods” (l. 78). Ea’s grandson Nabû is the one who appoints the king (l. 79). Marduk, king of the gods, rules the world from his city Babylon (ll. 17–18). He goes down to the abyss to receive a blessing for his city Babylon and his temple Esaĝil from his father, Creator Ea (Ea mummu; ll. 19–24). Ea blesses Babylon as “his chosen city” (l. 20), thereby turning it into “New Eridu”, although this is not explicitly stated here. The theological concept, however, is well known from other sources.1015 In the texts gathered here, this concept is clearly expressed in the omen of Source 57 (l. 4), and hinted at in an excerpt from the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 48, rev. 5–6). In the Esaĝil Chronicle, the blessing by Ea-Nudimmud is granted and supported by Anu and Enlil (Source 35, ll. 25–26). Then, Anu and Enlil confirm Marduk’s foremost status with another blessing of their own (ll. 27a–31). Marduk’s newly achieved predominance means that any god who dares to oppose him is doomed (ll. 34a–39). Marduk becomes the “Lord” (Bēl) par excellence,1016 and the new “Enlil”, the king of the gods. Among the texts gathered here, the concept of Marduk as the new Enlil is verbally expressed in the omen of Source 59,1017 and again, of course, in the Esaĝil On the second invasion see chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3. On this development see the discussion p. 68. Excerpts: Source 48, Source 44. Called Ea mummu “Creator Ea”, and by his ancient Sumerian title Nudimmud in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 19, 25). 1015 See the commentary on Source 35, l. 20 and on Source 57, l. 4; cf. also Source 48. 1016 See here e.g. Source 57, l. 2, or Source 35: Marduk (l. 58) = Bēl (l. 60). 1017 Enlil = Marduk in l. 11, his city Babylon mentioned in ll. 8, 9, 15 and 16. 1011 1012 1013 1014

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Gods

217

Chronicle.1018 A last important concept has to be mentioned here, that is the notion of Marduk as “He-Who-Knoweth-the-Heart” (Šazu = dšà-zu). This capacity of Marduk, qualifying him as the one who sees and knows all, is implied in the Esaĝil Chronicle,1019 but the title proper is not preserved there. Marduk’s son Nabû figures in the Religious Chronicle when the New Year’s festival is dealt with,1020 and prominently again in the Esaĝil Chronicle, where he is given the opulent theological name Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti “Son-of-the-House-of-allHeaven-and-Earth”, the firstborn of Esaĝil (Source 35, l. 47). Nabû’s city and his temple, Borsippa and Ezida, also appear in the Book of Prodigies.1021 Traces of the original supremacy of Anu and Enlil, the ancient chief gods of the pantheon during the third and second millennium, still can be found in texts from the first millennium. In the fictional letter of Samsu-iluna, the ancient image of the king as the favourite of Anu and Enlil is employed (Source 70, B 7). In like manner, Sumu-la-El, the founder of the First Dynasty of Babylon, is “the king whose name Anu has proclaimed” in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 80). And it is also the Esaĝil Chronicle which has Anu and Enlil give their consent to Marduk’s new and foremost status among the gods,1022 very much as they do in Enūma elîš.1023 The Seleucid chronicle from Uruk dealing with Šulgi also knows of the crimes against Marduk and Babylon, but apparently shifts its focus back to Anu, the tutelar deity of Uruk (Source 49, obv. 13, 18). This renewed elevation of Anu is certainly due to the restoration of his cultic status at Uruk in the Seleucid period by the local priesthood, after the Late Babylonian imperial dominion of Marduk had faded away together with Babylonian kingship.1024 The last deity to be mentioned here is the goddess Gula-Ninkarrak, who gives Marduk a leg up in the Esaĝil Chronicle.1025 Her prominent status in the chronicle is explained by the fact that under her name Nin-Isina (“Lady-of-Isin”) she was the tutelar deity of the city of Isin, from where the Second Dynasty of Isin originated. The god Aššur does not play any role in the texts discussed here, but he stands in the background as an implied addressee of the manuscript of the Esaĝil Chronicle from Aššur (Source 35, text A). In the days of Assyria’s doom to come, he will be the first in a line of hostile gods to suffer from Marduk’s revenge.1026 Source 35: Marduk (l. 58) = Enlil (l. 61). Source 35, l. 76, see also l. 35c. On Šazu see the discussion on pp. 117f. above. Source 37, ll. III:5’, 8’, 13’b, 14’b, 18’. Source 36, l. 27, omen no. 41. Source 35, ll. 25–26, 27a–31. In Enūma elîš, Anu and Enlil frame the scenery of the final blessing of Marduk, when the gods pronounce his 50 names. Anu sets up the throne for Marduk in the divine assembly (Ee VI:93–94) and Enlil pronounces his 50th and last name (Ee VII:135) before Ea gives him his own name “Ea”in addition (Ee VII:140). 1024 Beaulieu 1992; Kessler 2004. 1025 Source 35; the goddess is called Ninkarrak in l. 10, Gula in l. 14; her shrine Egalmaḫ in Isin is mentioned in lines 10 and 13. 1026 On the punishment which is in stock for “hostile gods” see ll. 36–39 of the Esaĝil Chronicle and the discussion above on pp. 115ff. On the execution of Marduk’s verdict see recently Schaudig 2018. 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

218

Chapter 11: The Participants

11.2. Kings and Priests By the term “king” I mean the human person bearing the Sumerian and Akkadian titles lugal or šarru, which correspond to the West Semitic, Greek and Latin terms mal(i)ku, βασιλεύς and rex.1027 Usually, this was the most powerful and most important male1028 person in a given realm who exercised administrative and military power. By the term “priests” I mean the personell of the Babylonian temples in the widest sense.1029 By its very nature, the mainly economically oriented documentation of the administration of Babylonian temples maps the economic activities of the temple personell in far more detail than the cultic activities.1030 The texts in the present corpus tell us only very little about the structure, the organization and responsibilities of the temple personell. Quite often, the temple personell is subsumed under the term šangû, a term whose translations oscillate between “priest” and “chief administrator of a temple”, which demonstrates how difficult it is to tell “cultic” and “administrative” duties apart. If the texts become more specific, they usually single out the “high priest” (šešgallu or aḫu-rabû, literally “big brother”).1031 The pamphlet of Source 70 contains a sweeping enumeration of “the temple enterers (ēribūt-bīti), the collegium (kinaltu), nêšakku-priests, pašīšu-priests and diĝirgubbû-priests of the cult-centres of the land of Akkad”, but we are told nothing but that all these people were “wicked”. Socially speaking, we can be quite safe in assuming that those people who would be appointed to a “priestly rank” would have originated from the urban elites of the Babylonian cities. This social class of people is otherwise referred to as ṣābū kidinni, who would enjoy the privileged status of exemption of taxes and corvée labour.1032 The famous “high priestesses” (nin-diĝir or ēntu) pose a special problem, since they usually were princesses, introduced into the local fabric of the temples by their royal fathers.1033 In most cases, we can only surmise that the persons who originally arranged and recorded the written sources that are available to us came from the ranks of the 1027 Following Heimpel 1992, in particular pp. 4–6. On the Old and Neo-Babylonian

kingship see e.g. Kraus 1974 and Brinkman 1974.

1028 On the character of Assyrian and Babylonian kingship as a male office see the

discussion on pp. 148f. in the chapter on the “female king” Ku-Baʾu of Kiš.

1029 On Mesopotamian “priests” in general see Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2003–2005 (RlA

1030 1031 1032 1033

10), pp. 617–640; Hrůša 2015, pp. 74–84, chapter 3.3: “The personell of the cult” (including the king). See also Waerzeggers’ (2011, p. 60) caveat: “It will become clear in the course of this article that ‘the Babylonian priesthood’ is a multi-faceted institution that is difficult to define precisely. It is wrong to differentiate the various groups involved in the cult according to our notions of what constitutes a priest.” See Waerzeggers 2010, pp. 33–76 on the “priesthood” of the temple Ezida at Borsippa in this respect. On the Babylonian priesthood in the first millennium see Jursa 2013. See, in the present corpus, the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), l. II:5. See also Waerzeggers 2010, pp. 45–46 on the aḫu-rabû. See the discussion in chapter 11.3, A below. See the discussion on p. 228 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Kings and Priests

219

“cultic personell” in the widest sense.1034 As usual, the sources are not signed or attributed to a specific author. So, although our sources leave much to be desired in terms of authorship and audience, we nevertheless can work with the basic concepts of “kings” and “priests”, since the “royal focus” or “divine focus” of our texts renders the groups identifiable. Among the civilizations of the ancient Near East, it is exilic and post-exilic Judah which is most prominently known for its systematic criticism of the institution of kingship. This criticism had its breakthrough after the devastation of Jerusalem and the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar II in 586 BCE. The king of Judah was not only unable to avert the catastrophe, but he was even held responsible for it in the aftermath. A similar, yet somewhat softer critique of the role of the king appears to have emerged in Babylonia. Since native kingship in Babylonia was never extinguished as completely as it was in Judah, and since the institution of kingship was considered to be of divine origin,1035 disappointment with particular kings never was articulated as fundamentally as it was in the Jewish community. Our view on Mesopotamian kingship is dominated by the divine kings of the dynasties of Akkade and Ur in the third millennium, and by the Neo-Assyrian kings in the first millennium.1036 In the third millennium, the figure of the king often was “deified”, i.e. considered divine in exerting certain functions of his office. In Assyria, the king was first and foremost priest (šangû) of the god Aššur, and his appointee (waklu). In Babylonia, the situation was more complex and quite different. In southern Babylonia, i.e. ancient Sumer, we can trace the idea of the divine nature of the king back to the middle of the third millennium.1037 The text of the Stele of the Vultures portrays Eʾannatum prince of Lagaš as engendered by his divine lord, the city god Nin-Ĝirsu himself. As a baby, the king is adopted by Inanna, the goddess of war, and nursed by the mother-goddess Nin-ḫursaĝa. That is why he grows up into a giant warrior of 5 cubits’ size, able and ready to subdue the enemy country on behalf of his lord Nin-Ĝirsu.1038 Eʾannatum however, even though endowed with strength beyond ordinary human nature, apparently was not deified, i.e. his name was not written with the divine determinative, and there was no temple dedicated to his worship. We can find the same perception of the super-human nature and body of the king in the rendering of the figure of Gilgamesh, the legendary king of Uruk. Being “two thirds a god” he is famous for his enormous physique, designed by the gods 1034 In the present corpus, see the chronicle on Šulgi which was at least copied by a

descendant of a “high priest” (aḫu-rabû) of the Bīt-rēš at Uruk (Source 49, rev. 7’).

1035 See rather recently Wilcke 2002. 1036 On the following topics see in less detail already Schaudig 2010, pp. 156–159. 1037 On various aspects of the history of divine kingship in the ancient Near East see

Sallaberger 2002, Wilcke 2002, Michalowski 2008a, and many more contributions in Erkens 2002 and Brisch 2008. Brisch 2011 gives an overview on the “Changing Images of Kingship in Sumerian Literature”. See very recently Steinkeller 2017, pp. 28–39: “Early Southern Babylonian Kingship”; pp. 107–157: “The Divine Rulers of Akkade and Ur: Toward a Definition of the Deification of Kings in Babylonia”. 1038 Text and translation: Frayne, RIME 1, pp. 129–130, no. E1.9.3.1, IV:9–V:17; discussion: Selz 1998, pp. 322–323.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

220

Chapter 11: The Participants

themselves.1039 And the same imagery is still employed in 7th century Assyria, when king Aššurbanipal is portrayed as nursed and raised by the Ištar of Nineveh when he was a baby.1040 In Mesopotamia, the king was considered a particularly fine specimen of the human race, created and raised with special care by divine grace.1041 The king took part in the divine sphere, and in excercising the office of kingship, created by the gods, parts of his persona were sacred. Furthermore, kings could also wield priestly titles, in particular in the third millennium BCE.1042 The deification of kings however, which might appear a hallmark of the ancient Near East in its entirety, is a rather confined and short-lived phenomenon. As stated above, there had been semi-divine, heroic figures of the king like Eʾannatum or Gilgameš, whose divine elements justified worship, in particular after the death of their mortal parts. But the first historical king who fully exploited this notion, writing his name with the divine determinative, having a temple built for him, and sometimes even wearing the divine horned crown, was Narām-Sîn of Akkade (ca. 2270–2235 BCE). We can trace the deification of Narām-Sîn to a very particular historical event: When “the four corners of the world” rose against him and his city Akkade in rebellion, he victoriously fought “nine campaigns in one year” and saved his city Akkade from destruction. In gratitude for his heroic deed, the citizens of Akkade asked the gods for permission to worship Narām-Sîn as “god of their city” and built a temple for him in Akkade.1043 In saving his city, Narām-Sîn had proved himself as “protective deity of his country”, substantiating a royal function which was expressed in the epithet diĝir kalam-ma-na only later under Šulgi of Ur.1044 Starting with Šulgi,1045 all the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur received divine honours. In exercising his divine office or his priestly functions the king was considered sacred and pure. This quality of the divine body of the king is rather 1039 According to the Standard Babylonian recension (tablet I:48–50), see George 2003/I,

1040 1041

1042

1043 1044 1045

pp. 540–541. According to the Hittite version, the gods designed for him a height of 11 cubits and a breast 9 spans wide, see Otten 1958, pp. 98–99, obv. I:7–8. The Dialogue between Aššurbanipal and Nabû (Livingstone 1989, p. 34, no. 13, rev. 6–8). Verbally formulated in the Creation of the King (VAT 17019, VS 24, no. 92), a NeoBabylonian text from Babylon; editions and discussions by Mayer 1987; CancikKirschbaum 1995, pp. 6–11; Dietrich & Dietrich 1998, pp. 233–234; Maul 1999, p. 207; Jiménez 2013. The philosophy of the text has obviously also been applied to describe the creation of Nabonidus by the gods in an inscription of this king, see Schaudig 2001, p. 363. The king (māliku-awīlu “the deliberating man”) is a version of the ordinary man (lullû-awīlu) in higher quality. See Sallaberger 2002, pp. 91–92 and Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 624, § 4.1 on titles like išib “purification priest” and pa4-šeš “big brother” for kings from the late Early Dynastic period to Isin I. On the Assyrian priest-king, who also bore the title išippu “purification priest”, see immediately below. Frayne, RIME 2, pp. 113–114, Narām-Sîn no. 10; Westenholz 1999, pp. 51–54; Steinkeller 2017, pp. 123–124. Sallaberger 1999, pp. 152–154; Steinkeller 2017, p. 152. See also pp. 43f. above. On “Šulgi’s Concept of Divine Kingship” see recently Vacín 2015.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Kings and Priests

221

close to the idea of the two bodies of the king in mediaeval Europe.1046 In succession and imitation of the Third Dynasty, also the kings of the dynasties of Isin and Larsa were deified. A last peak of the ideology of the divine king can be observed in the cult of Rīm-Sîn I of Larsa1047 who finally was defeated by Hammurapi of Babylon. But already during the reign of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the kings’ claim to divinity could be disputed, in particular, when they failed to meet the demands of the concept of the “protective deity of the country”.1048 With the shift of power to the First Dynasty of Babylon, the custom of writing the king’s name with a divine determinative fell out of use, and the idea of the sacred king faded.1049 The names of Kassite kings were sometimes arbitrarily written with a divine determinative in contemporary economic texts, but almost never in official royal inscriptions.1050 This certainly shows that the orthographic deification was nothing more than an archaizing courtesy by the scribes, and had no cultic background in reality. For the inscriptions of his building projects in the southern Mesopotamian city of Uruk, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II (722–705 BCE) had the orthographical deification revived which marked the divine status of the kings of Sumer and Babylonia in the third and early second millennium. In bricks from Uruk his name is written as “Divine Šarru-ukīn”, using the divine determinative diĝir “god”.1051 Here, Sargon is indeed reviving an ancient Babylonian custom, yet a custom and an idea of kingship which had fallen out of use in Babylonia nearly a millennium earlier. In Assyria, matters were very different. The phenomenon of “kingly priests” or “priestly kings” that was known in early Mesopotamia continued later only in Assyria where the king functioned as šangû “high priest” and išippu “purificationpriest”.1052 In Assyria, the ancient concept of the priest-king never was dropped. 1046 Kantorowicz 1966. In the setting of the ancient Near East, Kantorowicz’s theory has

1047

1048

1049 1050

1051 1052

been discussed by Loretz 2003, pp. 691–714, chapter 6: “The King’s Two Bodies in der politischen Theologie des altorientalischen Königtums” and recently by Kühn 2018. Pientka-Hinz 2006–2008a (RlA 11), pp. 370–371, § 4.2. On the royal praise literature of the court of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa and its historical background see Brisch 2007, pp. 53–69, 116–117; Brisch 2011, pp. 714–715. See note 775 on p. 165 for the scribes of Umma who ommitted the divine deter– minative in the name of Šu-Sîn even during his reign, and see p. 44 on Ibbi-Sîn whose claim to divinity was even ridiculed in the literature of the Old Babylonian period. Even though Hammurapi in the prologue of his stele still calls himself ilu šarrī “god among the kings” (i-lu lugal-rí, CH III:16). According to the list given by Brinkman 1976, royal names written with divine deter– minatives are found nearly exclusively in contemporary economic texts: KadašmanEnlil (II): pp. 140–141 (1× in a royal grant); Kadašman-Turgu: p. 164; Kaštiliyaš IV: pp. 186–187; Kudur-Enlil: pp. 201–202; Kurigalzu: p. 243, rarely also in royal inscriptions from Ur and Uruk; Nazi-Maruttaš: pp. 284–286; Šagarakti-Šuriaš: pp. 306–311. Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 150–152: dlugal-ú-kin in no. B.6.22.4, I:1, no. B.6.22.5, l. 6, and no. B.6.22.6, l. 4. Seux 1980–1983 (RlA 6), pp. 169–170, §§ 96–100: šangû/išippu; Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 624, § 4.1: king as priest/šangû. – Already the Sumero-

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

222

Chapter 11: The Participants

“King” (šarru) was not the foremost title of the Assyrian king. Above all, he was priest (šangû) of the god Aššur, and his appointee (waklu/iššiakku), acting as a representative of the god.1053 Starting with Aššur-uballiṭ I (ca. 1363–1328 BCE), the Assyrian kings bore the title šangû Aššur “priest of Aššur”. Ninurta-apil-Ekur (ca. 1191–1179 BCE) and Aššur-nāṣir-apli II (883–824 BCE) were “priest of (the Assyrian) Enlil”, respectively “priest of Aššur and Ninurta”.1054 In the Neo-Assyrian period, the Assyrian king in full royal attire, wearing the regalia, was considered the incarnation of the god Ninurta.1055 The more important term designating the office of the Assyrian king was šangûtu “priesthood”,1056 the term šarrūtu “kingship” was the lesser one. It is the priestly office of the Assyrian kings and their purity that set them most apart from their Babylonian colleagues. That is why the Assyrian palaces were given Sumerian names as the temples were,1057 and it is also why the Assyrian palaces were lavishly provided with baths. These were not simple toilets, but ceremonial baths, set up for the incessant purification of the Assyrian sacred king. This remains true even if lavatories are also found more often in private houses in Assyria than in Babylonia. The “toilets” or “bath-rooms” of Assyrian palaces were costly and elaborate structures, often close to the throne room, were the Assyrian king could be purified again when he had been acting on official occasions and perhaps had come into polluting contact with ordinary people or even with enemies. The most prominent example is certainly the pair of huge baths attached symmetrically to the hall G of Aššurnasirpal’s palace at Kalḫu.1058 It is no coincidence that these structures are completely absent from Babylonian palaces. It is not because the Babylonian kings would have preferred chamber pots to lavatories, but because

1053

1054 1055

1056 1057 1058

Babylonian kings from the late Early Dynastic period to Isin I bore sometimes the title išib “purification priest”, see note 1042 above. Menzel 1981/I, pp. 157–159 on the Assyrian king as priest (šangû); Maul 1999; Machinist 2011, pp. 406–409; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, pp. 202–205; Liverani 2017, pp. 110, 114. Seux 1967, pp. 112–116 with note 27, read šangû (saĝĝa) instead of iššiakku. Livingstone 1989, p. 102, no. 39, rev. 20–23; Maul 1999, pp. 209–211; Annus 2002, pp. 6, 100–101; Pongratz-Leisten 2015, pp. 446–447. – Some scholars even assume that the Assyrian king did wear the divine tiara of Aššur (Bēl-agû) on his own head on certain occasions (Menzel 1981/II, pp. T 44–45 on A.485+3109, rev. 4–6, p. T 49 on A.413, rev. 23; Maul 2000, p. 394 with note 57; Ambos 2017, p. 74). I think, however, that this is a misunderstanding of the Assyrian texts. I think the king did not wear the tiara on his head, but lifted it high above his head, before setting it down on a pedestal and preparing offerings in front of it. CAD Š/I, s.v. šangûtu b-c, pp. 383–384, referring to the Assyrian kings’ function as the šangû of Aššur and to their care for the temples. See the overview by George 1993, p. 171; Postgate 2003–2005 (RlA 10), pp. 212–216. Examining the pictural programme of hall G of Aššurnasirpal’s palace at Kalḫu, just next to the hall H with the lavatories in I–J and N-M, Mark Brandes (1970, p. 154) proposed that it was used for the ritual purification of the king: “salle de lustration”. On these rooms see more recently Russell 1998, pp. 671–697; Kertai 2015, pp. 39–40. On the bath-rooms in Neo-Assyrian palaces in general see Kertai 2015, pp. 190–194.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Kings and Priests

223

they did not hold any priestly functions and hence did not need these lustration baths. The Neo-Assyrian kings were clearly aware of their peculiar qualification which gave them an edge over their Babylonian colleagues and rivals on certain occasions. When Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) took the liberty to parade all over Babylonia during the reign of the Babylonian king Marduk-zākir-šumi, he payed visits to the cult centres of Cutah, Babylon and Borsippa, where he was performing rites and presenting offerings in the temples on his own.1059 He could do so because he was a priest (šangû) – apart from the plain and ordinary fact that there was no one to stop him. Adad-nārārī III did the same later. In addition, Adad-nārārī was offered the leftovers of the meal offerings to the gods of Babylon, Borsippa, and Cutha by the local priests, who thus complimented him as a king of Babylonia.1060 The sacred or quasi-divine status of the Assyrian king also spread to members of his family in cultic context. A Neo-Assyrian ritual demands that “when cooked meat is provided before the goddess Šērūʾa”, the daughter, respectively the sister of the king “is Šērūʾa as if it were her own name”.1061 Much later, in the time of the Roman occupation, the idea of “priestly kings” is prominently also found in Syria.1062 The most famous priestly dynasty was the one of Emesa (Ḥoms) which gave rise to the Severan dynasty in Rome, culminating in the rule of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, dubbed Elagabalus, who pursued the elevation of his native sun-god of Emesa to the head of the pantheon of the Roman empire. In Babylonia, the idea of the priestly or even divine (“deified”) king had faded in the course of the second millennium, and the priestly offices were fully occupied by professional priests. Evidence for the religious character of the AssyroBabylonian kingship comes in almost every case from third millennium Babylonia and later from Assyria.1063 Even though the idea that normal humans and the king were created differently can be traced down in Babylonia from the third to the first millennium,1064 the idea 1059 Grayson, RIMA 3, pp. 30–31, no. A.0.102.5, V:4–VI:5; p. 46, no. A.0.102.8, l. 27’; p. 53, no.

A.0.102.10, II:40–42; and passim.

1060 Grayson, RIMA 3, p. 213, no. A.0.104.8, ll. 23–24. On the meaning of the leftovers and

their political significance see the discussion on pp. 170ff. above.

1061 See Parpola 2017, pp. 156–158, IV:55’–56’; V:52’–56’. The phrase “as if it were her own

́ a. Originally, Šērūʾa appears to have been the wife name” is expressed by kīma šumīšām of the god Aššur. After he had been elevated to the position of the “Assyrian Enlil”, the goddess Ninlil-Mullissu took the role of his main wife. Then, the position of Šērūʾa began to oscillate between Aššur’s concubine, daughter or sister; see Menzel 1981/I, pp. 63–65; differently Meinhold 2009, pp. 217–218. 1062 See Kaizer 2005. 1063 See pp. 220ff. above. The notion of the “religious character of the Assyro-Babylonian kingship” depends heavily on René Labat’s study Le charactère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris 1939), pp. 131–147: the king as priest. On the character of the Late Babylonian kingship in general see recently Waerzeggers 2015b, pp. 187–189. 1064 See the discussion on pp. 219f. above with note 1041 on the Neo-Babylonian text dubbed The Creation of the King.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 11: The Participants

224

of the divine nature of the king did not survive into Babylonian thought of the same period. As opposed to the sacred Assyrian priest-king, the Babylonian king was neither sacred nor priest any more in the first millennium. When approaching the divine, he was in need of guidance and protection. The famous scene on the Sun-God Tablet of the Babylonian king Nabû-apla-iddina (ca. 888–855 BCE) shows exactly this kind of attitude towards the king (fig. 15).1065 The king is led by a priest as if by a protective deity. It is the priest only who is allowed to touch the divine table set up in front of the sun-god, it is the priest who mediates between the humans – even kings – and the gods. The scene is inspired by the “presentation scene” of the late third millennium.1066 But in those days, it was minor protective deities who would introduce a worshipper before a higher god or king. In the first millennium, the position of the protective deity was taken by a priest.

15

Figure 15: Introduction scene on the Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina (ca. 888– 855 BCE). The priest Nabû-nādin-šumi leads king Nabû-apla-iddina, guarded by a protective lamma-deity, into the presence of Šamaš at Sippar (detail from V R 60).

The relief of the Sun-God Tablet from the mid-ninth century is perfectly matched by a ritual from the Seleucid era describing how the king is allowed to enter the cella of Marduk on occasion of the Babylonian New Year’s Festival. In this ritual, the high priest comes out of the cella of Marduk, and takes the king in with him.1067 1065 For a recent and detailed treatment of the tablet see Woods 2004. 1066 A simple version of the “presentation scene”, with just one protective deity marching

behind the worshipper, is depicted here in fig. 1 on p. 36.

1067 From the ritual for the Babylonian New Year’s Festival (akītu) in spring (Nissān), lines

415–420, see Linssen 2004, pp. 222–223. A new edition and discussion of the New Year’s Festival in Hellenistic Babylon is provided by Linssen 2004, pp. 79–86, 215–237, and in detail by Zgoll 2006. The date of the colophon is lost, but the text can roughly be dated to the Hellenistic period, see Linssen 2004, p. 11.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Kings and Priests

225

The high priest has the king enter before Marduk-Bēl, yet not all at once into the cella, but rather into the court-yard or the pre-cella. Only after the high priest has removed the royal insignia from the king and brought them into the cella, does he also lead the king into the cella before Marduk: – [šarr]a ana arkīšu išakkan ana pān Bēl ušerrebšu1068 “He will place [the kin]g behind him and introduce him into the presence of Bēl.” In the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the sacred king was not in need of a priestly intermediary to introduce him to a deity. Although the scene on the Sun-God Tablet refers to the introduction scene of the third millennium, its perception of the roles of the participants has changed thoroughly. In the Seleucid New Year’s Festival ritual, the king then was to kneel down before Marduk and the high priest and he was to utter the famous Negative Confession of Sins. While doing this, the king was slapped twice in the face by the high priest. The first slap expressed the accusation of oppressing Babylon, which the king had to refute by his Negative Confession. The second slap was to remind him and to produce an omen: If the king cried, Marduk would have mercy on him and his reign. If not, he was doomed and Marduk would abolish his reign. With the Negative Confession of Sins, the king had to assert that he did not neglect the status of Marduk, Babylon and Esaĝil, that he did not harm the privileged social status of the citizens of Babylon (see chapter 11.3, A), and that he did not destroy the wall of Babylon:1069 – (423) [ul aḫ]ṭi bēl mātāti ul ēgi ana ilūtīka (424) [ul uḫa]lliq Bābil ul aqṭabi sapāḫšu (425) [ul urī]b Esaĝil ul umašši parṣīšu (426) [ul anda]ḫḫaṣ lēt ṣābī kidinni (427) [. . . . . ul] aškun qalālšunu (428) [upā]q ana Bābil ul ābut šalḫâšu (423) [I have not sin]ned, Lord of the lands, I have not neglected your godhead! (424) [I have not ru]ined Babylon, I have not ordered its dissolution! (425) [I have not made] Esaĝil [trem]ble, I have not assigned its rites to oblivion! (426) [I have not str]uck the cheek of any privileged subject, (427) [. . . . . .] I have [not] brought about their humiliation! (428) [I do tak]e care of Babylon, I have not destroyed its wall! The short pledge reads like a list of the hideous sacrileges attributed to TukultīNinurta I, Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, Sennacherib, or later also Nabonidus and Xerxes. Ever since those remote days of the third millennium when the king had been considered the venerable protective deity of his country, Babylonia had had various bad experiences with negligent or even wicked kings, be they foreign like 1068 My reading of the line follows the copy: [luga]l ana egir-šú ĝar-an ana igi d+en ú-še-reb-

šú (Thureau-Dangin 1921, p. 154, l. 420). Linssen 2004, p. 223 reads at the beginning: [LUGAL(?)] EGIR-šú GAR-an (…), without any collation mark. 1069 After Linssen 2004, p. 223, ll. 423–428.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

226

Chapter 11: The Participants

Sennacherib or native like Nabonidus.1070 The very peculiar new role assigned to the Babylonian king – being led by the hand like a child, being slapped in the face like an evil-doer, kneeling before Marduk and his high priest – certainly was the result of those frustrating experiences. The ancient Near East has a peculiar focus on the figure of the king throughout the three millennia of its historical tradition. From the very beginning, it is the king who, with his pious deeds, works as an intermediary between humans and gods and who is expected to be a blessing for his land and his people. If he turns out to be incompetent or even wicked, how could he not become a curse for his people, to be blamed for any mishap or disaster that would strike? Texts like the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35),1071 the chronicles on Šulgi (Source 48, Source 49), Chronicle P (Source 71) or the so-called Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72) are quite frank about the fact that it is the wicked king who, even if personally punished justly by the gods, still may lead his dynasty or land into disaster. There are notoriously bad kings like Puzur-ilī, Enmerkar, and Ur-Zababa. There are good kings who turned bad, like Sargon of Akkade, Utu-ḫeĝal of Uruk, and perhaps Ku-Baʾu of Kiš. And there are arch-malefactors like the Elamite Kutir-Naḫḫunte II or the Assyrian kings Tukultī-Ninurta I and Sennacherib. The conviction that it is the king who is to blame when things go wrong, even though the cultic personnel has far more opportunities to mess things up since they are in daily contact with the divine, is firmly embedded in the philosophy of a text like the Religious Chronicle. This even applies to those cases when the king is not particularly bad, but just weak, incompetent or perhaps negligent. There is one particular “sin of negligence” (egītu) which lies behind other flaws and sins dealt with in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), even if not addressed verbally in the text. That is the fact that those kings the chronicle deals with obviously did not dwell at Babylon, but came there only on certain occasions, most notably on the occasion of the New Year’s festival. This, of course, had historical reasons. During the time the Religious Chronicle is occupied with, Marduk and Babylon had not been holding their predominant status for long. The kings of the First Dynasty of Babylon had, of course, been residing there, since their state basically was a city state. But the Kassite kings had been residing mainly at Dūr-Kurigalzu, which held a shrine dedicated to Enlil. In those days, Marduk was not the king of the gods yet. Nebuchadnezzar I, who took pride in being born at Babylon,1072 apparently also had a residence there,1073 but this does not necessarily apply to his successors. 1070 On the role of the Negative Confession of Sins see Smith 1982, pp. 91–93 (putting to much

stress on foreign kings, though, and underestimating the role that wicked native kings played in Babylonia); Michalowski 1990, p. 393; Frahm 1997, pp. 22–23; PongratzLeisten 1997; Linssen 2004, p. 82; Zgoll 2006, pp. 27–28, 61–64. See also Cole 1994 on the crimes and sacrileges of the Babylonian king Nabû-šuma-iškun (8th cent. BCE). On the topic of “bad kings in the literary history of Mesopotamia” see Pongratz-Leisten 2014. 1071 See the overview of the topics of the composition in chapters 7.1 and 7.3. 1072 He called himself ṣīt Bābil “scion of Babylon” (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 33, no. B.2.4.11, I:2). 1073 The Epic of Nebuchadnezzar imagined him as dwelling in Babylon: ašib ina Bābil Nabûkudurrī-uṣur (after Frame, RIMB 2, p. 18, no. B.2.4.5, obv. 1).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Kings and Priests

227

Even in those days when Babylon finally took over the role of Nippur, Babylonian theologians could have been content with the king attending the festivals. After all, at Nippur no human king ever had his residence. The kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur had their residence at Ur and visited Nippur on occasion. But for the author of the Religious Chronicle, Marduk is the king of the universe, and Babylon is the centre of the world. If the human king does not reside in the city where the king of the gods does, he is neglecting Babylon’s status. Centuries later, after Babylon had become the main residence of the Babylonian king, Nebuchadnezzar II still sharply rebuked his predecessors for having belittled the status of Babylon by choosing other cities as their residence:1074 “In former times, from times immemorial unto the reign of Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, (my) father, who begot me, (all those) many kings, who went before me, in their favourite cities, wherever they liked, built palaces and took them as their residence, they stored their goods therein and heaped up their wealth. (Only) at the New Year’s festival, when Marduk, the Enlil of the gods, rises, did they enter Babylon.” After this passage, Nebuchadnezzar II goes on describing how he embellished Babylon like no other city, turning to Marduk with all his heart.1075 In those times the Religious Chronicle deals with, this ideal situation did not yet exist in reality. But according to the religious demands of the chronicle, the kings, of course, already then jeopardized the whole universe by being late for the akītu festival at Babylon. There are several cases the chronicle notes when the king was either late for the festival, or even did not come at all. In these cases, the festival had to be cancelled. For the theologians of Marduk, every akītu festival that could not be celebrated meant that chaos in the form of Tiʾāmat could not be vanquished ritually for a year.1076 A series of several akītu festivals not celebrated would bring the world on the brink of annihilation, as can be seen from the dramatic signs of cosmic disintegration (III:16’–19’) following a line of nine cancelled akītu festivals in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37, III:13’b–14’b). By the beginning of the first millennium, it was apparently the priests who were bold enough to challenge the king, addressing the question which one of the two parties – priests or kings – could serve the gods better. In answering this question, the Religious Chronicle (Source 37) is quite clear. Very much like the Book of Chronicles of the Hebrew Bible, it is eager to emphasize the flaws and sins of particular kings. And so it comes as no surprise, that it is the priests, most notably the high priests (šešgallu/aḫu-rabû) of Marduk, who stand in for the king and keep things going, in order to avert the worst. A list of the flaws and shortcomings of particular kings listed in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37) reads like this:

1074 Langdon 1912, pp. 114–115, Nbc. no. 14 I:44–49; pp. 134–135, Nbc. no. 15 VII:9–25. 1075 On Nebuchadnezzar II, his devotion to Marduk and his concept of Babylon see in more

detail Schaudig 2010, pp. 159–163.

1076 On the meaning of the Babylonian akītu Festival see p. 190 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 11: The Participants

228

– king is late for more than a month for the akītu festival II:1 – king does not scatter (incense) II:2, 5 – high-priest stands in for the king, scatters (incense) II:5 – priests stand in for the king and present offerings II:3–4 – king does not come, akītu cancelled III:5’ – king does not come, akītu cancelled, no offering III:8’–9’; 10’ – (high-priest) stands in for the king and offers III:11’a In some cases it is not explicitly stated that the king did not come to the akītu festival or other processions, but only that the event was cancelled. But since the processions would have certainly taken place if the king would have been present and if he would have done his duty to keep any harm, disturbance or enemy at bay, these cases, too, are subliminal accusations of the king’s failure: – procession of Bēl’s chariot cancelled II:16–17 – akītu cancelled II:18 – akītu cancelled for 9 years in succession III:13’b–14’b To underline the evil impact of the Babylonian New Year’s Festival being cancelled for nine years in succession, one may note that it was even for ten years in succession that the akītu festival at Babylon was cancelled due to Nabonidus’ absence to Arabia from his 4th to his 13th regnal year.1077 The worst thing ever to do in a problematic and even liminal situation like this is acting “as if everything was all right” (kī šalmi). But this is precisely what the Religious Chronicle and the Nabonidus Chronicle blame their kings for.1078 According to the chronicles, those kings were naive enough to hope that their negligence or wickedness had no consequences. But the priests knew better. This attitude is all the more telling, since in official literature there are only two groups of priests who are accused of comitting sins. The one is the group of the high priestesses (ēnētu). However, these priestesses had been chosen from royal princesses and had been appointed by ruling kings, often in order to influence the temples’ attitude in favour of their fathers.1079 So the “confession” that the high priestesses (ēnētu) would sin against their divine husbands (Source 57, l. 3), i.e. against the gods, is nothing but another blame put upon the possibly wicked holders of kingship. The other group of wicked priests are those of rivalling gods, e.g. the priests of Enlil, Anu, etc. who would not acknowledge Marduk’s predominance. This group of “heretics” is, of course, not only sharply rebuked, but, if possible, handed over to annihilation, burning them with purifying fire.1080

1077 See the discussion on pp. 439f. below. 1078 See pp. 438ff. below in the commentary on the Religious Chronicle (Source 37) II:4. 1079 See p. 261 with note 1258. In the present corpus, the custom is reflected in Source 2, ll.

20–24.

1080 See the drastic description in Source 70 and Scurlock 2012.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The People

229

11.3. The People The “people” form a homogenous and opaque mass in Babylonian historiography. The many social differences which, of course, also stratified Babylonian society mostly go unheeded. The “people” form simply the main body of the human population. They are headed by the king and, together with him, they are subjected to the gods. By the nature of our written sources, the well-to-do and socially influential strata, i.e. the urban elites, dominate our image of the “Babylonian people”. The main but rather neutral terms are the Akkadian nišū and the Sumerian ùĝ “people”. There are three terms that merit special attention because they give evidence of the self-perception of the Babylonians. The first term (A) is a socio-economic one. The other two (B–C) are poetic designations which express certain attitudes towards humans, the one (B) in a more benevolent style, the other one (C) perhaps taking a slightly pejorative view: A: ṣābū kidinni “The Privileged Citizens (of a Babylonian City)” B: nammaššû “The People (of Babylonia)” C: ṣalmāt qaqqadi “The Black-Headed (People)” A. ṣābū kidinni “The Privileged Citizens (of a Babylonian City)” From the large group of normal people a certain type of humans stands out. They do not differ from the rest of humanity physically, but socially. These are the people who inhabit certain cult centres and enjoy a particular divine protection (kidinnūtu).1081 The Babylonian cities usually listed among these cult centres are Babylon – the city of Marduk, the Enlil of the gods in the first millennium, Nippur – the city of the original Enlil, and Sippar – the city of Šamaš, held by the Babylonians as one of the oldest cities of the world (āl ṣīʾāti “primeval city”). But there were certainly more. In fact any of the old cities ruled by a tutelar deity like Ur (Sîn) and Uruk (An and Ištar) could claim a special status due to divine protection. The exact details of the privileged status (kidinnūtu) resulting from that protection are not always clear. Basically, it meant that the citizens were principally to maintain and to support their tutelar deity and temple, and that they enjoyed freedom (zakûtu) from other taxes and corvée labour in order to do so. Violating this divinely guaranteed status was a grievous sin. It is the main topic of texts like the Advice to a Prince and it is at the very heart of the accusations hurled against “wicked” kings like Shalmaneser V and Nabonidus.1082 The topic of non-violating a person of the kidinnu status also appears in the Negative Confession of Sins (l. 426, see p. 225 above), a statement the Babylonian king had to make on the occasion of the New Year’s Festival. Speaking in social terms, we must reckon with the very strong probability that these “good people” of a Babylonian cult centre belonged to the urban elite and that they were closely connceted to the class of people we call “priests” in a cultic 1081 See CAD K, pp. 342–345, s.v. kidinnu “divine protection” and kidinnūtu “privileged

status”; Reviv 1988; Pongratz-Leisten 1997; Radner 2003, p. 885, note 11.

1082 See the discussions on pp. 143 and 204f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

230

Chapter 11: The Participants

context.1083 The tradition that has it that Enmerkar and Narām-Sîn “oppressed” or “wrecked” the people of Babylon (ll. 42 and 62 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35) is certainly a poetic paraphrase of this offence.1084 In the present corpus, the privileged status (kidinnūtu) of the citizens of these holy cities is directly addressed only in line 16 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), which probably deals with the city of Isin. B. nammaššû “The People (of Babylonia)” Apart from the technical term ṣābū kidinni there is a poetic expression which is used in the Esaĝil Chronicle to describe the good citizens of Babylon and other Babylonian cult centres. This term is nammaššû “the people (of Babylon or Babylonia)”, as opposed to the common nišū “(all the other) people”. The term nammaššû usually means “herds of (wild) animals” or “creatures (of the steppe)”. But in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 12, 18, 42 and 62) we see some of the rare examples where it, in fact, means the perfect opposite, i.e. “people” or “city-dwellers”,1085 in particular those of the city of Babylon and of the land of Sumer and Akkad, i.e. of Babylonia: “the people (of Babylon/Babylonia)” – (42) nammaššê “the people of Babylon” – (62) nammaššê (ša) Bābil “the people of the land of Sumer – (12) nammaššê māt Šumeri u Akkadî and Akkad” “[the peo]ple of the land of Sumer – (18) [namm]aššê māt Šumeri u Akkadî and Akkad” The reason for using the term nammaššû “creatures” instead of nišū “people”, as in lines 13 and 63 of the same text (Source 35), is difficult to see. But it is clear that it is used as a poetic self-designation1086 as opposed to the ordinary people (nišū) in lines 13 and 63. In line 13, it is the people (nišū) of all the world, but not those of Babylon, who are called upon to bring their tribute to Babylon.1087 And in line 63, it is apparently the people (nišū) of Narām-Sîn’s own city Akkade, not those of Babylon, who are punished by Marduk.1088 The phrase composed of the poetic term nammaššû “creatures” and lapātu Š “to ruin”, which describes the sacrileges committed by Enmerkar and Narām-Sîn in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), is certainly a literary rendering of violating the privileged status (kidinnūtu) of the citizens of Babylon: – Enmerkar šar Uruk nammaššê ušalpitma (l. 42) “Enmerkar the king of Uruk wrecked the people.” See the discusssion on p. 218 above in chapter 11.2: “Kings and Priests”. On the sins of these two kings see pp. 142f., 155 and 231. CAD N/I, p. 234, s.v. nammaššû, 2. Compare e.g. the Sumerian terms kalam “land (Sumer)” as opposed to kur-kur “(all the other) lands”, or the well-known Hebrew ‫“ עם‬people” and ‫“ גוים‬nations”. 1087 nišū māti elīti u šaplīti “the people of the upper and the lower land(s)”, Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 13. 1088 nišīšu makkarāniš ittaṭi “(Marduk) hit his (: Narām-Sîn’s) people as with a goad” (l. 63). 1083 1084 1085 1086

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The People

231

– Narām-Sîn nammaššê (ša) Bābil ušalpitma (l. 62) “Narām-Sîn wrecked the people of Babylon.” Correspondingly, Enmerkar and Narām-Sîn were punished exactly in the way which the Advice to a Prince announces for violating the status of a privileged citizen: The Enlil of the gods summoned up against them foreign enemies.1089 C. ṣalmāt qaqqadi “The Black-Headed (People)” The expression ṣalmāt qaqqadi “black-headed” is a well-known poetic designation for “(all) humanity”, used from the Old Babylonian period on.1090 Somewhat earlier, during the Old Akkadian and Ur III-period, the expression appears in Sumerian as (ùĝ) saĝ gegge(-g) “black-headed (people)”.1091 The expression seems to make its appearance in Sumerian during the Old Akkadian period, even though the extant manuscripts of the literary compositions dated to this time come from the Old Babylonian period, and so it is not to be excluded that their lexicon may have been modernized. The phrase (ùĝ) saĝ gegge(-g) is frequently used in Inanna und Šukaletuda.1092 The term saĝ gegge(-g) is also used in the edition of the Temple Hymns, attributed to En-ḫedu-anna, the daughter of Sargon of Akkade.1093 The expression also occurs in (Old Babylonian copies of) royal hymns and inscriptions composed on behalf of the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur.1094 The grammatical construction of ṣalmāt qaqqadi is clear. Certainly due to numerus and genus of nišū, the most common term for “people”, it is an adjective in the feminine plural, attached in construct state to the noun qaqqadu “head”. The term literally means “those (who are) black according to the head.”1095 The question is, what does “black” actually mean here?1096 Although the term does not make any reference to the “hair” (šārtu/pērtu), it is often understood to mean “black-haired”. Interestingly, the ancient Akkadian expression ṣalmāt qaqqadi finds parallels in some modern southern Arabic and Berber dialects.1097 In these dialects, the term “black-headed” does indeed seem to refer to the colour of the hair. 1089 See pp. 143f. above with note 668; for more literature on the Advice to a Prince see note

531 on p. 113.

1090 See CAD Ṣ, p. 75, s.v. ṣalmāt qaqqadi. 1091 On the reading gegge(-g) “black” (formerly gíg) see Attinger 1998, pp. 168–169, 184,

commentary on l. 20: saĝ gegge-ga “les têtes noires”.

1092 See Volk 1995, pp. 27–28; index: pp. 223, 225. Both Inanna and Ebiḫ and Inanna und

1093 1094 1095 1096

1097

Šukaletuda may have been composed during the Old Akkadian period (Volk 1995, pp. 15–24, 65–68). Temple Hymns, ll. 268, 370, 486 (Sjöberg 1969, pp. 32, 38, 45; En-ḫedu-anna figures as author – or compiler – of the composition, see ibidem p. 49, l. 543). Ur-Namma (hymns A:3, B:38, F:23, see Flückiger-Hawker 1999, pp. 101, 194, 272), and Šu-Sîn (royal inscriptions: Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 296, no. 1, II:1; p. 305, no. 3, VI:12). See e.g. von Soden in JNES 19, 1960, p. 167; Wasserman 2003, p. 53. See the short discussion in CAD Ṣ, p. 76, calling the term philologically difficult, and resulting in: “The literal meaning likewise poses a problem because the reference to black hair is without any parallel in Akkadian.” Leslau 1944, p. 56 s.v. ḥrš (Soq. ḥoriš “man”, see below); Vycichl 1963.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

232

Chapter 11: The Participants

In Soqoṭri – a South-East-Semitic language spoken mainly on the island of Soqoṭra off the southern coast of Yemen – the term ḥoriš “man” is a compound made up from ḥor “black”, and riš/reš “head”, i.e.: “(someone whose) head is black”.1098 The same expression – but apparently without the transferred meaning “man”, only used in the literal sense – does also occur in the modern Arabic dialect of Dhofar (Oman): ḥarweyš “black-headed”.1099 In the Berber language of Kabylia (Algeria) the term for “man” is aberkān uqerru “black-headed”.1100 These parallels have often been taken as proof for a supposed deep-rooted relationship between ancient Akkadian and the modern Semitic or Afroasiatic languages.1101 However, it is not easy to see how this distribution might be explained “genetically” in linguistic terms – in particular, since the terms are not cognates. So it is quite possible that these expressions only share a general figurative language. Returning to the Akkadian phrase ṣalmāt qaqqadi, one wonders whether the expression, even if it originally meant “black-headed (< -haired)”, could have acquired also a figurative meaning, denoting “dark” or “gloomy” in a slightly pejorative sense. Although ṣalmu “black” apparently only denoted the colour, it could have been affected by the general, probably worldwide “light–dark” symbolism, which existed also in Mesopotamia.1102 Applied to the moon, to parts of the liver or to the human body, “black” or “dark” (ṣalmu, daʾmu, tarku) very often denotes something negative. The examples which matter here most are those dealing with a “black face” (pānū ṣalmūtu) of a human being or a deity. The notion “evil” or “ill-portending” rests not so much on the figurative meaning of ṣalmu “black” alone, but rather on the fact that among the basically light-skinned people of the ancient Near East “black” is an unnatural colour for a face.1103 So “black(ened)” denotes “distorted” here, “disfigured” by 1098 Leslau 1938, p. 193 s.v. ḥoriš “homme”, also referring to ṣalmāt qaqqadi. See Müller

1099

1100

1101 1102

1103

1904, pp. 780–781 on the Soqoṭri term ḥoriš, on the parallels from Dhofar (see below), and on ṣalmāt qaqqadi. Rhodokanakis 1911, pp. 209–210: Saʿad ḥarweyš, with ḥarweyš used as an attribute to the personal name Saʿad, i.e. “Saʿad black-head”. Rhodokanakis 1911 p. 210 refers to Šḫauri (Šeḫri/Jibbali, another South-Arabian language in the same region of Oman) ḥarer-ereš “black-headed” and to Soqoṭri ḥoriš “man”, see above. Dallet 1982, p. 46: aberkan “noir”, pp. 672–673: aqerru “tête”; so aberkan uqerru means “black-headed” and “(any) man”, “l’homme quel qu’il soit”, since “tous les hommes ont les cheveux noirs”. See the authors quoted in notes 1097 and 1098. See e.g. the opposition nawāru “to lighten up (face/mood)” – adāru “to become dark”; or the adjective adru “dark > sad” (CAD A/I, p. 129, s.v. adru, see also adriš). The “black dog” (kalbum ṣalmum) from an Old Assyrian incantation is certainly also an “evil” dog (CAD Ṣ, p. 77, s.v. ṣalmu 1a, 1’; Veenhof 1996, p. 428 l. 2 very briefly on the black dog; Groneberg 2007, p. 95 on the black dog as being associated with the demoness Lamaštu). See also the examples of ṣalmu meaning “dark (as a morbid or otherwise abnormal discoloration)”, see CAD Ṣ, p. 78, s.v. ṣalmu 2. See the examples for a face “turning black” by illness or wrath, collected in CAD Ṣ, p. 70, s.v. ṣalāmu 1d; p. 78, s.v. ṣalmu 2. On the “black face” see also the examples collected by Landsberger 1967b, pp. 142–143 sub δ; Unger 1957–1971 (RlA 3), p. 25, § 7.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The People

233

harm or wrath. According to Babylonian physiognomic omens, a black face on a human implies bad consequences for him,1104 whereas black hair – with its natural and beautiful colour – implies well-being.1105 As laid out in the processional omens of the series Šumma ālu, the face of Marduk’s statue being “black” (ṣalmu) was considered to have devastating consequences for the whole world.1106 Even if ṣalmāt qaqqadi may have originally meant “black-headed (< -haired) people”, it could have come to be understood as “darkened, gloomy humanity” in the course of time. Such a slightly pejorative and decisively humble self-designation is well in place when it comes to contrasting humans with gods. The text of a prayer to the shining moon-god Sîn from the first millennium appears to play on the opposition “light” and “dark”, the “gloomy humanity” and the “bright gods”:1107 – (2) Sîn eddēššû munammir ukli (3) šākin namirti ana nišī apâti (ùĝmeš a-pa-a-ti) (4) ana nišī ṣalmāt qaqqadi (ùĝmeš ṣal-mat saĝ-du) uššurū šarūrūka “Sîn, who constantly renews himself and brightens darkness, who bestows light on the clouded people, whose rays spread over the black-headed people.” In this section, one gains the impression that the “blackness” or “darkness” of the “black-headed people” (ṣalmāt qaqqadi) is contrasted with the brightness of the beaming light of the moon-god. Furthermore, ṣalmāt qaqqadi is combined here with apâtu, another poetic designation for “people” which probably means “the clouded ones”.1108 If correctly translated, this term displays the same attitude towards 1104 “If a man has full and wiry? hair, (but) is black as to (his) face (pa-ni gegge = pānī ṣalim),

1105

1106

1107 1108

his days will be few, he will strech out his hand, (respectively,) he will not be sated with bread” (Kraus 1935, pp. 78–79, l. LXX = Böck 2000, pp. 78–79, l. 76). – The “black(ened) face” of the omen recalls the Arabic curse ‫( ﺳود اﻠﻟﻪ وﺟﻬﻪ‬sawwada Allāhu waǧhahu) “God may blacken his face”. The same omen collection interprets black hair as a favourable sign. See the entries “if a man’s hair is black” (šumma šārat qaqqadīšu ṣalmat): “If the hair of his head is black as qitmu-paste, he will get bread from his god”; “if the hair of his head is black, he will be happy” (Kraus 1935, pp. 80–81, ll. LXXXII, LXXXVIII = Böck 2000, pp. 80–81, ll. 88, 94). This is systematically laid out in the omens dealing with the looks and appearance of the statue of Marduk during the akītu festival (Šumma ālu, tablet 120): If Marduk’s face is black (pānūšu ṣalmū), there will be darkness, Erra will devour the land, famine will seize the lands, see Sallaberger 2000, pp. 236–239, ll. 8, 21. Marduk’s face being white (peṣû, ll. 9, 22) means famine and plague (mūtānu); green (arqu, ll. 10, 23) means defeat; only his face being red or radiant (sāmu and namru, ll. 11–12, 24–25) means joy and wealth for the people. As Sallaberger (2000, pp. 248–251, with note 48) points out, a similar range of interpretations of colours is found in astrological omens: “red” = abundance, “green” = famine, “black” = plague and casualties, “white” = want. Prayer Sîn no. 1, ll. 2–4 (Mayer 1976, p. 491; Seux 1976, p. 278). I owe this reference to Anne Löhnert. Von Soden in AHw I, p. 62, s.v. apû I “umwölkt”; von Soden in ZA 41, 1933, p. 163, note 4: “die Umwölkten”; see also Jensen 1900, p. 351. – Landsberger in ZA 43, 1936, p. 74, and Böhl in AfO 11, 1936–37, p. 202, note 30 also think of *wapû: “the visible ones”. – The translation proposed by CAD A/II, p. 168, s.v. apâtu as “numerous/teeming” rests

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

234

Chapter 11: The Participants

“darkened humanity” as the term ṣalmāt qaqqadi. It may well refer to the limited abilities of humanity as opposed to the vast and comprehensive capacities of the gods. It is the gods, who are bright-eyed, farsighted, sharp-eyed and keen-eared,1109 whereas humans would be “dark” and “gloomy” with respect to the most important senses, located on the head (qaqqadu).1110 The eyes (igi/īnu) and even more so the “ears” (ĝeštug/ḫasīsu) were the foremost means of gaining “understanding” and “wisdom” (ĝeštug/ḫasīsu, as well).1111 When the Assyrian king Esarhaddon was confronted with the task of recreating the statues of the Babylonian gods, he put this slightly depreciatory view on humanity into words in his self-reflective monologue: How is it possible that feeble, deaf and blind humans are charged with the task of creating gods? – (…) awīlūtu lā šēmêtu lā nāṭiltu ša ramānša lā tīdû lā parsat arkāt ūmīša (…)1112 “(…) deaf and blind human beings who are ignorant of themselves and remain ignorant of their own condition throughout their lives (…)”. Being feeble-witted and gloomy-minded creatures, humans – like cattle or sheep – were considered to be in need of guidance by the gods and their delegate, the good shepherd-king. The Esaĝil Chronicle expresses this attitude verbally among the blessings heaped upon Marduk by his father, the wise Creator Ea: - ṣalmāt qaqqadi kīma ṣēni lirteʾʾe (Source 35, l. 23) “May (Marduk) tend black-headed humanity like sheep!”

1109

1110

1111 1112

only on the equation with Sumerian lu from a late bilingual text: ùĝ lu-a-šè : [ana niš]i-i a-pa-a-te “for the … people” (Sm 2030+, r. 23f, quoted ibidem p. 168, lex. section). Sumerian lu is certainly an equivalent to Akkadian dešû G/D “to become/make abundant” and mādu “numerous”, but the Akkadian stock phrase (nišū apâtu) is not necessarily a literal translation of the Sumerian one (ùĝ lu-a). Isolating individual elements from late, literary phrases, e.g. “lu = apû”, ignores the particularity of either phrase’s tradition and is no option. Moreover, ùĝ lu-a is also equated with tenēšētu, another poetic designation for “people” (CAD T, p. 340, lex.). These equations are certainly no literal translations and do not allow isolation of lexical elements. On Babylonian four-faced, four-eyed and four-eared gods, fit to see, to hear and to go into every direction, see here note 503 on p. 107 in chapter 6.2, dealing with the esoteric implications of the number “four”. But without combining the notions “head” and “brain”, since the Babylonians probably did not have a concept of the “brain” as the centre of cognition, even though they were already developing an awareness of the connection of skull (or brain) damage and mental or cognitive impairment (Steinert 2012, pp. 385–387). Right to the end of Babylonian civilization, thinking was still perceived as being done by the “heart” (libbu, see CAD L, pp. 169–172) or the “liver” (kabattu, see CAD K, pp. 12–13). Goodnick Westenholz & Sigrist 2006, pp. 5–6; Steinert 2012, p. 385. After Borger, Asarh., p. 82, § 53, rev. 15; Dick 1999, pp. 64–65.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Enemy

235

11.4. The Enemy In the literary tradition on Ibbi-Sîn, Išbi-Erra of Isin figures as his adversary, but not actually as his enemy. This part is reserved for the foreign, barbarian enemies from the eastern mountains, Elam, Šimaški and the Gutians. However, Išbi-Erra gets his share in the topoi of exclusion and bestialization (see blow on part C) when the literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn calls him in one of the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur a man “who is not of Sumerian descent”, “the man from Mari, with the mind of a dog”.1113 Išbi-Erra’s role in the tradition is discussed in chapter 3. The three main topics of this chapter will be: A: Elam and Šimaški B: Gutium and the Ummān-Manda C: The Subhuman Barbarians from the Eastern Mountains The terms Elam, Šimaški and Gutium describe originally historical entities. The Ummān-Manda appear to replace the Gutians in Babylonian literature from the early second millennium BCE onwards. The Gutians and, in particular, the Ummān-Manda form the core of the Babylonian topos of the beast-like, subhuman barbarians from the eastern mountains.1114 So, the discussions of topics B and C will partly blend into one another. There are also other foreign entities, such as the northern land of Subir (later Subartu), which, according to the Lament of Uruk (Source 6, B), came together with the Gutians over Sumer, drowning the land like “a swelling deluge with enormous waters”. Similarly, the Gutians are called a “flood of Enlil that cannot be withstood” in the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, E1). Subir, however, quickly vanishes from the tradition. Most famously, there are the Amorite Tidnum-bedouins, whose role in the fall of Ur has attracted a great amount of scholarly literature.1115 During the Ur III-period, the Amorites appear as invaders and troublemakers in royal inscriptions and year names. In the Old Babylonian literature dealing with the fall of Ibbi-Sîn, the Amorites figure in the same role in a couple of letters from the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur.1116 They also appear as invaders and as cursed enemies in the Lament for Sumer and

1113 See Source 1 (B1 l. 16; B2 l. 21) and p. 254 with note 1221. 1114 The term has been coind by Jerrold S. Cooper (1983, pp. 30–33): “Excursus B: The

Subhuman Barbarian” in his edition of the Curse of Akkade. On the “image of the other and the enemy” in Mesopotamian and Hittite sources see furthermore PongratzLeisten 2001 and Cohen 2001. On the typification of foreigners as enemies of civilization see also Poo 2005. 1115 On the role of the Amorites in the Ur III period see, among others, Edzard 1957, pp. 30–45; Buccellati 1966; Wilcke 1969b; Potts 1994, pp. 133–136; Sallaberger 1999, p. 159; Charpin 2004, pp. 57–60; Sallaberger 2007; Michalowski 2011, pp. 82–121; idem 2016, pp. 107–110. 1116 The Amorites appear as troublemakers in the Ibbi-Sîn letters CKU no. 21 (Išbi-Erra to Ibbi-Sîn 1, ll. 7–12) and CKU no. 22 (Ibbi-Sîn to Išbi-Erra, A ll. 8’–14’, B ll. 14–18). The literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn fantasizes about the Amorites as his helpers in CKU no. 24 (Ibbi-Sîn to Puzur-Numušda 1, A ll. 32–34, B ll. 52–58); see Michalowski’s (2011) edition.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Chapter 11: The Participants

236

Ur.1117 However, they do not figure as the principal enemies of Ur who actually caused the fall of the empire. This place is taken by Elam and Anšan. In the Nippur Lament, the “treacherous Tidnum” may rather be a code-name for the kings of the Amorite Dynasty of Larsa.1118 Like Subir, and opposed to Anšan, Elam or even the Ummān-Manda, the Amorites vanish rather quickly from the Babylonian focus of attention. This is probably due to the fact that the Amorites managed to install themselves among the urban elites already during the early Old Babylonian period. The Amorites do not leave any trace in the tradition of the historical omens dealing with the fall of Ur. After the Old Babylonian period, at the turn of the first millennium, the role of the nomadic troublemakers who threaten or interrupt the ways of the god-given urban Babylonian civilization is taken over by Arameans and Suteans.1119 They, too, get their share of bestialization.1120 A. Elam and Šimaški In the third millennium BCE, and according to Mesopotamian sources, the term “Elam” denoted the “higlands” in the Zagros mountains, with their political centre at Anšan.1121 Anšan is modern Tall-i Malyān in the Fars, known best as a political power in the late third and early second millennium BCE.1122 Archaeological evidence indicates that the Marvdašt plain, including the city of Anšan, had become deserted roughly from the 10th century BCE onwards.1123 The famous and traditional title “king of Anšan (and Susa)”, however, remained unaffected by this development. The title was still used by Cyrus the Great in the 6th century BCE.1124 The Sumerian word for “up” (nim), which writes the geographical name (NIMki = elamki), appears to corroborate Elam’s original character as a “highland”.1125 The city of Susa and the Susiana, on the contrary, belonged geographically and historically to the Mesopotamian alluvial plain. It is probably the natural antagonism of the “plain” and the “highlands” that led to economic, social and 1117 In the Lament for Sumer and Ur they appear at stages no. 10 (l. 256) and no. 24 (E4 488),

see the overview of the composition in Source 4 sub “content”.

1118 See the commentary on Source 9 (A). 1119 See the comments on p. 444 on the disturbances caused by the Arameans in the

1120

1121

1122 1123 1124 1125

Religious Chronicle (Source 37, III 4’b–9’, IV 8’ = I 1), and see the comments on pp. 449f. on the Suteans in the poem Poem of Erra (Source 39). See the description by Sargon II on pp. 444f. below how he pacified the Babylonian countryside which had been troubled by Arameans and Suteans. Sargon groups these people with “dogs and jackals, lions and wolves”. Krebernik 2006, pp. 59–60; Vallat 1993a, p. cviii; Timothy Potts 1994, pp. 14–18. On Elam in general see Timothy Potts 1994 and Daniel Potts 1999. On the relations of the Old Akkadian Empire with Elam as the “most enduring enemy” see Westenholz 1999, pp. 90–91. On the relations of Elam with the Third Dynasty of Ur and the collapse of Ur see also Timothy Potts 1994, 124–140 and Daniel Potts 1999, pp. 130–149; Michalowski 2008b. On Elam in the early 2nd millennium see also Eidem & Læssøe 2001, pp. 32–33. Summer 1987–1990 (RlA 7, pp. 306–320). Miroschedji 1990, p. 53; Carter 1994, p. 65; Waters 2000, p. 16. On the title “king of Anšan (and Susa)” see the discussion on pp. 202f. below. Potts 1999, pp. 1–3, 87; Krebernik 2006, p. 59; Michalowski 2008b, pp. 109–110, 121.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Enemy

237

ethnic antagonisms of the civilizations of “Sumer” and “Elam”. From the dawn of history, the complex relations between these neighbouring regions has always been characterized by peaceful political and commercial relations, as well as by military conflicts. Quite often, the antagonism between Mesopotamia and the Elamite highlands has led modern scholars to reconstruct an arch rivalry or even an arch enmity between the civilizations of these regions. Walther Hinz (1971, p. 645) wrote about the “Leitmotif of relations between Elam and Mesopotamia, one of hereditary enmity” alongside “equally persistent economic and cultural exchanges”. Samuel Noah Kramer (1986, p. 104) called Elam “Sumer’s perennial enemy to the east.” Daniel Potts (1982, p. 35) even postulated the existence of a “deep-seated, mutual hatred and endemic warfare between the populations of Elam and the Zagros, and the cities of southern Mesopotamia”. According to him, this “traditional enmity […] precluded the possibility of any truly regularized trade” between Sumer and the countries which lay beyond the Zagros frontier. This, however, is completely at odds with the facts. Already at the beginning of written documentation and history in the Early Dynastic period, commercial and diplomatical relations with the Zagros highlands are amply attested (Selz 1991). As Gebhard Selz (1991, p. 43) has pointed out, the character of Elam as Babylonia’s arch enemy fully evolved only after the Babylonians had experienced the disastrous, fatal Elamite invasions which ruined the Third Dynasty of Ur at the end of the third millennium and which, very much like a repetition, also terminated the Kassite Dynasty roughly a millennium later. According to the Sumerian King List, the Elamite dynasty of Awan, situated probably north of Susa at the edge of the Susiana, “smote” the city of Ur “with the weapon” and “took its kingship” already at some time during the late Early Dynastic period,1126 if the story is true. This “event”, however, which appears to anticipate the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur, never became a topic in Sumerian or Babylonian literature. The term Šimaški designates a geographical and political entity and power which existed roughly during the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur and the early Isin Iperiod. According to Piotr Michalowski, it “encompassed, in general terms, a constantly shifting range of areas of Iran, from the borders of Fars to the Caspian Sea”.1127 Under the Šimaškian ruler Ebarat I, documented from the last years of Šulgi into the reign of Ibbi-Sîn, the dynasty of Šimaški also dominated Anšan.1128 1126 Jacobsen 1939, p. 94, IV:5–7; SKL online edition: ETCSL, text: 2.1.1, ll. 145–147. See

Daniel Potts (1999, pp. 87–89) on military encounters between individual cities of Mesopotamia with the highlands (“Elam”) and Awan in the Early Dynastic Period. 1127 Michalowski 2009–2011 (RlA 12), p. 503 after Steinkeller 2007, p. 217. For studies into Šimaški by Piotr Steinkeller see also Steinkeller 1988, 1990, 2008b, 2011 and 2014 (in particular pp. 291–295: “Appendix: On the location of Šimaškian Lands Again”). Recently, Daniel Potts (2008) has proposed that Šimaški had its origins in the Oxus region in Bactria and had moved south-west towards Mesopotamia during the second half of the third millennium. This has encountered strong opposition from Steinkeller (2014, p. 291). 1128 Steinkeller 2014, p. 287.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

238

Chapter 11: The Participants

During the reign of Šu-Sîn of Ur at the latest, the political interests of the Third Dynasty of Ur and Šimaški clashed in the East-Tigridian and western Zagros regions. Probably provoked by the campaigns of Šu-Sîn against the western territories of Šimaški, Ebarat finally turned against Ur at the beginning of IbbiSîn’s reign.1129 Though not explicitly mentioned by name, the kings of Elam, Šimaški and Anšan who brought about the fall of Ur were very probably Kindattu, the son of Ebarat, and Kindattu’s son, Idattu I.1130 In the laments composed in the early Old Babylonian period, the pair “Šimaški and Elam” figures as destructive barbarians.1131 The term “Šimaški” then vanishes from the memories of the events, it is only “Elam”, respectively “Anšan”, which is remembered. The traditions dealing with “Ibbi-Sîn’s End” are discussed in detail in chapter 2.4 above. A thousand years later, Elam again grasped its chance to seize Babylonia under the Elamite king Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and his son Kutir-Naḫḫunte II.1132 This event consolidated Elam’s bad reputation as Babylonia’s classic arch-enemy. The devastation done by the Elamites and the subsequent campaigns of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE) against Elam gave rise to a number of texts, such as royal inscriptions of Nebuchadmezzar I that deal with the Elamite occupation and the misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II (Source 32 and Source 33), the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34, D: Elam). There is also an omen dealing with this devastation (Source 58) and the so-called Chedorlaomer Texts.1133 Now, at the latest, the “wickedness of Elam” became a topos. In one of the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar I, we are told that the king retrieved the statue of Marduk “from the wickedness of Elam” (ištu qereb lemnēt Elamti) and brought it back to Babylon.1134 In another description of the Elamite attack, Nebuchadnezzar called the Elamites “wicked” and “godless”: “The wicked Elamite, who does not esteem the god[s]” (ṣēnu Elamû lā mušāqir il[ī], Source 32, l. 23). In the same inscription (Source 32), the Elamites are also demonized by pairing them as human enemies (stage F) with demonic enemies (stage E) who attack Babylonia (see p. 75). Certainly as an implicit reference to the text of Nebuchadnezzar, the same term, “he who does not esteem the gods” (lā mušāqir ilī) is used by Aššurbanipal in order to revile the Elamite king Teʾumman more than half a millennium later.1135 Aššurbanipal also used the image of the “wickedness of Elam” in a slightly different phrase in his description of the return of the statue of the goddess Nanāya from Elam. According to Aššurbanipal, the goddess Nanāya asked him to bring her “out of the land of Elam full of wickedness” (ultu qereb māt Elamti 1129 Steinkeller 2007, pp. 225–228; idem 2014, p. 287. 1130 See the discussion on p. 47 above. 1131 See the excerpts from the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, A, l. 33), the Lament for Ur

1132 1133 1134 1135

(Source 7, l. 244) and the Lament for Eridu (Source 8, B, l. 10). On the “uncivilized and destructive foreigners from the Eastern Mountains” see in more detail below sub C. See chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3. See the excerpt in Source 72, C on Kutir-Naḫḫunte, and see the overview of this group of texts on p. 524. After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 30, Nebuchadnezzar I no. 9, l. 13: iš-tu qé-reb lem-né-ti e-lam-ti. See the commentary on Source 32, l. 23 on p. 322 with note 1428.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Enemy

239

lemnēti).1136 Again, Aššurbanipal followed the model set by Nebuchadnezzar I. After all, he had all these texts at hand in his library at Nineveh. The antagonism between “civilized” Babylonia and “wicked” Elam is also the topic of a late Babylonian copy of a literary letter which contains the dismissive answer of the Babylonians who turned down the Elamites’ claim to the throne of Babylon at the end of the Kassite dynasty.1137 In a couple of opposing pairs like cattle (sukullu) and wolf (barbaru), “peaceful” Babylonia is set off against “rapacious” Elam. B. Gutium and the Ummān-Manda The land of the Gutians was located roughly north of the land of Elam in the Zagros mountains, east of the river Tigris.1138 The Gutians, like Anšan, were known best as a political power in the 3rd millennium, when they were even credited with installing a Gutian dynasty in Mesopotamia which was held to have finished off the dynasty of Akkade.1139 Gutium and Elam were well known for their snake gods and snake cults.1140 In the wake of these customs, Gutium is often likened to snakes in Sumerian literature. The bestialization of the enemy starts already here, even though the analogy seems to bear some kind of “savage poetry” at first sight. In his victory inscription, Utu-ḫeĝal calls Gutium the “scorpion-snake from the mountains” (muš-ĝír ḫur-saĝ-ĝá).1141 In the Curse of Akkade, the city becomes a nest of “quick mountain snakes” (muš ul4 kur-ra-ke4) after it has fallen to the hordes of the Gutians.1142 In the aftermath of the fall of Ur, Gutium – “the mountain snake (muš kur-ra-ke4)” – settled and bred at Adab, according to the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, E3). The Old Babylonian omen of Source 26 employs the associative element “snake” in order to hint at Gutium or Elam: – “If the gall bladder has produced a snake’s head, and the finger a locust’s head, this omen pertains to the disaster of Ibbi-Sîn.”

1136 After Streck 1916/II, p. 58, prism A, VI:113–114; Borger 1996, p. 57: kur elam-maki (var.

1137

1138 1139 1140

1141 1142

elamki/e-lam-ti) lem-né-ti; several manuscripts omit lemnēti. We should translate “full of wickedness” (lit. “Elam of wickednessess”) rather than “wicked Elam” (*Elamtu lemuttu). Pace CAD (L, p. 120, s.v. lemnu) there is no feminine adjective in *lemnetu but only the nominalized feminine adjective in an emphatic plural. BM 35404, formerly Sp. II, 987, see in more detail p. 524 below with note 1868 on the Chedorlaomer Text b. Editions and translations by Brinkman 1968, pp. 80–81; van Dijk 1986, p. 166; Foster 2005, pp. 370–371 (text a). Hallo 1957–1971 (RlA 3, pp. 708–720); Potts 1994, pp. 24–27; on Gutium in the early 2nd millennium see also briefly Eidem & Læssøe 2001, pp. 31–32. Cooper 1983, pp. 30–33; Glassner 1986, pp. 46–50; Potts 1994, pp. 119–121; Westenholz 1999, p. 94. Wiggermann 1997; Pientka-Hinz 2009–2011 (RlA 12), pp. 214–216, § 5 “Schlangenkult”, § 5.1 “Schlangengottheiten”; Osten-Sacken 2009–2011 (RlA 12), p. 221, § 3.4 “Schlangen in Verbindung mit Göttern”. Frayne, RIME 2, pp. 284, 287, Utu-ḫegal no. 4, ll. 2, 124. Cooper 1983, p. 62, ll. 267, 276.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

240

Chapter 11: The Participants

The same omen uses the image of the “locust”. The locust is an insect particularly infamous for bringing about war-like devastation by devouring the crops.1143 Typologically and in their devastating effects, attacks by human or animal enemies like locusts belong together. In an inscription of Šu-Sîn, Ibbi-Sîn’s predecessor, the attack of eastern mountaineers from Šimaški and Zabšali is likened to the invasion of locusts: “Šimaški (which comprises) the lands of Zabšali, whose surge is like (a swarm of) locusts (buru5-gin7) from the border of Anšan to the Upper Sea.”1144 ŠuSîn was successful in fending off the attack, but Ibbi-Sîn was finally overpowered by Šimaški and Elam.1145 So, particularly in texts from the Ur III and the Old Babylonian period, “locusts” provide an apt image to describe the enemies of the Third Dynasty of Ur. From the same corpus as the “snake and locust omen” of Source 26 comes an omen that combines the element “locust” with the “barbarian hordes” of the Ummān-Manda:1146 – šumma šēpum kīma šēp erbîm ṣamdat šēp Ummān-Madda “If the footmark is contracted like a locust’s foot, (it means:) foot (= presence/attack)1147 of the Ummān-Madda.” The Neo-Babylonian principal commentary on Šumma izbu explains the “locusts” (buru5ḫi-a), which are announced in a particular omen as invading the land (tibût erbî “attack by locusts”), straightforwardly as “enemies” (lúkúr[meš]).1148 The combination of “locusts” and “enemies” is also found in omens from Šumma ālu that hold the view that a black partridge announces eclipses, plagues, enemies and locusts.1149

1143 Radner (2004) has put forward the hypothesis that locust plagues occurred rather

1144 1145

1146 1147

1148 1149

regularly in the aftermath of wars in the ancient Near East, when the rural population was kept from disturbing the insects laying eggs and breeding, by stirring and moving the ground or by collecting the freshly hatched animals. Pirngruber (2014) investigates the connection between the rise of the price for barley and locust invasions on the basis of Late Babylonian astronomical diaries. Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 303, Šu-Sîn no. 3, II:15–20. In the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, A:33) and in the year formula Išbi-Erra 16 (see in the commentary on Source 16), Šimaški and Elam are mentioned as the two groups of enemies who occupied Ur and whom Išbi-Erra finally expelled from Sumer. YOS 10, no. 44, rev. 53: diš aš ki-ma še20-ep er-bi-im ṣa-am-da-at še20-ep um-ma-an-ma-adda. The footmark is a fine groove on the liver, roughly resembling a human foot, see Leiderer 1990, p. 45; Jeyes 1989, pp. 83–84; Koch-Westenholz 2000, p. 65; Maul 2013, pp. 76, 340 note 244. The footmark is depicted on a liver model from Boğazköy (KBo 7, no. 7), see Meyer 1987, p. 174 with pl. 9, no. 5. The footmark (šēpu) in the protasis is often followed by a phrase using šēpu (“foot”) in the apodosis, announcing the “coming” of some event. The groove can be bent “like a curved staff (gamlu)” (CT 30, pl. 48, K 3948, rev. 11). In the omen discussed above (YOS 10, no. 44, rev. 53), the groove is probably formed like a sharp ᴧ, giving it the appearance of a locust’s leg. CT 41, pl. 38, rev. cols. 3–4, l. 25; Leichty 1970, p. 226, l. 499; Labat 1933, pp. 22, 90, l. 25; Frahm 2011, p. 70. Freedman 1998, pp. 66–67, Šumma ālu tablet 2:28 and 88:28.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Enemy

241

Parallel to the “Manda-hordes” (Ummān-Manda), and similar to the image of the “swarms of locusts” or the “flood of Enlil that cannot be withstood” (The Lament for Sumer and Ur, Source 4, E1), the Gutians are also construed as “troops”, “masses” or as a “horde” (ummān Qutî) in lines 62, 63 and 68 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). The translation “horde” for ummānu gives the term a pejorative twist, but I think it is appropriate here and in line with the Babylonian view on the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda. This view on the Gutians, which does not concede to them a “king with a name” but which turns them like the Ummān-Manda into a faceless mass, already appears in the Ur III recension of the Sumerian King List. There, the Gutian horde replaces the kings of the third dynasty of Uruk after the kings of Akkade, but it “had no king but ruled by itself”.1150 In the “Agum-kakrime Inscription”,1151 which is probably a fiction, a pious fraud from the time of the Neo-Assyrian kings Esarhaddon or Aššurbanipal, manufactured in order to provide the Assyrian kings with a model to follow in the restoration of the statue of Marduk after its demolition by Sennacherib, the Gutians are called nišū saklātu “foolish people”.1152 This is in line with the attitude of the Esaĝil Chronicle towards the Gutians. This texts describes them as people “to whom respect towards the gods’ desires had not been taught, who did not know how to perform the rituals and the holy ordinances in perfection.”1153 The motif of the ignorant barbarian foreigner “who does not know how to revere the gods” appears also in an Old Babylonian Sumerian literary letter to the sun-god Utu, ascribed to Sîniddinam of Larsa (ca. 1849–1843 BCE).1154 In this text, the topic of cultic ignorance among the “barbarians”, in particular the people of Subartu and Šimaški, is varied and expanded over a couple of lines, dealing with Sumerian types of priests and offerings which are said to be non-existing among foreigners. To the Ummān-Manda we should not assign a place on the geographic map, since they do not belong there, but to the Babylonian mental map and to literature. 1150 Steinkeller 2003, pp. 273, 280 on V:21’–22’: um-ma-númki-e lugal nu-tuku / ní-bi-šè mu

1151 1152 1153 1154

3 íb-ba “the hordes (or army) did not have a king, they shared (kingship) among themselves for 3 years.” Steinkeller analyses íb-ba as *i-b-ba with ba = zâzu “to share”. He also considers to analyse íb-ba as *i-b-a5 “they exercised (kingship)”. In the Ur III recension, the term um-ma-númki, i.e. “troop-place” or “army camp” appears instead of uĝnim/ma-da gu-tu-um(ki) “troops” or “land of Gutium” of the later recensions (cf. Jacobsen 1939, pp. 116–121, VII:24–VIII:2; online edition ETCSL, text: 2.1.1, ll. 305–334). Steinkeller thinks that this is the ultimate source for the term Ummān-Manda, by nasalization from *ummān ma-da. See p. 64 above with note 316, in particular Longman 1991, pp. 86–87 for a discussion and earlier literature. Among the titles of ‘Agum-kakrime’: “king of the land of the Gutians – foolish people” (lugal kur gu-ti-i / ùĝmeš sak-la-a-ti, Stein 2000, p. 152, I:38–39). Qutû ša tazzimti ilānī palāḫu lā kullumu parṣī (u) uṣurāti šuklula (var.: šutēšura) lā īdû (Source 35, l. 64). After Brisch 2007, pp. 158, 164: Old Babylonian version l. 22: Subartu (su-bir4ki) “which does not know how to revere the gods” (diĝir-re-e-ne ní-te-ĝe26 nu-zu-a); NeoAssyrain version l. 22: [(…) diĝir-re-e-ne ní-te-ĝ]e26 nu-un-zu-a ∥ [(…) pa-làḫ di]ĝir la idu-ú. Brisch (2007, pp. 81, 87–89, 117–118) discusses the possibility that this letter is fictional.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

242

Chapter 11: The Participants

There may have been actual people or regions, which were called Mandu or Manda in the 3rd and early 2nd millennia and which may have given rise to the term “Manda troops”,1155 but this is of no concern here, since the whole complex is hopelessly overgrown by topoi and legends. Replacing the historical Gutians, the Ummān-Manda appear on the scene in the Old Babylonian period as the classic foes of Narām-Sîn of Akkade in the literary tradition, in the composition known as the Cuthean Legend.1156 According to this story, the Ummān-Manda were alien, beast-like, semi-demonic, yet vulnerable warriors, created by the gods. The Cuthean Legend describes the Ummān-Manda as “a people with partridge bodies, a race with raven faces”.1157 Enlil sends them against Narām-Sîn who faces them in three battles and finally turns them back. However, Narām-Sîn does not kill them. This feature provides an etiological explanation in Babylonian historical literature why Ummān-Manda-like agressors would attack Mesopotamia from time to time again, be their actual name Cimmerians, Scythians or Medes.1158 The Babylonians used the tag “UmmānManda” not as an ethnographical term for semi-nomadic people roaming along with waggons and archers riding on horseback, but as a religious-historical term. Mythologizing history, the term designated barbarian hordes created by Enlil who were to come down upon Mesopotamia from time to time – instead of another flood1159 – in order to punish wicked native kings at Enlil’s command. In the celestial omen of Source 58 and in one of the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72), the Ummān-Manda join Elam and its infamous king Kutir-Naḫḫunte II in the devastation of Babylonian at the end of the second millennium BCE. According to this Babylonian composition, it is the god Enlil himself who summons the Elamite king and the Ummān-Manda against Babylonia:1160 – ayyū Kudur-nuḫuĝa [ē]piš lemnēti idkâmma Ummān-Manda [ispu]n māt Enlil “‘Which one is Kudur-nuḫuĝa (i.e. Kutir-Naḫḫunte), the evil-[d]oer?’ (Enlil then) summoned the Ummān-Manda, [and he (: the Ummān-Manda)] [devasta]ted the land of Enlil.”

1155 See the overview by Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 226; Adalı 2011, pp. 32, 188–189;

1156 1157 1158

1159 1160

see also Steinkeller’s (2003, p. 280) suggestion to derive the Ummān-Manda from the term *ummān ma-da (see note 1150 above). See recently also Volk 2011, p. 87 on the possible mention of *ummān mandī (uĝnim ma-an-di; suggested by Claus Wilcke) as actual, historical enemies in an inscription of Sîn-iddinam of Larsa. See Komoróczy 1977, pp. 59–62; Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, pp. 265–266; Adalı 2011, pp. 43–71; Stol 2014–2016 (RlA 14), pp. 330–331. After Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, pp. 308, 336 (scores) l. 31: ummāna (/ṣābī = érinmeš) pagri iṣṣūr-ḫurri amīlūta āribu pānūšun. On the Cimmerians as “Ummān-Manda” in Neo-Assyrian sources see Adalı 2011, pp. 107–132. On the Medes as the “Ummān-Manda” in the narrative of the fall of Nabonidus see p. 202 below. See furthermore Komoróczy 1977 and Stol 2014–2016 (RlA 14), pp. 330–331 § 3 on the Ummān-Manda as a term for various foreign people. The flood, which had once been used by Enlil – in vain – to wipe out wicked humanity, was considered an inappropriate measure, see p. 134 above. See p. 533 below with note 1913; Lambert 1994b, p. 70, BM 34062, rev. 21’–22’.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Enemy

243

It is possible that also the late Ibbi-Sîn omen of Source 62 contains a hint to the Ummān-Manda, hidden in the allusion to an enemy who comes invading on a “sixfold path”, see the commentary there. As is apparent from the verbal forms, the hordes of the Ummān-Manda are construed as a singular in the omen of Source 58 and in the Chedorlaomer Text quoted above. The same applies to the construction of the Ummān-Manda in line 42 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) and also in the inscriptions of Nabonidus.1161 This kind of typification and singularizing personification, however, is not exclusively found with the Ummān-Manda. In line 67 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, all manuscripts but A), also the Gutians are singularized. In other Babylonian sources, it also occurs with other foreign enemies such as “the Sutean” or “the Subarian” (= the Assyrian).1162 In the Sumerian Lament for Eridu (Source 8, B:10) from the early Old Babylonian period, a verbal form suggests that even a pair of enemies, Šimaški and Elam, could be construed together as a singular. C. The Subhuman Barbarians from the Eastern Mountains Even though the relations between Sumer and Elam appear to have been rather peaceful at large, Sumerian and later Babylonian literature sported quite an amount of racist bias. The composition Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, a kind of debate poem or literary contest which was in circulation at the court of Ur III, is characterized by the fundamental view that the lord of Aratta, a legendary city in the Zagros mountains – that is “Elam” – is inferior to the king of Uruk, Enmerkar.1163 More drastically, the image of the brutal, stupid, ape-like, uncivilized and destructive people from the eastern mountains of the Zagros was established as a literary topos to portray the Gutians already in the early Ur III-period. It appears in the Curse of Akkade:1164

1161 As a rule, verbal forms and possessive suffixes are singular, see Schaudig 2001, pp.

416–417, no. 2.12 1 I 11–12, 23, 25; adjectives, on the other hand, can take the form of the feminine plural (ibidem no. 2.12 1 I 28), due to the underlying notion of “masses” (ummānātu) and “people” (nišū); Adalı 2011, pp. 142–143. 1162 See e.g.: Nabû-apla-iddina (ca. 888–855 BCE): Sutû nakru lemnu “the Sutean, the wicked enemy” (lúsu-tu-ú lúkúr lem-nu; Sun-God Tablet I:6; Woods 2004, p. 83). – Marduk-aplaiddina II (721–710 BCE): nakru lemnu Subarû “the wicked enemy, the Subarian” (lúkúr lem-nu lúsu-bar-ú; Frame, RIMB 2, p. 137, B.6.21.1, l. 9). – Nabopolassar (625–605 BCE): *Subarâ (su-ba-ru-um) anāru māssu (ma-da-su) utirru ana tillī u karmī “(when) I had struck down the Subarian and had turned his land into heaps and wasteland” (Langdon 1912, p. 60, Npl. no. 1 I:25–27; Da Riva 2013, p. 81, no. C31–1, I:25–27). 1163 See Mittermayer 2009, p. 47. The fundamental inequality of the lord of Aratta to the king of Uruk is reflected in the subheading of Mittermayer’s study as “Ein ungleicher Wettstreit”. 1164 The following is a paraphrase of ll. 151–157 of the Curse of Akkade; after Cooper 1983, pp. 56–57. It was also Jerrold S. Cooper who coined the term of the “Subhuman Barbarian” in Mesopotamian sources, see ibidem pp. 30–33: “Excursus B: The Subhuman Barbarian”. On similar stereotypes, aiming at Subartu, see Michalowski 1986. On the “image of the other and the enemy” in Mesopotamian and Hittite sources

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

244

Chapter 11: The Participants

“Enlil (…) lifted his eyes towards the Gubin mountains, (…) and he brought out of the mountains those who are not classed among (normal) people, who are not reckoned as part of the land, the Gutians, an unbridled people, with human intelligence, but the pity of dogs and monkeys’ features.” The topos of the “monkey from the Gubin mountains” appears to have been coined for this very composition, since there is a pun in these lines between the Sumerian term for “monkey” (*ugubi) and the “Gubin mountains”: When Enlil lifted his eyes “towards the Gubin mountains” (*kur Gubinakše, l. 152), one could probably also understand the phrase as “towards the mountain of his monkeys” in spoken Sumerian (*kur ugubînâkše).1165 In the reign of Ibbi-Sîn, the royal administration of Ur used the same imagery when it derided a probably Elamite delegation that had come to Ur as “mountain monkeys” in the name of Ibbi-Sîn’s 23rd regnal year.1166 In the Old Babylonian period, the fictional letter of Ibbi-Sîn to Puzur-Numušda (CKU no. 24) obviously referred to the “monkey episode” that ended the Old Akkadian empire according to Babylonian tradition.1167 In this text, the figure of Ibbi-Sîn likens his adversary Išbi-Erra to the famous “monkey that had just descended from its mountain and that had been elevated by Enlil in his wrath to the shepherdship over the land”, i.e. to the Gutians from the Curse of Akkade. The imagery of the brutal, uncivilized and destructive barbarians from the east occurs as a topos in the Old Babylonian lamentations that bewail the devastation of Sumer by uncivilized invaders from the eastern Zagros mountains. A stock epithet for the people from Elam and Gutium is “destroyer” (lú ḫa-lam-ma).1168 This attribute goes with the usual image of the uncivilized, barbarian intruder who shows no respect to the divine. The people from Šimaški and Elam, “the destroyers”, treat the temple of the moon-god at Ur as if it were worthless.1169 It is also the Šimaškians and Elamites, “the destroyers”, who “look at the holy vessels which no one may look at”.1170 Having done their destructive work, the “enemies” (lú kúr-ra) from Šimaški and Elam, respectively the “destroyers” (lú ḫa-lam-ma),

1165 1166 1167 1168

1169 1170

see furthermore Pongratz-Leisten 2001 and Cohen 2001. On the typification of foreigners as enemies of civilization see also Poo 2005. See the discussion here on pp. 254f. below. See the discussion here on pp. 255f. below. See the excerpts B1 (ll. 13–14) and B2 (ll. 18–19) in Source 1. It is perfectly clear that the attribute lú ḫa-lam-ma means “destroyer”. However, it is not always clear how this term is actually construed. In some cases (see the Sumerian glossary s.v. lú ḫa-lam-ma) it is a genitive construction: *lú ḫalam+ak “the one of destroying”. In other examples it may be the verbal root with a nominalizing or determining -a: *lú ḫalam+a “the one who has destroyed (and will do so again)”. The two constructions appear side by side, see e.g.: lú ḫa-lam-ma-ke4 ∥ lú ḫa-lam-ma-ne (Source 4, E2 230). As a variant, the attribute can be construed as lú níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma-ke4. This term is a rather direct translation from Akkadian *ša šaḫluqtim, literally “the one of destruction”: elamki ur idim lú níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma-ke4 “(the) Elam(ite), the raging dog, the destroyer” (Michalowski 2011, p. 417, CKU no. 21, l. 40). According to the Lament for Ur (Source 7, l. 244). According to the Lament for Eridu (Source 8, B, l. 10).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

The Enemy

245

are going to install themselves at Ur.1171 Their eventual expulsion from Ur by IšbiErra1172 is orthographically anticipated in the spelling of Šimaški in one manuscript of the Lament for Sumer and Ur.1173 This manuscript writes the name of Šimaški with the signs LÚ×KÁR-SUki instead of LÚ-SUki. On the graphic level, the spelling with LÚ×KÁR = še29 = šagšu/kamû “slain/captive” indicates the final fall of the enemies. The barbarian Gutians also figure as “destroyers” side by side with Šimaški and Elam. According to the Lament for Sumer and Ur, the Gutians, “the destroyers”, cut the statues of the divine temple guardians of Eridu to pieces.1174 Abuses which liken adversaries or enemies to dogs are quite common in Sumerian literature. The Lament for Uruk bewails that precious Sumer has been handed over to “Gutium, the (filthy) dog”.1175 The image also appears in a royal inscription of Šu-Sîn of Ur who describes the Martu-Nomads as “destructive people, with instincts like dogs or wolves”.1176 Similarly, in one of the letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur the literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn calls Išbi-Erra “the man from Mari, with the mind of a dog”.1177 In turn, the figure of Išbi-Erra calls Elam “the raging dog, the destroyer” in another literary letter from the same corpus.1178 In the Old Babylonian period, the insult “son of a bitch” occurs in the Sumerian composition a du10-ga ur-ra “He is a good seed of a dog”.1179 Much later, in the first millennium, the Akkadian version of the abuse “son of a bitch” (apil kalbati) is hurled against the Ummān-Manda in the Esaĝil Chronicle.1180

1171 According to the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, A, l. 33). 1172 Finally in his 26th regnal year, see the commentary on Source 16 on the year formulas

1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 1180

Išbi-Erra 16 and 27 which celebrate his military success against the armies of Šimaški and Elam. See the commentary on Source 4, A 33. See Source 4, E2 230. See Source 6, B 4.11, 20. Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 299, Šu-Sîn no. 1, V:25–27: mar-dú lú ḫa-lam-m[a] / dím-ma urra-gin7 / ur-bar-ra-gin7; Pongratz-Leisten 2001, p. 207. See p. 254 below with note 1221. elamki ur idim lú níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma-ke4 (Michalowski 2011, p. 417, CKU no. 21, l. 40). See Sjöberg 1972, p. 107, no. 1, l. 1, with commentary on p. 109. See the commentary on p. 385 below on the abuse “son of a bitch” in line 42 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

12. Summary: Explaining Disaster The devastation of Sumer and Ur at the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur became the model disaster in Mesopotamian thought, rivalled only by the flood in times primordial.1181 The figure of the hapless king Ibbi-Sîn (ca. 2028–2004 BCE)1182 under whose reign the event occurred, became the icon of this disaster, probably without having made any major mistake of his own. His name was intimately connected to the key word and concept of “annihilation, disaster” (šaḫluqtu) as early as the Old Babylonian period.1183 1. Isin’s Answer concentrates on the topic of “change of government”. This answer is developed from the format of the Sumerian King List, but it uses the structural rotational element as an argument. In the direct aftermath of the catastrophe, when the First Dynasty of Isin was occupied with rebuilding Sumer and consolidating its newly gained power, the question of why Sumer and Ur had been so severely smitten was silenced loudly. This was certainly because the kings of Isin had been deeply involved in the fall of Ur.1184 Išbi-Erra, the founder of the new dynasty, had formerly been an official governing the city of Isin on behalf of his overlord, Ibbi-Sîn of Ur. He took advantage of Ibbi-Sîn’s weakness, and probably even contributed to it. If his scribes had dared to tackle the reasons for the catastrophe, they should have started by discussing the treason committed by their king Išbi-Erra. Instead, the laments composed by these scribes bewail the unalterable and unfathomable will of An and Enlil, even putting into Enlil’s very mouth the rhetorical question: “Ur was indeed given kingship, but it was not given an eternal reign. Who has ever seen a kingship that would take precedence for ever?”1185 This is less a testimony to the philosophical serenity of the Babylonians, than the fairly ill-disguised motto of Isin: “Now it is our turn.” This statement adopts the formal structure of the Sumerian King List, which mainly only lists names and dates without any background information or reasoning. Instead, it uses the “turn of office” element as an argument.1186 But the fact that the Sumerian King List does not give reasons why a particular city “was smitten with weapons” does not mean that this question was not asked. Also in earlier cases when cities fell, when people were killed, temples were sacked and the statues of the gods were desecrated or taken to enemy country as hostages, the Babylonians asked why this could come about.1187 Interestingly, in the case of IbbiSîn this classic question was not asked and an easy answer was not given. He was not portrayed as a wicked king who challenged the gods and was duly punished. 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187

See pp. 48 and 81f. See also Schaudig 2012a for a detailed summary in German. See the overview of the historical king Ibbi-Sîn in chapter 2. See the overview on p. 93. See pp. 53 and 82f. above. Summary after Michalowski 1989, p. 59, ll. 366–368; see p. 51 above. See pp. 82f. and 188f. above. See pp. 52f. above and the detailed discussion in chapter 4.3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Explaining Disaster

247

Instead, already the scholars of the First Dynasty of Isin had put forward the image of a weak king, sitting passively in his palace all alone.1188 2. Larsa’s Answer emphasizes the figure of the incompetent, deluded king. This answer is developed from the format of the literary Royal Correspondence and opens a new social level with the scholars criticizing the king. More than a century later, under the Dynasty of Larsa, the figure of Ibbi-Sîn is given new traits. In the corpus of the Royal Correspondence of Ur, which reflects the fates and roles of Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra, the image of the incompetent, weak and passive king is elaborated by the brilliant literary sketch of the conceited king who cannot read the clear signs sent to him by the gods as warnings.1189 This is a very interesting insight into the Babylonian concept of a bad ruler and a failed state. Apparently, the worst king is not the wicked scoundrel, who committed sins over sins, but even more so the blindfolded and deluded king unable to apprehend guidance, who eventually leads his people into disaster. We may, of course, surmise that this concept was mainly formed by the group in charge of imparting divine guidance to the king, i.e. his advisors, scholars, and priests. This is the social level that had been offended and embarrassed by the know-it-all attitude of Ibbi-Sîn’s grandfather Šulgi.1190 The notion that the king could not read the clear signs of disaster is underscored by the sheer mass of omens sent to him.1191 From the Old and Middle Babylonian period, there are no less than 13 omens extant which were held to have been sent to Ibbi-Sîn. In the tradition of the first millennium, we find 9 more omens. By then, the original stock of liver omens had been augmented and expanded by omens from anomalies, by celestial omens and terrestrial omens of the Šumma ālu type.1192 The Book of Prodigies (Source 36) alone, which is here counted as one omen for the sake of convenience, lists 47 individual omens of Ibbi-Sîn. 3. Babylon’s Answer follows the religious concept of “Sin and Sanction”. This answer is also developed from the format of the literary Royal Correspondence. It extends the concept of divine punishment by the topic “Sins of the Fathers”. In the first millennium, the figure of Ibbi-Sîn was still present in the scholarly tradition, and it still dominated the concept of disaster. Finally, the figure of the hapless and deluded king was fitted into a larger system that explained why the gods had smitten the land with destruction. This system was laid out in the Esaĝil Chronicle.1193 This chronicle sketches the history of Babylonia from some time after the flood down to the very end of the Third Dynasty of Ur.1194 Quite anachronistically, it explains the success and failure of individual kings solely as a 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194

See the discussion on p. 83 and the commentary on p. 275 on Source 4, B. See the discussion on pp. 86f. above and Source 3. See the discussion on pp. 87f. above. See the overview of the Ibbi-Sîn omens in chapter 6.1. See the overview of the types on pp. 96f. See the edition as Source 35 and the discussion of the composition in chapter 7. See the overviews on pp. 139f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

248

Chapter 12: Summary

result of their attitude towards Marduk and Babylon. The Esaĝil Chronicle is a text is a piece of wisdom literature, designed mainly for a royal audience and their officials working in the administration, to read and to learn so they may live and prosper.1195 Initially, the Esaĝil Chronicle delineates the fates of individual kings rewarded or punished personally in correspondence to their good or wicked behaviour towards Marduk and Babylon.1196 Towards the end, while discussing the kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur, the text develops its rationale on the element of kin liability.1197 Starting from wicked king Šulgi who is held to have polluted the cult of Marduk, his sons and successors have to cope with the sin of Šulgi overshadowing their reigns.1198 Since Šulgi did not just commit a simple sin like the kings before him, but ruined a steering element of the cult, his sin has a continuing effect on the following generations.1199 Šulgi’s successor Šu-Sîn, who proved to be one of the best kings of all, is lucky in saving himself by his great piety towards Marduk.1200 But under Šulgi’s grandson Ibbi-Sîn, disaster strikes with the harshness of a law of nature. Ibbi-Sîn has to bear the consequences of his wicked grandfather Šulgi.1201 Ibbi-Sîn could not or did not avert disaster like his predecessor Šu-Sîn. In accordance with the principle inherent in the logic of the Esaĝil Chronicle, this can only mean that he failed to follow the good example of Šu-Sîn, since the whole text aims at giving good instructions so the reader may live safe and sound, and may not go to ruin.1202 In this point, the explanation from the first millennium appears to draw tacitly on the powerful image of the blind and deluded ruler unable to read the omens sent to him as warnings of disaster, coined in the Old Babylonian period.1203 Although the text which develops this notion most clearly and elaborately comes from the Old Babylonian period (Source 3), the idea that the communication between the gods and the hapless king Ibbi-Sîn had broken down can still be traced in the sources from the first millennium.1204 The attitude of the texts from the first millennium, such as the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) or the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), is dominated by a radically new view of the figure of the king. Although the office of kingship is still considered divine, the holder of the office may eventually turn out to be a threat to the cult and to the state.1205 See the discussion on p. 119 above. On this “mirror punishment” see the discussion in chapter 7.1. On the principle of kin liability and collective punishment see chapter 7.2. See the discussion on pp. 131ff. above. See pp. 131 and 159 above. See the discussion pp. 133 and 164 above. See pp. 131 and 159 above. Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 7, 81–82, see the discussion on p. 119 above. See on this complex the discussion on pp. 86ff. above. See pp. 86f. with the discussion of the omen of Source 65, dealing with ambiguous signs, and the omen of Source 60, dealing with a liver which cannot be read any more because it is too anomalous; see Source 24 for a typological Old Babylonian precursor. 1205 See the overview on the “bad kings” on p. 140 and the discussion on pp. 225ff. 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Explaining Disaster

249

In the literature of the Hebrew Bible, there is a very close typological parallel to the type of a wicked king like Šulgi whose sins would finally cause the ruin of his land. That is Manasseh of Judah whose sins led to the fall of Jerusalem some generations later under the successors of this most evil king.1206 In the literature of classical antiquity, we find the Ibbi-Sîn type of the hapless ruler in the figure of king Croesus of Lydia. He, too, was a deluded king unable to read the signs sent to him by the gods. He, too, was punished not for a sin of his own, but for a sin of a forefather.1207 Croesus atoned for the sins of his ancestor Gyges. Apollo did his very best trying to postpone the disaster, but not even he as a god could avert the fatal verdict of the Moirae. At least, Apollo was able to delay the fall of Sardis, and to save Croesus from the pyre. Furthermore, as the Pythia rightly insisted in the aftermath, the oracles communicated to Croesus may have been dark, but not deceiving.1208 Croesus simply did not listen. Neither did Ibbi-Sîn.

1206 See the discussion on pp. 132f. above. 1207 Herodotus, Hist. 1:8–14 (sin of Gyges), 91 (atonement of Croesus). 1208 Herodotus, Hist. 1:91, 4–6. – On the topic of possibly misleading, deceiving or simply

misinterpreted oracles see also the discussion on p. 264 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources Parallel to the usual transliterations of the cuneiform signs, I shall make ample use of transcriptions in the presentation of the Akkadian sources. The transcription employed here to present the Babylonian texts is to be understood as a kind of metalanguage which helps to convey my analysis of the structure of the texts in a standarized, idealized and often “corrected” Akkadian. I am fully aware that the actual pronunciation of the Akkadian dialects of the various sources must have differred greatly from what I reconstruct. However, it is the only way to present Akkadian phrases in a readable and quotable manner without falling prey to the secret code of academic transliteration that often obscures a text even to colleagues in the field. Since this book deliberately also addresses colleaugues from neighbouring fields and non-Assyriologists, I decided to make ample use of an idealized “Standard Babylonian”. Likewise, the transliteration of Sumerian is unassumingly conventional and aims at keeping phrases from different millennia coherent in this book for the sake of better understanding. In the description of the sources, I use the following, partly abbreviated terms: Obj(ect), prov(enance), date, lit(erature), cont(ent) and com(mentary). 1. Early and Middle Second Millennium Source 1: Excerpts from CKU no. 22B & 24: The Wrath of Enlil Obj:

Prov:

Excerpts from the Sumerian literary, fictional letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur, composed and studied in the Old Babylonian schools (A: RCU no. 20 = CKU no. 22B. – B: RCU no. 22 = CKU no. 24). A: CKU no. 22B, ll. 5–10: Quotation from a Letter of Ibbi-Sîn to Išbi-Erra After Michalowski 2011, p. 434, no. 22, IbIš1B, ll. 5–10. Transliteration after Gurney & Kramer, OECT 5, pp. 15–16, no. 27, obv. 5–10; photograph (AN 1922–165) published by Michalowski 2011 on CD-ROM. B: CKU no. 24: Quotations from a Letter of Ibbi-Sîn to Puzur-Numušda Michalowski 2011, pp. 463–482, no. 24. B1: From the short version (ll. 13–16). After Michalowski 2011, pp. 467–468, ll. 13–16. Transliteration after manuscript N2 = PBS 13, no. 3, rev. 3–7, with three indented lines; photograph (CBS 14224) published by Michalowski 2011 on CD-ROM. B2: From the long version (ll. 18–21). After Michalowski 2011, pp. 471–472, ll. 18–21. Transliteration after manuscript X1 (OIM A 7475 III:40–43); photo published by Michalowski 2011 on CD-ROM. The origin of the compositions is to be sought in southern Mesopotamia, not in the realm of Isin, but probably in the realm of the dynasty of Larsa, see p. 84. The manuscript of excerpt A (CKU no. 22B) is of unknown origin © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

251

(Michalowski 2011, pp. 433, 436). The manuscripts of the short version of excerpt B (CKU no. 24) come from Nippur, Kiš and Sippar. Manuscript X1 with the long version of excerpt B (CKU no. 24) is perhaps from Sippar; manuscript X2, which I note only in the variants to X1 below, is said to be from Babylon; see Michalowski 2011, pp. 465, 475. Date: Originally early Old Babylonian period (Larsa-period). One manuscript X1 (Chicago, OIM A 7475) of excerpt B is dated by its colophon to the 27th year of Samsu-iluna (Michalowski 2011, p. 248, colophon O, p. 462). Lit: Michalowski 1980–1983 (RlA 6), pp. 54–55, §§ 3.5–6. A: Michalowski 1976, p. 269, RCU no. 22 (not edited). – Wilcke 1970a, p. 55. – Römer 1984, pp. 346–348, no. 1b. – Wilcke 1993, pp. 64–65. – Michalowski 2011, p. 434, no. 22 (IbIš1B). – Attinger 2012a, p. 380. B: Falkenstein 1950a (B1). – Kramer 1950 (B1). – Michalowski 1976, p. 252, RCU no. 20 (not edited). – Wilcke 1970a, p. 60. – Römer 1984, pp. 351–353, no. 2b. – Michalowski 2011, pp. 463–482, no. 24. – Attinger 2012a, pp. 382–384. – Attinger 2012c (= B1), 2012d (= B2). Cont: Fictional letters of king Ibbi-Sîn of Ur to his officials, Išbi-Erra (A) and Puzur-Numušda (B, in text X1 “Puzur-Šulgi”, see Michalowski 2011, pp. 465, 471, l. 1), governor of Kazallu; see also the remarks on the content of Source 3. A governor of Kazallu by the name Puzur-Numušda (or Puzur-Šulgi) who might have been the model of the literary character is not attested yet from the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur. There is, however, a ruler (énsi) of Kazallu by the name Puzur-Numušda who revolted against Narām-Sîn of Akkade, see Michalowski 2006–2008 (RlA 11), p. 133; Frayne, RIME 2, p. 106, Narām-Sîn no. 6, III:37’–39’. In the literary tradition of the fictional Royal Correspondence, put together as a corpus in the early Old Babylonian period, the figure of Ibbi-Sîn attributes his desolate situation to the temporary disfavour or even straightforward hate of Enlil. In these letters he expresses his hope to overcome the bad situation again. The wrath of Enlil is a topic in the letters CKU no. 22 (excerpt A = version B) and no. 24 (excerpts B1 and B2). The quotation B2 from the long version of CKU no. 24 comes from the same text as the excerpt quoted in Source 3, dealing with a liver omen sent by Enlil. Interestigly, the letters do not formulate any reason that might have triggered the divine wrath.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

252

A. –

–

B. B 1. –

–

CKU no. 22B, ll. 5–10; Quotation from a Letter of Ibbi-Sîn to Išbi-Erra u4-da d+en-líl-le ĝá-a-ra ḫul ba-an-gi171209 (6) dumu-ni d+en.zu-na-ra ḫul ba-an-gi17 (7) úriki lú kúr-ra bí-in-sum-mu (8) ki-⌈tuš⌉-ba1210 nu-me-a lú kúr im-zi-ge kur-kur im-sùḫ-sùḫ (9) u4 d+en-líl-le dumu-ni d+en.zu-na-ra im-me-guru-‹da› (10) za-e enim-zu ĝiškim im-ma-an-tuku (5–6) Today, Enlil hates me, and he hates his son Suʾen. (7) He is handing over Ur to the enemy. (8) In its dwelling place, which is no more, the enemy is rising up, and all the lands are thrown into disarray. (9) When Enlil will turn towards his son Suʾen again, (10) you and your word will be marked out!1211 (5)

CKU no. 24: Quotations from a Letter of Ibbi-Sîn to Puzur-Numušda From the short version (ll. 13–16): (13) ⌈u4⌉ [n]a-me d+e[n-lí]l-le ki-en-gi ḫul mu-⌈un⌉-{a}-gi4 (14) úgugu5 (over bi)-bi kur-b[i-t]a e11-dè nam-sipa kalam-ma-šè m[u]-⌈un⌉-[í]l1212 (15) ì-ne-éš d+en-líl-le lú im sa10-sa10 nu-luḫ-ḫasar (16) I iš-bi-dèr-ra numun ki-en-gi-ra nu-me-a nam-lugal-la mu-na-an-sum (13) At some time (in the past), E[nli]l had (already once) developed a grudge against Sumer, (14) (and so) he ⌈elevated⌉ a monkey that had (just) descended [fr]om it[s] mountain to the shepherdship over the land. (15) Now, Enlil (16) has given kingship (15) to (this) bandit, (this) peddler of devil’s dung, (16) to Išbi-Erra, who is not of Sumerian descent.

1209 Michalowski’s (2011, p. 433) version A reads instead: [x⌉ den-líl-lá íb ba-an-a5 […] “[the

hear]t of Enlil has become angry” (text X1 = OIM A 7475 II:1, photograph published by Michalowski 2011 on CD-ROM). Then, text X1 skips the next two lines. 1210 Version A (text X1, OIM A 7475 II:2) reads instead: [a⌉-⌈šà⌉-bi “(in) its (cultivated) fields (that are no more)”. For *a-šà see already Jacobsen’s (1953, p. 41) translation “its fields are no more”. Michalowski (2011, pp. 433–434, 438) unfoundedly harmonizes the two versions as ⌈ki-šà⌉-bi (IbIš1A, l. 2’) and ki ⌈šà?⌉-ba (IbIš1B, l. 8). Apart from the fact that the signs are reasonably clear, there is no term *ki-šà (“midst of the earth”) in Sumerian, even though it recalls an-šà “midst of the sky”. 1211 Michalowski (2011, p. 435, no. 22 A:3’–4’ ∥ B:9–10) translates the last two lines as: “But you, according to your statement, had an omen that Enlil has reconciled with his son Sin”. This translation, which tries to connect these lines to the omen of Source 3, defies logic (see Michalowski’s own commentary ibidem on p. 436), grammar and lexicon (Attinger 2012a, p. 380). 1212 The sign -un- is in fact nearly completely broken off, but its outlines can still be traced in the margins of the break, and the long tails of its verticals are preserved. The verbal form *mu-un-íl is also attested in this story line in the long version (B2, l. 19): ‹mu›-uníl-la (text X2, see note 1215).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

B 2. –

253

From the long version (ll. 18–21): u4 na-an-ga-ma1213 den-líl-le ki-en-gi ḫul ba-an-⌈gi17⌉1214 (19) úgugu5-bi kur-bi-ta e11-dè nam-sipa kalam-ma-⌈šè⌉ ⌈ba-e⌉-gub-bu-dè1215 (20) a-da-lam den-líl-le nu-luḫ-ḫasar 1216 sa10-sa10-d[è] ⌈lú⌉ im níĝin (21) d iš-bi-èr-ra numun ki-en-gi-ra nu-me-a nam-lugal [mu-n]a?-an-sum1217 (18) – In the past, Enlil had (already once) developed a grudge against Sumer, (19) (and so) a monkey that had (only just) descended from its mountain could install itself in (the position of) the shepherdship over the land. (20) Now, Enlil (21) [ha]s given kingship (20) to (this) peddler of devil’s dung, (this) roving bandit, (21) to Išbi-Erra, who is not of Sumerian descent. Com: The most famous, most interesting and most complicated phrase in these excerpts is the one calling Išbi-Erra a “bandit” (lú im) and a “peddler of devil’s dung” (*lú nu-luḫ-ḫasar sa10-sa10): – lú im sa10-sa10 nu-luḫ-ḫasar (version B1, l. 15) (version B2, l. 20) – nu-luḫ-ḫasar sa10-sa10-d[è] ⌈lú⌉ im níĝin The term lú im, which occurs in either version in different positions, is certainly to be understood as the swear word “windy man/liar/bandit” (= sarru), a popular abuse in the Old Babylonian Sumerian “school satires”.1218 So we are left with the two expression that use the terms nu-luḫ-ḫasar (nuḫurtu, a plant or drug, ca. “devil’s dung”) and sa10-sa10 “to sell”. Although it is possible to translate *nu-luḫ-ḫasar sa10-sa10-dè with “in order to sell devil’s dung” (thus Landsberger 1967a, p. 179, note 1 on the line under discussion), I prefer to understand it as an abbreviated version of *lú nu-luḫ-ḫasar sa10-sa10(+ed) “the person who sells devil’s dung”.1219 (18)

1213 On u4 na-an-ga-ma (*u4 na-inga-ì-me-a) “in the past/in former times” see Wilcke

1969a, p. 159 on l. 74; Michalowski 2011, p. 476.

1214 There are also remains of this phrase in text X2: [… ki-en]-⌈gi⌉ ḫul ba-an-gi17 (MM

1215

1216

1217 1218

1219

1039, obv. 9’; Molina & Böck 1997, copy p. 36, photo p. 40; photo also published by Michalowski 2011 on CD-ROM, erroneously labelled as “rev.”). Text X2 writes the phrase with a slight misspelling: ⌈nam⌉-sipa kalam-ma-‹šè› ‹mu›un-íl-la “(Enlil) had indeed elevated (the monkey) ‹to› the shepherdship over the land.” Text X2 writes nu-ḫa-rasar, a form probably inspired by its Akkadian equivalent nuḫurtu in pausa. Similarly, the text Ki1 writes nu-ḫa-LAsar (de Genouillac, PRAK 2, pl. 5, C 10, obv. 2’). Text X2 writes mu-na-sum. On lú-im, the Emegir equivalent of Emesal *mulu-tumu, see Landsberger and Civil in MSL 9, pp. 120–121; Attinger 2012a, p. 382 on A 15 = B 20; on [im] : [tumu] see Schretter 1990, p. 213, no. 248; p. 261, no. 459. On *lú xy-sa10-sa10(+ed) “the person who sells xy” see Landsberger 1967a, p. 179 with note 1, discussing the terms sāḫiru “peddler” and saḫirtu “small wares / sundries”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

254

Edition of the Sources

The expression sa10-sa10 nu-luḫ-ḫasar in the short version (B1, l. 15) displays Akkadian word order, reflecting *sāḫir nuḫurti. The sign níĝin (LAGAB), which appears in the long version (B2) at the end of line 20 on the margin, is probably an abbreviated spelling of the marû participle *nini+ed (LAGAB.LAGAB = NIĜIN) “wandering around/going in circles”, denouncing Išbi-Erra as a “vagabond”.1220 In another part of the letter (CKU no. 24), the figure of Ibbi-Sîn insults Išbi-Erra as “the man from Mari, with the mind of a dog”.1221 The attribute “man from Mari” – meant here as a racist insult – very probably had a fundamentum in re, see the discussion on p. 49 above. Since the texts contrast and explain the Išbi-Erra situation “now” with the monkey incident “then”, the “monkey” (B1: 14; B2: 19) in the past narrative cannot mean Išbi-Erra.1222 If the monkey episode does not contain a reference to a hitherto unknown fable or saying,1223 the “monkey” is here certainly best understood as a derogatory term for the king(s) of Gutium who had invaded the land and had exercised rulership after the end of the dynasty of Akkade.1224 In the poem Curse of Akkade, which had been composed under the Third Dynasty of Ur and hence predates the Old Babylonian literary letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur, the kings of Gutium had already been called the “monkeys brought out of the mountains”:1225 – “Enlil (…) lifted his eyes towards the Gubin mountains, (…) and he brought out of the mountains those who are not classed among (normal) people, who are not reckoned as part of the land, the Gutians, an unbridled people, with human intelligence, but the pity of dogs and monkeys’ features.”

1220 Thus with Attinger (2012d, p. 1, l. 20): “toujours sur les routes”. Although a spelling

1221

1222

1223

1224 1225

like *(lú)niĝin(2) is not yet attested to write the terms sāḫiru “peddler” or saḫḫiru “vagabond”, the etymological connection with saḫāru (= niĝin(2)) “to turn around / to go in circles” is clear. lú má-ríki-ke4 ĝalga ur-re ∥ ur-ra; Michalowski 2011, p. 464, version A, l. 31; p. 473, version B, l. 51; here, in manuscript X1 (OIM A 7475), IV:24, the scribe has correctly written the expected genitive: ur-ra (pace Michalowski 2011, p. 473). Pace Sjöberg 1993, p. 211. Michalowski (2011, pp. 200–201, 476) was right when he realized that the term “monkey” cannot refer to Išbi-Erra, but he was wrong when he connected it to the name of Ibbi-Sîn’s 23rd year. Firstly, the monkey episode is narrated in the letter as predating in a remote past the rise of Išbi-Erra “now”. Secondly, the year name Ibbi-Sîn 23 does not commemorate a military success of these “mountain monkeys”, but some kind of diplomatic visit, probably by the Elamites, see the discussion on pp. 255f. immediately below. Up to now, there is only the famous “monkey with longing eyes in a musician’s house at Eridu” (Alster 1997/I, p. 106, Sumerian Proverb Collection 3, no. 150) from a Sumerian proverb. The story is told in a little more detail in the “Letter from Ugubi to his Mother” (edited by Powell 1978; see also Dunham 1985, p. 244). Thus with Cooper 1983, p. 31; Dunham 1985, p. 242, on nos. 8–9. Paraphrase of ll. 151–157 of the Curse of Akkade; after Cooper 1983, pp. 56–57, scores on pp. 162–165.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

255

This is the earliest example of the pejorative term “mountain monkeys” used for foreigners (Dunham 1985, p. 242, no. 8). It is quite likely that the expression had been coined for these very lines, since there is a pun between the Gubin mountains (kur gú-bí-na, l. 152) and the “monkeys” (ugu(2)gu5-bi, l. 156): When Enlil lifted his eyes “towards the Gubin mountains” (*kur Gubinakše, l. 152), one could probably also understand the phrase as “towards the mountain of his monkeys” in spoken Sumerian (*kur ugubînâkše). The element common to all these texts is simply the pejorative and racist term “mountain monkey” for a foreigner, in particular from the Iranian monutains.1226 So there is also no direct reference to the “mountain monkeys” commemorated in the year name Ibbi-Sîn 23, but only the use of a common metaphor: – mu di-bí-d+en.zu lugal uri5ki-ma-ra úgugu5-bi dugud kur-bi mu-na-e-ra-a1227 “Year (after) the heavy (sluggish?/pompous?) ‘monkeys’ (i.e. ‘foreigners’) had come down from their mountain(s) towards Ibbi-Sîn (in order to greet him or to submit to him).” The adjective dugud means “heavy” or “important” (= kabtu). Since this seems to make no good sense here, we might perhaps translate dugud with “sluggish” or “pompous”. Other scholars translate “huge” or “heavy (ape)”.1228 In this year name, dugud is also sometimes translated with “stupid”.1229 However, the notion “stupid” would rather have been expressed by ú-ḫub (= sukkuku) “deaf/ignorant”, idim (= saklu) “simpleton”, or lil/lú líl-lá (= lillu) “fool”. In this year name, the verbal base is *er, the ḫamṭu plural base of ĝen “to go/come”, spelled out syllabically.1230 The verb is to be analysed as *mu-n.a-er-a-a. Since the subject belongs grammatically to the non-human class, even though the term “monkey” mocks human adversaries here, the verbal form does not employ the plural marker -eš. The ending in -ra-a contains the nominalization in -a-,1231 as well as the final temporal locative -a. The spelling kur-bi represents *kurbita, with apocope and orthographical loss of the final consonant, as usual in the third 1226 Sjöberg 1972, p. 110, commentary on no. 1, l. 3: “a monkey from the mountain”;

1227 1228

1229 1230

1231

Cooper 1983, pp. 30–33: “Excursus B: The Subhuman Barbarian”; Dunham 1985, pp. 242–243; Sjöberg 1993, p. 211 with note 2. See also p. 385 below with the commentary on the abuse “son of a bitch” (apil kalbati) hurled against the Ummān-Manda in line 42 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Legrain, UET 3, no. 711, rev. 3–6; no. 712, rev. 3–6; abridged and broken in no. 863, rev. 8–9: mu úgugu5-[bi dugud] kur-bi mu-na-[e]/-r[a?-a]. Sollberger 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 7, § 2, no. 23: “huge ape”; van Dijk 1978, p. 197, on ll. 32–34: “un singe énorme”; Klein 1979, p. 153, note 23: “‘heavy’ monkey”; Sjöberg 1993, p. 211, note 2: “heavy ape”; Sallaberger 1999, p. 173: “gewaltiger Affe”. Dunham 1985, p. 242 with note 37, following a suggestion by Miguel Civil; Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 365, no. 23. Correctly analysed and translated by Sally Dunham (1985, p. 242 with note 37), with the assistance of D.O. Edzard. On the base *er, spelled erx(DU.DU), e-ra, er-ra etc., see now Mori 2010, pp. 168–169 with numerous examples from the third millennium. Many year names do not add the nominalization, but some do, e.g. many of the unplaced year names of Ur-Namma (c, h, i, j, k, n, p); Šulgi 3, 17, 21a, 28; Ibbi-Sîn 14, 15; see Frayne, RIME 3/2 in the introductory sections to the kings.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

256

Edition of the Sources

millennium. So the verbal base is certainly not ra (= maḫāṣu) “to strike/smite”, since it leaves the spelling -e-ra- unexplained and since ra “to smite” is not construed with the dative, but with the absolutive. Furthermore, in terms of content, the year name cannot mean “the year when the heavy ape from the mountain struck Ibbi-Sîn, the king of Ur”.1232 A comment like this does not make any sense as a year name that was to commemorate and to celebrate an event that must have been flattering to Ibbi-Sîn, in one way or another.1233 Neither can the sentence mean “year (after) the people brought a monkey (…)”, or the like.1234 If “people” were part of the construction, the verb would have been marked with /-n-√-eš(2)/. In Sumerian, “to bring” is ře6, and its ḫamṭu plural base is laḫ4, so the verbal form should have been *mu-na-(an)-laḫ4-eš(2)/ša-a. It is also no option to think of the verbal base ir “to plunder”, either, since this is Emesal for túm (= šalālu), not main dialect. Since this date formula had been coined and used by the administration of IbbiSîn, it cannot possibly have a negative meaning for this divine king of Ur. If in one particular year there were no good news to tell, one would rather have proclaimed “another year after” (mu ús-sa) a more flattering event and would have passed in silence over this annus horribilis. Even if “the mountain monkeys approaching” historically did mark the beginning of the final invasion of the land by the Elamites, the formulation of this year name nevertheless must convey a positive reading of the events by Ur, however delusional. This is grammatically corroborated by the dative of reverence (-ra, mu-na-) in the phrase.1235 These “mountain monkeys” are not perceived as coming “against” Ibbi-Sîn in confrontation, but as coming “towards him” in order to pay hommage to him, at least in his view. In fact, the “mountain monkeys” were probably an Elamite delegation, negotiating the surrender or the fall of Ur. Since the event was the topic of Ibbi-Sîn’s 23rd year, it must have happened during his 22nd year. This corresponds to Išbi-Erra 15, when Išbi-Erra fought the armies of Šimaški and Elam, see p. 296 below.

1232 Thus Sjöberg 1993, p. 211, note 2; similarly Michalowski 2011, pp. 201, 476; Klein 1979,

p. 153, note 23: “attacked”, following a suggestion of Sjöberg.

1233 It is a little bit disturbing to see that Sollberger (1976–1980 [RlA 5], p. 7, § 2, no. 24),

followed by Frayne (RIME 3/2, p. 366), took it into consideration that the name of IbbiSîn’s 24th and last regnal year, which is broken but ends in bí-ra, i.e. “[year (after) the king of Ur] smote [GNxy]”, could possibly commemorate the annihilation of the very Third Dynasty of Ur herself in that same year. Regnal years were named after a prestigious event of the previous year. It was only the privilege of a late-born Old Babylonian scribe to add the comment “(the Elamite) smote Ibbi-Sîn” to that king’s last regnal year in a date list from Ur (see Sollberger 1954–1956, pp. 40–41, date list Gadd & Legrain, UET 1, no. 292, II:2–3: di-bí-d+en.zu / in-sìg). 1234 Thus Sollberger 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 7, § 2, no. 23; van Dijk 1978, p. 197, on ll. 32–34 (“on a fait descendre”); Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 365, no. 23. 1235 The “honorific dative” is also found in the name of Ibbi-Sîn’s 17th regnal year: “Year (after) the Amorite(s) of the southern border, who from ancient times did not know cities, submitted to Ibbi-Sîn, king of Ur”, with Ibbi-Sîn in the dative again (gú im-mana-an-ĝá-ar, Legrain, UET 3, no. 698; Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 364, no. 17).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

257

Source 2: Excerpt from CKU no. 23: Išbi-Erra’s Brazenness Obj:

Excerpts from the Sumerian literary, fictional letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur (RCU no. 21 = CKU no. 23), composed and studied in the Old Babylonian schools. The text presented below follows with minor changes the reconstruction by Michalowski 2011, pp. 439–462. Prov: The origin of the composition is to be sought in southern Mesopotamia, not in the realm of Isin, but probably in the realm of the dynasty of Larsa, see p. 84. The manuscripts come from Nippur, Ur and Sippar (Michalowski 2011, pp. 441, 448). Date: Originally early Old Babylonian period (Larsa-period). One manuscript (X1 = Chicago, OIM A 7475) is dated by its colophon to the 27th year of Samsuiluna (Michalowski 2011, p. 248, colophon O, p. 462). Lit: Ali 1964, pp. 42–43, no. A:3, ll. 7–14, 18–25. – Wilcke 1970a, pp. 57–59. – Michalowski 1976, pp. 254–255, no. 21, ll. 7–14, 18–25. – Römer 1984, pp. 348–351, no. 2a. – Wilcke 1993, pp. 64–65. – Wu 1994, pp. 8–10. – Tinney 1996, pp. 60–61. – Edzard 2004, pp. 522–523. – Online edition: ETCSL, text: 3.1.19. – Michalowski 2011, pp. 439–462, no. 23, ll. 6–13, 17–24. – Attinger 2012a, pp. 380–382. – Attinger 2012b. Cont: Fictional letter of Puzur-Numušda (called in some manuscripts “PuzurŠulgi”, Michalowski 2011, p. 449, l. 2), governor of Kazallu, to Ibbi-Sîn, king of Ur. The figure of Puzur-Numušda of Kazallu cannot be grasped historically, see Source 1 sub “content”. The letter gives a report on a message sent to Puzur-Numušda by Išbi-Erra, the usurper king of Isin, calling Puzur-Numušda to side him. The letter mentions Išbi-Erra by name in lines 3, 4, 41 (Michalowski 2011, pp. 439–440). 1. Išbi-Erra of Isin announces that he will conquer the land of Sumer, and that he will lead the (people of the) Sumerian cities, their gods and their troops before the goddess Nin-Isina, the tutelar goddess of his city Isin: Transliteration1236 (6) d en-líl lugal-ĝu10 nam-sipa kalam-ma ka-ka-ni1237 ma-an-sum1238 (7) gú ídidigna gú ídburanun-na gú ídabgal ù gú ídme-den-líl-lá (8) eriki-bé-ne diĝir-bé-ne ù uĝnim-bé-ne (9) ma-da ḫa-ma-ziki-ta en-na a-ab-ba má-ganki-na-šè1239 1236 After Michalowski 2011, pp. 450–452, no. 23, ll. 6–13. Minor orthographical variants

are ignored here.

1237 Probably for *ka.k-ani-t(a) “with his mouth”, orthographically neglecting the final

consonant; or perhaps for *ka.k-ani-e literally “by his mouth”.

1238 The verbal form is fully preserved in text N9. There are also erronneous variants in

the slightly homophonous ba-, e.g. ba-an-sum (Ur2).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

258

igi dnin-isinx(in)si-na-ka-šè ku4-ku4-dè ì-si-inki nam-ĝá-nun den-líl-lá-šè ĝá-ĝá-da mu du12-du12-dè1240 (12) nam-ra-aka-ne-ne kè-dè1241 eriki-eriki-bi durunx(tuš-tuš)-ù-dè (13) d en-líl-le ĝá-a-ra ma-an-du11 Translation The messenger of Išbi-Erra speaks to Puzur-Numušda: (My king Išbi-Erra says thus:) (6) Enlil, my lord, has given me with his verdict the shepherdship of the Land (of Sumer). (13) Enlil has told me (to conquer) (7) (from) the bank(s) of the Tigris (to the) Euphrates, (and from) the Abgal (to the) Me-Enlila(-canals) (8) their (the people’s) cities, their gods, and their troops, (9) from the land of Ḫamazi to the sea of Magan (10) (Enlil has told me) to have (the people) enter before Nin-Isina, (11) to establish Isin as the storehouse of Enlil and to provide its fame, (12) to carry off their spoil and to (re)settle the cities (again). (10) (11)

2. Išbi-Erra of Isin announces that he will set up his statues and emblems in the temples of Sumer, that he will appoint his own priests and that the cult will be performed in his name: Transliteration1242 (17) eri ma-da den-líl-le ĝá-ra1243 ma-an-du11-ga-àm (18) šà ì-si-inki-na-ka zag(-)gu-la-ne-ne1244 ga-bí-ib-dù-dù1245 (19) èš-èš-a-ne-ne-{a}1246 ga-àm-a5 1239 Su1, a round school tablet from Susa, offers the variant má-gan-naki-ta, with another -

ta brought in erroneously from the first half of the phrase.

1240 Thus texts Ur2 and X1. At least one text (N9, apparently also N5) has the correct form

1241

1242 1243 1244 1245 1246

du12-du12-da. Earlier in the line, one text has ĝá-⌈ĝá⌉-dè (Ur2). The syntactical difference between marû-base + -eda and -ede (Edzard 2003a, pp. 134–136; Thomsen 1984, pp. 265–267, with ex. 775 = the phrase at issue) is neglected here. One should have expected -eda throughout the paragraph. This flaw corresponds to the date of the composition of the corpus of the fictional letters of the kings of Ur during the second half of the First Dynasty of Isin (Huber 2001, pp. 205–206; see also the discussion on p. 84 above). Thus after N9, other texts omit kè-dè. On the infinite marû form /AK+ed/ = /kè-d/ see Powell 1982, pp. 316–317; Attinger 2005, pp. 62–63. N1 produces an unwarranted locative in nam-ra-aka-ne-ne-a, as in line 20 below. After Michalowski 2011, pp. 453–455, no. 23, ll. 17–24. Minor orthographical variants are ignored. Thus only text X1. Text Ur1: ĝiš⌈zag⌉-gu-lá-ne-⌈ne⌉; Ur2: ⌈ĝiš⌉z[ag-g]u-la-ne-ne; N9: zag(-)gu-la!-⌈ne⌉-ne-a. Text X3: ga-⌈bí⌉-ib-ĝar “I will set up (shrines)”; text N9: zag(-)gu-la!-⌈ne⌉-ne-a ga-bí-ibdurunx(tuš-tuš)-uš “I will seat (the gods) in their shrines”; text Ur1: ga-bí-ib-dù-d[ù]. This unwarranted locative occurs in several manuscripts, but it appears to be a mistake, triggered by similar forms in -ne-ne-a in lines 18 and 21.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

259

alan-ĝu10 šu-nir-ĝu10 en-ĝu10-ne lú-maḫ nin-diĝir-ĝu10-ne ĝi6-par4-ra-ne-ne-a ga-bí-ib-durunx(tuš-tuš)1247 (22) igi den-líl-lá é-kur-ra-⌈šè⌉1248 (23) igi d+en.zu-na1249 é-kiš-nu-ĝál-šè (24) dumu-dumu-ĝu101250 sískur-bi ḫé-eb-bé1251 Translation (17) Of the cities and the land, which Enlil has promised to me, (18) I will set up their shrines at Isin, (19) their festivals I will celebrate. (20) My statues and emblems, my ēn-priest(esse)s, lu-maḫ-priests and nin-diĝir-priestesses (21) I will install in their ĝipar-shrines. (22) Before Enlil in Ekur, (23) before Sîn in Ekišnuĝal (24) my children shall say the prayers due. (20) (21)

Com: The text puts the history that has occurred during and ever since the fall of the Third Dynasty of Ur as an announcement into the mouth of Išbi-Erra, the founder of the First Dynasty of Isin. This albeit fictional message demonstrates that the practice of abducting deities (line 9) together with parts of the population of conquered cities was well in use in the early Old Babylonian period. With line 12 the text also testifies to the reorganization and the resettling of captured cities. Abductions of divine images and the subsequent restoration of their cults in a new ideological setting had already been used as empire-building techniques1252 by the Third Dynasty of Ur, into whose reign the scene of the story is set. A case of the abduction of a local deity is described in detail in an inscription of Amar-Sîn of Ur.1253 When Amar-Sîn conquered the city of Ḫuḫnuri in Iran at the command of Enlil, he deported from there the (statue of the) god Ruḫuratir. He brought the captured god before Enlil, apparently for trial, since the text says that his verdict was spoken by the goddess Nin-ḫursaĝa in favour of Amar-Sîn. Later, 1247 Text N1 with a gloss: ga-bí-ib-durunx(tušru-tuš). 1248 Lines 22 and 23 follow text N9. Other manuscripts use a wide variety of -šè and -ta

1249 1250

1251

1252 1253

with the names of the gods and their temples, obviously triggered by an underlying Akkadian phrase with ana and ina. The correct Sumerian form would have been *igi d+ en-líl-lá-šè (šà) é-kur-ra(-ka). Thus text N9; manuscript X3 reads dnanna-[šè]. Thus with text Ur1; text X3 reads: dumu-dumu-né-n[e] “th[eir] children”. The orthography of -(a)nene as -né-ne is unusual, but also found in igi-ḫúl-la-ne-ne-a with variant -né-ne-a (Frayne, RIME 4, p. 381, no. E4.3.7.5, line 5, Samsu-iluna). Text N1 reads dumu-dumu-MA-ke4. This is certainly to be understood as dumu-dumu-ĝá!-ke4, a form triggered by its Akkadian counterpart *mār(ū)-mārīya “my grand-children”. No text displays the clear plural *ḫé-eb-bé-ne. Text Ur2 appears to read ⌈ḫé⌉-b[í-ib]⌈DU11⌉[(-)…]. According to Michalowski, text X1 also uses the ḫamṭu base du11, but I cannot see it in the photograph. Documented best for the Neo-Assyrian empire, see here in note 256. Mofidi Nasrabadi 2005.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

260

the god is returned to his city, his temple is restored, and the city is renamed BītAmar-Suʾena (“Manor of Amar-Sîn”). The renaming demonstrates that the conquered city is integrated into the empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur. The status quo ante of Ḫuḫnuri is not restored. This implies that the trial before Enlil was to investigate an offence committed by the city of Ḫuḫnuri. Though not explicitly stated, the war waged at the command of Enlil and the verdict uttered by Ninḫursaĝa make it clear that there must have happened something on the part of Ḫuḫnuri, represented by its god Ruḫuratir, which could be interpreted by AmarSîn as a violation of a sworn treaty justifying the war.1254 Another example describes how Šu-Sîn of Ur dealt with a rebellion of the city-state of Simānum. After suppressing the rebellion, Šu-Sîn deported the rebels and resettled them in the vicinity of Nippur in a newly founded city called “(New)Simānum”.1255 18: The line probably mixes the two homophonous terms zag gu-la(2) “place of honour” (lit. “great side/place”), and zag-gú-lá “adjacent chamber” of the main cella, for storage or accomodation of divine entourage.1256 Here, I simply use the general term “shrine” in translation. The two manuscripts from Ur (Ur 1–2) obviously think of “great seats”, since they add the determinative ĝiš “wood”. Manuscript N9 uses a variant with a locative: zag(-)gu-la!-⌈ne⌉-ne-a ga-bí-ib-durunx(tuš-tuš)-uš “I will seat (the gods) in their shrines”. Here the locative makes sense. In manuscript X1, Michalowski (2011, p. 454) also reads the term in a locative (-⌈a⌉), together with the verbal form ⌈ga-bí-ib⌉-dù-dù, which, however, would require an abolutive. According to the photograph, the line is extremely heavily damaged. 20: The text goes on with Išbi-Erra annoucing that he will install his statues, emblems and priests acting in his name in the cities of Sumer, most prominently in Enlil’s temple Ekur in Nippur and Nanna-Sîn’s temple Ekišnuĝal in Ur. The Ekur is mentioned as the temple of the king of the gods at that time. The city of Ur is mentioned as the residence of the fading Third Dynasty of Ur and of the famous ēn-priestess of Nanna (see below). Installing Išbi-Erra’s “own” statues and priests would not mean, however, that the local cults would substantially be changed, but rather that the cults would be performed on behalf and in the name of the new king, Išbi-Erra. 24: This line refers to the king’s own children installed as priests in the temples of Sumer, a well-known custom and a political measure to secure one’s reign in the ancient Near East.1257 Most famous is the case of the 1254 See Oded 1992, pp. 83–93 for this strategy in the Neo-Assyrian empire. 1255 Michalowski 1975; Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. 298–299, Šu-Sîn no. 1, IV:1’–V:23; Sallaberger

1999, p. 161.

1256 Sjöberg in ZA 65, 1975, pp. 219–220 on zag-gal/-gu-la; Sallaberger 1993/I, pp. 193, 220

with note 1051; Michalowski 2011, pp. 443–444; Attinger 2012a, p. 380 on CKU 23, l. 18.

1257 Pace Michalowski 2011, pp. 439, 441, 444 who unconvincingly proposes tur-tur-ĝu10

“my subjects” (lit. “my small ones”); in like manner Römer 1984, p. 350, l. 25: “Bürger”; Attinger 2012a, pp. 380–381 and Attinger 2012b on l. 24: “mes sujets/citoyens”. – In

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

261

position of the ēn-priestess of the moon-god Nanna of Ur (see here line 23) that had customarily been occupied by a daughter of a ruling king.1258 Text X3 has “th[eir] (i.e. the priests’) children” instead, while text N1 probably reads “my grand-children”, see note 1250. In either case this is to underline the expected long-lasting reign of the newly installed dynasty. The year names of the historical Išbi-Erra (Van de Mieroop 1987a, pp. 126– 128; Sigrist 1988, pp. 13–21) document that he indeed installed priests and priestesses for the gods of Babylonia.1259 We may surmise that these persons – as usual – were members of the royal family. In one case (IšbiErra 22) it is even explicitly stated that the priestess was a daughter of the king. Source 3: Excerpt from CKU no. 24: Ibbi-Sîn’s Error (ISO 1) Obj:

Prov:

Date: Lit: – –

Ibbi-Sîn’s Error, excerpt from the Sumerian literary, fictional letters of the Royal Correspondence of Ur (RCU no. 22 = CKU no. 24), composed and studied in the Old Babylonian schools. The sigla follow Michalowski 2011, p. 465. X1: Chicago, OIM A 7475, IV:10–16 (photograph published by Michalowski 2011 on CD-ROM). X2: Museo de Montserrat, Barcelona, MM 1039, rev. 15–17 (Márquez Rowe & Molina 1997, p. 27; Molina & Böck 1997, description p. 34, copy p. 36, photograph p. 40; photograph also published by Michalowski 2011 on CD-ROM, erroneously labelled as “obv.”). The origin of the composition is to be sought in southern Mesopotamia, not in the realm of Isin, but probably in the realm of the dynasty of Larsa, see p. 84. Manuscript X1 is perhaps from Sippar, X2 is said to be from Babylon. Other manuscripts, containing the short version, are from Nippur, Kiš and Sippar; see Michalowski 2011, pp. 465, 475. Originally early Old Babylonian period (Larsa-period). Manuscript X1 (Chicago, OIM A 7475) is dated by its colophon to the 27th year of Samsuiluna (Michalowski 2011, p. 248, colophon O, p. 475). Michalowski 1976, p. 269, no. 22 (no edition). Michalowski 1980–1983 (RlA 6), p. 55, § 3.6. Maul 2013, p. 190.

Babylonia, the term “son” (dumu/māru) could have a variety of meanings depending upon the particular situation it was used in (“son, member, professional”), but it meant “citizen” only in combination with “city”, “land” or place names. 1258 Overviews of the ēn-priestesses of Nanna are given by Sollberger 1954–1956, pp. 23–29; Renger 1967, pp. 118–121; Weadock 1975, pp. 127–128; Weiershäuser 2008, pp. 241–245. 1259 Year 7: nin-diĝir-priestess of Ninurta (at Nippur); 11: nin-diĝir-priestess of Iškur; 13: ēn-priest of Inanna (at Uruk?); 22: égi-zi-priestess of An (at Uruk), “daughter of the king”; 23: nin-diĝir-priestess of Lugal-Marada (at Marad); 24: ēn-priestess of Enlil (at Nippur); 30: nin-diĝir-priestess of Nin-kilim; 32: nin-diĝir-priestess of Lugal-Irra (at Kisig).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

262

Edition of the Sources

Long version (comprising the part dealt with below): – Michalowski 2006, pp. 250–257. – Online edition: ETCSL, text: 3.1.20, version B. – Michalowski 2011, pp. 472–473, no. 24, version B, ll. 37–43. – Attinger 2012a, pp. 382–384. – Attinger 2012d. Short version (not comprising the part dealt with below): – Falkenstein 1950a. – Kramer 1950. – Römer 1984, pp. 351–353, no. 2b. – Online edition: ETCSL, text: 3.1.20, version A. – Michalowski 2011, pp. 463–471, no. 24, version A. – Attinger 2012c. Cont: Fictional letter of king Ibbi-Sîn of Ur to his official, Puzur-Numušda (in text X1 “Puzur-Šulgi”, see Michalowski 2011, pp. 465, 471, l. 1), governor of Kazallu. The figure of Puzur-Numušda of Kazallu cannot be grasped historically, see Source 1 sub “content”. The literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn foolishly misinterprets an omen sent to him by Enlil (ISO 1). The excerpt quoted below comes from the same text as the excerpt B2 of Source 1, dealing with the wrath of Enlil. The scene is set into the closing years of the Third Dynasty of Ur. In this letter, the figure of king Ibbi-Sîn informs his official PuzurNumušda (in some manuscripts “Puzur-Šulgi”, see Michalowski 2011, pp. 465, 471), governor of Kazallu, that Enlil has sent him a favourable liver omen announcing the downfall of his adversary, Išbi-Erra. Išbi-Erra’s fall – which in fact was not to come – is erroneously anticipated by the literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn in line 33 of the short version and in line 57 of the long version (Michalowski 2011, pp. 464, 473– 474). The omen is described by the figure of Ibbi-Sîn in novelistic detail, and the description makes it clear that the king misinterprets the omen, confusing the pars familiaris and pars hostilis of the liver. The letter is preserved in a short and a long version. The description of the liver omen occurs in the long version only. The plot of the composition unfolds on the foil of Šulgi’s Self-Praise B as a counterconcept to the “no-it-all-attitude” of overbearing kings, see the detailed discussion of the letter on pp. 86ff. above. In another part of this composition, Ibbi-Sîn, in his delusion, hopes to be saved by the invading Amorrites, his actual enemies whom he, however, mistakenly imagines as his helpers, sent by Enlil. This additional error is preserved in the short as well as in the long version (Michalowski 2011, p. 464, A ll. 32–34, p. 473, B ll.52–58). The long version, which contains the omen under discussion, mentions Išbi-Erra by name in lines 12, 14, 21, 25, 28, 30 and 57 (Michalowski 2011, pp. 471–473). The short version mentions Išbi-Erra in lines 7, 9, 16, 20, 23, 25 and 33 (Michalowski 2011, pp. 463–464). Transliteration igi níĝ-sa6-⌈ga⌉-ni ĝá-ra mu-un-ši-in-{ni}-bar 37 X1 (IV:10) X2 ( omits line ) šà-ne-ša4-ĝu10 šà kù-bi-šè mu-un-ĝar 38 X1 (IV:11) X2 ( omits line )

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

39 40 41 42 43

X1 (IV:12) X2 (rev. 15) X1 (IV:13) X2 (rev. 16) X1 (IV:14) X2 X1 (IV:15) X2 X1 (IV:16) X2 (rev. 17)

263

kíĝ-gi4-a-ĝu10 uzu silim-ma-ke4 ma-an-ĝar [kíĝ-gi4]-⌈a⌉-[ĝ]á uzu silim-ma im-ma-an-ĝar uzu zi-da-na uzu gùb-bu-ĝá ⌈á⌉ diri ù-‹mi›-ni-nà [á z]i-da á gùb-bu-ba á diri ù-mu-ni-nà ĝiš tukul á zi-da-ĝá gú-bi zi-da ul-gùr-ru mi-ni-sum ( omits line ) ĝiš tukul gùb-bu-na gu-da lá-lá gú-ri-bi ĝar-ra ( omits line ) lú ḫul-ĝál-ĝu10 šu-ĝá ì-ĝá-ĝá saĝ ĝiš bí-ra-‹ra› [lú ḫul-ĝ]ál-e šu-ĝá ba-ni-in-dab5-bé saĝ ĝiš bi-ra-ra

Translation of manuscript X1 (37) (Enlil) has looked upon me with grace (again) (38) and has taken my supplication to his holy heart. (39) He has put my omens into the (ominously) favourable flesh (of the sacrificial animal). (40) After he had treated his (: the enemy’s) right side of the flesh, and my left side of the flesh with superior power,1260 (41) he treated the right neck of my right weapon mark with loving affection. (42) Of his (: the enemy’s) left weapon mark – firmly bound by the filament – its far (lit. “yonder”) neck was present. (43) (This means:) “(Enlil) will deliver into my hand the one who is ill-disposed towards me and I will kill (him).” Translation of manuscript X2 (39) He has put into [m]y [omens] (evidence from) the (ominously) favourable flesh (of the sacrificial animal). (40) After he had treated its (: the liver’s) [ri]ght [side] and its left side with superior power, (43) (the omen prepared thus meant:) “As to [the one who is ill-dis]posed (towards me), I will seize him with my hand, and I will kill (him).” Com: In the letter (CKU no. 24) with the omen report quoted above, king IbbiSîn of Ur is presented as still hoping to overcome and to kill his adversary, IšbiErra of Isin. In the Ibbi-Sîns letters from the Royal Correspondence of Ur, the opposition is between Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra, not between Ibbi-Sîn and the king of Elam. By the Old Babylonian period, when this story was taught in the schools, the hopes of Ibbi-Sîn had been proven wrong by history. So there are two possible explanations to understand the text. Either Ibbi-Sîn is presented as a conceited and blind ruler who cannot read the clear and reliable signs of disaster sent to him as a warning, or Enlil has tricked him, deliberately and with evil intent. If Enlil would have done so, he would have upset and destroyed the foremost medium of communication between gods and men. In fact, Enlil is not above suspicion of misleading and deceiving humanity from time to time.1261 A famous example which 1260 Literally “after he had exacted superior power to his right side of the flesh and to my

left side of the flesh”.

1261 On Enlil and also Enki displaying a deceitful character at times see e.g. Lämmerhirt

2010, pp. 261–263 on deceitful or malicious gods, p. 288 on šu-lul--bal “to alter (the decreed fate) deceitfully” in Ur-Namma’s Death. On the sometimes “windy” character of Enlil see also Edzard 2003b, p. 184.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

264

Edition of the Sources

comes quite close to the present case is the fading support of king Ur-Namma of Ur by An and Enlil which led up to the death of Ur-Namma on the battle-field. In the Sumerian lament over the death of Ur-Namma,1262 Inanna hurls it as an insult (l. 207) against An that he and Enlil had deceitfully changed the destiny of UrNamma. The terms used in the lament are enim--kúr “to change the (given) word” (ll. 8, 208, 209), and nam-tar-ra šu-lul--bal (l. 9) “to alter the decreed fate deceitfully”. The question as to how the story under discussion should be understood can be narrowed to asking whether Enlil deceived Ibbi-Sîn, or whether Ibbi-Sîn was mistaken in reading the omen. Apparently, Ibbi-Sîn assumes that Enlil out of his deep affection towards him (ll. 37–38, 41), has done something to the liver omen using his “superior strength” (l. 40). Since the “right side” and the “left side” of the liver and its features are mentioned extensively (ll. 40–42), and since Ibbi-Sîn’s reading of the sides contradicts the classic distribution (see in detail below, on ll. 41–42), the point of the story certainly was that Ibbi-Sîn either could not read the liver properly, or that he foolishly assumed that Enlil had changed the ominous sides of the liver in his favour, using his superior power. Reading closely, we can see that Ibbi-Sîn’s misattribution of the left side to himself in fact precedes Enlil’s acting in line 40 (X1). So it is more likely that Ibbi-Sîn was not able to interpret the omen correctly. And since he as a king certainly had a staff of diviners, scholars and advisors, it must mean that he ignored their warnings. By the time when this letter had been created and when it was studied in Old Babylonian schools, history had proven that Ibbi-Sîn was mistaken. After all, the omen dealt with above was clearly fulfilled, but on Ibbi-Sîn, not on his enemy. It was him, who was taken prisoner and who finally was executed. And it also appears to be proven by the Old Babylonian omen collections, who handed down the Ibbi-Sîn omens as reliable omens of disaster, although the present omen is not found in the omen tradition extant to us. In fact, there are no Ibbi-Sîn omens at all dealing with the weapon mark (kakku). This, however, is very probably a matter of coincidence. Since an omen of this kind – and also a fairly extensively described one – obviously played an important role in the literary-historical tradition on Ibbi-Sîn in the early Old Babylonian period, it is highly probable that such an omen had once been part of the Old Babylonian lore of extispicy – regardless whether taught as an omen whose meaning Ibbi-Sîn misinterpreted, or as a dangerous misleading mock omen sent by malicious Enlil, tricking the king and his advisors. In the latter case, it would have been necessary to study the omen even more diligently, in order to avoid the error ever to occur again. The topic of the “misleading or misinterpreted omen” recalls the famous oracles of Delphi and the Amphiareion delivered to Croesus, stating ambiguously that if Croesus crossed the Halys river in order to attack the Persians, he would destroy a great empire. He mistook the oracles, attacked the Persians and destroyed his own empire.1263

1262 Flückiger-Hawker 1999, pp. 101–142; Wilcke 1970b, p. 87; Michalowski 2006, p. 256. 1263 Herodotus, Hist. 1:53, another misinterpreted oracle in 1:55. See also p. 249 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

265

The setting of the scene obviously refers implicitly to Šulgi’s claim to allsurpassing knowledge in the field of extispicy.1264 It treats the quasi-divine nature and wisdom of the deified king with irony. In line 32 of the letter under discussion, shortly before divine Ibbi-Sîn’s glaring shortcomings as a diviner become apparent, the literary figure of Ibbi-Sîn pretentiously points out that he participates in the divine: mu-e-zu-zu diĝir-ra ĝá-a-kam “You know very well that I own (elements) of divinity”.1265 38: The incorrect use of the non-human possessive suffix -bi in šà kù-bi instead of *šà kù-ga-ni betrays the late date of the composition of the text during the Old Babylonian period, see also the discussion on p. 84. 40: The term uzu zi-da the “right side of the flesh” denotes the right side of the liver having ominous meaning for the own party (pars familiaris), whereas the uzu gùb-bu the “left side of the flesh” denotes the left side of the liver having ominous meaning for the enemy (pars hostilis).1266 Strangely enough, Ibbi-Sîn assigns the left side to himself: uzu gùb-bu-ĝá “my left side of the flesh”, see in more detail below, on ll. 41–42. In 2006, Piotr Michalowski (2006, p. 252) did not translate á diri literally with “superior strength”, but preferred to render it with “additionally, furthermore”, or even as “additional side” (of the liver). This is strange, since the liver in extispicy has, of course, only two sides and not three. Furthermore, the text works in fact only with these two sides, the right and the left (ll. 40–42). Later, Michalowski (2011, pp. 474, 480) translated á diri with “follow-up”. His reasons to do so evade me. I think that is makes perfect sense here to translate á diri literally with “superior strength”1267 or “force majeure”. For line 40 (X1), Pascal Attinger (2012a, p. 384, B 40; 2012d, p. 2, l. 40 with note 25) proposed the translation: “Après avoir placé une ‘force supérieure’ dans son présage (du) côté droit et dans mon présage du côté gauche (…).” However, the interpretation underlying Attinger’s translation is impossible. In an extispicy made by Ibbi-Sîn, he and the enemy (Išbi-Erra, respectively Elam) cannot have a right and a left side each. Babylonian extispicy is characterized by a binary system, not a fourfold one. The right side (pars familiaris) of the liver and its elements is reserved for the “lord of the extispicy” (bēl nīqi), this is Ibbi-Sîn here, and the left 1264 See the discussion of Šulgi’s Self-Praise B on pp. 87f. above. 1265 After Michalowski 2011, p. 472, no. 24, version B, l. 32, manuscript X1. I follow the

translation by Attinger (2012d, p. 2, l. 32): “Tu le sais bien, il y a du divin en moi”, with note 18: Littéralement “quelque chose d’un dieu (est de moi =) m’appartient”. 1266 Starr 1983, pp. 15–29, in particular pp. 15–18. – In the first millennium, this general rule is expressed verbally in the divinatory chapter multābiltu: “The sector to the right (of the ominous elements of the liver) pertains to me, the left to the enemy (birīt imitti yûmma, šumēlu ša nakri), when you perform an extispicy for the well-being of the king, for warfare, for the campaign, for taking a city, for healing the sick, for rain, for undertaking an enterprise and whatever else” (Koch 2005, pp. 114–115, multābiltu tablet 2–3, A I:59–61). 1267 As does Attinger (2012a, p. 384, B 40; 2012d, p. 2, l. 40): “force supérieure”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

266

Edition of the Sources

side (pars hostilis) stands for the enemy. Attinger’s interpretation could only work with two different livers, one obtained by the diviners for IbbiSîn at Ur, and the other one obtained for Išbi-Erra by his diviners at Isin. It is impossible to make an extispicy in the name of one’s enemy, so Ibbi-Sîn cannot know at Ur what was written into the extispicies made by Išbi-Erra at Isin. Since the ancient audience of this letter was perfectly familiar with the procedure, they would not have bought this kind of omniscience, not even from the most literary figure of “Ibbi-Sîn”. Besides, Ibbi-Sîn obviously talks about a single liver here, “his” liver. I make use of the reading nà of the sign a5 and transliterate ù-‹mi›-ni-nà and ù-mu-ni-nà,1268 since many of the other verbal forms write the ergative marker [n] regularly (mu-un-ĝar, ma-an-ĝar). 41: The interpretation of the line rests on the equation of ul-gùr-ru with minûtu, ca. “love/loving affection”.1269 In 2006, Michalowski (2006, pp. 252– 253) translated the phrase with “he beautifully set”, and commented “admittedly somewhat uncertain”. Later, Michalowski (2011, p. 474) translated it with “that (good news) gave me joy”. Either translation is highly unlikely. 41–42: The corresponding elements ĝištukul á-zi-da “weapon of/on the right side” (= kakki imittim), and ĝištukul gùb-bu “weapon of/on the left side” (= kakki šumēlim) denote the weapon marks on the right and left side of the liver respectively.1270 In Ibbi-Sîn’s reading of the omen, the possessive pronoun “my” denotes of course Ibbi-Sîn, but “his” is certainly not Enlil, although he is the only acting subject in that part of the letter, but rather the unnamed adversary, Išbi-Erra. In this respect, it is noteworthy that the author did not put the term “enemy” (lú kúr) into Ibbi-Sîn’s mouth, but the expression “the one who is ill-disposed towards me” (lú ḫul-ĝál-ĝu10), see below on line 43. The harsher term lú kúr appears to be reserved for foreign enemies. As the Old Babylonian reader knew with hindsight, the final and fatal enemy turned out to be Elam. The failure of the figure of Ibbi-Sîn to identify his actual enemy gives the story of the conceited king another twist. In another part of this composition,1271 the figure of IbbiSîn, in his delusion, also hopes to be saved by the invading Amorrites, whom he mistakenly imagines as his relief troops, sent by the reconciled god Enlil against Elam and Išbi-Erra. 1268 The reading nà of the sign a5 certainly emerged from cases like the present one; see

also the orthography ì-na = [ina] instead of the analysing spelling in-a5 in the Ur III manuscript of the Sumerian King List (Steinkeller 2003, p. 276). 1269 AHw II, p. 657, s.v. minûtum II “Liebesverlangen”; CAD M/II, p. 98: minûtu adj. fem., “lovable”. According to its formation, the Akkadian word is a substantive, not an adjective. The equations are from lexical lists: ul-gùr-ru = mi-nu-ú-tum (MSL 4, p. 117, OBGT 11, V:11’; MSL 13, p. 58, Proto-Izi II Bilingual A IV:13’). The origin of the compund appears to be ul gùr = *ulṣa našû “to carry joy / to be laden with joy”. 1270 Jeyes 1989, p. 82. 1271 See Michalowski 2011, p. 464: translation version A, ll. 32–34; p. 474: translation version B, ll. 52–58.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

267

Usually, the left side is the pars hostilis, the side of the enemy, and the right side is the pars familiaris, the side pertaining to oneself.1272 But IbbiSîn either supposed that Enlil had swapped the ominous sides of the liver using his “superior power” (á diri, l. 40), turning the right side into the pars hostilis and vice versa – or he simply was not able to understand the basics of a liver omen at all. Summing up Ibbi-Sîn’s erroneous reading of the omen, we arrive at the following overview, with the classic reading of the sides turned around: – “my left side” : “his right side” “my right weapon mark”1274 – “his left weapon mark”1273 : – “bound” : (not bound, ready for battle) – “(only) the far neck present” : “its right neck treated with love” “My right weapon mark”: Ibbi-Sîn attributes this mark to himself but tells us that it is placed on the right side of his liver omen. This means that he did not understand that this weapon mark means the enemy’s weapon attacking Ibbi-Sîn’s realm. Furthermore, the weapon’s “right neck”, i.e. the side attacking Ibbi-Sîn’s side, is “perfectly fashioned” thanks to Enlil’s favour towards Ibbi-Sîn’s enemy. “His left weapon mark”: Ibbi-Sîn attributes this mark to the adversary, i.e. to Išbi-Erra, but since he tells us that it is placed on the left side of his liver omen, it is in fact his own weapon, attacking the enemy. This weapon is weak, since it has only one cutting edge, and this is on the far side. Furthermore, it is “bound”. “Being bound” also alludes to the fate that is finally in stock for Ibbi-Sîn. So the reading of the liver omen by the figure of Ibbi-Sîn is in fact wrong in every possible point. In the following, I shall present the argument in detail. Interestingly, lines 41–42 with the description of the weapon marks, whose character as negative marks (see immediately below) needs a deeper understanding of extispicy and gives another twist to the story, are missing from manuscript X2. The version of manuscript X1 clearly was meant to be studied by more advanced students. Manuscript X2 simply works with the classic antagonism between “the right and the left side of the liver”. This basic opposition and the final outcome – the fall of Ibbi-Sîn – is all what an Old Babylonian pupil needed to know in order to understand the narrative. The interpretation of the ominous meaning of the weapon mark (ĝištukul/kakkum) is an intricate matter. Basically, it denotes military attack and defeat. The actual meaning of the sign is, however, heavily influenced by the side of the liver it is found on, left or right, and by the feature of the liver it is placed upon. Furthermore, its meaning changes depending on whether the sign is “looking upwards”, or “downwards”. 1272 See p. 265 above with note 1266. 1273 I.e. “the enemy’s weapon, placed on the left side.” 1274 I.e. “my weapon, placed on the right side.”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

268

43:

1275 1276 1277 1278 1279

Edition of the Sources

Many of these pieces of information are missing from the short report given in the letter above. However, since there is the opposition between two weapon marks, one on the right and one on the left, we have the classic combat situation. The weapon of the adversary is the one placed on the right side, carried into Ibbi-Sîn’s realm, and the weapon of Ibbi-Sîn is the one fighting on the left side. As Ulla Jeyes has pointed out,1275 the weapon (ĝištukul/kakkum) is a mark shaped like the cuneiform sign gag, i.e. looking like \/, like a peg or club, whose impact is determined by its placement on the liver, i.e. either on the right side, or on the left, following or being directed (“looking”) towards another feature. It has a strong connection to warfare, and indicates an unfavourable outcome for the side to which it is directed, i.e. a weapon mark on the right of the gall bladder pointing to the left indicates defeat for the enemy.1276 In like manner Ulla Koch-Westenholz comments on the mark:1277 It is a negative mark, i.e. unfavourable on the right, but favourable on the left side. Furthermore, it is important to note the direction it is oriented (“looking”) to: If looking upwards (= \/, i.e. “activated” and dangerous), it is unfavourable, but if looking downwards (= /\, i.e. “deactivated”), it is favourable. There is a famous exception to this rule: A weapon mark on the right plain of the finger (ubānu) pointing upwards is favourable, and on the left plain facing downwards is unfavourable, because in the living sheep the top of the finger points downwards. This was apparently a trick question asked in a diviner’s exam.1278 According to Jeyes and Koch-Westenholz,1279 the filament (gu = qûm) is a negative mark. It has negative connotations of “binding” (lá = kamû, kasû), i.e. of restraint or obstruction. If affixed to one point of the liver only, the filament itself can be called “suspended” (lá-lá = šuqallulu), but this is not the point here (pace Michalowski 2011, pp. 474, 480). So Ibbi-Sîn’s weapon is not only weak, but also “bound”. Furthermore, “being bound” aludes to the final fate of Ibbi-Sîn “who went to Anšan in fetters”. However, Ibbi-Sîn cannot see this, but erroneously attributes the warning omen to his adversary. It is noteworthy that the unnamed adversary – i.e. Išbi-Erra in Ibbi-Sîn’s mind – is called “the one who is ill-disposed towards me” (lú ḫul-ĝál-ĝu10). He is not straightforwardly called the “enemy” (lú kúr), although the binary system of extispicy deals with “me” and the “enemy”. This term appears to be reserved for foreign enemies such as Elam. Michalowski’s comment (2006, pp. 253, 257) on šu--ĝar misses the point. He thinks that the figure of Ibbi-Sîn is tricked by the ambiguity of the Jeyes 1989, pp. 81–83. Jeyes 1989, p. 83, referring to YOS 10, no. 46, I:1–36. Koch-Westenholz 2000, pp. 48–51. Koch-Westenholz 2000, pp. 49. Jeyes 1989, pp. 91–92; Koch-Westenholz 2000, p. 63.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

269

phrase šu(-a)--ĝar which could be understood as “to hand over”, as well as “to spare” (gamālu). The equation šu--ĝar = gamālu “to spare” does exist, though mainly in lexical lists.1280 However, in proper Sumerian the phrase šu--ĝar means quite literally “to apply the hand (to something)”. Moreover, the construction here is šu-a--ĝar with a locative. There are clear examples of šu-a--ĝar “to place into the hand” in the cylinders of Gudea,1281 so there is no need to assume that the phrase was ambiguous. Furthermore, the ambiguity supposed by Michalowski cannot work in manuscript X2, since there the phrase šu-a--dab5 “to take into the hand” is used. The Babylonian omen tradition does indeed know the type of the “ambiguous omen”, called pitruštu.1282 In the present case however, it is clear that the omen was not ambiguous. The text is heavily preoccupied with the topic of the left and the right side of the liver, and in assigning the left side to Ibbi-Sîn (“my left side”, see above on l. 40) – contrary to the normal distribution – the text marks this misreading as the fatal mistake which the conceited and blind king made. Source 4: Excerpts from the Lament for Sumer and Ur Obj:

Excerpts from a cultic lamentation: The Lament for Sumer and Ur. For a rough overview of the structure of the text see below. A: Michalowski 1989, pp. 38, 115–116 (scores), ll. 32–37. B1: Michalowski 1989, pp. 42, 128–129 (scores), ll. 104–106. B2: Michalowski 1989, pp. 60, 172 (scores), l. 393. C: Michalowski 1989, pp. 54, 158 (scores), l. 304. D: Michalowski 1989, pp. 58–61, 169 (scores), ll. 373–377. E1: Michalowski 1989, pp. 40, 124 (scores), ll. 75–76. E2: Michalowski 1989, pp. 50, 148 (scores), l. 230. E3: Michalowski 1989, pp. 44, 133 (scores), ll. 145–146. E4: Michalowski 1989, pp. 66, 188 (scores), ll. 487–491. Prov: Babylonia (Isin or Nippur); numerous manuscripts, mainly from Nippur and Ur (Michalowski 1989, p. 28). Date: Old Babylonian period: First Dynasty of Isin. Lit: Michalowski 1989, with earlier literature; see above on the individual lines. Cont: The disastrous fate of king Ibbi-Sîn and of the city of Ur, when it fell to the Elamites at Enlil’s command. A rough overview of the structure and the content of the Lament for Sumer and Ur runs as follows:

1280 CAD G, p. 21, s.v. gamālu. 1281 Gudea Cyl. A 13:2: siki udu- gan -na-kam šu-a mi-ni-ĝar-ĝar “he laid (strands of) wool

of ewes in the hands (of the overseers)”; Gudea Cyl. B 6:16: ĝidri u4-sù-řá šu-a ĝá-ĝá-da “so that (Ig-Alim) might place a sceptre of long days into the (ruler’s) hand, …”; Edzard, RIME 3/1, pp. 77, 92. 1282 CAD P, pp. 442–443, s.v. pitruštu; von Soden 1958; Starr 1975; Jeyes 1980, pp. 26–27: “The ambiguous signs”. See Source 65 for a late tradition connecting a high degree of these ambiguous signs to Ibbi-Sîn.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

270

Part Lines 1st kirugu: (1) 1–68 (2) 69–103 (3) 104–114 nd 2 kirugu: (4) 115–162

(5)

163–184

(6)

185–205

(7)

206–213

(8)

214–220

(9)

221–250

(10) (11) (12)

251–259 260–261 262–284

3rd kirugu: (13) 285–291 (14) 292–339 (15) 340–359

Content Introduction: The fatal divine decree. Enlil sends down the Gutians from their mountains, the countryside around the cities is destroyed and cut off. Ibbi-Sîn remains passive, the land goes to ruin.

Excerpt (A) (E1) (B1)

The gods forsake their cities, desolation/devastation1283 from north to south: Kiš (Zababa + Baʾu); […]; Kazallu (Numušda + Namrat); Marad (Lugal-Marada + Nin-zuʾanna); Isin (ll. 136–138; Nin-Isina); Nippur (ll. 139–142; Enlil + Ninlil); Keš and Adab (Nintu); Zabala and Uruk (Inanna); Umma ([Šara + K]u-mul); Ĝirsu (Nin-Ĝirsu + Baʾu). Enlil sends down the Elamites from their highlands. Devastation in the south: Province of Lagaš: Nanše (no place name); Gu-ayabba (Nin-MAR.KI); Death of the goddess Baʾu (ll. 173–177, Lagaš); (p. 277) Kinirša (Dumuzi-abzu); Niĝin (Nanše). Province of Ur: Gaʾeš (‹Ningal› lamenting); Aššu (Nanna); Kiʾabrig (Nin-gublaga + Nin-eʾigara). Devastation around Ur and towards Eridu: Enegi (Nin-azu); Enuturra (Nin-ḫursaĝa); Ĝišbanda (Nin-ĝišzida + Azimuʾa). Kuʾara (Nin-é-ḪA-ma + Asarluḫi); (Kuʾara: Lugalbanda + [Nin-sumun]). Eridu (Enki + Damgalnunna); enemies: Gutians (l. 230). (E2) Ur attacked by Elam and the Amorite Tidnum-bedouins. Enlil sends down the Elamites for a second time. Region around Ur: Kisiga ([Inanna] + Dumuzi); (p. 277) Dumuzi leaves like a slave, with his hands fettered; [Inanna] laments her slavery. […] Enlil lets in the storm and Ur goes to ruin. Sîn weeps to his father Enlil for Ur and Sumer.

1283 See the commentary on part D on pp. 276f. below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

4th kirugu: (16) 360–370 (17) 371–377 (18) 378–403 (19) 404–419 (20) 420–448 (21) 449–459 (22) 460–474 (23) 475–482 5th kirugu: (24) 483–492 (25)

493–519

Enlil advises Sîn to leave his city Ur. Sîn, Ningal and the Anunna gods leave Ur. Ur is besieged and languishes. The Elamites take Ur, destroy and loot it. Destruction of the temple (Ekišnuĝal). Sîn weeps to his father Enlil for a second time. Enlil grants Sîn the restoration of Ur. Sîn and Ningal return to Ur and Ekišnuĝal. May the storm blow on the enemies! (= the Amorite Tidnum-bedouins, Gutium, Anšan) May the gods not alter Sumer’s good destiny again!

271

(p. 51) (D)

(E4)

Excerpts A. –

–

1284 1285 1286 1287 1288

The Fate of the People of Ur and Ibbi-Sîn to come (32) ùĝ-bi ki-tuš-ba nu-tuš-ù-dè ki érim-e sum-mu-dè (33) ki 1284 LÚ-SU elamki lú kúr-ra1285 ki-tuš-bi tuš-ù-dè (34) sipa-bi é-gal1286 ní-te-na-‹ka› lú érim-e dab5-bé-dè1287 (35) d i-bí-den.zu kur elamki-ma-šè ĝišbúr-ra túm-mu-dè (36) iši za-bu gaba a-ab-ba-ka-ta zag an-ša4-anki-na-šè1288 (37) buru5mušen é-bi ba-ra-an-dal-a-gin7 eri-ni-šè nu-gur-re-dè (32) That its (: Ur’s) people should dwell no longer in their (proper) dwelling place, but should be handed over to an enemy place, (33) that (soldiers and people from) Šimaški and Elam – enemies (var.: destroyers) – should dwell in their dwelling place (instead), (34) that its shepherd, in his own palace, should be captured by the enemy, (35) that Ibbi-Sîn should be led to the land of Elam in fetters, (36) that from the dunes of Zabu on the edge of the sea to the (eastern) border of Anšan, (37) like a swallow that has flown from its house, he should never return to his city – (all this was determined by the gods to come about).

Text BB writes LÚ×KÁR-SUki, see the commentary. Text BB has lú ḫa-lam-ma “destroyers” instead. Text BB writes é-gal-la. In this line, text U prematurely gives the phrase of line 393, see part B2 below. Text U replaces the “sea” (a-ab-ba) with the “mountain range”: iši za-buki gaba ḫursaĝ-ĝá-ta “from the dunes of Zabu on the breast of the mountain range”. At the end of the line, I have restored the grammatically more complete form *an-ša4-anki-na-šè from text N ([a]n-ša4-anki-na-šè), as opposed to Michalowski’s reading an-ša4-anki-šè from text BB.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

272

B. B1 – B2 – C. – – D. –

–

E. E1 –

The King sits in his Palace weeping, but not acting lugal-bi é-gal ní-te-na-‹ka› zi im-ma-ni-in-gi4 (105) d i-bí-den.zu é-gal ní-te-na-‹ka›1289 i-si-iš ba-ni-in-lá-lá (106) é-nam-ti-la šà-ḫúl-la-ka-na ér gig mu-un-še8-še8 (104) In his own palace, the king sat, holding (his) breath. (105) Ibbi-Sîn was stricken with sorrow in his own palace. (106) In Enamtila, his place of delight, he wept bitterly. (393) lugal-bi é-gal ní-te-na-ka zi gig mu-un-pa-an-pa-an (393) In his own palace, the king breathed heavily. (104)

Amidst Starvation, also the King suffers from Hunger (304) lugal níĝ-sa6-ga gu7-gu7-a1290 kur6-re im-ma-an-dab5 (304) The king who used to eat (and drink) marvellous food grabbed at a (mere) ration. Nanna and Ningal desert their City Ur d nanna lú eriki-ni ki-⌈áĝ-ĝá⌉ ⌈eriki-ni⌉ ba-ra-è (374) d en.zu-e uri5ki 1291 ⌈ki-áĝ-ĝá⌉ ⌈ĝìri kúr⌉ ba-ra-an-dab5 (375) d nin-gal-e gir5 eriki-ni-⌈ta⌉ ⌈ki kúr-šè⌉ du-ù-dè (376) túg ul4-ul4-la-bi ba-ra-an-mú1292 ⌈eriki-ta⌉ ba-ra-è (377) uri5ki-ma1293 da-nun-na-bi ⌈bar⌉-ra ba-su8-ge-eš (373) Nanna, the one who (once) had loved his city, left his city. (374) Suʾen, who (once) had loved Ur, took an unfamiliar path (away from his city). (375) Ningal, going (like) an exile from her city to an alien place,1294 (376) clad herself hastily into a (simple) garment and left the city. (377) The Anunna-gods of Ur stood aside. (373)

More on the Enemies: Gutium, Tidnum and Anšan (75) u4-ba den-líl-le gu-ti-umki kur-ta im-ta-an-e111295 (76) du-bi a-ma-ru den-líl-lá gaba-gi41296 nu-tuku-àm (75) Then, Enlil had Gutium descend from (its) highland. (76) Its advance was the flood of Enlil that cannot be withstood.

Text N writes é-gal-la-na instead of é-gal ní-te-na-‹ka›. Text GG writes gu7-naĝ-a “eat and drink”. Text G writes úri⌈ki⌉. Text G (E similar, but more broken) uses im-ma-a[n-mú] instead. Text G writes úriki-ma. Or to “enemy country”, i.e. to Anšan? The text does not differentiate between the alienation of the gods and the abduction of the cult statues of Nanna and Ningal, see the commentary. 1295 Text N and other – variously damaged – manuscripts write im-ta-an-è. 1296 Text PP has gaba-ri “adversary/rival” instead. 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

E2 –

273

[gu]-ti-umki lú ḫa-lam-ma-ke41297 me-zí-ir-zí-re-ne1298 (The statues of the divine temple guardians of Eridu cry out:) “[Gu]tium, the destroyers, they are razing us!” (145) muš kur-ra-ke4 ki-ná ba-ni-ib-ĝar ki-bala-šè ba-ab-du11 E3 (146) gu-ti-umki šà ba-ni-ib-bal-bal numun ba-ni-ib-i-i (145) – The mountain snake made its lair there, and turned (Adab) into rebel land. (146) Gutium bred there, issued there (its) seed. (487) E4 u4 ma-da ba-e-zal-la kur-re ḫé-eb-zal (488) kur ti-id-nu-umki-ma-ka ḫé-eb-zal kur-re ḫé-eb-zal (489) kur gu-ti-umki-ma-ka ḫé-eb-zal kur-re ḫé-eb-zal (490) kur an-ša4-anki-na-ka ḫé-eb-zal kur-re ḫé-eb-zal (491) an-ša4-anki-e im ḫul dal-la-gin7 kuš7 ḫé-ni-ib-su-su (487) – The storm that blew on the land (Sumer) , it may blow on the foreign land! (488) It may blow on the land of the Tidnum, it may blow on the foreign land! (489) It may blow on the land of Gutium, it may blow on the foreign land! (490) It may blow on the land of Anšan, it may blow on the foreign land! (491) It may level Anšan like a blowing evil storm! Com: These excerpts from a Sumerian cultic lamentation describe the situation and the behaviour of the figure of Ibbi-Sîn, as designed by the literature of the First Dynasty of Isin. A) The fate of the people of Ur and Ibbi-Sîn to come: 33: Šimaški and Elam are named here as the people who attacked Sumer and Ur; for more enemies (Gutium, Tidnum and Anšan) see the excerpt in part E below. The line refers to a garrison or a settlement which the Elamites had established at Ur after the conquest. They were driven out by IšbiErra only during his 26th regnal year, see the commentary on Source 16 on the year formulas Išbi-Erra 16 and 27 which give credit to his military success against the armies of Šimaški and Elam. One manuscript (BB = Gadd & Kramer, UET 6/2, no. 124, obv. 32) writes the name of Šimaški with the signs LÚ×KÁR-SUki instead of LÚ-SUki (Michalowski 1989, pp. 73–74, 115 on line 33). On the graphic level, the spelling LÚ×KÁR = še29 = šagšu/kamû “slain/captive” anticipates the final fall of the enemies to Išbi-Erra. 34: There is a strange stress on the expression é-gal ní-te-na-(ka) which appears in lines 34, 104, 105 and 393. Of course one may translate the phrase with “(in) the palace of his own”, with ní-te (= ramānu) “oneself”.1299 (230) (230)

1297 Text FF (Gadd & Kramer, UET 6/2, no. 129, obv. 10) reads lú ḫa-lam-ma-ne. 1298 Text FF (Gadd & Kramer, UET 6/2, no. 129, obv. 10) reads me-⌈zi⌉-i[r-zi-re-ne]. 1299 The same phrase is employed in Amar-Sîn and Enki’s Temple: é ní-te-na(-ka) “(of) his

own temple” (segment A, l. 26); online edition: ETCSL, text: 2.4.3.1. In the Lament for

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

274

36:

1300 1301 1302 1303 1304

Edition of the Sources

However, one wonders what the meaning conveyed may in fact be here. Of course the king would sit in “his (own) palace”, where else? But this notion could have been perfectly expressed by *é-gal-la-na.1300 Furthermore, it probably does not mean “all alone” (thus Michalowski), since this would have been expressed with dili-ni (= wēdiššīšu). I suppose that there is a pun playing on the various meanings of ní-te, contrasting it with šà-ḫúl “joy”: – ní-te (= ramānu) “oneself” – ní-te(-ĝ) (= palāḫu/adāru) “to be afraid/to fear” – ní-te(-en) “to cool down/to refresh oneself/to shiver” The pun would express that the king’s own (ní-te) palace, which was designed to produce joy (šà-ḫúl), and which was to spread fear (ní-te) onto the foreign lands, has become a place where the king himself shudders (níte) from fear (ní-te). The palace where the king used to refresh (ní-te) himself, has turned into a “palace of shudder (ní-te)”. See also Sharlach (2013, pp. 422–424) who, in discussing the same lines dealing with the term ní-te, identifies fear and weakness as the characteristics of Ibbi-Sîn’s literary persona. There is another designation of a building using the element ní-te-na, which has to be mentioned here, although it has probably no bearing on the interpretation discussed above: During the reign of Rīm-Sîn of Larsa, there is a stockyard at Nippur called é-tùr ní-te-na “his own (personal?) stockyard”, as opposed to é-tùr nam-en-na “stockyard of en-ship”.1301 As it seems, either stockyard provided animals for the temples at Nippur, and both were managed by the same authority. So the translation “personal/private stockyard (of the ruler or governor)” rests only on the verbal meaning of ní-te “own”. In translating iši with “dunes” instead of “mountain”,1302 and zag with “far end” or “(eastern) border” I follow Catherine Mittermayer (personal communication) and her understanding of the descriptions of the geography of those regions in Sumerian literature: – Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (ll. 435–436): When the messenger went to Aratta, he crossed mountains and dunes.1303 – Lugalbanda II (l. 343): When returning from Anšan to Uruk, Lugal– banda went zag an-ša4-na-ta saĝ an-ša4-anki-na-šè “from the (far) border of Anšan to the ‘head’ of Anšan”.1304 Sumer and Ur (Michalowski 1989), the expression ní-te-na occurs also twice in a stock phrase where it clearly means “for oneself / for one’s own sake” (= ana ramānīšu): DNf ní-te-na ér gig mu-un-še8-še8 (ll. 202, 216) “DNf wept bitter tears for her sake.” In fact, in line 105 manuscript N actually writes é-gal-la-na instead of é-gal ní-te-na‹ka›, see note 1289. Robertson 1992, pp. 186–188; Stol 1998–2001b (RlA 9), p. 542, § 7.I. Thus Michalowski 1989, p. 74, on l. 36: “mountain Zabu”. Mittermayer 2009, pp. 140–141, 279, on line 436. Wilcke 1969a, pp. 122–123, l. 343, discussing the route to Anšan on pp. 32–36.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

B) 104ff:

D)

275

The king sits in his palace weeping and sighing, but not acting: Sitting passively is also a literary topos of the traditions about Narām-Sîn of Akkade and Amar-Sîn of Ur.1305 As in the case of Ibbi-Sîn, the kings’ passiveness is an outcome of the disrupted communication with the gods (see the discussion on pp. 86f. above). Narām-Sîn sees the doom of Akkade in a dream. He does not talk about it with anyone, but falls into a depression:1306 – dna-ra-am-den.zu mu 7-àm mu-un-ge-en lugal mu 7-àm šu saĝ-ĝá du11-ga a-ba igi im-mi-in-du8-a “Narām-Sîn remained (motionless) for seven years! Who has ever seen a king burying his head in his hands for seven years?” Narām-Sîn dons a mourning garb and puts aside his royal paraphernalia. He covers his chariot and his boat, deactivating them. He tries hard to get favourable omens allowing him to restore the temple of Enlil in Nippur, however, he tries in vain (The Curse of Akkade, ll. 94–99). And so he sets out to rebuild the temple without divine permission, which turns the pious deed into a destruction and a sacrilege. Amar-Sîn of Ur does not obtain favourable omens allowing him to rebuild the temple of Enki at Eridu. Like Narām-Sîn, he changes his royal attire for mourning clothes, but to no avail:1307 – ĝiš-ḫur é-e mu-un-kíĝ-kíĝ-e nu-mu-ni-in-pà-dè mu 7-kam-ma ba-an-šub ki-bi-šè nu-mu-un-gi4 “He kept searching for the divine plan of the temple, but he could not find it. In the seventh year it remained in ruins, and he did not restore it.” Only in the eighth year Amar-Sîn starts to rebuild the temple. It does not become entirely clear, however, whether he was entitled to do so by divine consent. The city of Ur is forsaken by its gods, most prominently its tutelar deities, Nanna-Suʾen and his spouse Ningal. The gods of Ur leave the city they once loved and go elsewhere, finally to enemy country. They “leave the city” (eriki-ta--è), “take an unfamiliar path” (ĝìri kúr--dab5), prepare “to go (like) an exile” (gir5--ĝen), or “stand aside” (bar-a--gub), see the examples above in the excerpt (D) and passim in the Lament for Sumer and Ur. The gods act on their own. This is in stark contrast to what is said about the fate of humans, animals or booty. In that case, the Lament for Sumer and Ur states that humans, animals and booty are “driven or carried away” (baab-DU) as hostages or spoil.1308 Since the verbal bases ře6 “to bring (away)”

1305 Michalowski 1977b, p. 156; Cooper 1983, pp. 27–28. 1306 The Curse of Akkade, ll. 92–93; Cooper 1983, pp. 54–55. Narām-Sîn’s inability to obtain

positive omens is dealt with there in lines 94–99.

1307 Amar-Sîn and Enki’s Temple; Sollberger, UET 8, no. 33, 19’–20’; Michalowski 1977b, p.

156; online edition: ETCSL, text: 2.4.3.1, segment A:20–21.

1308 Priest(esse)s: ll. 153, 184, 192, 205, 250; cattle: l. 331; booty: l. 424.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

276

Edition of the Sources

and túm “to lead (away)” are written with the same sign (DU) it is not easy to decide which root was meant. But it is clear that in these cases it is the enemy who is taking action. Lines 373–377 in fact only describe the initial parting of the transcendent deities, leaving their statues and temples, which results in the withdrawal of divine protection. The actual conquest of Ur and the despoliation of the temples by the enemy follows only from line 404 on. Already at an earlier point of the composition (line 68), the gods of Sumer are said to have forsaken their cities, after An and Enlil, Enki and Ninmaḫ had decided an evil destiny for the land: – eriki diĝir-bi ba-da-gur sipa-bi ba-da-ḫa-lam1309 “From (every) city, its (protective) deity turned away, its shepherd vanished”. Very much the same applies to part 4 (ll. 115–162) which describes that the gods of the cities of Babylonia from north to south forsake their cities and leave them to ruin. According to Claus Wilcke,1310 the first list of cities in part 4 shows the loss of power of the Third Dynasty, with the cities arranged from north to south along the rivers and canals. The second list in parts 5–12 (ll. 163–284) reflects the route of the Elamites through southern Sumer. The first list of cities in part 4 incorporates Nippur and Isin, cities which had quite certainly been protected by Išbi-Erra of Isin (see p. 48). We cannot decide whether the “devastation” (šu-hul––du11) of cities like Kiš (l. 115) is to be taken literally or whether it means that the city became some kind of desolate because the gods forsook it on the theological level. The same applies to the first list of cities in the first kirugu of the Lament for Ur (Source 7), see the commentary there, also on Nippur and Isin (p. 280 with note 1320). Likewise, in the composition Curse of Akkade, the transcendent goddess Inanna leaves her temple Eʾulmaš at Akkade long before the forsaken city meets her doom (Cooper 1983, p. 52, ll. 58–65). However, there appears no way to understand the line that has it that at Uruk “the en-priest was snatched from the ĝipar and was carried off to enemy territory” (Lament for Sumer and Ur, l. 153) in the figurative sense, or that the “Gutians bred like snakes at Adab” (ibidem ll. 144–146). So, the laments appear to conflate the leaving of the gods prior to the conquest of their cities and the despoliation of their temples with the actual devastation and removal of the statues and the booty. Although the ruin of the main temple of Ur, Ekišnuĝal, is amply described (Lament for Sumer and Ur, ll. 407b–448), the abduction of the statues of Nanna and his entourage by the enemy is passed over very much in silence. But since we hear that Šu-ilīšu brought Nanna back from Anšan (Source 10, A), we can be safe in surmising that the cult statues, too, were plundered or abducted. In the Lament for Sumer and Ur, there are only two 1309 The Lament for Sumer and Ur, after Michalowski 1989, p. 40, l. 68. 1310 Wilcke 1970a, pp. 65–67; see also idem 1969c, p. 219 and in ZA 62, 1972, p. 43.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

277

cases that clearly hint at the fact that the cult statues were deported or destroyed by the enemies. The one is the deportation of the deities of the city of Kisiga, the other one is the “Death of the Goddess Baʾu”. From Kisiga, the god Dumuzi leaves “like a slave” (saĝ-gin7), with “his hands [fettered]” (šu--[dù]).1311 His divine spouse Inanna leaves her estate behind and goes to the mountains, lamenting her “slavery”.1312 A particularly drastic example is set by the goddess Baʾu of Lagaš, who is said to have died “like a human” (lú-u18-lu-gin7,) in the course of the devastation of her temple by the Elamites.1313 Although the lament does not explicitly mention her cult statue, it is certainly the destruction of this item, together with her temple, that was interpreted as the physical death of the goddess:1314 – (173) u4-bi-a nin-e u4-da-a-né sá nam-ga-mu-ni-ib-du11 (174) d ba-ú lú-u18-lu-gin7 u4-da-a-né sá nam-ga-mu-ni-ib-du11 (175) me-le-e-a u4-dè šu-ni-a im-ma-ši-in-gi4 (176) u4 úru gul-gul-e šu-ni-a im-ma-ši-in-gi4 (177) u4 é gul-gul-e šu-ni-a im-ma-ši-in-gi4 (173) – Then, her (last) day overtook also the Lady! (174) Baʾu, as if she were human, her (last) day overtook her! (175) (She cried:) “Woe is me! He (: Enlil) has handed (me and the city) over to the storm! (176) He has handed (the city) over to the storm that destroys cities! (177) He has handed (the temple) over to the storm that destroys temples!” The enemies and their role are discussed in detail in chapter 11.4.

E)

Source 5: Excerpt from a Lamentation: Ibbi-Sîn died at Anšan Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – – – – – – –

Excerpt from a cultic lamentation, similar to Edina usaĝake. Text: de Genouillac, PRAK 2, pl. 44, D 41, II:1’–4’. Babylonia (Isin or Nippur); the manuscript is from Kiš. Old Babylonian period: First Dynasty of Isin. Jacobsen, in: JNES 12, 1953, pp. 182–183, note 50. Edzard 1957, p. 51. Jacobsen 1976, p. 71 (on the list of rulers). Alster 1986, p. 20, in note 4. Wilcke 1988b, p. 250 (on the list of rulers). Alster, in: ASJ 15, 1993, p. 6, note 16. Cohen 1988/II, p. 670. Fritz 2003, pp. 179, 254–255, see also p. 258 (list of rulers).

1311 The Lament for Sumer and Ur, l. 265 (Michalowski 1989, p. 52). 1312 See the Lament for Sumer and Ur, ll. 273–276 (Michalowski 1989, p. 52) with the terms

gi4-in “slave girl” (Emesal for géme) and na-áĝ-gi4-in “status of a slave girl”.

1313 The Lament for Sumer and Ur, after Michalowski 1989, p. 46, ll. 173–177. 1314 Heimpel 1972; Selz 1992, pp. 255–256; Schaudig 2012b, p. 124. – See also p. 71 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

278

Edition of the Sources

Cont: –

Ibbi-Sîn died at Anšan, and Išbi-Erra died at Isin. (1’) an-ša-né kur nu?-ku4?-⌈bé⌉?/ĝál? (2’) ù-mu-un i-bí !-d+en.zu ⌈am⌉-[úš-a-ba] (3’) ! ki ? ki ì-si-in -na BÚRU .BÀD e-ra+a (4’) ur-saĝ iš!-bi-èr-ra a-am-úš-a-ba (2’) – [After] the lord Ibbi-Sîn [had died] (1’) near Anšan – near? the land which … (4’) After the hero Išbi-Erra had died (3’) in Isin – in (the city) which had plundered? (the city) … Com: These lines from a cultic lamentation apparently present a list of places where historical kings have died who were considered personifications of Dumuzi, respectively of Damu. The text needs collation. As it stands, one can only glimpse at the information that Ibbi-Sîn had died near or by Anšan, and Išbi-Erra his rival and actual successor had died at Isin, his residence. The attributes to the places in lines 1 and 3 are not fully intelligible in either case. Obviously, the structure of the passage is as follows: (attribute)-e a) GN1-e am[ʾušʾabâ] (attribute) RN1 b) GN2-a (attribute)-a amʾušʾabâ (attribute) RN2 1’: *Anšan-e: “near Anšan”, or as an ergative “by Anšan”, with Anšan personalized? One does in fact expect the locative “in Anšan”, but this should be spelled *an-ša-na (= *Anšan-a). The second half of the line is obscure. Perhaps it is distorted for *kur nuku4-ku4-dam “the mountain which is not (to be) entered (normally or easily)”. 3’: In lack of a better idea, I provisionally propose to take e-ra+a as an orthography for a verbal form containing the root ir (Emesal for túm = šalālu) “to plunder” = *ir-a-a. For the tradition that Išbi-Erra of Isin had smitten Elam see Source 15 and Source 16. The analysis as *eri-a “in the city” seems less probable to me, since I expect eri to be put ahead as an attribute: *eri CITYxy-a. Source 6: Excerpts from the Lament for Uruk Obj:

Excerpts from a cultic lamentation: The Lament for Uruk. A: Green 1984, p. 269, lines 2a.3–4. B: Green 1984, p. 272, lines 4.11, 4.20, 4.22, 5.20. Prov: Babylonia (Isin or Nippur); manuscripts from Nippur and Ur. Date: Old Babylonian period: Išme-Dagan of Isin (Green 1984, p. 254). Lit: Green 1984. Cont: The king (Ibbi-Sîn) goes to enemy country as a captive. The text names Gutium and Subir (later Subartu) as enemies. On the historical Gutians and their image in Babylonian literature see the discussion here in chapter 11.4, B. On Subir see briefly here on p. 235 above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

279

A.

The King goes to Enemy Country [uri5ki ùz-saĝ1315 ki-en-g]i-ra eri(!) lugal ki-⌈bala⌉-a-šè (2a.4) [zag an-ša4-anki-na-š]è ba-ra-ab-bal á ĝištukul-la / [(…) m]u-un-⌈dúb⌉ – [Ur, the foremost (city)] of Sumer, the city whose king crossed over to the rebel land, to [the border of Anšan] – he (: the enemy) smote it (: the city) with the might of the weapon. B. The Enemies: Gutium and Subir (Subartu) (4.11) gu-ti-um ur-re ba-e-⌈bal⌉ […] – (Sumer) was handed over to Gutium, the (filthy) dog […]. (4.20) gu-ti-umki ⌈ur-ra⌉ ⌈x⌉ e-ne […] ĝištukul […] ⌈x⌉ 1316 – To Gutium, the (filthy) dog … […] weapon […] … . (4.22) su-bir4ki-e a maḫ1317 a1318 è-a-gin7 ⌈a⌉ [ḫul]-gin7 ki-en-gi-ra ba-an-dé – Subir, like a swelling deluge with enormous waters, poured into Sumer like an [evil] flood. (5.20) su-bir4ki-e a maḫ a è-a-gin7 z[i-ga …] – Subir, ri[sing] like a swelling deluge with enormous waters, […]. Com: King Ibbi-Sîn is not mentioned by name, but his fate is briefly summed up. In line 2a.4 one may wonder whether the object of the smiting might be the wretched king himself, instead of the city. Lines 4.11 and 4.20 are partly obscure. However, it is quite clear that Gutium is likened to a dog or a predator. In lines 12.9 and 12.14 (Green 1984, pp. 275–276), Išme-Dagān of Isin is mentioned as the king who undertook the restoration work. Clearly in line 4.22, and probably also in line 5.20, the land Subir appears in an unwarranted ergative. (2a.3)

Source 7: Excerpt from the Lament for Ur Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – – – –

Excerpt from a cultic lamentation: The Lament for Ur. Babylonia (Isin or Nippur); numerous manuscripts, mainly from Nippur, but also from Ur, Kiš and Sippar (Samet 2014, pp. 38–52). Old Babylonian period: First Dynasty of Isin (Samet 2014, p. 7). Kramer 1940, p. 44, l. 244. On the whole text see Jacobsen 1941, review of Kramer 1940. Witzel 1945, p. 214, l. 244 (and idem 1946, p. 54). Römer 2004, p. 57, l. 244. Samet 2014, p. 66, 196 (scores), l. 244.

1315 On ùz-saĝ (Akk. ussangû) “lead goat/bellwether” see the commentary on line 28 of

Source 35.

1316 The line is unintelligible, the few meaningless variants are omitted here. 1317 Text N writes ḫu[l]. The restoration of [ḫul] in the same line rests on the assumption

that the scribe of text N switched the adjectives.

1318 Thus with text L, reverse, second line from bottom (Green 1984, p. 260).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

280

Cont: Destruction of Ur and its shrines. King Ibbi-Sîn is not mentioned. The pair Šimaški and Elam figures as the enemies, see the discussion in chapter 11.4, A. The Lament for Ur presents two circles of Sumerian cities which were affected by the disaster. The list in the first kirugu appears to be organized mainly according to theological rank,1319 with Nippur, the city of Enlil, going first, followed by Keš, the city of Ninmaḫ, the mother of the gods, and Isin, the new lead of Sumer’s cities. The following two lines, from Uruk to Eridu and from Umma to Gu-ayyabba, are arranged from north to south, following the rivers and canals. The gods and their cities are introduced in the litany by the recurring phrase: GN-e TN-a mùš mi-niin-ga amaš-a-na líl-e “he/she forsook his/her temple, in his/her sheepfold (rules) but the wind”. In the second kirugu, the lament bewails the actual devastation done to the cities in the south, in the geographic corridor Lagaš – Ur – Eridu. There, Nippur and Isin are very probably only mentioned in a kind of solidarity with the cities of lower Sumer.1320 There is a similar construction of two circles of divine alienation and devastation in the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4), see the overview on pp. 270f. and the comment on p. 276 above. There, too, Isin (ll. 136–138) and Nippur (ll. 139– 142) are listed among the cities of Sumer and Akkad in the first circle in part 4. Parts 5–12 deal with the devastation of the cities in the south (Lagaš – Ur – Eridu). The final destruction of Ur is reported there in parts 17–20. First kirugu: ll. 1–6 ll. 7–8 ll. 9–10 ll. 11–12 ll. 13–16 ll. 17–18 (l. 19 ll. 20–21 ll. 22–23 ll. 24–25 ll. 26–27 ll. 28–29 ll. 30–31 ll. 32–33 ll. 34–35

The Gods forsake their Cities (*múš--túm)1321 Nippur – Enlil + Ninlil Keš – Ninmaḫ Isin – Nin-Isina Uruk – Inanna Ur – Nanna + Ningal Eridu – Enki Larak – Nin-ašte)1322 Umma – Šara + Usaḫara Ĝirsu – Baʾu Ĝirsu/Lagaš – Ab-Baʾu Ĝirsu – Lamma Lagaš – Ĝatumdu Niĝin – Nanše Kinirša – Dumuzi-Abzu Gu-ayabba – Nin-MAR.KI

1319 Vanstiphout 1974, p. 366; Samet 2014, p. 16. This is in contrast to the first list of cities

in part 4 of the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4), which appears to be arranged strictly from north to south along the rivers, see the commentary there on p. 276. 1320 Edzard (1957, p. 53) called it “dichterische Erweiterung”; see also p. 48 above. 1321 The following after Samet 2004, pp. 14–16 and her reconstruction of the lament. 1322 Later edition under the dynasty of Larsa, see Samet 2004, p. 16.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

Second kirugu: ll. 40–50 (ll. 51–55 ll. 56–58 (ll. 59–60 ll. 61 ll. 62

281

Actual Devastation in the South Ur Nippur; see above with note 1320) Ĝirsu Isin; see above with note 1320) Uruk Eridu

The rest of the lamentation deals only with the fate of the city of Ur. Excerpt elamki 1323 lú ḫa-lam-ma1324 ùšu giĝ41325 ba-an-ak-kè-eš1326 – (The people from) Šimaški and Elam, the destroyers, treated (the temple Ekišnuĝal) with light esteem (lit.: “like thirty shekels”). Com: Quite unexpectedly, the Lament for Ur does not mention the fate of king Ibbi-Sîn at all. And this is odd, since even the Lament for Uruk (Source 6) briefly deals with his fate. Nevertheless, the enemy pair Šimaški and Elam make it clear that the Lament for Ur deals with the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster and not with another, later event. On the whole, the Lament for Ur gives far less historical details than the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4), see also the discussion on p. 7 above in the introduction. The line presented above portrays the people from Šimaški and Elam as primitive barbarians who shmashed the temple of Nanna at Ur, Ekišnuĝal. The phrase ÙŠU GIĜ4--a5(-k) with a temple as an object occurs also in the Curse of Akkade, l. 105: gigun4-na-aš ùšu giĝ4 ba-ši-in-a5 (Cooper, 1983, p. 54). Literally it would mean “to treat something like (a) thirty shekel (matter)”. In the figurative sense it means roughly “to treat something with light esteem or with contempt”.1327 Most prominently in the study by Erica Reiner (1968) and nearly always ever since, it has been surmised that the “thirty shekels” mean “thirty shekels of silver”, although the silver is never mentioned and the expressions evolved in a pre-monetarian – or rather “pre-coin” – society. As Reiner (1968, pp. 186–187) explicitly stated, Adam Falkenstein’s translation1328 of the above-mentioned line of the Curse of Akkade stirred in her the idea to combine the motif with the “thirty shekels of silver” paid for Jesus or Joseph, son of Jacob, in biblical legends. So the basic notion would be “blood money” or the idea that the temple would have been sold off like a human (244)

LÚ-SU

ki

Manuscript Y2 omits elamki, N1 writes elam‹ki›. Manuscript Y2 writes lú ḫa-lam-ma-bi. Manuscript U5 writes kin. Manuscript N1 writes ba-an-ak-e-eš, U5 writes ba-da-an-ak-⌈kè⌉. Kramer 1938, pp. 59–60 on the example from Gilgameš, Enki and the Netherworld (see below); Kramer 1940, p. 89 on line 244 of the Lament for Ur under discussion; Powell 2000; Attinger in ZA 95, 2005, p. 258 on no. 5.521 *ušu3 giĝ4 AK. 1328 Falkenstein in ZA 57, 1965, pp. 55, 68, l. 107 [= later l. 105]: “[Narām-Sîn] achtete das giguna (von Nippur) nur dreißig Sekel wert.” The notion of (cash) value appears also in Cooper’s (1983, p. 55, l. 105) translation “[Narām-Sîn] treated the giguna as (if it were worth only) thirty shekels”. 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

282

Edition of the Sources

being into slavery (cf. Reiner 1968, pp. 187–188). However, since in the ancient Near East “30 shekels of silver” were certainly not “nothing”, but quite an amount of “money”, the Sumerian phrase could hardly mean “to treat something as worthless” (see Powell 2000, p. 344). That is why already Reiner tried to get the numeral “30” out of the phrase. After bringing up the “thirty shekels of silver” in the first place, she then proposed to read the sign eš/ùšu (“30”) as bà “half”, arriving at “half a shekel” for the Sumerian term (Reiner 1968, p. 190). This reading has made its way into the PSD (A III, p. 75, s.v. ak 5.2; B, p. 23, s.v. ba3 A) and also into the more recent editions of the Lament for Ur.1329 However, as Marvin A. Powell (2000, p. 344) has argued, it is no option to read the combination ÙŠU GIĜ4 as *bà giĝ4 “half a shekel” in the Ur III or early Old Babylonian period. This would have been an unintelligibly “cabbalistic” spelling instead of *bar (“ba7”) giĝ4, if at all. The equation bà = mišlu, bāmtu “half” appears to be mainly a matter of the hyper-erudite Babylonian speculative linguistics of the first millennium, relying on the numerical relationship of Anu = 60 and Sîn =30.1330 I keep to the traditional reading ùšu giĝ4 “30 shekels”, following also Pascal Attinger in ZA 95, 2005, p. 258 on no. 5.521 *ušu3 giĝ4 AK. As a numeral, the number would have been pronounced after the unit of measurement, even if written the other way round due to accounting habits: *[giĝ ušu]. Also, I think that the verbal form in -ak-kè(AK)- does not contain the reduplicated verbal root (*ba-an-AK-AKeš), but a – perhaps a little bit learned – rendering of the chain [a5-k+eš]. So, what is the origin of the image of “treating something like 30 shekels”? Kai Lämmerhirt (Heidelberg) kindly pointed out to me in personal communication that he thinks that the phrase is derived from a proverbial saying1331 which appears in its full form in the lines 136–137 of the composition Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld. There, we are told, Gilgameš put on his armour-belt of 50 minas, but to him it was light, “he treated the 50 (minas) like 30 shekels” (ninnu-àm ùšu giĝ4 ba-ši-in-a5), i.e. he treated the 25 kilos like 250 grams.1332 Finally, we get rid of 1329 Römer 2004 transliterates bà-gín (p. 57, l. 244) but translates “(nur) 30 Šeqel (wert)”

(p. 97); Samet 2014, pp. 66–67, l. 244: ba3-gin2 = “worth a mere half-shekel”.

1330 The term bà = mišlu is not used in “normal” texts, but occurs in (late editions of)

lexical lists and esotheric treatises. Cf. CAD M/II, pp. 126–127, s.v. mišlu “half”, lex.; Livingstone 1986, pp. 22–33, 40–41 on obv. 11–12 with the speculations on bar (ba7) = bà = zâzu = mišlu etc. in K 2164+, a manuscript from Nineveh of the 2nd division of I-NAMĝišḫur-ankiʾa, a tablet belonging to to the famous scholar Nabû-zuqup-kēnu. 1331 Already Erica Reiner (1968, p. 187) had assumed that it is a “set phrase […] used in […] similes”. 1332 See already Kramer 1938, pp. 59–60. The composition has been edited most recently by Gadotti 2014, pp. 197 (scores), 262–263 (commentary). Although Gadotti gets it right when she explains that the strength of Gilgameš makes his heavy armour look light, her four-line commentary on p. 263 is a mess: Line 137 does not deal with Gilgameš’s battle-axe, but with his belt. 50 minas do not equal 300 shekels, but 3000. And Reiner’s (1968) “30 pieces of silver” is not “a trifling amount”, but a heck of a lot of money (Reiner, 1968, pp. 187–188, 189(!); Powell 2000, p. 344). This is the very reason why Reiner (1968, p. 190) came up with the proposal to read bà “half (a shekel)” instead, which was in fact not “conclusive” (Gadotti 2014, p. 263) at all.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

283

the expensive “silver”, which in fact was not in there from the very start. Rather, it is about a heavy belt of leather and possibly bronze and, above all, about Gilgameš’s stunning physique. The ratio is 1:100, an ideal proportion which underlines the incredible strength of the hero. Used in the setting of the destruction of shrines, the same phrase expresses how little the barbarians cared for the temples of Sumer: “They did not give a damn.” Kai Lämmerhirt thinks that it is equally possible that the proverbial expression ùšu-giĝ4--a5 “to treat something lightly” is an abbreviation of the line from Gilgameš, Enkidu and the Netherworld or that all these compositions draw upon another, common and possibly oral tradition, fit for a proverb. Source 8: Excerpts from the Lament for Eridu Obj: Prov:

Excerpts from a cultic lamentation: The Lament for Eridu. Babylonia (Isin or Nippur); manuscripts mainly from Nippur, one from Ur (Green 1978, pp. 130–131, 158). Date: Old Babylonian period: First Dynasty of Isin. Lit: Green 1978, p. 132, kirugu 1, l. 21, p. 136, kirugu 4, ll. 9–10. Cont: Destruction of Eridu and its shrines. King Ibbi-Sîn is not mentioned. The land of Subir (later Subartu) and the pair Šimaški and Elam figure as the enemies. On Elam and Šimaški see the discussion here in chapter 11.4, A. On Subir see briefly here on p. 235 above. A. Kirugu 1, l. 21 (21) su-bir4ki-e ⌈a⌉-gin7 im-mi-íb-ĝar šu im-ma-da-an-šub – Subir flooded down like water, it struck hard. B. Kirugu 4, ll. 9–10 (9) urudu šen kù lú igi nu-b[ar-re]-da (10) ki ki LÚ-⌈SU⌉ elam lú ḫa-l[am-ma-(ke4) igi i-ni]-in-bar – The Šimaškian(s) and Elamite(s), the dest[royer(s)], [loo]ked at the holy vessel(s) which no one may lo[ok at]. Com: The destruction which the lament bewails cannot be identified with certainity. The pair Šimaški and Elam as the enemies (B:10) matches the enemies named in the Lament for Sumer and Ur (Source 4, A 33), but the land Subartu (A) does not. In kirugu 6 (Green 1978, p. 138), the devastation of a number of other Sumerian sanctuaries is mentioned, such as those of Nippur, Urusagrig, Keš, Ur and Uruk. As to the date of the composition, Green (1978, pp. 128–130) discusses two possibilities, either the reign of Išme-Dagān of Isin (ca. 1953–1935 BCE)1333 or that of Nūr-Adad of Larsa (ca. 1865–1850 BCE). In either case, the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster may appear to be too remote in time to be identified as the catastrophe which had prompted the restoration work celebrated in kirugu 7 of this lament. However, the Lament for Uruk (Source 6), which indeed names Išme-Dagān of Isin, apparently bewails the fate of Ibbi-Sîn. 1333 As in the case of the Lament for Nippur (Source 9).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

284

According to the verbal form [igi i-ni]-in-bar (B:10), the enemy pair Šimaški and Elam appears to have been construed as a singular, which can be understood as a mark of typification, see p. 243 above. Source 9: Excerpts from the Lament for Nippur Obj: Prov:

Excerpts from a cultic lamentation: The Lament for Nippur. Babylonia (Nippur or Isin); numerous manuscripts from Nippur, one from Sippar (Tinney 1996, pp. 87–94). Date: Old Babylonian period: Išme-Dagan of Isin (Tinney 1996, p. 81). Lit: Tinney 1996, pp. 114, 233–234 (scores), ll. 230–231. Cont: Destruction and restoration of Nippur and other Babylonian cities (ll. 214– 235) by an indistinct enemy. King Ibbi-Sîn is not explicitly mentioned and the lament may deal with a later event. As to the enemies, only the Amorite Tidnumbedouins oppressing Ĝiša-Umma are named. On the role of the Amorites in the Lament for Sumer and Ur (ll. 256, 488; Source 4, E4) and here in the Nippur Lament see the comment on pp. 235f. above. A. The Enemies: The Treacherous Tidnum-bedouins (230) é-bi ĝišKÚŠUki-a1334 sig4-kur-šà-ga1335 ḫul-bi ba-ab-ak-a (231) ugu-bi-ta ti-id-nu-um1336 nu-ĝar-ra1337 íb-ta-an-zi-ge4-eš-àm1338 – That temple in Ĝiša, Sig-kur-šaga, which had been treated ill, (An and Enlil) have removed the treacherous Tidnum from it! B. The Gods An, Enlil, Enki and Ninmaḫ appoint Isin to the Office of the Provisioner of the Gods of Sumer, i.e. to Rulership (236) ì-si-inki 1339 ú-a da-nun-na-ke4-ne1340 ul-ta ní íl-la-a1341 (237) an den-líl den-ki dnin-maḫ-a1342 bala-bi in-sù-ud-da-àm1343 (238) du11-ga-ba šu zi bí-in-ĝar-re-eš-àm ḫé-àm-bi1344 bí-in-eš-àm1345 – Isin, the provisioner of the Anunna-gods, awe-laden from times of old, An, Enlil, Enki and Ninmaḫ have made its reign long! By (their) appendant order they have invested it and expressed their approval! Com: In lines 172, 276 and 308 of the composition, Išme-Dagān of Isin (ca. 1953– 1935 BCE) is mentioned by name (Tinney 1996, pp. 1, 270). That is why it is generally assumed that the lament had been composed during his reign. Since the 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345

Text N2 omits ki, S1 omits a, and X1 omits both ki and a. Text S1 writes sig4-ḫur-šà-abki-ba-ka, N7 writes sig4-kur-⌈šà-ba⌉. Text N2 writes tidnum. Text S1 omits nu: ‹nu›-ĝar-ra. Text N2 (and similarly, but more broken S1) writes íb-ta-zi-ge-eš-a. Text N2 writes ì-si-in-naki. Text S1 writes diĝir da-nun-na-ke4-ne, N7 omits -na-: da-nun-‹na›-ke4-ne. Text X1 omits -la-: íl-‹la›-a. Text S1 writes dnin-maḫ-bi. Text X1 (similarly perhaps also S1) writes in-su13-ud-⌈da⌉. Text N7 writes ḫé-àm-ni, text X1 omits the suffix: ḫé-àm. Text X1 produces bí-in-DU11-eš-àm.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

285

rebuilding of Babylonian cities after the Elamite invasion that ended the Third Dynasty of Ur was well under way during the rule of his grandfather Šu-ilīšu (ca. 1984–1975 BCE, see Source 10), it is highly unlikely that the devastation bewailed in the Nippur Lament might still be the one of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster. As Edzard (1976–1980c, RlA 5, p. 194) has indicated and Tinney (1996, pp. 6–8) has argued pronouncedly, it is not clear what actual historical event lies behind the catastrophe dealt with in the Nippur Lament, and whether it is possible to reconstruct a particular incident from the lament’s highly literary stock-phrases at all.1346 Although the Tidnum-Amorites also appear as enemies pressing on Ur in the Lament for Sumer and Ur (ll. 256, 488; Source 4, E4; see also Tinney 1996, p. 171), the “treacherous Tidnum” here in the Nippur Lament may well mean the Amorite Dynasty of Larsa who rivalled Isin during the Early Old Babylonian period and took control of Nippur and other Sumerian cities from time to time. So the Nippur Lament is probably a good example how the literary typification of historical situations had evolved by the time of the early Old Babylonian period. I quote the excerpts here as evidence for the topos of the “subhuman barbarian” (see chapter 11.4, C) on the one hand, and as another evidence for the claim of the First Dynasty of Isin to rulership over Babylonia (see Source 2 and the discussion in chapter 3). Source 10: Inscriptions & Year Names: Šu-ilīšu & the Return of Nanna Obj:

Excerpts from two votive inscriptions of king Šu-ilīšu of Isin. A: Votive inscription on two pivot stones. B: Votive inscription, copy on a clay tablet. Prov: Originally from Isin; texts from Ur. Date: First Dynasty of Isin, Šu-ilīšu (ca. 1984–1975 BCE). Lit: A: Gadd & Legrain, UET 1, no. 100, pl. N, I:8–16. Frayne, RIME 4, p. 16, E4.1.2.1, ll. 8–16. B: Sollberger, UET 8, no. 62, I:15–II:7, IV:3’–5’. Frayne, RIME 4, pp. 17–18, E4.1.2.2, I:15–II:7, IV:3’–5’. Cont: Šu-ilīšu of Isin leads the abducted statue of the moon-god Nanna from Anšan back to Ur, very probably at the very beginning of his reign. He restores the city of Ur and its population for Nanna to serve the god again. See the discussion on pp. 50f. above. A: The information that Šu-ilīšu of Isin recovered the abducted statue of Nanna and led it back to Ur from Anšan is given in a votive inscription of Šu-ilīšu dealing with rebuilding the dublamaḫ and setting up a decorated door. The inscription is written on the pivot stones the two panels of the door originally rested upon: 1346 See also the brief summary by Charpin 2004, pp. 63–64 with note 172. In his

dissertation, Edzard (1957, pp. 86–90) was more optimistic that it would be possible to identify the historical event some day. Edzard (1957, p. 88) also refers to an unplaced year name of Išme-Dagān’s son Lipit-Eštar who restored Ur at the command of Enlil and Nanna (Lipit-Eštar “B”, Sigrist 1988, p. 28).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

286

–

(I 8)

u4 dnanna (9) an-ša-anki-ta (10) uri5ki-šè (11) mu-un-túm-ma-a (12) dub-lámaḫ (13) ki di-ku5-da-ni (14) mu-na-dù (15) ĝišig zà-míma gùn-a (16) mu-na-angub (I 8) When (Šu-ilīšu) (11) had led (8) (the statue of) Nanna (9) from Anšan (10) (back) to Ur, (14) he built for him (: Nanna) (12) the dublamaḫ, (13) the place where he (: Nanna) renders judgement. (16) He set up for him (in the building’s gate) (15) a lavishly decorated door, fit for praise. B: Of course, Šu-ilīšu could not restore Nanna to an empty and devastated city. He restored Ur and he also brought back the population of Ur which had been deported together with the gods of Sumer as far as Anšan after the destruction of the land by the Elamites. Bringing back the people and resettling them at Ur again is reported in a votive inscription of Šu-ilīšu dealing with fashioning an emblem for the moon-god Nanna called Nunbi-me-anki “Its Lord (Nanna rules) the Divine Powers of Heaven and Earth”. This event can be dated within the reign of Šu-ilīšu to the very beginning of his reign, see the commentary. (I 15) d šu-nir gal (16) ĝiš buru14-a tum4-ma (17) u6-di-dè ḫé-du7 (18) kù-sí (19) kù– ‹babbar› za-gìn-na gùn-⌈a⌉ (20) mí-ul-lá sig7-[ga] (21) alan kù-[babbar] (22) ⌈x gi? x⌉ [x x] (break) (II 1) [u4 uri5ki-ma] (2) n[am-lú-ùlu-bi] (3) u[ri5ki-ta] (4) s[ù-sù-da] (5) zag a[n-šaki an -na-šè] ság d[u11-ga] (6) ki-tuš-ba gi-n[a-a] (7) mu-na-dím (I 15) – The great emblem, (16) the implement suited for (sacred use at) harvest, (17) fit to be marvelled at, (18–19) lavishly decorated in gold, silver, and lapislazuli, (20) most beautifully fashion[ed] (21–22) ⌈adorned with⌉ sil[ver] images, … . (break) (II 1–2) [When] the [popula]tion [of Ur] (4) [which had been] dis[pelled] (3) [from] U[r] (5) [and which had been] disp[ersed as far as to] the borders of A[nšan] (6) had been settl[ed] at their (proper) dwelling place (again), (7) he (: Šu-ilīšu) fashioned (this emblem) for him (: Nanna). Later in the same inscription, Šu-ilīšu calls the emblem’s name, Nunbi-me-anki: (IV 3’) d – šu-nir-ba (4’) dnun-bi-me!(bar)-an-ki (5’) mu-bi. “The name of this emblem is Nunbi-me-anki.” Com: In either inscription, no mention whatsoever is made about the fate or the mortal remains of king Ibbi-Sîn, apparently left behind at Anšan, dead or alive. A)

In I:11, the scribe still correctly uses the singular ḫamṭu base túm “to lead” in the verbal form mu-un-túm-ma-a. During the Old Babylonian period, the paradigms of túm (= DU) “to lead” and ře6 (= DU) “to bring” began to get mixed.1347 But here, in an inscription of the early Isin king Šu-ilīšu, some 20 years after the fall of Ur, we may safely surmise that the distinction between the two bases was still observed.

1347 Meyer-Laurin 2010, pp. 11–12.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

I 15:

287

Theologically speaking, this means that translating the phrase as “when Šu-ilīšu brought (back the statue of) the god Nanna”1348 misses the slim but important semantic difference between “bringing back an object” and “leading back a living god in procession”. As opposed to “bringing” or “carrying” (ře6 = wabālu), “leading” (túm = warû) is an action which is basically performed on living objects, on animals, humans and gods.1349 I interpret the strange orthography zà-míma as a glossed writing of the locative *zà-mí-a = [zamâ] “(fit) for praise”. The phrase means literally “a (pair) of door(leaves), made colourful for praise”.

B)

Fashioning the emblem Nunbi-me-anki “Its Lord (Nanna rules) the Divine Powers of Heaven and Earth”: d nun-bi-me!(bar)-an-ki: Usually, the name of the emblem is read dnun-biIV 3’: bar-an-ki “Its Lord (Nanna is) the Light of Heaven and Earth”.1350 However, bar originally means “outside”, and as a verb it means “to go off to/from the outside” (PSD B, pp. 93–116). Only secondarily it also can mean “to beam”. So, translating bar with “light” is not the first choice to make, even if one takes the adjective babbar(2) = nawrum “beaming/shining” into account, with babbar(2) = bar6-bar6 = [*barbar]. The lexical equation bar = nūru “light” comes as late as the Silbenvokabular A from Ugarit,1351 dating to the end of the 2nd millennium, and from the lexical list Aa,1352 dating to the 1st millennium. In an inscription of Šu-ilīšu, one expects terms like u4, kiš-nu/ĝiš-nu11, or giri17-zal. Keeping to bar, one might even be more inclined to consider reading d nun-kaš-bar-an-ki “lord (uttering) the decisions for heaven and earth”, with kaš written unorthographically for ka-aš. However, the form of the name with the element -me-, not -bar-, is also corroborated by a variant of the name of Šu-ilīšu’s second year which confuses the emblem with Nin-me-anki, the emblem of Inanna, see immediately below. The fashioning of the emblem Nunbi-me-anki is the topic of the date formulas of the second regnal year of Šu-ilīšu. In version b), the name of the emblem is confused with the name of an emblem of Inanna, called Nin-me-anki “Lady (who rules) the Divine Powers of Heaven and Earth”: ( no name ) a) mu dšu-ì-lí-šu lugal-e ĝiš/d šu-nir-(gal) dnanna mu-(na)-dím1353

1348 Thus Frayne, RIME 4, p. 16, ll. 8–11 (italics mine). 1349 Sallaberger 2004, p. 573; Meyer-Laurin 2010, p. 10. 1350 Sollberger, UET 8, p. 11, on no. 62; Sollberger & Kupper 1971, p. 173, on IVA2b; Frayne,

RIME 4, p. 18, on IV:4’.

1351 [bar]-bar = [n]u-u-ru (RA 63, 1969, p. 83, I:19’). 1352 ba-ár : bar = nu-ú-rum (MSL 4, p. 232, Aa I/6:250). 1353 Most common form, see Sigrist 1988, p. 22; placement of the date after Van de

Mieroop 1987a, p. 128; Sigrist 1988, p. 22. More recently, Sigrist & Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI count this year name as Šu-ilīšu 3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

288

b) mu

d lugal-e nin-me-an-ki (!) d nanna-ar mu-ne-dím1354 šu-nir-gal c) mu d⌈šu-ì-lí⌉-šu lugal-e [d]⌈nun-bi-me⌉-an!(bar)-ki d nan]na-ra mu-na-[dím]1355 šu-[nir-gal “Year (after) king Šu-ilīšu had fashioned the (great) emblem for Nanna, (by the name *Nunbi-me-anki).” With no further information, we would have dated the fashioning of the emblem celebrated by the year name Šu-ilīšu 2 to the preceding year, i.e. to Šu-ilīšu’s first regnal year. However, from an archival document from the Isin Craft Archive we learn that the manufacture of the emblem was already under way during the last months of the last year of Išbi-Erra, under supervision by the crown-prince Šuilīšu.1356 Išbi-Erra’s death probably overshadowed the finishing of the instrument. As usual, Šu-ilīšu’s first regnal year was named “year (after) Šu-ilīšu had become king”, so the fashioning of the emblem could only be celebrated in the year name of his second regnal year. Combining the evidence, we can deduce that the gods of Ur were brought home from Anšan roughly at the time of Išbi-Erra’s death or during Šu-ilīšu’s first regnal year (ca. 1984), perhaps as a gesture of Anšan’s goodwill towards the new king. There is another date formula which deals with re-establishing the city of Ur, the topic of Šu-ilīšu’s votive inscription edited here as Source 10, B II:1–6. However, this year name bears no royal name and its placement is a matter of debate: – mu uri5ki ki-tuš-ba bí-ge-en1357 “Year (after …) had established Ur in its dwelling-place (again).” Since the repatriation of the gods and of the population of Ur happened very early at the very beginning of Šu-ilīšu’s reign, he was probably reaping the fruits of his father’s policy. The preparations to bring Nanna home were well under way some d

šu-ì-lí-šu

1354 NBC 8862; Sigrist 1988, p. 22, no. 2 h. This version of the name displays two mistakes:

The verbal form incorporates a dative plural, instead of the singular *mu-na-dím. More importantly, the scribe put in the name of the emblem of Inanna, nin-me-an-ki “lady of the divine powers of heaven and earth”, known from the year name Išbi-Erra 20: mu (diš-bi-èr-ra lugal-e) (d)nin-me-an-ki ĝiššu-nir-gal dinanna-ra mu-na-dím (Sigrist 1988, p. 17) “year, (after king Išbi-Erra) had fashioned Nin-me-anki, the great emblem for Inanna.” 1355 BIN 10 no. 86; misread by Sigrist & Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI, s.v. Šuilīšu 2b. 1356 Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 45; Richter 2004, p. 419. BIN 9, no. 470: various materials distributed for fashioning the “emblem of Nanna” (dšu-nir dNanna, rev. 6); date: month XI (iti zíz-à[m]), day 15, Išbi-Erra 33 (mu ús-sa nin-⌈diĝir⌉ dlugal-ír-ra ba-íl). Sigrist & Damerow (Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI) count this year as Išbi-Erra 32; their year Išbi-Erra 33 is the “second year after the high priestess of Lugal-irra was elevated”. 1357 BIN 9, no. 523; read perhaps bí-in!-‹ge›-en. Sigrist & Damerow (Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI) place this year name – partially misread – as Šu-ilīšu 2a; they probably follow Wilcke, 1985, p. 308. Formerly, the date had been taken to be the year name of Išbi-Erra 31 (Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 128; Sigrist 1988, p. 21).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

289

years earlier. According to the formula of the year Išbi-Erra 301358 – i.e. during the year Išbi-Erra 29 – roughly three years after the Elamites were driven out of Ur (see the commentary on Source 16) and some five years prior to the restoration of the cult statues by Šu-ilīšu, preparations had been made to restore the gods of Ur to their proper places. According to this year name, Išbi-Erra had new thrones made for Nanna and Ningal, i.e. for their cult statues lost to Elam, which were still being kept prisoners at Anšan: (BIN 9, no. 499, l. 12) – mu ĝišgu-za dnanna dnin-g[al] ba-dí[m] “Year (after) the throne(s) of Nanna and Ning[al] had been ma[de].” Since we do not hear anything about some victorious raid on Anšan,1359 the repatriation appears to have been the result of diplomatic efforts rather than of military success. Diplomatic contacts between Isin and Anšan are already attested some four years prior to the fall of Ur in an administrative document which records two leather bags for storing “sealed letters from Anšan”.1360 The Text is dated to Išbi-Erra 14 (wall Libūr-dIšbi-Erra), corresponding to Ibbi-Sîn 21. There is also the information that envoys of king Kindattu and of his son Idattu from Anšan had been equipped with sandals and waterskins at Isin in the year Išbi-Erra 19, two years after the fall of Ur.1361 Source 11: Omen: The Fall of Akkade Obj: Omen from the liver; “Mari liver model no. 4”. Prov: Mari. Date: Early Old Babylonian period (Meyer 1987, p. 45). Lit: Rutten 1938, p. 42 and pl. 2, no. 4 (sketch). – Nougayrol 1945, p. 23, no. 86. – Goetze 1947, p. 259, commentary on no. 22. – Meyer 1987, pp. 192–193 with sketch, pl. 14:6–7. – Maul 2013, p. 211 with fig. 27. Cont: Fall (“disaster”) of Akkade. The fall of the dynasty of Akkade is also dealt with in Source 23.

1358 After Sigrist & Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI, s.v. Išbi-Erra. Formerly,

the date had been counted as Išbi-Erra 29 (Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 128; Sigrist 1988, p. 20). 1359 See already Carter & Stolper 1984, p. 22 with note 159: “The texts make no reference to warfare”. 1360 BIN 9, no. 302, ll. 2–3: kìšib-ra-⌈a⌉ ⌈ù-na⌉-e4-⌈du11⌉ / an-ša-anki-⌈ta⌉; see Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 113. See also Vallat (1996) who unconvincingly tried to connect the repatriation of Nanna to the marriage of a daughter of Iddin-Dagān to the king of Anšan a whole decade later (year name Iddin-Dagān 2). 1361 BIN 9, no. 382, dated VII/16/IE 19 (mu bàd ‹diš-bi-èr-ra›-ri-im-den-líl ba-dù); reference to Kindattu and Idattu in ll. 8, 14; in line 18 read lúkin-gi4-a ⌈An⌉-[ša-an]ki “envoys from An[šan]”, see Steinkeller 2008b, addendum to Steinkeller 2007, p. 221 note 26; Steinkeller 2011, p. 22; Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015, p. 25.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

290

16

Edition of the Sources

Figure 16: a) sketch Rutten

b) sketch Meyer

– *amūt (/ omūt) šaḫluqti Akkade – Omen pertaining to the disaster of Akkade. – u4-mu-ut ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tí a-kà-dèki Com: The model does not give a verbal protasis, but displays the ominous liver in the round, using marks. To the modern eye, these marks are even harder to understand than the verbal omens. The possible meanings and implications of the marks have been discussed by Meyer 1987, p. 193. The circular model displays seven notches around the margin, aiming “from all directions” at the centre. The imagery appears to convey the idea that the “four regions of the world attack the capital” (see the discussion in chapter 6.2), be its name Akkade, Ur, or Babylon. With its furrows and notches, the model also looks “grooved like an (empty money) bag”, a description used in the omens of Source 20, Source 21 and Source 67; see the commentary of Source 20 on this imagery of impoverishment. The rest of the liver does not show any structure and no further elements at all. Not even the gall bladder (martu) is present. At Old Babylonian Mari, as well as at Susa and Boğazköy, the gall bladder was explicitly called rēʾûm “shepherd”.1362 So, on the illustrative level, there is no “shepherd of his people” any more in the empty fold. The same imagery is also employed in the omens of Source 13, Source 14, Source 15 and Source 16. A late descendant in the first millennium is the omen of Source 61. The model leaves the impression that the gods refuse completely to give any answers to the diviner. Communication with the gods has stopped, the king, the “shepherd”, is not there to tend his flock and evil is creeping up from all sides. According to the apodosis written on its back, this omen pertains to the fall of the dynasty of Akkade. However, it would also have matched perfectly the situation in the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, as depicted in Source 24.

1362 Durand 1988, p. 64 with note 319, pp. 65–68, texts nos. 2–3, with commentary f; CAD R,

p. 312, s.v. rēʾû 4; Maul 2013, pp. 211, 361–362 with note 104.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

291

Source 12: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 2) Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – – – – Cont:

17

Omen from the liver; “Mari liver model no. 6”. Mari. Early Old Babylonian period (Meyer 1987, p. 45). Rutten 1938, p. 42 and pl. 3, no. 6 (sketch). Nougayrol 1945, p. 24, no. 93. Meyer 1987, pp. 193–194 with sketch, pl. 15:1. Snell 1974, p. 121. Metzler 2002, p. 225. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 2).

Figure 17: a) sketch Rutten

b) sketch Meyer

amūt ṣuḫurrāʾim (/ suḫurrāʾim?) ši Ibbi-Sîn batāq mātīšu *ibbalkissu Omen of diminution (/ encirclement?), regarding Ibbi-Sîn: The splitting up of his land overthrew him. – a-mu-ut ṣú/sú-ḫu-ra-im si i-bí-den.zu ba-táq ma-ti-šu i-ba-al-ki-ti-šu Com: The model does not give a verbal protasis, but displays the ominous liver in the round, using marks. To the modern eye, these marks are even harder to understand than the verbal omens. The possible meanings and implications of the marks have been discussed by Meyer 1987, p. 194. I prefer to read ṣuḫurrāʾum “diminution”, rather than suḫurrāʾum “political turn”, as proposed by von Soden in AHw.1363 CAD (S, p. 352) quotes this omen as the only reference for a noun suḫurrāʾu possibly meaning “turn(?)”. The rest of the references (Standard Babylonian, from omens) are certainly correctly attributed by CAD to ṣuḫurrāʾum “diminution”. On the other side, the mark of the ring “encircling” something in the model does in fact arouse the association of “going around, encircling someone from all sides” (saḫāru). This could match a noun *suḫurrāʾum. As its meaning, however, I would rather propose “encirclement” than “(political) turn”. Waiting for more clearer examples, I rather keep to ṣuḫurrāʾum “diminution” in this case. The same string of thoughts (diminution > revolt = nabalkutu) is found in the late astronomical omen of Source 56, line 3. There, the term used is tassuḫtu “decrease – –

1363 AHw II, p. 1055, s.v. suḫurrāʾum “politische Wendung”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

292

Edition of the Sources

(of cattle)”. Either omen apparently deals with the idea of hardship and famine leading to instability and revolt, which was the situation in the closing days of Ibbi-Sîn’s rule. The writing of the verbal form as i-ba-al-ki-ti-šu instead of *i-ba-al-ki-sú = ibbalkissu is strange. For the information that his own land and people revolted (nabalkutu) against Ibbi-Sîn see also Source 13. Source 13: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 3) Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – – Cont:

18

Omen from the liver; “Mari liver model no. 7”. Mari. Early Old Babylonian period (Meyer 1987, p. 45). Rutten 1938, pp. 42–43 and pl. 4, no. 7 (sketch). Nougayrol 1945, p. 23, no. 89. Meyer 1987, p. 194 with anatomical sketch, pl. 15:2–3. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 3).

Figure 18: a) sketch Rutten

b) sketch Meyer

inūmī Ibbi-Sîn māssu ibbalkitū́šu annīyum kīʾam iššakin. When the land of Ibbi-Sîn revolted against him, this (omen) was put forth like this. – i-nu-mi i-bí-d+en.zu ma-sú i-ba-al-ki-tù-šu a-ni-u-um ki-am i-sá-kín Com: The model does not give a verbal protasis, but displays the ominous liver in the round, using marks. To the modern eye, these marks are even harder to understand than the verbal omens. The possible meanings and implications of the marks have been discussed by Meyer 1987, p. 194. Nougayrol (1945, p. 23, no. 89) tentatively verbalized the protasis as *“If the liver has no finger, and the gall bladder rides on the well-being”. I am afraid I cannot make any associative connection to Ibbi-Sîn from this. It is probably more important that the gall bladder appears to have been torn out here and moved from its proper place to the left, into the area of the enemy. At Old Babylonian Mari, as well as at Susa and Boğazköy, the gall bladder was explicitly called rēʾûm “shepherd”, see the literature in note 1362 on p. 290. It represented the native king. So we can read the illustrative omen as indicating that “the shepherd (i.e. the king Ibbi-Sîn) will be dislocated and taken to enemy country”. The same imagery is also employed in the omens of Source 14, Source 15 and Source 16. A late descendant in the first millennium is the omen of Source 61. See also Source 11 with a similar omen denoting the “disaster of Akkade”. – –

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

293

For the information that his own land “revolted” (nabalkutu) against Ibbi-Sîn see also Source 12. The phrasing of the omen displays the same word order with the subject of the subordinated clause in second place as in Source 14. Source 14: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 4) Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – – – Cont:

19

Omen from the liver; “Mari liver model no. 8”. Mari. Early Old Babylonian period (Meyer 1987, p. 45). Rutten 1938, p. 43 and pl. 4, no. 8 (sketch). Nougayrol 1945, p. 24, no. 94. Meyer 1987, p. 195 with sketch. Metzler 2002, p. 225. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 4).

Figure 19: a) sketch Rutten

b) sketch Meyer

– –

amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša Uram Elamtum ana tillī u karmī iškun Omen of Ibbi-Sîn, who(se city) Ur (the land of) Elam turned into heaps of ruins and wasteland. – a-mu-ut i-bí-den.zu sá ú-ra-am elamki a-na ti-li ú kàr-me5 iš-ku-un Com: The model does not give a verbal protasis, but displays the ominous liver in the round, using marks. To the modern eye, these marks are even harder to understand than the verbal omens. The possible meanings and implications of the marks have been discussed by Meyer 1987, p. 195. There is no gall bladder present in this omen. At Old Babylonian Mari, as well as at Susa and Boğazköy, the gall bladder was explicitly called rēʾûm “shepherd”, see the literature in note 1362 on p. 290. It represented the native king. So we can understand the illustrative omen as indicating that there will be no “shepherd” (i.e. king Ibbi-Sîn) any more in the land. The same imagery is also employed in the omens of Source 13, Source 15 and Source 16. A late descendant in the first millennium is the omen of Source 61. See also Source 11 with a similar omen denoting the “disaster of Akkade”. The phrasing of the omen displays the same word order with the subject of the subordinated clause in second place as the omen of Source 13.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

294

Edition of the Sources

Source 15: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 1) Obj: Omen from the liver; “Mari liver model no. 9”. Prov: Mari. Date: Early Old Babylonian period (Meyer 1987, p. 45). Lit: Rutten 1938, p. 43 and pl. 5, no. 9 (sketch). – Nougayrol 1945, p. 13, no. 44. – Edzard 1957, p. 64. – Meyer 1987, pp. 195–196 with anatomical sketch. – Metzler 2002, p. 226. Cont: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 1): Defeat of Elam, corresponding to the military successes of Išbi-Erra in his 15th and 26th regnal year.

20

Figure 20: a) sketch Rutten

b) sketch Meyer

amūt Išbi-Erra ša Elamtum taṣīl(ū́)šu u Elamtam ilqâ Omen of Išbi-Erra, against whom Elam fought?, and who took Elam (in the end). – a-mu-ut iš-bi-èr-ra sá elamki tá-ṣí-íl-šu ú elamki íl-qá-a Com: On Išbi-Erra’s defeat of Elam see in detail the commentary on Source 16, since there the defeat (sakāpu) is expressed more clearly. The model does not give a verbal protasis, but displays the ominous liver in the round, using marks. To the modern eye, these marks are even harder to understand than the verbal omens. The possible meanings and implications of the marks have been discussed by Meyer 1987, p. 196. There are two gall bladders present in this omen. At Old Babylonian Mari, as well as at Susa and Boğazköy, the gall bladder was explicitly called rēʾûm “shepherd”, see the literature in note 1362 on p. 290. It represented the native king. So we can read the illustrative omen as indicating that there will be two “shepherds” – IbbiSîn and Išbi-Erra – rivalling one another. If this interpretation is correct, the topic “fighting Elam” comes in only secondarily as the final outcome of the crisis, as in Source 16. The imagery dealing with the gall bladder as a symbol for the native king is also used in the omens of Source 11, Source 13, Source 14 and Source 16. A late descendant in the first millennium is the omen of Source 61. The verbal form taṣīl (/taṣēl) is probably to be derived from ṣâlum/ṣêlum “to fight”. It is defective, since it does not display the ending of the subordinative dependent on the relative pronoun ša: *taṣīlū́šu. One wonders to read with Rutten (1938, p. 43): sá elamki da-gi!(zi)-íl-šu (ša Elamtim dāgilšu) “the one who served Elam”. This, however, is grammatically problematic as well, since there should be a feminine suffix in *dāgilša to refer to the feminine noun Elamtum. – –

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

295

There is also another liver model from Mari (“Mari liver model no. 10”),1364 which, however, does not deal with the Ibbi-Sîn crisis, but with people of Subartu who are said to have written to Išbi-Erra several times in some unknown matter. So this topic is skipped here. Source 16: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 2) Obj:

Omen from the liver (kakkum). Text: YOS 10, no. 46, rev. V:4–6. Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 262–263, no. 39. – Edzard 1957, p. 64. – Metzler 2002, p. 226. Cont: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 2): Defeat of Elam, corresponding to two military successes of Išbi-Erra in his 15th and 26th regnal year. – šumma kakkum rabûm ina imittim *šakinma eli martim rakib kakki Išbi-Erra ša Elamtam iskipu – If a large weapon mark is placed on the right and rides on the gall bladder, it is the weapon of Išbi-Erra who overthrew Elam. (4) diš ĝištukul ra-bu-um i-na i-mi-tim ša-ki-im-ma – (5) e-li mar-tim ra-ki-ib ĝištukul Iiš-bi-èr-ra (6) ša e-la-am-tam is-ki-pu Com: The chain of association of this omen is not fully intelligible. It is clear that the “large weapon (mark)” in the protatsis corresponds to the strong and victorious weapon of Išbi-Erra in his battles with Elam. However, the information that “it is placed on the right and rides on the gall bladder” causes some disturbance. As a negative mark, denoting war and danger, the weapon mark is mainly an unfavourable sign on the right side, the pars familiaris in extispicy.1365 However, its meaning is strongly influenced by many details of its appearance, i.e. looking up or down, to the right or to the left, etc. All this kind of information is missing here. For weapon marks on the right side of the gall bladder but predicting defeat of the enemy, Ulla Jeyes (1989, p. 83) refers to a series of such omens from YOS 10, no. 46, I:1–36. There, the necessary details are specified. Furthermore, the omen states that the weapon mark “rides on the gall bladder”. At Old Babylonian Mari, as well as at Susa and Boğazköy, the gall bladder (martu) was explicitly called rēʾûm “shepherd”, see the literature in note 1362 on p. 290. It denoted the native king. The same imagery is also employed in the omens of Source 11, Source 13, Source 14 and Source 15. A late descendant in the first millennium is the omen of Source 61.

1364 Rutten 1938, pp. 43–44 and pl. 5, no. 10 (sketch); Nougayrol 1945, p. 13, no. 43; Edzard

1957, p. 64; Meyer 1987, pp. 196–197 with anatomical sketch; Metzler 2002, p. 240; see also Goetze 1947, p. 263 on no. 40. 1365 Jeyes 1989, pp. 81–83; Koch-Westenholz 2000, pp. 48–51. See the discussion of the weapon mark on pp. 267f.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

296

Edition of the Sources

So, if read positively, the associative chain might read “a strong weapon at the hands of the native king”, but then there would be no reason to connect the omen to the figure of Išbi-Erra, since the native king was Ibbi-Sîn. Probably, “riding” (rakābu) upon an element in extispicy is not the same as “being put in place” (šakin / nadi). It might rather denote “to override”, “to replace” an element, cf. the omen of Source 63. If this is correct, the omen can be understood as “a strong weapon (of a former vassal) will take over the military duties of the native king (Ibbi-Sîn), replacing him.” So, the topic “fighting Elam” comes in only secondarily as the final outcome of the rivalry between Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra, as in Source 15. In his 15th regnal year, Išbi-Erra was able to defeat the armies of Šimaški and Elam, probably, when they were invading Babylonia and threatening Isin. Counting IbbiSîn 8 = Išbi-Erra 1,1366 this year is the 22nd regnal year of Ibbi-Sîn, two years before the fall of Ur. The victory over Elam in Išbi-Erra’s 15th regnal year is briefly referred to in two administrative documents from the Isin Craft Archive.1367 One of them is dated to the month Ayyār, i.e. to the second month, very early in the year: (Ayyār, Išbi-Erra 15) – u4 ĝištukul elam-a ⌈ba-sìg⌉-ga-a1368 “When Elam was smitten with the weapon.” – u4 elam ba-ab-ra-a1369 (Išbi-Erra 15) “When Elam was defeated.” Either this or, as Steinkeller has suggested,1370 a similar event early in the next year was celebrated in the formula of Išbi-Erra’s 16th regnal year: – mu diš-bi-èr-ra lugal-e uĝnim LÚ-SU-A ù elam bí-in-ra1371 “Year (after/when?) king Išbi-Erra smote the armies of Šimaški and Elam.” Around the same date of Išbi-Erra’s defeat of “Elam” in his 15th year, even in the same month (Ayyār Išbi-Erra 15), Išbi-Erra married his daughter Libūrniʾāš to Šuruš-kīn, the son of a certain Ḫu(m)ba(n)-simtī.1372 By his name, this Ḫu(m)ba(n)simtī appears to have been an Elamite, and since his son married a daughter of Išbi-Erra, he certainly was a person of political influence, probably some kind of 1366 See here p. 37 with note 139. 1367 Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 113; see, also on the following, Carter & Stolper 1984, p. 22. 1368 BIN 9, no. 152, ll. 6–7; dated to itigu4-si-su = Ayyār, year Išbi-Erra 15 = “year after” (mu1369 1370

1371 1372

ús-sa) the wall Libūr-dIšbi-Erra. BIN 10, no. 124, l. 3; year Išbi-Erra 15. Steinkeller (2008a, p. 4 with note 12) argues that the event to which this year name alludes did not happen in the previous year, as usual, i.e. in Išbi-Erra’s 15th regnal year, but early in his 16th year. The year formula was in use only from the fourth month onwards, and there are administrative texts dealing with the fabrication of weapons, armour and military equipment during the first two months of the 16th regnal year of Išbi-Erra, which points to a military conflict around that time. BIN 9, no. 505; Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 127; Sigrist 1988, p. 16. On LÚ-SU-(A) as an orthography for Šimaški see Steinkeller 1988 and 1990. BIN 9, no. 438, ll. 21–24: níg-ba li-bur-ni-aš dumu-munus lugal / u4 suḫuš-ki-in / dumu ḫu-ba-sí-im-ti-ke4 / ba-an-tuku-a “dowry of Libūrniʾāš, the daughter of the king, when Šuruš-kīn, the son of Ḫu(m)ba(n)-simtī, took her (in marriage).”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

297

ruler. But contrary to what has been maintained ever since the edition of the text,1373 the document does not state that he was a “sukkal”, i.e. an “emissary” or “deputy”.1374 This misreading gave rise to the speculation that he was the “governor” (sukkal-maḫ) of Susa. Furthermore, Hinz (1971, p. 659) even speculated that Ḫu(m)ba(n)-simtī was a son of Ḫutran-tempt, whom he took for the Elamite king who defeated Ibbi-Sîn.1375 Although it is clear that Ḫu(m)ba(n)-simtī must have been a person of importance, the text does not allow us to specify his role and character. As far as I can see, Ḫu(m)ba(n)-simtī is not documented any further. The final victory over Elam was celebrated in the year name Išbi-Erra 27, after IšbiErra had expelled the Elamites from Ur during his 26th regnal year, roughly a decade after he had first smitten the armies of Elam and Šimaški and eight years after the fall of Ur: – mu diš-bi-èr-ra lugal-e elam šà uri5ki-ma-ka tuš-a ĝištukul kalag-ga-ni im-ta-e111376 “Year (after) king Išbi-Erra with his strong weapon drove out the Elamite(s) dwelling in the midst of Ur.” Source 17: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 1) Obj:

Omen from the liver. Text: YOS 10, no. 46, rev. V:10–14. Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 264, no. 46. – Nougayrol 1950, p. 22. – Jeyes 1989, p. 165, in commentary on obv. 2. – Winitzer 2017, p. 93. Cont: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 1); Old Babylonian precursor of Source 40, see also Source 18. On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). (10) šumma ina imitti martim ina libbi šīlim kakkum šakin – (11) ummānī nakrum idâkma ittûʾa (12) itebbûma nakram idukkū (13) amūt Kub-Bawū ša tibê šalamtum (14) qa[blam] muḫrī (10) – If on the right side of the gall bladder there is a weapon mark inside a hole, (this means:) 1373 Crawford in BIN 9 (1954), p. 27, on no. 483, l. 23 (“sukkal”), s.v. Ḫu-ba-sí-im-ti, p. 38 s.v.

sukkal; Edzard 1957, p. 62; Hinz 1971, p. 659; Van de Mieroop 1987a, p. 113.

1374 The correct reading (-ke4 instead of sukkal), which is perfectly clear from the copy,

was pointed out only rather recently by Steinkeller 2008a, p. 5, note 10.

1375 See the discussion on p. 47 above. 1376 Most complete version in BIN 9, no. 395; with a variant in ba-dab5 “(when) he took (the

Elamite captive)”. Listed as Išbi-Erra 26 (and 27: mu ús-sa) by Van de Mieroop 1987a, pp. 127–128 and Sigrist 1988, pp. 19–20. Counted as Išbi-Erra 27 (and 28: mu ús-sa) by Sigrist & Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

298

the enemy will defeat (lit. “kill”) my army, but my neighbours will rise and will defeat the enemy (in turn). (13) (It is) an omen of *Ku-Baʾu, who (once was told): “Rise, (you) corpse! (14) Face the ba[ttle]!” (10) – diš i-na i-mi-tì mar-tim i-na li-ib-bi ši-li-im ĝištukul ša-ki-in (11) um-ma-ni lúkúr-rum i-da-ak-ma it(!)-tu-ú-a-a (12) i-te-eb-bu-ú-ma lúkúr-am i-du-uk-ku-ú (13) a-mu-⌈ut ku-ub⌉-ba-bu-ú ša ti-bé-e ša-la-am-tum (14) qá-a[b-lam] mu-uḫ-ri-i Com: At the end of line 11, both AHw and CAD read ittûm “neighbour”.1377 In the copy, the sign it(!)- is in fact da-, though the difference is, of course, quite small. So, one might also read (i-da-ak) ma-da-tu-ú-a-a “(…) many of mine (people will rise)”,1378 but the construction emerging then, with no enclitic copula between the two sentences, with the rather peculiar expression mādātūʾa and the main word nišū “people” left out, and with two verbs in masculine plural construed ad sensum (itebbûma … idukkū) is even stranger than reading it(!)-tu-ú-a-a and seeing the “neighbours” rising. 13: The unorthographic spelling of the name of queen Ku-Baʾu as ⌈ku-ub⌉-babu-ú (Kub-Bawū) instead of the normal form kù(-g)-dba-ú is certainly due to the assimilation of kù(-g) in *Kug-Baʾu to Kub-Baʾu (Nougayrol 1945– 1946, p. 94). Similar forms occur in the omens of Source 18 (ku-up-pa-[bu]) and Source 19 (ku-ub-‹ba›-a-ba). On the various spellings reflecting the pronunciation of the name of the goddess Baʾu (dba-ú = ca. Bawu/a, Babu/a) see recently Marchesi 2002; Rubio 2010, pp. 35–39. The spelling ti-bé-e for the imperative 2nd pers. sing. fem. (*tibe+ī) might look strange. For the infinitive ša tebê “concerning rising/an attack”, on the other hand, one expects *te-bé-e. The dominance of the vowel [e] is probably due to the character of the final alif in the root resulting originally from [ḥ], [ʿ], or [ġ]. In Old Assyrian, the feminine imperative is *tebʾē.1379 Jeyes (1989, p. 165, on obv. 2) interprets the phrase as a variation of tīb lemutti an “evil apparition” coming up from the underworld, and reads ti-bé-e ša-la-am-TUM (for -tim) “about the ghost (= the rise of a dead body)”. However, in the Old Babylonian dialect and orthography, -tum and -tim are not as exchangeable as they are in Old Assyrian.1380 So, I take ša-laam-tum as a regular nominative and understand it as a “nominative of address”.1381 The later tradition uses the vocative: šalmat (Source 40). 14: For the first word in line 14, which is in fact qá-a[b-lam], Nougayrol (1950, p. 22) tentatively proposed ĜIŠ.Š[UB (?) ?] = tilpānu “bow”. Reading qá-á[štam] is no option, since the syllabic value áš is not used in the YOS 10 (11) (12)

AHw I, p. 407, s.v. itû(m) (/ ittûm III) B. 1; CAD I–J, p. 316, s.v. itû B, c 1’. As does Nougayrol 1950, p. 22. Hecker 1968, p. 26, § 16b. Von Soden & Röllig 1991, no. 68: tim = tum8; no. 137: tum = tím. Many examples: Gelb 1936, p. 41 (no. 59: tim), pp. 43–44 (no. 119: tum). 1381 Kraus 1976, pp. 295–297. 1377 1378 1379 1380

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

299

texts, but only aš. However, the idea of the “bow” ultimately triggered a spurious phrase with a “bow of battle” (qašat qabli) in scholarly literature, which also found its way into the omens of Source 18 and Source 40, see the commentary on Source 40. Source 18: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 2) Obj:

Omen from [the liver]. Text: George 2013, pl. 73, no. 27, rev. 11’. Prov: Southern Babylonia; Sealand (George 2013, p. 184). Date: Late Old Babylonian period (Sealand I-period). Lit: George 2013, pp. 187, 192, no. 27, rev. 11’, § 6’’. – Winitzer 2017, p. 93. Cont: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 2). Old Babylonian precursor of Source 40; see also Source 17. On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). – [šumma . . . . . . . .] ina bīrīšunu [kakk]u nadi amūt Kup-Pa[wū sāb]ēti [tib]î šalamtum qabla [muḫ]rī – [If . . . . . .] and between them [a weapon mar]k is located, (it is) an omen of *Ku-Baʾu, (who once was told:) “[Ris]e, (you) corpse! [Fa]ce the battle!” – [diš . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ i-na bi-ri-šu-nu [(ĝiš)tuku]l šub-di šà-múd ku-up-pa-[bu sa-bé]-⌈e⌉-ti 1382 𒐕 [z]i ša-lam-tum qá-⌈ab-la⌉ [mu-uḫ]-ri Com: In its preserved parts, the tablet deals with multiple gall bladders. But since the gall bladder (martu) is femine, the masculine plural suffix in ina bīrīšunu “between them” must refer to other elements of the liver. The restoration [(ĝiš)tuku]l = kakku by George makes good sense, since two other liver omens on Ku-Baʾu also deal with the weapon mark (kakku): Source 17 (l. 10) and Source 40. The unorthographic spelling of the name Ku-Baʾu as ku-up-pa-[bu] has parallels in the omens of Source 17 (⌈ku-ub⌉-ba-bu-ú, l. 13) and Source 19 (ku-ub-‹ba›-a-ba), see the commentary on Source 17. The form *sābētu instead of *sābītu “alewife” is not exactly what one expects. Moreover, other omens use the Sumerogramm munus-kurun(2)-na (Source 40 and Source 43). Nevertheless, the term “alewife” is certainly the best restoration for the traces here. Repeatedly in this tablet, but also in other texts and in the present corpus also in Source 54 (l. 4, text E), the term šà-múd/-mút is used to render amūtu “liver (omen)”, see George 2013, p. 133. George supposes that although the term šà-múd has been rendered in a lexical list as irrū dāmi “gut (full) of blood”, there is a rhyming similarity between šà-múd and amūt “liver omen of PN”. 1382 This small vertical wedge separates the idented line of the apodosis from the text of

the following omen.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

300

Edition of the Sources

George (2013, p. 187) restores [ku]r for the imperative of tebû. As George (2013, p. 134–135) points out, the equation kur = tebû is well established in omen tablets from Susa. It also occurs in another omen text from the Sealand edited by him in the same volume (George 2013, no. 29). Nevertheless, I prefer the normal Sumerian equation zi(-g) = tebû. Nothing remains from [z]i but the final winkelhaken, but it matches the spelling and the sign forms of the other examples of zi = tebû in the same text in lines obv. 16’, rev. 24’a, 31’. In the text under discussion (George 2013, no. 27), there is no unambiguous example of kur = tebû. George (2013, p. 187) follows the older editions of this omen (starting in 1950, see the discussion in the commentaries of Source 17 and Source 40) and restores a “bow of battle” (qašat qabli) in the apodosis: qá-⌈ša-at⌉ [qabli(murub4)/tāḫāzi(mè)? (…)]. This, however, is outdated, see the comment on Source 40. It is also at odds with George’s copy, since the space in the break is too small, even for mè = tāḫāzu. Source 19: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 3) Obj:

Omen from the lung. Text: Nougayrol 1941 (RA 38), p. 84, AO 7030, rev. 5–6 (= ll. “26–29”). Prov: Babylonia. Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Nougayrol 1945, p. 14, no. 49. – Nougayrol 1945–1946, pp. 90, 92, rev. 5–6 (“26–29”). – Metzler 2002, p. 222. Cont: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 3), about her seizing kingship. On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). – šumma ubān ḫašî qablītum libbam saḫpat awāt Kub-‹B›āba ša šarrūtam iṣbatu – If the middle finger of the lung is covered by the heart, (it concerns) the matter of *Ku-Baʾu who seized kingship. – šum-ma šu-si mur múru li-ib-ba-am sà-aḫ-pa-at a-wa-at ku-ub-‹ba›-a-ba ša ša-ar-ru-ta-am iṣ-ba-tu Com: The translation of the protasis follows CAD S, p. 33, s.v. saḫāpu 2b, 2’; see also AHw II, p. 1004, s.v. saḫāpu G 9) “überdecken mit (Akk.)” and the example under discussion. Nougayrol (1945–1946, p. 92) understood libbam as an accusative of place and translated the protasis as “si le «doigt» médian normal du ḫašû en (sa) partie centrale est aplati”. The unorthographic spelling of the name Ku-Baʾu as ku-ub-‹ba›-a-ba has parallels in the omens of Source 18 (ku-up-pa-[bu]) and Source 17 (⌈ku-ub⌉-ba-bu-ú, l. 13), see the commentary on Source 17. Annoyingly, I cannot make out any illustrative or associative connection to the legendary history of Ku-Baʾu. Is it perhaps in the element of “covering/hiding”? After all, the legendary tradition preserved in the Neo-Babylonian Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 52a) has it that she hid a fish for Marduk in a beer-jar.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

301

Source 20: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 5) Obj:

Omen from the liver (naplastum “view”). Text: YOS 10, no. 14, obv. 10–11. Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 262, no. 35. – Winitzer 2017, p. 442. Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 5). – šumma naplastum kīma kīsim ḫurrurat amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqtim – If the view is deeply grooved like a bag, (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster. (10) be igi-bar ki-ma ki-sí-im ḫu-ru-ra-at – a-mu-ut i-bi-den.zu (11) ša ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tim Com: The view (naplastu) of the liver, later also called the station (manzāzu), is a groove on the left lobe of the liver, designating the place from which the deity observed the extispicy. With that element missing, the extispicy was void, since then the deity was not considered to be present and would not answer (Maul 2003– 2005 (RlA 10), pp. 77–79, with sketch). For the idea šumma xy kīma kīsi (ḫ)urrur(at) “if element xy is deeply grooved like a (leather) bag” see also Source 21 and Source 67. The image employed deals probably with notches and furrows narrowing from all sides towards the centre, as depicted in the round in the liver model of Source 11. In comparing the element to a “(money) bag” (kīsu), often used to contain broken pieces of silver (“scrap silver”) used as means of payment, the grooves of the emptying bag deepening and narrowing towards the centre also convey the idea of diminution and impoverishment. On the meaning of ḫurruru in extispicy see also George 2013, p. 42 on I:19’–20’. Abraham Winitzer (2017, pp. 441–442) tries to derive the kīsu simile from a Maništusu omen which employs the image of “a sheep’s testicles” (iškī immerim; YOS 10, no. 9 rev. 3–4 = “21–22”). His line of arguments, however, eludes me. Source 21: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 6) Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – – Cont: – –

Omen from the lung. Text: YOS 10, no. 36, obv. I:13–14. Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Old Babylonian period. Goetze 1947, p. 261, no. 33. Metzler 2002, p. 225. Winitzer 2017, p. 442. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 6). šumma ḫašûm kīma kīsim ḫurrura[t] ⌈amūt⌉ Ibbi-Sîn ša mātum ipḫur[ū́šu]m / ipḫur[ūni]m If the lung is deeply grooved like a (leather) bag, (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sîn against whom the land united. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

302

–

diš mur ki-ma níĝ-na4 ḫu-ur-ru-ra-a[t] ⌈a-mu⌉-[u]t (14) i-bi-d+en.zu ša ma-tum ip-ḫu-r[u-šu]m?/[-ni]m Com: For the topic šumma xy kīma kīsi (ḫ)urrur(at) “if element xy is deeply grooved like a (leather) bag”, an image of impoverishment, see also Source 20 and Source 67. As is apparent from the feminine stative *ḫurrurat, the lung (ḫašûm) is construed here as a feminine noun. In YOS 10, no. 7, ll. 6, 29, it is twice construed as a masculine noun: ⌈ša⌉-lim. It is also masculine in the omen of Source 67. In line 14, the last sign might rather be -nim than -šum. In this case, mātum “land > people” appears to have been construed ad sensum with a verbal form in the 3. pl. masc. = ipḫur[ūni]m. The omen under discussion is followed by an omen with the apodosis Adad iraḫ[ḫiṣ] “Adad will bri[ng about devastation]”: – šumma ḫašûm ša imittim šapassa ṣalmat am[ū]t[um] ša bēl niqîm Adad iraḫ[ḫiṣ]1383 “If the rim of the right side of the lung is black, the om[en] concerns the lord of the offering: Adad will bri[ng about devastation].” A similar combination of šaḫluqtu (“annihilation, disaster”)1384 and Adad iraḫḫiṣ (“Adad will bring about devastation”) dealt with in two omens in succession is also found in the two Old Babylonian omens quoted below. There, the apodosis is dependent upon whether the blade of the scapula of the sacrificial animal is missing, on the right or left side respectively: No blade of the scapula on the right side: – šumma dūr nagl[ab]im ša imittim lā ibašši šaḫluqti mātim iššakkan1385 “If there is no blade of the sca[p]ula of the right side, there will be devastation of the land.” No blade of the scapula on the left side: – šumma dūr nagl[ab]im ša šumēlim lā ibašši Adad iraḫḫiṣ1386 “If there is no blade of the sca[p]ula of the left side, Adad will bring about devastation.” The pairing of these omens demonstrates how the ancient scholars classified the events. They understood them either as a political catastrophe, brought about by humans, or as a cosmic disaster, a new flood on a small scale brought about directly by the weather-god Adad. (13)

1383 YOS 10, no. 36, obv. I:15–16: diš ⌈mur⌉ ša á-zi ša-pa-as-sa ṣa-al-⌈ma⌉-at a-m[u]-t[um] / ša

bé-e!-el ni-qí-im diškur i-ra-⌈aḫ⌉-[ḫi-iṣ]. 1384 Even though the term šaḫluqtu “annihilation, disaster” is missing from the omen of Source 21, the connection to the šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn “Ibbi-Sîn Disaster” is obvious. 1385 YOS 10, no. 47, rev. 63: diš du-ur na-ag-l[a-b]i-im ša i-mi-tim la i-ba-aš-ši ša-aḫ-lu-uq-ti kalam iš-ša-ka-an. 1386 YOS 10, no. 47, rev. 64: diš du-ur na-ag-l[a-b]i-im ša šu-me-lim la i-ba-aš-ši diškur i-ra-ḫi-iṣ.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

303

Source 22: Omens of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 7, ISO 8, ISO 9) Obj:

Omens from the liver (bāb ekallim “gate-of-the-palace”). A: YOS 10, no. 26, obv. I:21–22; last in a group dealing with two bāb ekallim in many varieties (ll. 8–22). B1: YOS 10, no. 24, obv. 10. B2: YOS 10, no. 24, obv. 11. C1: YOS 10, no. 22, obv. 11. C2: YOS 10, no. 22, obv. 12. Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant texts are probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 262, no. 36 (= C2) with note 54. – Winitzer 2017, p. 424 (A), p. 425 (C), p. 427 (B). Cont: Omens of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 7 = A; ISO 8 = B1; ISO 9 = C2). Omens B2 and C2 deal with the element “four”, see the discussion in chapter 6.2. A šumma šina1387 bāb ekallim ili awīlim ekallam ireddi šanûm šumšu amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫl[u]qt[im] – If there are two (elements called) gate-of-the-palace, the god of the man will take control of the palace; second meaning: omen of Ibbi-Sîn meaning dis[as]ter. (I:21) maš 2 ká é-gal i-li a-wi-lim é-gal-lam i-re-di – (22) ša-nu-um šu-um-šu a-mu-ut Ii-bi-den.zu ša ša- aḫ-lu -[u]q-t[im] B1 šumma bāb ekallim šalāšat ilū(!) mātim ekallam ireddû šanû šumšu amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqtim – If there are three (elements called) gate-of-the-palace, the gods of the land will take control of the palace; second meaning: omen of Ibbi-Sîn meaning disaster. – diš ká é-gal 3 ì-lí ma-tim é-gal-am i-re-du-ú ša-nu šum-šu a-mu-ut i-bi-den.zu ša ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tim B2 šumma bāb ekallim erbet tibût šar ḫammê šanû šumšu ḫiṣbu(m) ana ekallim ul irrub – If there are four (elements called) gate-of-the-palace, a rebel king will rise; second meaning: the yield will not enter the palace. – diš ká é-gal 4 ti-b[u]-ut šar ḫa-am-me-e ša-nu šum-šu ḫi-iṣ!-bu a-na é-gal ú-ul i-ru-ub C1 šumma bāb ekallim šalāšat ilū(!) mātim ekallam iredd[û] – If there are three (elements called) gate-of-the-palace, the gods of the land will tak[e] control of the palace. – diš ká é-gal 3 ì-lí ma-tim é-gal-lam i-re-ed-d[u-ú] 1387 Thus with the copy. Winitzer (2017, p. 424) obviously emends the number to šalāšat

“three”, as in B1 and C1.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

304

Edition of the Sources

C2 –

šumma bāb ekallim erbet amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫlu[qtim] If there are four (elements called) gate-of-the-palace, omen of Ibbi-Sîn meaning disast[er]. – diš ká é-gal 4 a-mu-ut Ii-bi-den.zu ša ša-aḫ-lu-u[q-tim] Com: In these omens which deal with the gate-of-the-palace (bāb ekallim) and with the idea of powers other than the king “taking control” (redû) of the palace, the line of association runs clearly along the idea that there is “more than one access to the palace”. The worst case is when the number 4 becomes involved, arousing the idea of the “four regions of the world” hitting at the centre, see the general discussion in chapter 6.2. The same idea lies behind the omens of Source 11 and Source 52, which is the first millennium successor of the omens B2 and C2, and also in Source 53, probably also in Source 21. Source 23: Omen: The Fall of Akkade Obj:

Omens from the liver (ḫallum “ḫal-sign”). A: YOS 10, no. 61, obv. 6a-b. B: YOS 10, no. 61, obv. 7a-b. Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 259, no. 22 (= omen B). – Lieberman 1977, p. 147. – Winitzer 2017, p. 381. Cont: Omens dealing with a mark looking like the cuneiform sign ḫal, and with the fall of (the dynasty of) Akkade; see also Source 11. A šumma ina maškan šulmim ḫallum šar kiššati(m) ina māti(m) illiʾam – If there is a ḫal-sign in the place of the well-being, (it means:) a king of All1388 will rise in the country. (6a) – šum-ma i-na ma-aš-ka-an šu-⌈ul⌉-mi-im ḫal (6b) lugal ki-ša-ti i-na ma-ti i-li-am B šumma ina maškan šulmim [ḫ]allum pali Akkadîm gamir – If there is a [ḫ]al-sign in the place of the well-being, (it means:) a reign (like the one of the dynasty) of Akkade is at an end. (7a) šum-ma i-na ma-aš-ka-an šu-ul-mi-im (7b) [ḫ]a-lu-um – pa-li a-⌈ka⌉-di-⌈im⌉ ga-mi-ir Com: First of all, I have to admit that I cannot explain the greatly diverging apodoses in these two omens with the same protasis following directly on one another in the same manuscript. In the following, I shall deal mainly with omen no. B. The Old Babylonian cuneiform sign ḫal looked originally like 𒄬, in cursive script already like 𒐀, as in later times. As a logogram, it can mean ḫal = pirištu “secret”, and it can write the diviner (lúḫal = bārû) and his craft (bārûtu “divination”). This 1388 Or with a negative nuance “a despotic king”? See the discussion on pp. 44f.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

305

recalls the topic “looking for positive omens in vain” from the Cuthean Legend,1389 thus connecting it to Narām-Sîn of Akkade and the eventual fall of his dynasty.1390 But there may be a closer relationship to the topic of finding hints to the unfinished divine writing process during divination, in particular when the sign ḫal = “secret/divination” is found. There is a first millennium text from Nineveh (CT 30, pl. 1, K 85) that deals with marks in the form of cuneiform signs written on the liver, among them the sign ḫal (see below, obv. 2).1391 Divinatory texts which deal with marks looking like cuneiform signs – among them the text discussed below – have been dealt with in detail by Lieberman 1977 and recently by Winitzer 2017, pp. 374–381, chapter 5.2.1.1. Lieberman and Winitzer discussed in particular the sequence made up from AN (𒀭), ḪAL (𒄬), PAP (𒉽 = kúr) and KASKAL (𒆜), with a focus on grapheme names and on the shape of the signs. I shall focus on the associative meaning of the Sumerian words behind the signs. The first line of K 85 runs as follows: – šumma ina qabal imitti marti *diĝirru1392 šakin ul šalmat ina lā šalimti šalmat1393 “If a diĝir-sign (i.e. diĝir = ilu “god”) is placed into the middle of the right side of the gall bladder, (the omen) is not favourable. In an unfavourable (area), (the omen) is favourable.” In the following lines the scribe repeats the statement, using dittos (= min)1394 and dealing with the following individual signs: = pirištu “secret”, bārûtu “divination” – (obv. 2) ḫal (3) kúr = nakru “enemy” – (4) kaskal = gerru/ḫarrānu “campaign” – (5) zal = nasāḫu “to pass, to vanish” – (6) giguru (u)1395 = gigurû “winkelhaken” – 1389 Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 316 (ll. 72–78), p. 320 (ll. 108–119), p. 322 (ll. 125–127);

Standard Babylonian recension.

1390 The fall of the dynasty of Akkade is also dealt with in Source 11. 1391 CT 30, pl. 1, K 85, obv. 1–rev. 1; the text has been collated, the copy is correct (see also

1392

1393

1394 1395

the photograph: CDLI no. P365976). The text has been edited by Koch 2005, pp. 438– 439, no. 75. Koch, however, misreads some crucial cuneiform signs, such as diĝir in obv. 1a (“QA”) or ḫal in obv. 2 (“KUD”). The text ends in three short and only partly intellegible comments (rev. 2–4) on the general appearance of the gall bladder, skipped here. The script of the tablet is Neo-Assyrian, but the signs diĝir and ḫal in lines 1–2 are written in an archaizing, Old Babylonian style. As the name of the sign an/diĝir, the form ana is attested best up to now. But we can also deduce *diĝirru from the sign name diĝir(r)akku used in compounds (Gong 2000, p. 102). CT 30, pl. 1, K 85, obv. 1: be ina múru 15 zí diĝir ĝar nu silim-at ina nu silim-ti silim-at. In order to understand the statement, one has to imply the term têrtu “omen, extispicy” (cf. CAD Š/I pp. 214–216, s.v. šalāmu 3) in the first part and to take lā šalimtu in the second part as “unfavourable (area)” (see CAD Š/I, p. 246, s.v. šalimtu 3). be ina min (cuneiform sign) ĝar min. Or read ge23 (aš-tenû = u) = miḫiltu “cuneiform wedge”? This term, however, appears explicitly and syllabically written in rev. 1. Since the other cases deal with extraordinary marks looking like cuneiform signs, I think the scribe did not mean

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

306

(7) – en-in = “…”1396 (8) ši-rum = šīru “sacrificial meat” – = miḫiltu “(any?)1397 cuneiform wedge” – (rev. 1) mi-ḫi-il5-tu As opposed to the archaizing signs diĝir and ḫal in obv. 1–2, the other signs take the normal Neo-Assyrian forms. Obviously, the text deals with the notion that the gods are writing cuneiform signs on the liver during the extispicy. The liver, respectively all the entrails of the sacrificial animal were regarded as the “tablet of the gods”. When the gods established the science of extispicy, they revealed to Enmeduranki, the mythical antediluvian king of Sippar, the “tablet of the gods, the innards/liver, the secret of heaven and earth”.1398 In the present text (CT 30, pl. 1, K 85), there is a group of signs that addresses the classic topic of the “enemy” and the “military campaign” (obv. 3–4), and perhaps the idea of “vanishing” (obv. 5). The other and larger group comprises the topics “god” (obv. 1a), “divination” (obv. 2), “sacrificial meat” (obv. 8), and “cuneiform sign” (obv. 6, rev. 1). This is when the divine process of writing omens into the meat of the sacrificial animal during divination is reflected in the action itself. I think the basic idea behind this text is that the gods had not finished writing yet when the extispicy was made, and so the result of the divination could not be expected to be sound and final.

Source 24: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 10) Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – – Cont:

1396 1397

1398

1399

Omens from an anomaly (of a sheep1399). A: YOS 10, no. 56, obv. I:40–41. B: George 2013, pl. 24, no. 12, (rev.) 89. Southern Babylonia. A: Probably from Larsa (see p. 83). B: Sealand (George 2013, pp. 49, 54). Old Babylonian period. Goetze 1947, p. 262, no. 37. Leichty 1970, p. 203, no. 17 (ll. 40–41). George 2013, pp. 59, 67, no. 12, (rev.) 89. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 10).

here the common divinatory mark of the “hole” (šīlu = bùru = u). He probably meant a mark looking like the signs 𒌋 (u) or 𒀹 (aš-tenû), not like a simple hole (•). Read perhaps bēl pišti “lord of the insult”, as a designation for an adversary? It is hardly conceivable that fissures looking like the cuneiform signs of a complex sequence like mi-ḫi-il5-tu were ever observed on a liver, but this may miss the point here. However, if the scribe meant “any other cuneiform wedge”, it would not have been necessary for him to deal with particular signs above. Quotation from the Consecration of Enmeduranki (1st mill. BCE): ṭuppi ilānī tākalta pirišti/niṣirti šamê u erṣeti (Lambert 1998, pp. 148–149, ll. 8, 14, 16; Maul 2013, pp. 48, 60). The term already occurs in the Old Babylonian Diviner’s Prayer: ina ṭuppi ša ilī ta-ka-altum/tím? līšib (YOS 11, no. 23, obv. 16; Starr, Rituals, p. 30; Lambert 1998, p. 147; Steinkeller 2005, p. 29). For more references to the gods, notably Šamaš, writing their messages into the liver see Steinkeller 2005; Maul 2013, p. 48. See Leichty 1970, p. 3; George 2013, pp. 49–50.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

307

– –

šumma izbum uppuq amūt Ibbi-Sîn šaḫluqtum (var.: ša šaḫluqtim) If an anomaly is (like a completely) solid (block), (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sîn, (meaning) disaster. A diš iz-bu-um up-pu-uq a-mu-ut (rasura) i-bi-d+en.zu / ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tum ša ša-aḫ-⌈lu⌉-uq-tim B [diš iz-bu-um up-p]u-uq a-mu-ut i-bi-den.zu Com: In this omen, the point is probably on the fact that apart from the fundamentally evil portent which an anomaly presents in itself, the gods do not give any further information. The anomaly is “solid”, compact, not telling any details.1400 The gods announce disaster, but have ceased to communicate. The idea of an omen being completely anomalous is also conveyed by the liver omen in Source 60. There, the gods give too much information: the liver as a whole is anomalous. The result, however, is the same: there is no communication any more between gods and men. See also the liver model of Source 11 which probably conveys a similar idea, with the main elements of the liver missing and disaster creeping in from all sides. Source 25: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 11) Obj:

Omen from the liver (naplastum “view”). Text: YOS 10, no. 13, obv. 1. Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 262, no. 34. Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 11). – [šumma naplastum … amūt Ibbi-Sî]n ša šaḫluq[ti]m – [If the view …, (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sî]n, meaning disas[t]er. – [be igi-bar … a-mu-ut i-bi-den.z]u ša ša-aḫ-lu-uq-[ti]m Com: For another Ibbi-Sîn omen dealing with the view (naplastu) of the liver, see Source 20. However, the break in the tablet under discussion is too small to restore here the protasis from the omen of Source 20. Source 26: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 12) Obj: Prov: Date: Lit: – Cont: –

Omen from the liver (martum “gall bladder”, ubānu “finger”). Text: YOS 10, no. 31, rev. XII:45–XIII:5. Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Old Babylonian period. Goetze 1947, p. 262, no. 38. Winitzer 2017, p. 37. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 12). šumma martum qaqqad ṣerrim ubānum qaqqad erbîm ibtani tērtum šī ša šaḫluqti Ibbi-Sîn

1400 More examples quoted in CAD E, pp. 183–184, s.v. epēqu A, 1.c.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

308

Edition of the Sources

–

“If the gall bladder has produced a snake’s head, and the finger a locust’s head, this omen pertains to the disaster of Ibbi-Sîn.” (XII 45) šum-ma mar-tum (46) qá-qá-ad ṣe-ri-im (47) ú-ba-nu-um (48) qá-qá-ad (49) ⌈er⌉– bi-im (XIII 1) ⌈ib⌉-ta-ni (2) te-er-tum ši-i (3–4) ša ša-aḫ-/-lu-uq-ti (5) i-bi-d+en.zu Com: In this omen, the association with the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster is triggered by the elements “snake” and “locust”. The imagery of the gall bladder growing a snake’s head evokes the idea of “a king from the Iranian mountains ruling the land of Sumer and Akkad”. The gall bladder stands for the king,1401 and the snake’s head produces an associative reference to the lands of Gutium and Elam.1402 As the locust brings about war-like devastation by devouring the crops, these insects and their “attacks” are often used as an image for human enemies waging war in Babylonian literature, see the discussion on p. 240 above. So, the imagery of the omen under discussion appears to indicate that a king (gall bladder) of Gutium and Elam (snake) will have a devastating effect (finger) on Babylonia like a swarm of locusts. In the same corpus of YOS 10, there is also an omen (YOS 10, no. 44, rev. 53) that combines the element “locust” with the “barbarian hordes” of the Ummān-Manda, see p. 240 with note 1146. Due to the ambiguity of the signs -lu-/-ma- and -uq-/-as- in the Old Babylonian cursive script, Goetze (1947, p. 262) read ša-aḫ-ma-as-ti “annihilation” in XIII 3–4 instead of ša-aḫ-lu-uq-ti. The term, however, is saḫmaštu (“turmoil/chaos”), not *šaḫmastu,1403 and it is not used anywhere in the Ibbi-Sîn tradition. Source 27: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 1) Obj:

Omens from the liver (martum “gall bladder”) Text: YOS 10, no. 32, obv. 1–3. Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant text is probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 261, s.v. “Būr-Sîn”, no. 32; – Aro & Nougayrol 1973, p. 56, on l. 6’. – Michalowski 1977a, p. 224, note 27. – Metzler 2002, p. 224. – Glassner 2018, p. 254. Cont: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 1), of unclear meaning. The highly hypothetical reconstruction offered below is only to serve as the starting point for the discussion of the assumption held by some scholars that this omen had it that Amar-Sîn might have mishandled or even killed his father Šulgi. See on this omen also the brief comment on p. 164 above. On the classic traditions about Amar-Sîn see chapter 7.3, king no. 12 (ll. 72–73 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). 1401 See p. 290 with note 1362 in the commentary on Source 11. See also the commentaries

on Source 13, Source 14 and Source 15.

1402 See the discussion on pp. 239 in chapter 11.4, B. 1403 In the same corpus of omens: sà-aḫ-ma-aš-tum (YOS 10, no. 53, obv. 3’; no. 56, obv. I:4);

sà-aḫ-ma-aš-tim (YOS 10, no. 17, obv. 16).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

–

309

šumma šitta marrātum kīma pitiltim [patlā] (2) amūt Am[ar-Su]ʾena ša šarram (?) abāš[u ina kakkim (?)] (3) dannim i[dūkū́šu (??)] ⌈…⌉ […] – If (there are) two gall bladders (and they) [are entwined (with each other)] like a palm-fiber, (it is) an omen of Am[ar-Su]ʾena, who k[illed (??)] the king (?) hi[s] father [with] a strong [weapon (?) and] ⌈…⌉ […]. (1) ⌈diš ši-ta ma-ra-tum ki-ma pi-ti-il-tim⌉ [pa-at-la] (2) a-⌈mu-ut⌉ dam[ar– d e]n.⌈zu⌉ ⌈ša?⌉1404 ⌈lugal?!⌉ ⌈a-ba⌉-a-š[u i-na ĝištukul (?)] (3) da-⌈an⌉-nim ⌈i⌉-[duku-šu (??)]1405 ⌈x x x⌉ [x x x] Com: Goetze (1947, p. 261, s.v. “Būr-Sîn”, no. 32) misinterpreted the royal name in l. 2 (dam[ar-de]n.⌈zu⌉) as a writing for Būr-Sîn of Isin. The two names do have the same meaning (“bull-calf-of-Sîn”), but they are consistently spelled differently. The orthography using the sign amar is typical of Amar-Sîn of Ur (see also Starr 1977, p. 1963). For another omen, which actually mixes Būr-Sîn with Amar-Sîn, see Source 51. I list this rather broken and unclear omen of Amar-Sîn here only because it has been occasionally discussed as possibly referring to an act of violence committed by Amar-Sîn against his father Šulgi.1406 The idea that Šulgi might even have been murdered has been put forward by Sollberger (1954–1956, p. 22) and Michalowski (1977a, pp. 223–224; 2013, p. 293). This idea, however, has been discussed and dismissed by Sallaberger (1999, p. 162). Recently, Glassner (2018) has brought up the unconvincing idea that Šulgi abdicated from the throne, basing his argument on dubious evidence like this omen. The whole topic is also affected by a late astronomical omen from Enūma Anu Enlil (tablet 20). There, an eclipse of the moon in the third month means that “the son of the king of Ur will maltreat his father” and that “he in turn will die during the mourning rites for the death of his father. Another son who was not destined to become king will occupy the throne.”1407 This omen has been taken as a serious historical tradition by various scholars ever since Schaumberger (1950, pp. 53–56), who tried to connect the eclipse to Šulgi or Ibbi-Sîn and to calculate its date. However, this attempt and the assumption that the omens of the tablets 20–21 of Enūma Anu Enlil are related to actual and datable historical events has been dismissed by Hunger (2002, pp. 174–175). The restorations tentatively proposed here for this omen are far from certain, but they try to make some sense of the topic of “two rival kings fighting”, as indicated in the protasis, and of the topic of “committing an act of violence against ons’s father”, see below. I have deliberately reconstructed the omen as far as possible in order to demonstrate how many question marks beset this short text. One is always safe with leaving gaps and picking only the terms that seem to make sense, but this leaves matters unaddressed and creates a subliminal argumentative undertow. (1)

1404 Or read -na! (dam[ar-de]n.⌈zu-na!⌉)? 1405 Goetze’s copy (YOS 10, no. 32, obv. 3) proposes ⌈ma-⌉ at the beginning of the word.

However, a collation by Eckart Frahm, communicated to me by Jean-Jaques Glassner, shows traces that do not point to *ma, but rather belong to ⌈i⌉. 1406 Aro & Nougayrol 1973, p. 56, on l. 6’; Michalowski 1977a, p. 224, note 27. 1407 After Rochberg-Halton 1988, pp. 189–192, EAE 20, § III; Hunger 2002, p. 172.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

310

Edition of the Sources

If restored correctly, this omen would be the earliest documented case for a son killing his royal father, a motif which becomes very popular in the first millennium with kings who were held to have committed sacrileges against Marduk and Esaĝil.1408 In fact, according to the traditions of the first millennium, Šulgi did commit these very sacrileges.1409 However, that tradition can only be grasped in the first millennium. It may have developed from an older tradition about a sacrilege committed against Enlil and Nippur, but up to now we have no evidence of that. In extispicy, the topic of “two gall bladders being present and being entwined with each other like a palm-fiber” (*šitta marrātum kīma pitiltim patlā) illustrates the idea that “two kings”,1410 or “a king and a pretender”, are “fighting with one another”.1411 This provides the point of departure for the associative chain that leads to the broken apodosis, see below. The usual spelling of the Sumerian name of Amar-Sîn (Amar-Suʾena) is (d)amard+ en.zu-na. So read perhaps dam[ar-de]n.⌈zu-na!⌉ instead of dam[ar-de]n.⌈zu⌉ ⌈ša?⌉ (…)? Then, the title ⌈lugal?!⌉ “king (?)” would pertain to Amar-Sîn, there would be no relative clause and the rest of the omen would become even more obscure. In fact, the traces in line 2 do actually not look very much like lugal at all. However, I have tentatively adopted the reading from Nougayrol’s and Metzler’s editions.1412 Apart from that, a phrase like *šarram abāšu instead of *Šulgi abāšu sounds odd. Ever since Goetze (1947, p. 261) the signs ⌈a-ba⌉-a-š[u] have been understood as the accusative abāšu “his father”. So this omen might have had it that Amar-Sîn did something to his father. For lack of a better idea – a foreign royal name? – I stick to this reading. However, since the ruling king would then still have been Šulgi, it should rather be an “omen of Šulgi” instead of an “omen of Amar-Sîn” (amūt Am[ar-Su]ʾena, l. 2). In the break after abāš[u], Nougayrol restored [i-na a-li-im (?)] and translated “[who confined (?) the king (?)] his father [to] a strong [place (?)]”.1413 But the usual noun to go with dannum “strong” in contexts like this is kakkum “weapon”, not ālum “city”. The notion of “fighting with one another” is also the topic to be expected to go with the “two entwined gall bladders (= kings)” from the protasis (see above). So this chain of associations gives rise to the speculation that Amar-Sîn might have “[killed] his father (Šulgi) [with a] strong [weapon]”. However, all the important terms are broken and the supposed action is not backed up by other traditions.

1408 See the discussion on pp. 123ff. above. 1409 See the discussion of Šulgi in chapter 7.3, king no. 11. 1410 In extispicy, the gall bladder represents the “shepherd” or the “king”, see p. 290 with

note 1362 in the commentary on Source 11. See also the commentaries on Source 13, Source 14 and Source 15. 1411 See Aro & Nougayrol 1973, p. 53, no. 3, obv. 18’–23’ for two Old Babylonian omens that transport the idea of “fighting with the enemy” with two entwined gall bladders. 1412 Aro & Nougayrol 1973, p. 56, on l. 6’: L[UGAL] (?); Metzler 2002, p. 224: ⌈LUGAL?⌉. 1413 Paraphrase after Aro & Nougayrol 1973, p. 56, on l. 6’: “[ayant cerné (?) le roi] (?) son père [dans une place (?)] forte”; recently repeated by Glassner 2018, p. 254.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Early and Middle Second Millennium

311

Source 28: Omens of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 2, ASO 3, ASO 4) Obj:

Omens from the liver, dealing with the “gate-of-the-palace” (bāb ekallim: A–B) and the “path” (padānu: C). A: YOS 10, no. 26, obv. II:51–53. B: YOS 10, no. 25, obv. 32(a-b). C: YOS 10, no. 18, rev. 61(a-b). Prov: Southern Babylonia; the extant texts are probably from Larsa (see p. 83). Date: Old Babylonian period. Lit: Goetze 1947, p. 261 s.v. “Būr-Sîn”, nos. 29–31. – Michalowski 1977b, p. 156. – Pomponio 1990, pp. 12–13. – Metzler 2002, p. 224. Cont: Omens of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 2 = A; ASO 3 = B; ASO 4 = C). On Amar-Sîn see chapter 7.3, king no. 12 (ll. 72–73 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). (51) šumma sippi šumēl bab e[kallim šīlum iplušma] (52a) ⌈ūṣi⌉ A: (52b) amūt Ama[r-Suʾena ša šēnum ana šēpim] (53) iššaknū́ma ina n[išik šēnim imūtu] (51) – If [a hole pierces] the ‘sill’ of the left side of the gate-of-the-pa[lace] (52a) ⌈and goes through (lit.: “out”)⌉, (52f) (it is) an omen of Ama[r-Suʾena who had a sandal] put [on (his) foot and who died] from the ‘b[ite’ of the sandal.] (51) maš sí-⌈ip⌉-pi šu-me-el ká ⌈é⌉-[gal ši-lum ip-lu-uš-ma] / (52a) ⌈ú-ṣi⌉ – (52b) a-mu-⌈ut⌉ Iama[r-d+en.zu-na ša še-nu-um a-na še-pi-im] (53) iš-ša-ak-nu-ma i-na n[i-ši-ik še-ni-im i-mu-tu] B:

(32’a)

(32’b)

–

(32’a)

–

(32’a)

(32’b)

C:

(61a)

(61b)

–

(61a)

(61b)

–

(61a)

(61b)

[šumma šumēlam sipp]i bāb ekallim šīlum iplušma uštebri amūt Amar- Suʾena [ša šēnum ana šē]pim iššaknū́šum ina nišik šēnim imūtu [If on the left side] a hole pierces [the ‘sil]l’ of the gate-of-the-palace and it goes through, (it is) an omen of Amar-Suʾena (32’b) [who had a sandal] put [on (his) fo]ot and who died from the ‘bite’ of the sandal. [diš šu-me-lam sí-ip-p]i ká é-gal ši-lum ip-lu-uš-ma uš-te-eb-ri a-mu-ut amar-d+en.zu-na [ša še-nu-um a-na še]-pi-im iš-ša-ak-nu-šum i-na ni-ši-ik še-ni-im i-mu-tu [šumma ina padāni]m šīlum nadi u rēš padān imttim tarik amūt Amar-[Suʾena] [ša ina niš]ik šēnim imūtu [If in the pat]h there is a hole and the top of the path of the right side is dark, (it is) an omen of Amar-[Suʾena] [who] died [from the ‘bi]te’ of (his) sandal. [diš i-na pa-da-ni]m ši-lum na-di ù re-eš pa-da-an i-mi-tim ta-ri-ik a-mu-ut ⌈amar-d+⌉[en.zu-na] [ša i-na ni-š]i-ik še20-e-nim i-mu-tu-ú © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

312

Edition of the Sources

Com: These omens deal with the death of Amar-Sîn of Ur, see the discussion on pp. 161ff. above. The first millennium successor of these omens is the omen of Source 50. The line of association runs along the topics of the “path” or the “sill” (= foot) of the “gate-of-the-palace” (= the king) being pierced. This kind of piercing and the element turning dark (C) create the link to the legendary tradition that has it that Amar-Sîn died from an infected wound of his foot. Versions A (ASO 2) and B (ASO 3) differ from one another only in slight variations of phrasing. 2. Late Second and First Millennium Source 29: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 13) Obj:

Omens from the [lung (ḫašû)].1414 A: CT 51, pl. 53, no. 152, rev. 18’. B: K 9589 (unpublished, photo: CDLI no. P398208), rev. 12. C: Gurney, OECT 11, no. 79 (photo: CDLI no. P348953), (rev.) 101. Prov: (Babylonia, C); Aššur (A?) and Nineveh (B). Even though the oldest manuscript with this omen comes from Assyria and even though the syllabic value bi5 is Assyrian as well (see below), the tradition is certainly a Babylonian one. Date: Middle Assyrian (A),1415 Neo-Assyrian (B) and Late Babylonian (C). Lit: Nougayrol 1973. – Hallo 1978, p. 76, note 59. – De Zorzi 2016, p. 130. Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 13). – [. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . ] amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti – [. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . ] omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster. ‹šá› níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma!(ki) A [. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . ] bà-ut Ii-bi5-d30 I d šá níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma B [. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . bà-ut i-bi2/5]- 30 šá níĝ-[ḫ]a-lam-[ma] C [. . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . bà-ut Ii-bí-d30] Com: The syllabic value bi5 (= bíl) in the king’s name in line 18’ is typical of Middle Assyrian1416 and is found only here in the Ibbi-Sîn tradition. The usual spelling of the name dating back to the Ur III period employs the sequence *i-bí-, see chapter 2.3. The Neo-Assyrian manuscript (B) and in particular the Late Babylonian one (C) probably used the classic spelling *i-bí-. The misspelling of the term níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma!(ki) in manuscript A was probably triggered by the orthography which is used to write Elam (elamki), the place of Ibbi-Sîn’s death. The signs -lam- and NIM = elam are quite similar to one another.

1414 The manuscripts come from the same corpus as the lung omens of Source 30.

According to De Zorzi (2016, p. 130), texts B and C belong to Šumma ḫašû tablet 8.

1415 Nougayrol 1973 attributes the text to the “library of Tiglath-pileser I” at Aššur. 1416 Von Soden & Röllig 1991, no. 124: examples from Ebeling, KAR.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

313

Source 30: Omen of Utu-ḫeĝal Obj:

Omen from the lung (ḫašû). A: Ebeling, KAR, no. 422, obv. 15. B: Ebeling, KAR, no. 433, l. 9’. C: CT 51, pl. 53, no. 152 (photo: CDLI no. P286013), rev. 16’–17’. D: K 4004, obv. 10’ (unpubl., photo: CDLI no. P395352). E: K 4121, l. 13’ (unpubl., CDLI no. P395411, no photo, transliteration on Geers’ Copy Q 107) + K 6995, l. 10’ (unpubl., photo: CDLI no. P396952); the break between the fragments passes through š|u-ku6. F: K 9589 (unpubl., photo: CDLI no. P398208), rev. 10–11. G: Gurney, OECT 11, no. 79 (photo: CDLI no. P348953), (rev.) 100. H: De Zorzi 2016 (JCS 68), p. 140, BM 61665 (+) 93054, rev. 2; older copy of BM 61665 by Starr 1986, col. 640. Prov: (Babylonia); Aššur (A–B, C?), Nineveh (D–F) and Sippar (H; CBT VII, p. 45). Date: Middle Assyrian (A–C), Neo-Assyrian (D–F) and Late Babylonian (G–H). Lit: Weidner 1928–1929, p. 235. – Nougayrol 1945, p. 14, no. 48. – Nougayrol 1973. – Reiner 1974, pp. 260–261. – Starr 1986, cols. 640–642, rev. 2. – Heeßel 2012, p. 203, obv. 15’. – De Zorzi 2016, pp. 130–132, 139, rev. 2. Cont: Omen dealing with the death of Utu-ḫeĝal of Uruk (UHO 1). On Utu-ḫeĝal see chapter 7.3, king no. 10 (ll. 65–69 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). A–C: [šumma ḫašû i]mitta u šumēla naparqud amūt Utu-ḫeĝal (šukudakki) ša ina sekēr nāri (C: [miḫr]u elīšu ibbalkitū́ma) imūtu D–H: šumma imitti ḫašî u šumēl ḫašî naparqud amūt Utu-ḫeĝal (šukudakki) ša ina sekēr nāri (F, G: miḫru elīšu [ibbalkitū́]ma) imū[tu] – If the lung lies flat on the right and on the left side, (it is) an omen of Utu-ḫeĝal (the fisherman), who died during damming a river (C, F, G: when a weir collapsed on him). A [be mur z]ag ù gùbu na-pár-qud bà-ut I.dutu-ḫé-ĝál šá i-na se-ker í[d ba-úš] B [be mur zag ù gùb]u na-pár-qud bà-ut I.dutu-ḫé-ĝál šá in[a se-ker íd ba-úš] bà-ut ‹I.dutu›-ḫe-ĝál šu*-ku6 C [be mur zag ù gùbu na-p]ár!-qud! [mi-iḫ-r]i ugu-šu bala-ma ba-úš šá ina se-ker6! ⌈íd⌉ / šu-k[u6] D be 15 mur u 150 ⌈mur⌉ na-pár-⌈qud⌉ ⌈bà⌉-ut dutu-ḫé-ĝál [šá ina se-ker íd i-mu-tu] šu-ku6 E be 15 mur u 150 mur na-pár-qud bà-ut I.dutu-ḫé!(i)-ĝál šá ina se-ker íd i-mu-[tu] lú šu-ku6 F [be 15 mur u 150 mur na-pár-qud bà-ut I.dut]u-ḫé-ĝál [šá ina se-ker íd mi-iḫ-ri ugu-šú bala]-ma úš-tu4

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

314

Edition of the Sources

G

[be 15 mur u 150 mur na-pár-qud bà-ut I.dutu-ḫé-ĝál (šu-ku6)] [šá ina s]e-ker ⌈íd⌉ mi-iḫ-ri ugu-šú [bala-ma ba-úš] H be 15 mur u 150 mur na-pár-qud bà-ut d[utu-ḫé-ĝál (lúšu-ku6)] [šá ina se-ker] ⌈íd⌉ [ ba-úš] Com: The omen is extant in a Middle Assyrian (A–C) and a Neo-Assyrian and Late Babylonian (D–H) version that slightly vary from each other in the phrasing of the protasis. The middle part of the apodosis presented in round brackets and dealing with the weir collapsing is attested only in the Middle Assyrian manuscript C, the Neo-Assyrian manuscript F and in the Late Babylonian manuscript G. According to their spacing, the other manuscripts were shorter. This is also the case with manuscript H, since we can estimate the width of the break by comparison with the Ibbi-Sîn omen of Source 67 which is immediately following on this omen in manuscript H. Since the middle part of the apodosis is extant in texts from the Middle Assyrian to the Late Babylonian period, its occurence or absence is not a matter of a later, secondary expansion. This is important, since it means that we may lack quite a lot of information which was not always written down. The protasis of the first millennium manuscripts D, E and H (restored in F and G) replace the adverbial nouns imitta “on the right” and šumēla “on the left” from the Middle Assyrian versions (A and B, restored in C) with genitive constructions using the substantives imittu and šumēlu “right and left side” as subjects of the protasis. Since imittu and šumēlu are mostly construed as feminine nouns, one should have expected the form *naparqudat in the predicate, or even the plural *naparqudā. However, the first millennium manuscripts retain the masculine singular naparqud from the Middle Assyrian version, which is dependent on the lung (ḫašû) as its subject. As Reiner (1974, p. 260) has pointed out, the associative connection between the protasis and the apodosis with the fatal accident of king Utu-ḫeĝal emerges from the homophonous correspondence between naparqudu “to lie flat” and nabalkutu “to turn over” and from the overall idea of “being flattened”. Already Nougayrol (1945, p. 14, note 52 on the omen under discussion; idem 1945–1946, p. 96; 1950, p. 18) briefly stated that naparqudu and nabalkutu could be used as synonyms in extispicy. In the two infinitives naparqudu and nabalkutu the root consonants are phonetic variants (P/B, R/L, Q/K, D/T), and so the linguistically unrelated terms are understood as variants by the Babylonian scholar. De Zorzi (2016, p. 132) reviewed the evidence and added the obeservation that the sign bala which usually means nabalkutu could also stand for naparqudu in extispicy. It was only De Zorzi (2016, p. 130) who established the correct reading *miḫru “weir” after manuscript G, which had in fact been known since 1989. Previously, Nougayrol (1973, p. 191 on no. 4) had proposed to read [… sik(?)-r]i and translated “[le sommet(?) de la digu]e(?)”. Reiner (1974, p. 260) restored [ši-pi-ik e-pe]-ri “a mound of earth”. Interestingly, the phrase with the “weir collapsing” which verbally formulates the underlying association naparqudu > nabalkutu between protasis and apodosis only occurs in manuscripts C, F and G. This is important for our understanding of the tradition of historical omens. We have to reckon with a considerable amount of

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

315

information that was not always fully written down, but which was passed on in oral explanations, the “oral lore of the scholars” (ša pī ummânī), see also p. 140. The same story is told in line 69 of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35); see also the commentary on p. 396. There, too, the full story line including the “weirs” (miḫrētu) is not told in all manuscripts. It occurs only in manuscripts S and F. Source 31: Shalmaneser I and the Soil of Arinnu Obj:

Excerpt from a royal inscription of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I. 22 stone tablets; restoration of Eḫursaĝkurkurra, the temple of the god Aššur at the city of Aššur, after the temple had been destroyed by fire. Copy (ex. A): Messerschmidt, KAH I, no. 13, obv. II:6b–13; with minor orthographic variants from other manuscripts, ignored here. Prov: Aššur. Date: Middle Assyrian period: Shalmaneser I (ca. 1273–1244 BCE). Lit: Grayson, RIMA 1, p. 183, no. A.0.77.1, ll. 46b–53. – Mayer 1995, pp. 203, 480; idem 2002, p. 6. Cont: Shalmaneser I takes the soil of the city Arinnu in Muṣri captive after the destruction of the city: Imitatio Sargonis (see Source 44 and Source 45)? (46b) (āla) Arinna kiṣṣa šuršuda (47) kiṣir ḫuršāni ša ina maḫra (48) ibbalkitu išēṭu – Aššur (49) ina tukulti Aššur u ilānī rabûti (50) bēlīya āla šâtu akšud aqqur (51) u kuddimmē elīšu azru eprīšu (52) ēsipamma ina abul ālīya Aššur (53) ana aḫrât ūmī lū ašpuk (46b) “(The city of) Arinnu, the sturdily founded shrine (47) nestled in – bedrock, which had previously (48) rebelled and despised (the god) Aššur: (49) Trusting in Aššur and the great gods, (50) my lords, I captured and destroyed that city (51a) and sowed salty plants over it. (51b–53) I gathered its soil and heaped it up in the (Tabira?) gate of my city Aššur, for evermore.” (46b) – eri a-ri-na ki-ṣa šur-šu-da (47) ki-ṣir ḫur-šá-ni šá i-na maḫ-ra (48) ib-bal-ki-tu iše-ṭu aš-šur (49) i-na ĝištukul-ti aš-šur ù diĝirmeš galmeš (50) enmeš-ia eri šá-a-tu akšud aq-qur (51) ù ku-di-me e-li-šu az-ru ep-ri-šu (52) e-si-pa-ma i-na abul eri-ia aššur (53) a-na aḫ-ra-at u4meš lu aš-pu-uk Com: The city of Arinnu is mentioned after the report on a campaign against Urartu (l. 27), and before a campaign against Muṣri (l. 54) and Ḫanigalbat (l. 58). It is to be distinguished from the sacred Hittite city Arinna, which is located somewhere in the vicinity of Ḫattuša.1417 The city of Arinnu under discussion here appears to be located in the land of Muṣri, to the east of Assyria’s heartland.1418 The city is probably identical with the capital of Muṣri, Ardine, later known as Muṣaṣir, the holy city housing the shrine of the god Ḫaldi.1419 1417 Haas 1994, p. 584; Popko 2009, pp. 14–15. 1418 K. Kessler, “Muṣri I, Muṣri II”, in: RlA 8 (1993–1997), p. 497; Mayer 1995, pp. 34, 203;

Grayson, RIMA 2, p. 23, Tiglath-pileser I no. 1, V:77: “the city of Arinu (eri a-ri-ni) which is at the foot of Mount Aisa” in Muṣri. 1419 Nashef 1982 (RGTC 5), p. 37; Diakonoff & Kashkai 1981 (RGTC 9), p. 9; Salvini 1993–1997 (RlA 8), p. 445; Mayer 1995, pp. 186–187.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

316

Edition of the Sources

The question as to whether this deed of Shalmaneser displays an indigenous (As)syrian ritual tradition or whether it is to be seen as an imitation of a legendary deed attributed to Sargon of Akkade, is not easily settled. The first part of Shalmaneser’s action, the sowing of salt or salty plants over a city captured and destroyed, harks back to Hittite models, such as the tabooing of Ḫattuša by Anitta of Kuššara.1420 The second part, the gathering of the earth, is prominently known from the legendary tradition about Sargon of Akkade, who is said to have taken the soil of the holy city of Babylon captive (Source 44 and Source 45).1421 Probably in imitation of Sargon’s deed, the same measures were employed also by Sennacherib (Source 46: The soil of Babylon). Similarly, Aššurbanipal later gathered the soil of the royal cities of Elam after destruction (Source 47). On the motif complex “taking the earth of a conquered city hostage” and “building a (rivalling) counterpart (gabarû/tamšīlu) elsewhere” see the discussion on p. 154. On the concept of urbicide (“city-killing”) see the discussion on pp. 70f. above. Source 32: Nebuchadnezzar I and the Wrath of Marduk Obj:

Excerpt from a royal inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I.1422 A: (K 4874 + Rm 255 + K 6088) JCS 21, 1969, pp. 134–135; CRRAI 19 (1974), pp. 439–440; photo: CDLI no. P395763. B: (K 2211 + 3649 + 6189 JCS 21, 1969, p. 136; + 8636 + 9168 + 10739) CRRAI 19 (1974), pp. 439–440; photo: CDLI no. P394267. C: (VAT 17051) JCS 21, 1969, p. 137. D: (BM 47805 + 48032 JCS 21, 1969, p. 138. + 48035 + 48037 + 48046) Since Lambert had numbered his copies in JCS 21 and CRRAI 19 according to the lines of the reconstructed text, only the signature letter of the manuscript is given in the scores below. The capital letter with an added “a” or “b” (i.e. Ca, Cb, etc.) means the first or the latter half of the line. Manuscripts A–B (from Nineveh) are written in Neo-Assyrian, C–D in NeoBabylonian characters. The text is bilingual (rather artificial Sumerian and Akkadian). Manuscripts A and B arrange the text mostly in alternate lines, with the Sumerian preceding the indented Akkadian line, according to Krecher’s (1976–1980 [RlA 5], p. 124) bilingual type 1b. Text C arranges

1420 Neu 1974, pp. 12–13, ll. 44–51; Mayer 1995, p. 480, with note 3; idem 2002, pp. 5, 20.

Later, Aššurbanipal did the same to the cities of Elam, see p. 463 below with note 1730. Other examples include Adad-nārārī I and Tiglath-pileser I, see Streck 2006–2008 (RlA 11), p. 598, s.v. Salz, Versalzung § 9.3. In the Hebrew Bible, Abimelech is said to have taken Shechem, to have killed the inhabitants and to have sown the devastated city with salt (Jud 9:45). For the topic “salt” in curses see Cardascia 1975. 1421 Galter (1984, p. 169), in discussing the example of Shalmaneser I, appears to suppose that the motif had been conferred on Sargon of Akkade only secondarily. 1422 There are more, but unpublished duplicates, see A.R. George, in: Iraq 52, 1990, p. 149, note 1 (Sippar); idem in: BSOAS 59, 1996, p. 554 on BM 54135+ (Babylon, CBT VI, p. 133).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

317

the text in two columns, with the Sumerian version in the left, i.e. the first column. Text D mostly gives the Akkadian version in the same line as the Sumerian one, with the Akkadian placed into the middle of the Sumerian version (Krecher’s type 1c). See in more detail Frame, RIMB 2, p. 24. The translation renders the two virtually identical versions as one. Prov: Originally from Babylon; manuscripts from Babylon (C–D?; see also note 1422), Nineveh (A–B) and Sippar (see note 1422). Date: Originally late Middle-Babylonian, reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125– 1104 BCE), after Nebuchadnezzar had raided Elam and had brought back the statue of Marduk from Elam. The exact date of this event is unclear, we only know that the raid started in summer (month of Du’ūz; Brinkman 1968, pp. 105–107). The extant copies date to the middle of the first millennium: 7th century (A–B), and Neo- or Late Babylonian (C–D). Lit: Lambert 1969. – Lambert 1974. – Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 23–28, no. B.2.4.8, with full bibliography. – Foster 2005, p. 378. – Johandi 2016, pp. 147–148, 150–151, 155–156 and passim. – Nielsen 2018, p. 30 sub g and passim. Cont: Sins of the Babylonians, the wrath of Marduk and the destruction of Babylonia by the Elamites under Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II.1423 (15) u4-bi-a bala lugal saĝ-ĝá-ke4 ĝiškim-bi a[b-kúr-ra] inūšu ina palê šarri maḫrî išnâ idātu – In those days, during the reign of a former king, the portents took a turn (for the worse). A [u4-bi-a bala lugal saĝ-ĝ]á-ke4 ĝiškim-bi a[b-kúr-ra] [i-nu-šú ina pa-le]-e šar-ri maḫ-ri-i iš-na-a i-da-a-tu B [u4-bi-a bala lugal saĝ-ĝá-ke4 ĝiškim-bi ab-kúr-ra] i-nu-šú ina pa-le-e š[ar?-ri maḫ-ri-i iš-na-a i-da-a-t]u Cb i-nu-šu i-na pa-le-e lugal maḫ-r[i-i iš-na-a i-da-a-tu] D ⌈u4⌉-bi-a bala lugal saĝ-ĝá-ke4 i-nu-šú ina pa-le-e l[ugal maḫ-ri-i] [iš-na-a i-da-a-tu ĝiškim-bi ab-kúr-ra] (16) – A B

níĝ-sig5-ga ab-te-ri-a [n]am-ḫul-la ba-ab-ú[s-sa] damiqtu issīma lemuttu sadrat (var.: sad[rat lemuttu]) Good departed and evil was constant. [níĝ-sig5-ga ab-te-ri-a n]am-ḫul-la ba-ab-ú[s-sa] [da-mi-iq-t]u is-si-ma le-mut-tu sad-rat [níĝ-sig5-ga ab-te-ri-a nam-ḫul-la ba-ab-ús-sa] da-mì-iq-tu is-si-ma [le-mut-tu sad]-rat

1423 See the discussion in chapter 4.2 (abduction no. 3) and in chapter 4.3 (pp. 74ff.). See

also Source 33, Source 34 (D), Source 53, Source 58 and Source 72 (C).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

318

Cb D (17) – A B Cb D

(18) – Aa Ab Ba Bb Cb Da Db (19)

–

Edition of the Sources

[d]a-mi-iq-ti is-si-ma sad-[rat le-mut-tu] níĝ-sig5-ga ab-te-ri-a da-mi-iq-tu is-se-e-[ma] [le-mut-tu sad-rat nam-ḫul-la ba-ab-ús-sa] en-e lipiš-bi na-an-bal-la [šà]-dib-ba in-[tuku-a] bēlu īgugma kimilta irši The Lord (Marduk) became angry and full of wrath. [en-e lipiš-bi na-an-bal-la šà]-dib-ba in-[tuku-a] [be-lu4 i]-gug-ma ki-mil-ta ir-ši [en-e lipiš-bi na-an-bal-la šà-dib-ba in-tuku-a] be-lu4 i-gug-ma [ki-mil-ta ir-š]i [be-lu4] ⌈i⌉-gu-ug-[ma ki-mil-ta ir-ši] en-e lipiš-bi na-an-bal-la be-lu4 i-gu-⌈ug⌉-m[a ki-mil-ta ir-ši] [šà-dib-ba in-tuku-a] kur-ra al-mu-un-da-ab-bé diĝir-re-e-ne m[u-un-š]ub-ba al-bal umuš saĝ-ĝá-na níĝ-lul-la ab-zi-zi-e-a iqbīma māta iddûši ilānūš[a] išni ṭēm nišīša šūḫuzā surrāti He commanded, and the gods abandoned the land. The (Sum.: fine) thinking of its people changed, they were incited to falsehood. [kur-ra al-mu-un-da-a]b-bé diĝir-re-e-ne m[u-un-šub-ba] [al-bal umuš sa]ĝ-ĝá-na níĝ-lul-la ab-zi-zi-e-a [iq-bi-ma ma-a-ta] id-du-ši diĝirmeš-[šá iš-ni-ṭè-em ù]ĝmeš-šá šu-ḫu-za sur-ra-a-ti [kur-ra al-mu-un-da-ab-bé diĝir-re-e-ne mu-un-š]ub-ba al-bal umuš!(šu) saĝ-⌈ĝá⌉-n[a níĝ-lul-la ab-zi-zi]-⌈e⌉-a1424 [iq-bi-ma ma-a-ta id-du-ši diĝirmeš-šá] iš-ni ṭè-em ùĝmeš-⌈šá⌉ [šu-ḫu-za sur-ra]-⌈a⌉-ti [ . . . ] ⌈x⌉ [ . . . ] kur-ra al-mu-un-da-ab-ba diĝir-re-e-⌈ne⌉ [mu-un-šub-ba] [al-bal umuš saĝ-ĝá-na níĝ-lul-la ab-zi-zi-e-a] iq-bi-⌈ma ma-a⌉-ta id-du-šá diĝirmeš-š[á iš-ni-ṭè-em ùĝmeš-šá] [šu-ḫu-za sur-ra-a-ti] saĝ-ĝá ⌈sig5⌉-[ga]-⌈me⌉ ⌈gú⌉ šub-ba-meš ul-ḫé ⌈ši-in-è⌉ d lamma níĝ-si-sá ki-bar-ra al-gub-ba [i]znû ⌈rābi⌉[ṣū] šulmi ēlû [ana šupuk šamê] [lamassi] mīšari ittaziz aḫīta The guardians of peace became angry and went up to the base of heaven. The protective spirit of justice stood aside.

1424 The line numbering and spacing of the copy in JCS 21, 1969, p. 136 is slightly wrong.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

Aa Ab B

D

(20)

– Aa Ab Ba Bb Da Db (21) – Aa Ab Ba

[saĝ-ĝá sig5-ga-me gú] šub-ba-meš u[l-ḫé ši-in-UD.D]U lamma níĝ-si-sá ki-bar-ra al-gub-bu [iz-nu-ú ra-bi-ṣu] šul-me e-lu-⌈u⌉ [ana šu-puk an-e] [dlamma] mi-šá-ri it-ta-ziz a-ḫi-ta [saĝ-ĝá sig5-ga-me gú šub-ba-meš ul-ḫé ši-in-è] [dl]amma níĝ-si-sá ki-bar-ra al-gub-ba [iz-nu-ú ra-bi-ṣu šul-me e-lu-u ana šu-puk an-e] [dlamma mi-š]á-ri it-ta-ziz a-ḫi-ta saĝ-ĝá ⌈sig5⌉-[ga]-⌈me⌉ ⌈gú⌉ š[ub-b]a-⌈meš⌉ ul-ḫé ⌈ši-in⌉-U[D.DU] [i]z-nu-⌈ú ra-bi⌉-[ṣu šul-mi i-lu-ú ana šu-puk an-e] [dlamma mi-šá-ri it-ta-ziz a-ḫi-ta] [dlamma níĝ-si-sá ki-bar-ra al-gub-ba] d

ala[d-ši-ma-a]l-la-aš nam-lú-u18-lu ba-an-šub-ba diĝir ba-ra-ab-tuku-a gú-saĝ-kal ì-sè-ga [šēd dum]qi nāṣir napšāti nišī ītezba ́ ēmâ gimrassin kīma [lā rā]š ilīma The [goo]d gen[ie] who guards living beings forsook the people. They all became like those who have no god. [dalad-ši-ma-al-la-aš na]m-lú-u18-lu b[a-an-šub-ba] [diĝir ba-r]a-ab-tuku-a gú-saĝ-kal ì!(ir)-sè-ga [še-ed dum-qí na-ṣir na]p-šá-a-ti ni-ši [i-te-ez-ba] [ki-ma la ra]š diĝir-ma e-ma-a gim-rat-si-in [dalad-ši-ma-al-la-aš nam-lú-u18-lu ba-an-š]ub-ba diĝir ba!(ma)-ra-ab-t[uku-a g]ú-[saĝ-kal] ì!(ir)-sè-ga [še-ed dum-qí na-ṣir nap-šá-a-ti] ni-ši i-te-ez-ba ki-ma [la raš diĝir-ma] ⌈e-ma-a⌉ gim-rat-si-IM d ala[d-ši-ma-a]l-la-aš nam-⌈lú⌉-u18-lu ba-an-šub-ba [diĝir ba-ra-ab-tuku-a gú-saĝ-kal ì-sè-ga] [še-ed dum]-qa na-ṣir nap-šá-a-ti ni-ši i-t[e-ez-ba] [ki-ma la raš diĝir-ma i-ma-a gim-rat-si-in] d

udug-ḫul-didli šà-ba kalam-ma e(3)-ra nam-tar saĝ nam-úš-e-ne úru šu-peš6 al-sun5-ne-eš utuk[k]ū lemnūtu imlû qereb māti namtarū lā [p]ādû māḫāzīš īterbū Evil utukku-demons filled (Sum.: came to) the land. Relentless (Sum.: death-bringing) namtaru-demons entered the cult centres. [udug-ḫul-didli šà-ba kalam]-ma e-ra nam-tar s[aĝ nam-úš-e-ne ú]ru šu-peš6 al-sun5-ne-eš [ú-tuk-ku lem-nu-ti i]m-lu-u qé-reb ma-a-t[i] [nam-tar la p]a-du-u ma-ḫa-zi-iš i-ter-bu [udug-ḫul-didli šà-ba kalam-ma e(3)-ra] nam-tar saĝ nam-úš-e-ne úr[u1425 šu-peš6] al-sun5-ne-eš

1425 Thus according to the photograph (CDLI no. P394267).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

319

320

Bb Da Db (22) – A B D (23) – Aa Ab Ba Bb D

(24) – Aa Ab

Edition of the Sources

[ú-tuk-ku lem-nu-ti im-lu-ú qé-re]b ma-a-ti nam-ta-ru la [pa-du-u] ma-ḫa-zi-iš i-ter-bu udug-ḫul-didli šà-ba kalam-ma è-ra nam-tar saĝ nam-m[u-úš-e-ne úru šu-peš6 al-sun5-ne-eš] ú-tu[k-k]u lem-nu-ti im-lu-ú qé-reb ma-a-ti nam-tar l[a pa-du-u ma-ḫa-zi-iš i-ter-bu] ma-da ab-tur-ra-àm [m]a-al-gi-bi ši-in-kúr-ru-d[a] iṣḫirma mātu milikša išni The land diminished and its wits turned mad. [ma-da ab-tur-ra-àm ma-al-g]i-bi ši-in-kúr-r[u-da] [iṣ-ḫir-ma ma]-a-tu4 mi-lik-šá iš-ni [ma-da ab-tur-ra-àm iṣ-ḫir-ma ma-a-ti] [m]a-al-gi-bi ši-in-kúr-ru-d[a mi-lik-šá] iš-ni ma-da ab-tur-ra-àm iṣ-ḫir-ma ma-a-ti mi-lik-šá i[š-ni ma-al-gi-bi ši-in-kúr-ru-da] níĝ-‹á›-zi elam-maki ḫí-li-bi ([n]u-til-aš) nu-mu-un-da-ab-kal-la [m]è ĝìri íl-la-a-ni ši-in-sar-re ṣēnu Elamû lā mušāqir il[ī tā]ḫāzašu tībušu iḫtamṭū The wicked Elamite, who does not esteem the god[s],1426 his [b]attle and onslaught were swift. [níĝ-á-zi elam-maki ḫi(2)-li-bi (nu-til-aš) nu-m]u-un-da-ab-k[al-la] [m]è ĝìri íl-la-a-ni ši-in-sar-re [ṣe-e-nu e-la-mu-u la] mu-šá-qir diĝir[meš ta]-ḫa-za-šú ti-bu-šú iḫ-tam-ṭù [níĝ-á-zi elam-maki ḫi(2)-li-bi n]u-til-aš nu-mu-un-da-ab-kal-l[a] [mè ĝìri íl-la-a-n]i ši-in-sar-re [ṣe-e-nu] ⌈e⌉-la-mu-u la mu-šá-qir diĝir[meš ta-ḫa-za-šú ti-b]u-šú iḫ-tam-ṭù níĝ-‹á›-zi elam-maki ḫí-⌈li⌉-bi nu-mu-un-da-ab-kal-la ṣe-e-nu e-la-mu-ú l[a mu-šá-qir diĝirmeš ta-ḫa-za-šú ti-bu-šú iḫ-tam-ṭù] [mè ĝìri íl-la-a-ni ši-in-sar-re] úru-didli íb-ta-an-gi ir-ra-šè ba-an-si diĝir-re-e-ne ši-in-bi-ra-ka zag líl-lá ba-ni-in-ri ušaḫrib dadmī namūʾiš ummi [ilānī išt]alal unammi ešrēti He laid waste the settlements and turned (them) into a desert. He carried off the gods and turned the shrines into ruins. [úru-didli íb-ta-an-gi ir-r]a-šè ba-an-[si] [diĝir-re-e-n]e ši-in-bi-ra-ka zag líl-lá ba-ni-in-ri [ú-šá-aḫ-rib da-ád-mì na-mu]-iš um-mì [diĝirmeš iš-t]a-lal ú-nam-mì eš-re-e-ti

1426 Instead of “gods”, the Sumerian version has: “its (: the land’s) ([ne]ver-ending)

charms”, with ḫí-li for normal ḫi-li (Lambert 1969, p. 131).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

Ba

321

[úru-didli íb-t]a-an-gi ir-ra-šè ba-an-[si] [diĝir-re-e-ne ši-in-bi-ra-ka zag líl-lá b]a-ni-in-ri Bb [ú-šá-aḫ-rib] da-ád-mì ⌈na⌉-mu-iš [um-mì] [diĝirmeš iš-ta-lal ú-nam-mì eš-r]e-e-ti D úru-didli íb-ta-an-g[i ir-r]a-a-šè ba-an-si diĝir-re-e-ne ú-šá-aḫ-rib da-ád-mì na-mu-u8-i[š um-mì] [diĝirmeš iš-ta-lal ú-nam-mì eš-re-e-ti] [ši-in-bi-ra-ka zag líl-lá ba-ni-in-ri] Com: The phrasing and the logic of Nebuchadnezzar’s explanantion of Marduk’s wrath is later adopted by Esarhaddon in his reports about the devastation of Babylon by his father Sennacherib, see Source 74, versions A and B, and the discussion in chapter 4.3. There are some minor Assyriasms like ēlû (l. 19) and ēmâ (l. 20) instead of *īlû and *īmâ, which have made their way into manuscripts A and B from Nineveh. Nevertheless, the composition is certainly a Babylonian one. 15: On the problem and meaning of ittu “sign” (pl. ittātu/idātu) see the commentary on phrase A 1 of the excerpt from the inscriptions of Esarhaddon (Source 74) and the discussion on pp. 77f. in chapter 4.3. Esarhaddon quoted this line nearly verbatim in his report on the destruction of Babylon in 689 BCE, see Source 74, phrases A 1 and B1 1. 16: The verbal form ab-te-ri-a = issīma “it departed” is not fully clear to me. As proper Sumerian equations to nesû, one expects the bases bad or sud. There are lexical entries equating te-ete and ri-iri with nesû (CAD N/II, p. 186, s.v. nesû lex.), but they appear to be academic and secondary. The equation with ri probably stems from phrases like u4-ri-a “in those (remote) days”. One wonders whether the scribe combined two different verbal bases in one form, or whether the form originally contained an ablative infix: *ab-ta-ri-a. 18: On the meaning of šanû ṭēmi “change of thinking” = “going mad” (see also l. 22) see the discussion on p. 74 above. 19: Instead of saĝ-ĝá ⌈sig5⌉-[ga]-⌈me⌉ one could read saĝ-ĝá ⌈sig5⌉-[ga]-⌈didli⌉ and perhaps even saĝ-ĝá ⌈sig5⌉-[ga]-⌈aš⌉. The scribe uses the strange ending in -aš also in l. 20 (dala[d-ši-ma-a]l-la-aš) and in l. 23 ([n]u-til-aš). The rābiṣū šulmi also occur in the historical epic on the devastation of Babylonia by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II (see here p. 524 with note 1869): ra-bi-ṣu šu-lum (Lambert 1994b, p. 70, rev. 2’). The same text also employs the phrase with the protective spirit of justice (lamassi mīšari) departing: inu lamassi mīšari izzizzū́ma aḫīta “when the protective spirit of justice stood aside” (Lambert 1994b, p. 70, rev. 6’). 20: The wrong conjugational prefix chain ma-ra- is a mistake for ba-ra-, based on a confusion of the Babylonian forms of the signs ba and ma. The same applies to IR in the place of ì. Neither Lambert (1969, p. 129; 1974, p. 436), nor Frame (RIMB 2, p. 26) read the name of the genie, although Lambert’s copy fits alad perfectly well. The Sumerian term dalad “(benevolent) genie”, often extended by sig5 “good”, is rendered in Akkadian by the term šēdu damqu or, more often, by šēd dumqi. Here, the good genie is further described as nāṣir napšāti “who guards living beings”. The same combination is found in a prayer to © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

322

21: 23:

Edition of the Sources

Šamaš, addressing him as šēdu nāṣir napišti “(good) genie who guards life”.1427 In the Sumerian version, the epithet of the genie is apparently rendered by the Emesal form of the phrase *zi-ĝál “having/causing life”, i.e. *ši-ma-al. Due to its extended use in numerous cultic compositions, Emesal was much favoured in the Late Sumerian of the second and first millennia. Apparently from causative constructions of ĝál “being extant” > “establishing (something)” (= bašû Š) the idea “guarding (something)” was developed, from which the lexical equation ĝál = naṣāru “to guard” stems; see CAD N/II, p. 34, s.v. naṣāru lex. On the meaning of šanû milki “change of thinking” = “going mad” (see also l. 18) see the discussion on p. 74 above. In order to match the Akkadian term lā pādû “merciless/relentless”, the artificial Sumerian mixes the terms nam-úš(BAD) “death” and saĝ--ús(UŠ) “to be constant” in an ingenious way beyond any sober grammar. Certainly as a literary reference to the text under discussion, the term lā mušāqir ilī “he who does not esteem the gods” is also used by Aššurbanipal to vilify the Elamite king Teʾumman.1428

Source 33: The Misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II Obj:

Excerpt from a royal inscription of [Nebuchadnezzar I]. Text: III R 38, no. 2 (K 2660), obv. 2’–13’; photo: CDLI no. P394584. Prov: Originally from Babylon, the extant manuscript is from Nineveh. Date: Originally from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE). Nebuchadnezzar’s name is not preserved on the fragment, but the reverse clearly deals with his first, unsuccsessful attempts to avenge Babylonia on Elam. The extant manuscript dates to the 7th century BCE. Lit: Tadmor 1958, pp. 137–138. – Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 19–21, no. B.2.4.6, ll. 2’–13’. – Foster 2005, p. 381. Cont: Misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II in their conquest of Babylonia in 1155 BCE; see the discussion of abduction no. 3 in chapter 4.2. See also Source 32, Source 34 (D), Source 53, Source 58 and Source 72 (C). The Misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I obv. 2’ [Zababa-š]uma-iddina šarra iṭruda palâšu īkim – (Šutruk-Naḫḫunte) drove away king [Zababa-š]uma-iddina and took away his reign. – [dza-ba4-ba4-m]u-sum-na lugal iṭ-⌈ru⌉-da bala-šú i-kim* obv. 3’

– –

[ana bēlūti itta]ši Kudur-Nanḫundi bukrašu [He eleva]ted Kudur-Nanḫundi, his firstborn, [to rulership,] [ana be-lu-tú it-ta]-ši ku-dúr-na-an-ḫu-un-di bu-uk-ra-šu

1427 Nougayrol in RA 65, 1971, pp. 159–160, obv. 4: dalad na-ṣir zi-tì. 1428 Streck 1916/II, p. 114, Cyl. B, V:34; ibidem p. 190, K 2652, obv. 14.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

The Misdeeds of Kutir-Naḫḫunte II obv. 4’ [bēl ḫīṭi ša] eli abbīšu arna‹šu› šūturu šurbû ḫīṭašu kabtu – [the criminal] whose sin exceeded (those of) his forefathers, whose heavy misdeed was extremely great. – [en ḫi-ṭi šá] ugu admeš-šú ár-na‹-šu› šu-tu-ru šur-bu-u ḫi-ṭu-šú kab-tu obv. 5’

– – obv. 6’ obv. 7’

– –

obv. 8’

– – obv. 9’

– –

[lemn]ēti ukappida ana māt Akkadî ibtani tēkīta He plotted [ev]il against Babylonia and devised an unjust act. [lem-né]-⌈e⌉-ti ú-kap-pi-da ana kur uriki ib-ta-ni te-ki-tu* [ultu ina pal]ê Enlil-nādin-aḫi šar pāni maḫrīya [ana māt Akkadî] nukurta iškunu ḫalūqa ītamû [After] he had started hostilities [against Babylonia] [during the reig]n of Enlil-nādin-aḫi, a former king who preceded me, and had set his mind on destruction, [ul-tu ina bal]a dbe-mu-⌈šeš⌉ lugal pa-na maḫ-ri-ia [ana kur uriki] nu-kur-ti iš-⌈ku⌉-nu ḫa-lu-qì i-ta-mu‹-u› [udallil]ma nišī māt Akkadî kullassina abūbiš isp[un] [he oppressed] the people of Babylonia, and cast them down, all of them, as (by) a flood. [ú-dal-lil]-ma ùĝmeš kur uriki kul-lat-si-na a-bu-biš ⌈is⌉-p[u*-un] [māḫāz]ī ṣīrūti nagabšunu ušēmi [karmiš] He turned all the august [cult cent]res [into ruins.] [ma-ḫa]-zi ṣi-ru-ti na-gab-šú-nu ú-še-mì [kar-míš]

obv. 10’ [Marduk bē]la rabâ iddeki ina šubat [ilūtīšu]

– –

He removed [Marduk], the great [lo]rd, from [his divine] dwelling. [damar-utu e]n* ra-⌈ba⌉-a id-de-ki ina šu-bat [i-lu-ti-šú]

obv. 11’ [ša māḫāzī māt] Šumeri u Akkadî išl[ula šalassun]

– –

He car[ried off the spoils of the cities of the land of] Sumer and Akkad. [šá ma-ḫa-zi kur] šu-me-ri u uriki iš-l[u*-la šal-lat-sún]

obv. 12’ [iṣbatma] Enlil-nādin-aḫi īb[ukšu kamûssu]

– –

[He seized] Enlil-nādin-aḫi (and) le[d him away (to Elam) in fetters,] [iṣ-bat-ma] ⌈d⌉be-mu-šeš i-b[u-uk-šú ka-mut-su] © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

323

Edition of the Sources

324

obv. 13’ [bēlūss]u ukkiša palâ[šu iskip]

– he set aside [h]is [rule] and [overthrew his] reign. – [be-lu-ut-s]u uk-ki-šá bala-[šú is-ki-ip] Com: The text deals with the misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and his son KutirNaḫḫunte II in their conquest of Babylonia in 1155 BCE, most importantly with the abduction of a cult statue of Marduk to Elam (obv. 10’). These events gave rise to a whole group of Babylonian historical-literary texts, see in the present framework also Source 32, Source 34 (D), Source 53, Source 58 and Source 72 (C). See the discussion of this complex sub abduction no. 3 in chapter 4.2. 2’: The copy renders the final word as i-KIŠ, but collation shows (CDLI no. P394584) that the last sign is a clear and normal -kim. 3’: Tadmor (1958, pp. 137–138) suggested to read the beginning of the line as [… ú-šat]-lim “[he handed] over [the reign] (to his firstborn).” This, however, is at odds with Akkadian grammar, since, with a substantive, šutlumu “to hand over” requires a dative object, indicated by the preposition *ana + genitive. This would call for two emendations: [ú-šat]lim *ana K. bu-uk-*ri-šu, and so this reading is no option. For the sake of prosody, I restore the perfect tense *ittaši. With the preterite of našû (*išši), I would have expected here the extended form *iššīma. Although the text often uses the preterite in the narrative, the perfect tense is clearly also employed in ibtani (obv. 5’) and iddeki (obv. 10’). The form ītamû (obv. 7’), however, is the preterite of amû Gt. Although heavily reconstructed, this line once certainly referred to KutirNaḫḫunte II ruling Babylonia on behalf of his father Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I. Cameron (1936, p. 110) and Brinkman (1968, pp. 80–81) have plausibly argued that Kutir-Naḫḫunte actually had ruled over Babylon, but that Babylonian historiography refused to acknowledge him as a proper king of Babylon. 6’, 12’: Outside of the city of Babylon, Babylonian resistance had been maintained by the last Kassite king, Enlil-nādin-aḫi, for three more years; see Cameron 1936, p. 110; Brinkman 1968, pp. 82, 88. 8’: For an example of the rather rare verbal forms of dullulu see the very similar phrase māta udallil “he oppressed the land” in l. 6 of the chronicle quoted on p. 377 with note 1512. 13’: For another example of the phrase *bēlūta ukkušu “to set aside one’s rule” see: iṭrudma Enlil-nādin-šumi ukkiš bēlūssu “he drove away king Enlil-nādinšumi and set aside his rule”.1429 This line from Chronicle P (IV:16) describes the fate of the Babylonian king Enlil-nādin-šumi whose reign was overthrown by the Elamite king Kiten-Ḫutran. Enlil-nādin-šumi had been reigning only briefly after the capture and deportation of Kaštiliyaš IV by Tukultī-Ninurta I (see the overview on p. 517 below).

1429 iṭ-ru-ud-ma

IV:16).

I.d+

en-líl-na-din-mu lugal uk-kiš be-lut-su (Grayson 1975a, p. 177, Chronicle P,

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

325

Source 34: Excerpts from the Marduk Prophecy Obj:

Prov: Date:

Lit: – – – – – – – – –

Excerpts from the Marduk Prophecy (I:7–II:18). A = I:7–12. – B = I:13–38. – C = I:3’–17’. – D = I:18’–25’, II:1–18. Copies of manuscripts 1 and 2 by Borger in BiOr 28, 1971, pp. 5–13. 1: K 2158 + K 3353 + K 8708 + K 13678 + Rm 297 (+) K 7065 + K 12697 + BM 89-4-26, 62 + BM 99210 (JCS 18, 1964, p. 27) (+) K 13434 2: Sm 1388 (not joining with no. 1 according to Borger 1971, p. 3) 3: Assur 13348 ek (JCS 18, 1964, pp. 27–28; please note: p. 27, col. “ii” = III; p. 28, “i” = IV, “ii” = V, see Borger 1971, p. 10). The excerpts below come from manuscripts no. 1 and 2. Originally probably from Babylon, manuscripts from Nineveh (no. 1, probably also no. 2) and from Aššur (no. 3). Probably originally late Middle-Babylonian in its main outline, dating to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE). The extant manuscripts are late Neo-Assyrian and date to the 7th century BCE (Nineveh: nos. 1–2; Aššur: no. 3).1430 It is possible that at a later time – after Nebuchadnezzar I – there may have occurred an Assyrian or at least an Assyrian-friendly redaction of the parts of the text wich deal with Assyria (C), see the comments sub “content” below. The author of the text knows of Marduk’s “journey” to Ḫatti (see chapter 4.2, abduction no. 1), of his “journey” to Assyria (abduction no. 2) and of his “journey” to Elam (abduction no. 3). But the god’s promise not to leave Babylon again after his return from Elam (D 13) makes it clear that the author was not aware that Marduk would take a “second trip” to Assyria under Sennacherib in 689 BCE. So it is highly probable that the main text was composed rather shortly after Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE) had brought back the statue of Marduk from Elam.1431 Güterbock 1934, pp. 79–84. Grayson & Lambert 1964, pp. 21–23, text D (= no. 3). Borger 1971. Roberts 1977, pp. 184–185. Hecker 1986. Longman 1997. Foster 2005, pp. 388–391. Sugie 2014. Johandi 2016, p. 153 and passim. Nielsen 2018, pp. 32–33 sub a and passim.

1430 Text no. 3 = Assur 13348 ek probably belongs to the Kiṣir-Aššur archive N 4 (ca. reign

of Aššurbanipal, see PNA 2/I, p. 623–624, s.v. Kiṣir-Aššur no. 26); Pedersén 1986, p. 75 (no. 617), see also ibidem p. 76. Borger (1971, p. 21) dated the manuscript from Aššur to the reign of Sargon II. This, however, results probably from a misunderstanding of a remark made by Grayson & Lambert (1964 p. 7 with note 10) on Assur 13956 hc = VAT 14404 (their text C; Assur 13348 ek is their text D). 1431 See Borger 1971, p. 21 and the commentary on the content below. – Nielsen (2012, p. 15; 2018, pp. 109–111) appears to date the composition to the 7th century BCE.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

326

Edition of the Sources

Cont: The abductions of the cult statue of Marduk to Ḫatti (B), Assyria (C), and to Elam (D) are presented as journeys undertaken by Marduk on his own accord; see the discussions in chapter 4, in particular on pp. 54f. and 76. One is tempted to assume that this text had been produced or redacted by the scholars of the Late Assyrian court of Nineveh or at least by an Assyria-friendly party among the Babylonians, since the extant manuscripts come from Assyria and date to the Late Assyrian period and since Assyria and its king are portrayed in an extremely positive light (part C). However, since the author does not mention Marduk’s “second trip” to Assyria under Sennacherib, the text must be older (see already above sub “date”). Also Marduk’s stay in Ḫatti (Syria) is depicted as some pleasure trip of the god, resulting in prosperity for the Babylonians (part B). Only the “trip” to Elam (part D) and the disturbing circumstances that led to it are portrayed in very dark and gloomy colours. As opposed to Ḫatti and Assyria, Elam is not blessed, but cursed by Marduk.1432 Still, the fact that Assyria and its king are blessed so thoroughly is highly remarkable. The reason is probably due to the fact that in this case, as in the case of Ḫatti but opposed to the “journey” to Elam, the statue was not retrieved by military force, but by means of diplomacy. Other Babylonian texts which were probably composed after the dreadful conditions of Marduk’s “second trip” to Assyria under Sennacherib in 689 BCE, such as Chronicle P (Source 71) and the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72, A), depict also Marduk’s “first trip” to Assyria in a negative light. The historical horizon of the text becomes very clear in line D 13, which holds the view that Marduk would not leave Babylon again, after he has walked all the world, visting Syria, Assyria and Elam, but only one time each (see also the commentary on A 1–2). Keeping this in mind, it appears that the text was very probably composed rather directly after the raid of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125– 1104 BCE) against Elam, during which the statue of Marduk was retrieved and brought back to Babylon. Not imagining that an Assyrian king by the name of Sennacherib would abduct Marduk again half a millennium later in 689 BCE, the author has put his own wish that Marduk may not leave Babylon again, but may dwell there for evermore, as a promise into the mouth of the god. On the other hand, two of the manuscripts (nos. 1 & 2) date to the late NeoAssyrian period, certainly after the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib. As it appears, Esarhaddon borrowed the orthography ká–1ki (etc.) for Babylon from this text (see the commentary on 1ki in C 14). It would be highly interesting to know how the fact that Marduk actually broke his promise was understood by the text’s audience in the 7th century BCE.

1432 See Borger 1971, p. 21 in general, p. 16 on Ḫatti (I:13–22) and Aššur (I:3’–5’; 12’: Marduk

blesses Assyria), p. 17 on Elam (III:22’–23’: Marduk announces the destruction of Elam).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

A: A1 – 1

A2 – 1

B: B1 – 1

B2 – 1

B3 – 1

B4 – 1

B5 – 1

Introduction: “I am Marduk the wanderer” anāku Marduk bēlu rabû ḫayyāṭu muttallik šadânī ḫāʾiṭu mukabbis mātāti I am Marduk, the great lord, the inspector who widely walks the mountains, the examiner who roams the lands abroad. (I:7) a-na-ku damar-utu en gal-ú (8) meš.ḫa-a-a-ṭu lá ĝenmeš kurmeš-ni (9) láḫa-i-ṭu mu-gub-is kur-kurmeš ša mātāti kalîšina ultu ṣīt Šamši adi ereb Šamši ittallaku anākū́ma I am the very one who has widely walked all the lands from sunrise to sunset. (10) ša kur-kurmeš dù-a-bi-ši4-na (11) ta è dutu-ši en ku4 dutu-ši (12) ĝenmeš-ku a-na-ku-ma “Journey” (abduction) to Ḫatti (chapter 4.2, abduction no. 1) aqbi – ana māt Ḫatti lullik Ḫattî (/ ḫaṭṭī) ašʾal I said: “I want to go to the land of Ḫatti!” I inspected the Hittites (/ I longed for my sceptre). (I:13) du11-ga a-na kur ḫat-ti ĝen-ik (14) ḫat-ti-i (/ ḫaṭ-ṭì-i) áš-al kussâ Anūtīya ina libbīša addi I set up the throne of my divine sovereignty in its midst. (15) ĝiš gu-za da-nu-ti-ĝu10 (16) i-na šà-bi-šá ad-di 24 šanāti ina libbīša ūšibma For 24 years I dwelt in its midst. (17) ⌈2⌉4 mu-an-nameš i-na šà-bi-šá tuš-ma [ḫ]arrān mārī Bābil ina libbīša ukīn I consolidated the mercantile [ex]peditions of the Babylonians (going) into its midst. (18) [k]askalmeš dumumeš ká-diĝir-raki (19) ⌈i⌉-na šà-bi-šá gin-in [niš]īša bušîša u makkūrīša [ana ā]l Sippar āl Nippur [u āl Bāb]il aṣṣammida I firmly connected (the stream of) its [people], its goods and its properties [to the cit]ies Sippar, Nippur, [and Bab]ylon. (20) [ùĝ]meš-šá níĝ-ĝálmeš-šá ù níĝ-gameš-šá (21) [ana er]i ud-⌈kib⌉-nunki eri nibruki (22) [u eri ká-diĝir-r]aki lámeš-da

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

327

328

B6 – 1

B7 – 1 2

B8 – 1 2

B9 – 1 2

B 10 – 2

B 11 – 2

B 12 – 2

B 13 – 2

B 14 – 2

Edition of the Sources

[šar Bābil] ⌈īlâm⌉ma [. . . . . . . qātī] ⌈iṣbat⌉ma [A king of Babylon] arose and [ . . . . . .] he took my hand (leading me in procession to Babylon). (23) [lugal ká-diĝir-raki] ⌈e11⌉-ma (24) [. . . . . . . šu(-ĝu10)] ⌈dab⌉-ma ⌈. . .⌉ [. . . . . B]ābil šassūrātu [. . . . .-]ātu salmā ⌈. . .⌉ [. . . . . B]abylon, the [. . . . .] . . birth-goddesses were reconciled. (25) (26) [. . . . . . . . . . k]á-diĝir-raki [ša-surmeš . . . . .m]eš sal-ma (1’) ki (2’) [x⌉ ⌈A⌉ ⌈x⌉ [ . . . ká-diĝir-ra ] ⌈ša⌉-surmeš [. . . . .meš sal-ma] rebīta rabīta (ša) ā[līya Bābil] ušṭībma I took pleasure in the broad square (of) [my] cit[y Babylon] (again). (27) [sila-daĝal gal eri-ĝu10 ká-diĝir-ra]ki du10-ma (3’) sila-daĝal gal er[i-ĝu10 ká-diĝir-raki du10-ma] aššum agê [Anūt]īya u ṣalam binût[īya . . . . .] On behalf of the crown of my divine sovereignty and and the (outer) appearance of [my] figur[e . . .] (28) [mu aga da-nu-t]i-ĝu10 (29) [ù alan dù-ti-ĝu10 . . . .] ⌈x⌉ (4’) (5’) mu aga [da-nu-ti-ĝu10] ù alan dù-t[i-ĝu10 . . . . . .] mê šārī [ṭābūti] šalāš ūmī [ašpuraššu] Water and [favourable] winds [I sent him] for three days. (6’) meš a immeš [du10-gameš] (7’) 3 u4-mi [kin-šu] agâ Anūtīya […] u ṣalam bin[ûtīya] ana zumrīya um[midma] The crown of my divine sovereignty […] and the (outer) appearance of my figure he pl[aced] on my body. (8’) aga da-nu-ti-ĝu10 […] (9’) ù alan d[ù-ti-ĝu10] (10’) ana su-ĝu10 um-[mi-id-ma] aḫḫis[a ana āl Bābil azkurma] I returne[d to the city of Babylon and said:] (11’) aḫ-ḫi-s[a ana eri ká-diĝir-raki mu-ma] iš[â bilātīkina] mā[tātu ana āl Bābilimma] “Brin[g], ye la[nds, your tribute to the city of Babylon!]” (12’) íl[meš gú-unḫi.a.meš-ki-na] (13’) k[ur-kurmeš ana eri ká-diĝir-raki-ma] [alkī mātu binî Bābil] “[Come, ye land, build Babylon (for me again)!]” (14’) [ĝen kalam dím-ma 1ki]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

C: C1 – 1

C2 – 1

C3 – 1

C4 – 1

C5 – 1

C6 – 1

C7 – 1

C8 – 1

C9 – 1

C 10 – 1

329

“Journey” (abduction) to Aššur (chapter 4.2, abduction no. 2) [šar] Baltil iṭīb [elīya šubta ina] Ekur-Baltil [ušṭībma] [The king of] Baltil was pleasing [to me,] [(and so) I took pleasure in taking up (my) residence in] Ekur-Baltil. (I:3’) [lugal] bal-ti-il5 du10 [ugu-ĝu10] (4’) [ki-tuš ina] é-kur-bal-ti-il5 [du10-ma] [ekurrāt]īšu kīma zalāqi u[nammir] He let his [sanctuar]ies s[hine] as bright as “bright-stone”. (5’) [é-kurme]š-šú gin7 na4zálag!(babbar+dili) z[álag-ir] [ḫiṣib māt]āti ṭaḫda aqīs[summa] I presented [him with the] abundant [yield of (all) the land]s. (6’) [ḫi-ṣib kur]meš ṭa-aḫ-da níĝ-ba[-su-ma] [kīma G]irra aḫtī[ššu] [Like G]irra I haste[ned to his (aid).] (7’) [gin7 dg]i-bil aḫ-tí[š-šu] [kal š]atti zunnu [iznun] Rain [was falling all y]ear long. (8’) [kal m]u–1-kam šèĝ [šur] [qablī] ṣābī Enlil ittīšu kī arkus[u] After I had girde[d the loins of] the troops of Enlil on his behalf, (9’) [murub4meš] érinmeš d+en-líl ki-šú ki kešda-s[u] [idīš]u kīma iṣṣūrī kappī aškun[ma] I equipped [hi]s [arms] with birdlike wings [and so] (10’) [ámin-š]ú gin7 mušenmeš pameš ĝar-un-[ma] [mātā]ti kalâšina umalli he filled all the [land]s. (11’) [kur-kurme]š dù-a-bi-ši4-na si-a-l[i] [ūmīya] umallīma māt Aššur akrub I fulfilled [my days] and gave Assyria a (farewell) blessing. (12’) [u4meš-ĝu10] si-a-ma kur aš-šur šùd-ub [ ] [ṭuppi] šīmāti aqīssu I gave him (i.e. the Assyrian king) [(his) tablet of] destinies, (13’) [dub] nammeš níĝ-ba-su

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

330

C 11 – 1

C 12 – 1

C 13 – 1

C 14 – 1

D: D1 – 1

D2 – 1

D3 – 1

D4 –

1

Edition of the Sources

[z]ibānīta kitta addinšu I gave him a true (pair of) [s]cales. (14’) ĝiš [ z]i-ba-an-na gi-na sum-šu [aḫḫis]a ana āl Bābil azkurma [I returne]d to the city of Babylon and said: (15’) [aḫ-ḫi-s]a ana eri ká-diĝir-raki mu-ma išâ bilātīkina mātātu “Bring, ye lands, your tribute (16’) ⌈íl⌉meš ⌈gú-⌉unḫi.a.meš-ki-na kur-kurmeš ana āl Bābilimma alkī mātu binî Bābil to the city of Babylon! Come, ye land, build Babylon (for me again)!” (17’) ana eri ká-diĝir-raki-ma ĝen kalam dím-ma 1ki ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––-------------------------------------------------– “Journey” (abduction) to Elam (chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3) anāku Marduk bēlu rabû bēl šīmāti u pu[rus]sê anākū́ma I am Marduk, the great lord, the lord of destinies and de[cisi]ons am I. (I:18’) ana-ku damar-utu en gal-ú (19’) en nammeš u e[š-b]ar a-na-ku-ma mannu iṣbat ḫarrāna annīta kī (/ ašar) alliku aḫḫisa [anā]ku aqbi Who (but me) has undertaken a journey (like) this? It was [m]e, who said when (and where) I wanted to go (and when) I wanted to return. (20’) man-nu dab kaskal ⌈an⌉-ni-ta (21’) KI ĝen-ku aḫ-ḫi-sa [ana]-ku du11-ga ana māt Elamti allikma alkā ilānū kalâma anākū́ma aqbi I went to the land of Elam, and it was me who said: “Come, all ye gods!” (22’) a-na kur elam-maki ĝen-ma (23’) ĝenmeš diĝirmeš dù-a-bi a-na-ku-ma du11-ga nindabê bītāti anākū́ma aprus Šakkan u Nisaba ana ša[m]ê ušēli It was me who cut off the offerings to the temples, I made Šakkan (the god of cattle) and Nisaba (the goddess of grain) retreat to the hea[ve]ns. (24’) nidbameš éḫi-a.meš a-na-ku-ma tar-us (25’) dšákkan u dnisaba ana a[n]-e e11-li

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

D5 – 1

D6 – 1

D7 – 1

D8 – 1

D9 – 1

D 10 – 1

D 11 – 1

D 12 – 1

D 13 – 1

Siraš libbi māti ušamriṣ šalmāt nišī bābānī ip(eḫ)ḫâ Siraš (the god of beer) sickened the heart of the land. The corpses of the people blocked the gates. (II:1) d siraš šà kur gig-iṣ (2) addameš ùĝḫi-a kámeš badmeš-a aḫu aḫāšu īkul (/ ikkal) rūʾu rūʾašu ina kakki irassib Brother consumed brother, friend slew friend with the weapon. (3) šeš šeš-šú gu7 (4) ru-u8-a ru-u8-a-šú ina ĝištukul i-ra-si-ib mārū banî ana mārī muškēnūti qāssunu imakkakū The well-to-do (men from good families) would reach out their hand to the poor. (5) dumumeš dùmeš a-na dumumeš maš-ka15meš (6) šumin-su-nu i-ma-ak-ka-ku ḫaṭṭu ikarru pirku māta ip(ar)rik šarrū ḫ[ammā]ʾī māta uṣaḫḫirū The sceptre grew small, quarrel blocked the land, r[ebe]l kings diminished the land. (7) ĝiš ĝidru lúgud-[d]a gib kur gib-ik (8) lugalmeš í[m-g]i kur turmeš nēšū alakta iprusū kalbū [iššegû]ma nišī unaššakū Lions cut off travel, dogs [went mad] and bit the people. (9) ur-ameš [ ] a-lak-tú tarmeš (10) ur-gi7me[š idimmeš]-ma ùĝḫi-a ú-na-šá-ku m[al]a un[ašš]akū ul iballuṭū imuttū A[s ma]ny as they b[i]t did not get well again, but died. (11) m[a-l]a ú-n[a-š]á-ku nu timeš úšmeš ūmīya umallīma šanātīya umallīma I fulfilled my days, I fulfilled my years, and (12) ⌈u4⌉meš-ĝu10 si-a-ma mu-1-kammeš-ĝu10 si-a-ma ana ālīya Bābil u Ekur-Saĝil libbī ublam my heart prompted me (to return) to my city Babylon and to Ekur-Saĝil, (13) a-na eri-ĝu10 ká-diĝir-raki (14) ù é-kur-saĝ-íl šà tùm-⌈lam⌉ ana ašāb dārâti kal ša[nāti] to dwell (there) forever, for all ye[ars (to come.)] (15) a-na tuš-ab da-ra-a-ti dù-a-bi m[umeš]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

331

332

D 14 – 1

Edition of the Sources

anāku aqbi išâ bilātīki[na] mātātu ana āl Bābilimm[a] I said: “Bring, ye lands, yo[ur] tribute to the city of Babylon!” (16) a-na-ku du11-ga ílmeš gú-unmeš-ki-[na] (17) kur-kurmeš ana eri ká-diĝir-raki-m[a]

D 15 –

alkī mātu binî Bābil “Come, ye land, build Babylon (for me again)!” (18) 1 ĝen kalam dím-ma 1[ki] Com: As befits a report given by the god Marduk himself, the texts abounds in strange and sought orthographies and phrases. A 1–2: In ll. 8–9, the spellings lá and lámeš propose terms with a normal and an intensivied meaning, either *parrās, Gtn or D. The plural determinatives meš in lámeš.ḫa-a-a-ṭu ĝenmeš = ḫayyāṭu (*parrās) muttalliku (ptc. Gtn) are obviously markers of intensivity or plurality of action. The orthography √meš equals √-√, an iconic or illustrating spelling habit, which ultimately goes back to Sumerian. Similar cases in the present corpus are badme[š(at)] ∥ pu-ut-ta-ti = puttât (D) “it is wide open” (Source 52) and tagmeš-at = lupputat (D) “it is completely anomalous” (Source 60). As equations for lá, there are mainly ḫâṭu “to check”, kamû “to bind/to subjugate”, and ṣamādu “to tie together”. The equation šaqû “lofty” (Hecker 1986, p. 65; Foster 2005, p. 388) exits, but is unlikely here because with šaqû there is no opposition between a normal and an itensified root. So one might think of mukammû or muṣammidu in l. 8, and of kāmû or ṣāmidu in l. 9. But since the equation lá = ḫâṭu is well established and the pairs lámeš : ḫayyāṭu and lá : ḫāʾiṭu depict exactly what we should expect, I take the Akkadian terms as glosses: lámeš.ḫayyāṭu and láḫāʾiṭu. Another spelling which looks very much like a gloss can be found a line below: mu-gub-is or mu gubis = mukabbis. The couple ḫayyāṭu ḫāʾiṭu “the watchful watcher” is also attested elsewhere, see CAD Ḫ, p. 32, s.v. ḫāʾiṭu, lex. Güterbock 1934, p. 80 understood the pair lámeš and lá as verbal forms and read aḫtanâṭ (“I keep spying out”) and aḫīṭ (“I spied out”) respectively.1433 This turns the following nouns ḫayyāṭu and ḫāʾiṭu into predicate nouns (“as an inspector”), which I find a little bit difficult. Instead of mukabbis (mu-gub-is), von Soden thought tentatively of râsu D “to smite” (mu-rá-is, AHw III, p. 1585), followed by Hecker (1986, p. 65) and Foster (2005, p. 388, with question mark). But the point in these lines is on “wandering about”, not on “destroying”. Furthermore, mukabbisu “he who roams” is far more probable because of the parallelism with muttalliku “he who widely walks”. The D- and Gtn-stems of alāku and kabāsu in A1 and A2 express the plurality of objects. They express that Marduk has widely walked all the foreign lands – the west (Ḫatti), the north (Aššur) and the east (Elam), but 1433 Followed by the dictionaries: AHw I, p. 343, s.v. ḫiāṭu(m) Gtn 1; CAD Ḫ, p. 32, s.v. ḫāʾiṭu 2:

“I watch, a watchman, roaming the lands”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

B 1:

B 5:

B 6:

B 7:

B 8:

333

each region only for once. They do not express that he would go there again and again. According to the view held by this text, Marduk would dwell at Babylon for evermore after his return from Elam, see part D 13 below and the commentary there. In Hittite orthography, the geographical names Ḫatti and Ḫattuša, as well as personal names containing the element Ḫattuš- (e.g. Ḫattušili) could be written with the element (ĝiš)ĝidru = (Akkadian) ḫaṭṭu “sceptre”.1434 I wonder whether the Babylonian scribe made use of the same pun, fitting in a second layer of interpretation dealing with Marduk’s sceptre. A line below, in B 2, Marduk’s throne is mentioned. Some lines further on in the same paragraph, Marduk talks about his tiara and about his statue (B 9, 11). So, an esoteric reading of Ḫatti/-ī as ḫaṭṭī “my sceptre” is not out of place here. Marduk’s sceptre is also dealt with in Enūma elîš V:100. For lámeš-da at the end of the line, Hecker (1986, p. 66) proposed iḫtīṭā “they sold”, referring to AHw I, p. 343, s.v. ḫiāṭu(m) “to check” G 4a. But this meaning goes only with metal (silver and tin) “(weighed out and) checked” as means of payment, not with “goods and property”. I propose to read lámeš-da and to derive it from ṣamādu Gtn (or D) “to connect firmly”. The king was Agum-kakrime or Agum II in our terms. The refurbishing of Marduk’s crown and the restoration of his cult statue (B 9–11) are the main topics of Agum-kakrime’s inscription (Stein 2000, pp. 150–165, no. Kb2); see also the discussion on p. 64 above. The latter half of phrase B 6 is restored from šu dab-ma in the same text (Borger 1971, p. 9, col. II:26). On ša-sur as a variant of šà-tùr/šà-sur = šassūru “womb/mother-goddess” cf. CAD Š/II, p. 145, s.v. šassūru A, lex.: šà-tùr ∥ šà-sur = šá-as-su-ru; ibidem p. 146, sub c) “personified mother goddess”: Bēlet-ilī equated with dšà-tùr and dšà-sur-ra; ibidem also examples of up to seven šassūratu “birthgoddesses”. Here, in the Marduk Prophecy, the sign ša has replaced šà, as šà can replace ša in terms like šà šà-šà = ša libbīša “her fetus”, see the commentary on Source 54 l. 4. In this passage, the birth-goddesses are salmā, they have become peaceful (again), they are reconciled, which is the only hint in this text that the usual reason for a god the leave his abode and to go elsewhere is divine wrath. The image of the “reconciled birth-goddesses / wombs” probably expresses that “merciful” (rēmēnû) Marduk has turned his “pity” (rēmu, also “womb”) towards Babylon again. I think that, fully reconstructed, the phrase *sila-daĝal gal eri-ĝu10 stands for *rebīta rabīta ša ālīya “the broad square of my city”. The term sila-daĝal is well known as a spelling for rebītu “square” (AHw II, p. 964). It also can stand for sūqu rapšu “The-Wide-Street” in Babylon, whose ceremonial name is išemme šēʾâšu “He-Hears-Who-Seeks-Him” (George 1992, p. 66, Tintir V:62). Here, with an additional adjective, I take sila-daĝal as a spelling for rebītu. One may wonder whether the spelling might be a

1434 Kühne & Otten 1971, pp. 35–36.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

334

B 10: B 13f: C 1:

Edition of the Sources

glossing (*daĝalgal). However, I do not know of any case where the ancient scribe thought it neccesary to gloss the term. The problem that arises then is the missing determinative pronoun ša which is left out in the notation of the genitive construction. This is probably due to the fact that the construction is spelled out in word-signs, looking like a Sumerian phrase. Grammatical irregularities like this do also occur in similar cases. See e.g. for a determinative pronoun not noted in writing: ina mu.16.kam d muati-a-ùru = ina šešš-ešerīti šatti (ša) Nabû-apla-uṣur “in the sixteenth year (of) Nabopolassar”.1435 Or see here Source 53 where the quasi-Sumerian notation ignores the preposition ina in the sentence diĝirmeš kur elam-maki tušmeš, which either renders ilānū (ina) māt Elamti uššabū “the gods will dwell (in) the land of Elam” or ilānū māti (ina) Elamti uššabū “the gods of the land will dwell (in) Elam”. Here, the Š(D) stem of ṭâbu has the function of a declarative causative: ṭâbu G “to become pleasing”, Š(D) “to deem something to be pleasing / to take pleasure in something”; like waqāru G “to become precious”, Š “to consider something to be precious / to hold in high esteem”, or rabû G “to become great”, Š “to declare something to be great / to glorify”. For a syllabically spelled example see Ebeling, KAR, no. 16, rev. 22: ištu rubātu ṣīrtu ina Egalmaḫ šubta ušṭibbu (uš-ṭi-ib-bu) (…) “after the lofty princess had taken pleasure in (taking up) her residence in Egalmaḫ (…)”. Abundant water (in particular rain) and “sweet” (ṭābu) winds are classic signs of divine favour and confirmation, see e.g. CAD Š/II, p. 134, s.v. šāru A, 1a, 1’. Three days, however, seem to be a rather short time. The phrase occurs also in C 13–14 (see the commentary) and in D 14–15. Baltil is the sacred name of the inner city of Aššur with its temples (āllibbi-āli). Usually, it is spelled bal-tilki.1436 This is probably the “Sumerianized” form of an older, local name of the sacred area of Aššur. The classic form works with the following terms: – bal(a) = palû “reign / government (/ dynasty)” – til / ti(-l) = balāṭu “to live” > wašābu “to dwell” – til = sumun = labīru “old” Here, the term is extended by il5 = sikil = ellu “pure/sacred”. In Akkadian, bal-tilki is explained as šubat palê “seat of government” and palû labīrūtu “(seat of) age-old reigns”, or ca. “long-lasting dynasty”.1437 Sargon II uses both meanings in his “Aššur Charter”:

1435 Inscription of Nabonidus (Adad-guppi; Schaudig 2001, p. 502, no. 3.2 1 I 6). 1436 Or bala-tilki. I stick here to the traditional transliteration. On bal-tilki as a term for the

(inner) city of Aššur see Brinkman 1968, p. 168 note 1031 with earlier literature, and more recently Schaudig 2002, pp. 643–644 on the meaning. 1437 Although palû is often translated straightforwardly as “dynasty”, it has its roots in a completely different concept, meaning basically “term of reign”. Most notably, it does not necessarily incorporate the idea of “succession” (Finkelstein 1966, pp. 105–106; Schaudig 2001, p. 11). For some cases when it indeed means “dynasty” see note 693 on p. 148.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

C 2: C 4: C 5: C 6: C 6–8:

C 10:

335

– bal-til[ki] / (…) šu-bat pa-le-e (Saggs 1975, p. 14, ll. 11–12) (Saggs 1975, p. 14, l. 29) – bal-til[k]i (…) bal[ame]š la-bi-r[u-t]u Ekur-Baltil is a honorific name for the temple of Aššur at Aššur. Its proper names Eḫursag-kurkurra or Ešarra are not used here. In this text, temple names (é-) are extended by the term é-kur = ekurru “temple”, derived from the temple of Enlil at Nippur, see also Ekur-Saĝil in D 12 below and Borger 1971, p. 18 on I:4’. The noun šarru “king” is lost in the break, but it is probably best to restore it here (with Hecker 1986, p. 66), since there is another subject in this passage in addition to Marduk (most clearly in C 6, 10–11) which is referred to by the masculine suffix *-šu. This cannot be “Assyria” since māt Aššur is feminine. It is unlikely to be the temple Ekur-Baltil, since ekurru is usually feminine, too. Also, lines C 6–8 would sound awkward with a temple or a toponym as a subject. Is it possible that Marduk talks here about the god Aššur himself, and not the king? It is a little bit strange that the determinative ki in the toponym bal-ti-il5 in line I:3’ is missing. So one is tempted to restore [é-kur]-bal-ti-il5 already there. However, then the restored “king”, who is hinted at by the masculine suffixes (see above), would be gone. Perhaps it is meaningful that the determinative ki is missing – in order to merge the place Baltil and the temple Ekur-Baltil into a larger unity. If we take the statements of paragraph C literarlly, the king who was pleasing to Marduk in C 1 could be identified with Tukultī-Ninurta I, and the king who received Marduk’s farewell gifts in C 10–11 would have been Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur, see the commentary on Source 71. However, it is more likely that the Assyrian dynasty is meant here as a whole and not particular individuals. For ušṭīb = ṭâbu Š(D) see the commentary above on B 8. The restoration of the line follows lines III:10’ and IV:6–7, 18 of the manuscript from Aššur (no. 3; Borger 1971, pp. 10, 16). The comparison of Marduk with the fire-god Girra is in line with other similes, see Frankena 1957–1971 (RlA 3), p. 385. For mu-1-kam = šattu see e.g. mu-1-kammeš-ĝu10 = šanātīya in D 11. In this line, the god Enlil – originally of the city of Nippur – obviously merges with the god Aššur of the city of Aššur. These lines appear to convey an etiological explanantion for the wellknown and ubiquitous image of the winged god Aššur in Assyrian art. At least these lines may well pass as a sign of an Assyrian redaction of the text; see also the remarks in the introduction on the matters of date and content. In restoring [ṭuppi] šīmāti “a tablet of destinies”, I follow Borger’s (1971, p. 17 on I:34) intuition, although his argumentation is flawed. Pace Borger, the phrase has nothing to do with the phrases of B 11. Also, the lines of the Aššur text (no. 3, III [“ii”]:5’–6’, Borger 1971, p. 10) where Lambert (apud Borger 1971, p. 17 on I:34) played with the idea to read dub-pi = ṭuppi

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

336

C 11:

C 13f:

D 2:

D 4:

Edition of the Sources

“tablet” at the end of III:5’, are too damaged to make any decision. Furthermore, it is clear from collation,1438 that the signs there are in fact DUB IGI, as copied by Lambert. Still, I think that [ṭuppi] šīmāti “a tablet of destinies” is the best restoration here. A phrase like “to give as his destiny” would require a suffix: *ana šīm(ā)tīšu. One may hesitate to see a tablet of destinies in the hands of a human. But this line does not mean that Marduk gave to the Assyrian king a tablet on which the king himself could write destinies like a god, but a tablet written with his and his dynasty’s good fate, sealed by Marduk. As George (1986, pp. 138–142) has convincingly argued, tablets like the Assyrian vassal treaties, sealed with the seal of the god Aššur, could be understood as “tablets of destinies”. Since māt Aššur “Assyria” is feminine, but the suffixes in C 10–11 are masculine (*-šu), the recipient of the divine favour must still be the Assyrian king restored in line C 1. This line certainly deals with the establishment of a divinely legitimated system of weights and measures. One may think of “correct weights” (CAD G, p. 80, s.v. ginû 3; CAD K, pp. 391–392, s.v. kīnu 3a, 1’). There is also a “true pair of scales” as the constellation Libra in the skies: zibānītu ša kīnāti (múlziba-ni-[tu4] šá ki-na-a-tu4, see CAD Z, p. 99, s.v. zibānītu lex.). The phrase occurs also in B 13–14 (broken and restored) and in D 14–15. The “no. 1 place” in C 14 is certainly Babylon. Apart from the more common orthographies like tin-tirki or ká-diĝir-raki, Babylon can also be written ká–1(ki) and ká–1–1(ki) (Parpola 1970b, p. 62, s.v. KÁ-DIŠ, etc., all examples from inscriptions of Esarhaddon; Zadok 1985 [RGTC 8], p. 45, s.v. “KÁ.MINki”). As it appears, 1ki is a further abbreviation or another esoteric spelling of the place, found only here. In ká–1(–1)ki, the number 1 (or 60 = “the big 1”) appears to stand for diĝir “god”. It recalls the spellings d60 = Anu and d1 = Ea, and it corresponds to the orthographies ká-diĝirki and ká-diĝir-diĝirki, respectively ká-diĝirmeš.ki (Zadok 1985 [RGTC 8], pp. 44–45) . I think that in the phrase KI ĝen-ku aḫ-ḫi-sa the sign KI has a double function. In a first run, it can be read kī “that/whether/when”. In a second reading, it can be read ašar “where”. This, however, works only well with alāku: “where to go”. With naḫāsu, it sounds odd: “from where to return” makes little sense, since it is clear that Marduk would return from the place he went to. The opposite image, bringing Šakkan and Nisaba down again, is employed in the Poem of Erra (V:32), when Išum addresses Erra: – Šakkan u Nisaba tušerred ana māti1439 “You will bring down Šakkan and Nisaba to the land (again).”

1438 I thank Stefan Maul (Heidelberg) for permission to use the photograph. 1439 After Cagni 1969, p. 124, V: 32.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

D 5:

D 8:

D 9:

D 13:

D 14f:

337

This example of the beer-god Siraš making people sick during a historical crisis is the earliest reference to social disorder caused or speeded up by alcoholism known to me. In playing on the bundle of motifs “getting drunk, going mad,1440 and dying”, it also recalls the biblical image of getting drunk from “the cup of wrath, the goblet that makes men stagger” (Isa 51:17ff; Jer 25:15ff, 51:7), used as a description of utter disaster. In lines D 5–10 various verbal forms in present tense occur, which probably are to be understood as historical or narrative present. Borger (1971, p. 18 on II:8) was certainly right when he proposed to read “rebel king” (lugal *im-gi = šar ḫammāʾī) here. And he was also right in stating that there were no winkelhaken in the break, but the heads of two horizontal wedges. So I propose to read í[m-g]i for im-gi here, with a studied exchange of im for ím, which is quite in place in a text written by Marduk himself. Here, as in the omen literature from which the topics of this line are taken, the strange orthography ur-a does not denote the otter (kalab-mê “water-dog”), but the lion (nēšu). For omens with lions (ur-a ∥ ur-maḫ) blocking the way see CAD K, p. 61, s.v. kalab mê. For omens with dogs going mad see CAD Š/II, p. 260, s.v. šegû 2a, 1’. For this phrase, Foster (2005, p. 391) refers to the passage C 12–13. But the situation there is different. There, the text reads: [aḫ-ḫi-s]a ana ká-diĝirraki “[I return]ed to Babylon.” The verb mu-ma (= azkurma “I said”) at the end of the line belongs to the following phrase: “I said: Bring your tribute, ye lands!” Borger (1971, p. 8) read: a-na-ku èš/iš7-da-ra-a-ti dù-a-bi mu-[ma] (= anāku ištarāti kalâma azkur[ma]) “I called all the goddesses”. This makes no sense and presents an highly impropable spelling for ištarātu “goddesses”. The phrase occurs also in B 13–14 (broken and restored) and in C 13–14, see the commentary on these lines.

1440 Implied by the antisocial behaviour in D 6, more clearly expressed in Source 32, ll. 18,

22, see the discussion on pp. 74f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

338

Source 35: The Esaĝil Chronicle Obj:

1441 1442 1443 1444 1445

Religious-historical composition in the form of a literary, fictional royal letter: The Esaĝil Chronicle, formerly also known as Weidner Chronicle, dubbed so after Ernst Weidner who had discussed the text first (Weidner 1926). The manuscripts consist of two nearly complete tablets (S, A), and five fragments (B–F). Fragment E is a school text, since it contains also excerpts from a lexical list.1441 The manuscripts are written in Neo-Babylonian characters, apart from text A from Aššur, which is written in Neo-Assyrian signs. The language is Standard Babylonian Akkadian. Text D is bilingual and gives a version in late, post Old Babylonian Sumerian. As is usual with interlinear bilinguals, the Sumerian version precedes line-by-line the Akkadian translation. Here however, the Sumerian version is certainly secondary. Nevertheless, it was probably conceived by the Babylonians as the “original” version of the composition.1442 The manuscript belongs to Krecher’s bilingual type 1b, with the Akkadian line indented, but written in the same size as the Sumerian version.1443 This type appears to have evolved at the end of the second millennium and becomes classic in the course of the first millennium. Among the earliest datable texts of this kind is a limestone inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I.1444 Being a copy from the first millennium, the manuscript of text D would probably have taken the shape of the bilingual type 1b in any case. However, as it is the case with Enūma elîš and Tintir, the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I is also a very probable setting for the formation of a composition like the Esaĝil Chronicle, as far as the content is concerned. The fact, however, that the majority of the manuscripts have not come down to us as bilinguals is a sign that the Sumerian version had been added to the text only at some time during the first millennium and was not part of the text’s original form. So, while there is no hard proof that there might not have been an Old Babylonian version, the extant text fits best into an early NeoBabylonian setting. A first millennium date is corroborated by the poor quality of the Sumerian version. It displays clear signs of its late composition: (D ov. 2’a = l. 57) – [lugal-gi-na] šu bal ‹nu›-mu-u[n-a5] Here, the negation is missing. I have restored it according to classic Sumerian. Yet, with the mistakes of line 71 (D rev. 3’a) in mind, one is afraid the scribe might have in fact produced šu bal *mu-un-nu-a5, with the negation directly in front of the verbal root.1445

Mentioned by Gesche 2000, p. 148. See also Finkel 1980, p. 72. Krecher 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 124. Krecher 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 126, § 3. – Text: Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 12–14, no. B.2.4.1. Finkel 1980, pp. 72–73 on line 47 restores [… nu] šu-bal (…).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

339

– dšul-gi dumu ur-dnamma-ke4 n[am-lugal …] (D rev. 2’a = l. 70) The use of the directive in [e] – if not a hypercorrect ergative – is awkward. One expects a dative, something like *dšul-gi dumu ur-dnammaka-ra nam-lugal kur-kur-ra mu-na-an-sum. (D rev. 3’a = l. 71) – ⌈me⌉-bi šu nu-un-⌈šu⌉-du7 ⌈šu-luḫ-bi⌉ […] The construction of the verbal phrase is clearly wrong and a hallmark of late Sumerian, mechanically put together from lexical lists, with a dwindling knowledge of Sumerian syntax. The verbal expression šu--du7 “to perform in perfection” is a compound, and the phrase should run *me-ni šu nu-un-du7, or even using *nu-mi-in-du7 or *li-bí-in-du7. However, this mistake is already found in Old Babylonian Sumerian, and hence is not a strong argument for a first millennium date of the composition.1446 With the possessive suffix [-bi] in ⌈me⌉-bi and ⌈šu-luḫ-bi⌉ the scribe picked twice the non-human form, as opposed to the human form [-(a)ni] which would correspond to the god Marduk. (D rev. 3’a = l. 72) – [amar]-d⌈en⌉.zu-na dumu-na gu4 gal-gal-l[a …] The correct form would be *dumu-ni (or -né), from dumu-ani-e. (D rev. 4’a = l. 73) – [si-t]un gu4!(mu)-da nam mu-un-ta[r!] The entry si-tun = nakāpu (ša alpi) “to butt (with a horn, said of an ox)” is known from the lexical lists Erimḫuš, Antagal and Nabnītu, with NeoAssyrian and Neo-Babylonian manuscripts.1447 The scribe renders the Akkadian phrase iqbīšumma “(Marduk) ordered for him (as his destiny)” as a construction with nam--tar “to decide (as) a fate”. The proper Sumerian construction of nam--tar, however, takes a directive infix in the verbal chain, making the phrase look like a causative construction.1448 It should run *nam(-a-ni) mu-ni-in-tar. (D rev. 5’a = l. 74) – [šu-den.z]u-na zi-ni-šè é-[saĝ-íl …] Since Šu-Sîn is the ergative subject of this phrase, one expects something like *šu-den.zu-na-ke4 parallel to the fully Sumerian name amar-den.zuna(-k), even if the name Šu-Sîn (or older Šu-Suʾen) is actually Akkadian. More imporantly, with zi-ni-šè “for his life” the scribe picked a phrase which is out of place. Although it is a grammatically correct rendering of ana napištīšu, the classic expression used in Sumerian votive inscriptions is nam-ti-la-ni-šè.1449 The closest parallel to the expression under discussion appears to be zi-a-ni-šè ∥ ana na-piš-ti-šú “for (the sake of) his life” in a bilingual incantation from Nineveh.1450 (D rev. 6’a = l. 75) – [níĝ-ḫul dšul-g]i-⌈ra⌉ mu-u[n-dím-ma] One expects *dšul-gi-re, with the ergative in [e]. A similar mistake is found above in dumu-na (D rev. 3’a = l. 72). 1446 Edzard 2003a, p. 147, § 12.15.1.3; Thomsen 1984, pp. 271–272, § 533. 1447 See CAD N/I, p. 157, s.v. nakāpu lex.; MSL 17, p. 83, Erimḫuš VI:79; MSL 17, p. 252, Antagal

frag. m:7’; MSL 16, p. 53, Nabnītu I:90.

1448 Edzard 1975, pp. 70–73; Gragg 1973, p. 80. 1449 On the classic phrases of votive inscriptions see Braun-Holzinger 1991, p. 15. 1450 See CAD N/I, p. 296, s.v. napištu lex.; text: K 5139; copies: IV R2 26, no. 6:3a-b = CT 17, pl.

37, tablet Z, col. B:16’–17’.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

340

–

Prov:

Edition of the Sources

Copies of the Score Texts (manuscripts S and A take labels matching their places of origin, i.e. Sippar and Aššur, the rest is labelled alphabetically): S: Al-Rawi in: Iraq 52, 1990, pp. 11–13, photo: pl. 1 (Baghdad, IM 124470). This is the only tablet with a colophon, dating to the early 5th century BCE, see the commentary on line 83. The transliteration follows mainly the published photograph. A: Güterbock in: ZA 42, 1934, pp. 48–49, photo: pls. 1–2 (Assur 13955 gv; not in Berlin, perhaps in Istanbul). The transliteration follows the excavation photograph (Ass A 41291451, published somewhat coarsely in ZA 42, 1934, pls. 1–2. Readings deviating from Güterbock’s copy and the published photograph are marked with asterisks (*). The manuscript is readable only from obv. 6’ (= l. 17 of the composition) onwards. B: Boissier in: Babyloniaca 9, 1926, pl. 2; photo: pl. 3, fig. 1 (Musée d’Art et d’Histoire, Geneva; Sollberger in: JCS 5, 1951, p. 20, 6.4). C: Falkenstein, LKU, no. 41 (Berlin, VAT 14515). D: Finkel in: JCS 32, 1980, p. 78 (London, BM 39202). E: Finkel in: JCS 32, 1980, pp. 79–80 (London, BM 47733). Fragment of a Late Babylonian school text. The obverse gives parts of the lexical list Urra-ḫubullu II. Only the reverse (rev. II’ = ll. 57–59) contains material from the Esaĝil Chronicle in very short lines. Rev. I’ has traces of the beginnings of ca. 6 unidentified lines. Rev. III’ preserves the ends of 10 unidentified lines. F: London, BM 47679;1452 height 7 cm, width 5,5 cm, thickness 1,5–2,5 cm; copy: fig. 21 on p. 354 below; published here with kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum. Differing Gloss1453 Text Lines Missing ? ? 58 52b, 66 S 1–40, 43–82 27b , 35c , 63(a) A 17–73 29, 52b (18), 27b?, 34b, 72 B 51–69 52b, [66?] ? [66?] C 7–24, 58–81 8–10 D 56–62, 69–75 E 57–59 F 28–42, 53–75 [66?] Originally from Babylon, manuscripts from Sippar, Aššur and Uruk. S: Sippar, library of the temple Ebabbar. A: Aššur. B: –. C: Uruk. D: –. E: –. F: –.

1451 I thank Stefan Maul (Heidelberg) for permission to use the photograph. 1452 Mentioned, but not used by Glassner (1993a, p. 215; 2005, p. 263). 1453 On either gloss see chapter 10.3, in particular pp. 199ff.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

Date:

1454 1455 1456 1457

341

The original text is probably a composition of the early Neo-Babylonian Second Dynasty of Isin, dating to the very end of the second millennium BCE. The extant manuscripts date to the first millennium: Late NeoAssyrian (text A), Neo- and Late Babylonian periods (S, B, C, D, E, F). The historical setting of the framework claims to date the composition to the time of the First Dynasty of Isin. This, however, is most unlikely, at least as far as the composition at hand is concerned. Style and grammar of the text are typical of the Standard Babylonian Akkadian of the late second and first millennium BCE. Also, there is the fact that the text had been composed in Akkadian at all. In the time of the First Dynasty of Isin, a text like this would have been composed in Sumerian, not in Akkadian. The mediocre quality of the Sumerian employed in manuscript D (see above) also indicates that the extant text had been composed no earlier than during the late second millennium. Also the theology promulgated by the composition, with Marduk as the head of the pantheon, the Enlil of all the gods, is characteristic for the religious situation of the Neo-Babylonian period, introduced by the Second Dynasty of Isin.1454 The emphasis put on Marduk and Babylon is unconceivable in an Old Babylonian setting, even given the political power of the First Dynasty of Babylon under Hammurapi. Even then, and still throughout the long reign of the Kassite dynasty during the Middle Babylonian period, Enlil was the undisputed head of the pantheon. His position was only challenged at the end of the second millennium, when the political success of the kings of the Second Dynasty of Isin ruling from Babylon, and the retrieval of the statue of Marduk which had been abducted by the Elamites in their raid into Babylonia gave rise to the new religious setting in which Marduk achieved religious supremacy. Dating the composition to the time of the Second Dynasty of Isin is also supported by the prominent role of a former king of Isin (lines 1ff.) and, in particular, by the appearance of Isin’s tutelar deity Nin-Isina, who enters the stage under the names Gula and Ninkarrak in lines 10 and 14.1455 Another hint to the time of the Second Dynasty of Isin can perhaps be seen in the use of the orthography pa-šeki (l. 1), as opposed to the older spellings ì-si-inki or INki. This spelling, however, might of course also have been a matter of orthographical modernizing. Although the composition at hand is certainly a product of the very early Neo-Babylonian period, it cannot be excluded that there may have been older cousins of this text dealing with Nippur, Ekur and Enlil. Several of the legends told,1456 as well as the omens dealing with Nippur from the Book of Prodigies,1457 would work well in an Old Babylonian Nippur setting.

See the discussions on p. 68 above and in chapter 11.1. See the comments on pp. 114, 217 and 376. Elements of the stories of Sargon (p. 153), Amar-Sîn (p. 162) and Šu-Sîn (p. 165). Source 36, omens no. 16 (l. 12), no. 32 (l. 20) and no. 42 (l. 28).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

342

Lit: – – – – – – –

Edition Güterbock 1934, pp. 47–57; additions in AfO 13, 1939–1941, pp. 50–51. Boissier 1926, pp. 23–26, pl. 2 (copy), pl. 3, fig. 1 (photo). Grayson 1975a, pp. 145–151, chronicle 19. Finkel 1980, pp. 72–75. Al-Rawi 1990 (Sippar manuscript). Glassner 1993a, pp. 215–218, no. 37: “chronique de l’Esagil”. Glassner 2005a, pp. 263–269, no. 38: “chronicle of the Esagila”. Discussion – Weidner 1926: brief discussion. – Speiser 1955, pp. 59–60. – Wilcke 1988a, pp. 130–133. – Arnold 1994. – Pruzsinszky 2009, pp. 121–122. – Nielsen 2018, p. 181. Translation – Millard 1997. – Arnold 2006. Cont: The chronicle demonstrates that Marduk is king of the universe and the lord of history, see the discussion in chapter 7. The topic is exemplified by “the ways how former kings fared” (alakti šarrī maḫri, ll. 40, 76) in heeding or not heeding the god Marduk and his city Babylon. The addressee, formally [Apil-S]în? (l. 1) or another Old Babylonian king of Babylon, but actually any future king or reader of this text, is advised to learn from history how to behave (l. 9) and to worship Marduk in order “to keep himself safe and sound” (ša *ramānšu šullumi, ll. 7, 81). The structure of the composition runs like follows: Part Lines Content I

(1–7) (1) (2–7)

II III

(8–9) (10–13)

IV

(14–16)

V

(17–19)

VI

(20–24)

Address and Admonition ⌈Damiq-ilīšu?⌉ of Isin addresses [Apil-S]în? of Babylon. The good advice that was formerly given by the king of Isin as a favour was not heeded, but despised. The disregarded Advice is repeated Sacrifice of the king of Isin to Ninkarrak The king of Isin offers a sacrifice to his lady Ninkarrak (Gula) and asks her to bestow supremacy over Sumer and Akkad on Isin. Gula’s vision: Benediction of Isin Gula appears in a vision at night and reveals to her king that she (and her city Isin) had been blessed with kingship for a certain period of time (= First Dynasty of Isin). Elevation of Marduk and Babylon Marduk promotes his city Babylon to supremacy over Sumer and Akkad. Ea confirms this destiny by a benediction. Benediction of Marduk and Babylon by Ea Ea blesses Babylon (as his own favourite city, “New Eridu”), the temple Esaĝil and the “Lord of Lords” (Marduk); the names of Babylon are to be extolled.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium VII

(25–31)

VIII

(32)

IX

(33–39) (33) (34–35) (36–39)

X

(40–46) (41) (42–44) (45–46) (47–55) (47)

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

XVII

XVIII

(48–50) (51–55) (56–61) (56) (57–59) (60–61) (62–63) (62) (63) (64–69) (64–67) (68) (69) (70–71) (70) (71) (72–73) (72) (73) (74–75) (74) (75) (76–82) (76) (77) (78) (79) (80) (81–82)

343

Benediction of Marduk and Babylon by Anu and Enlil Anu and Enlil confirm Ea’s blessing by a twofold benediction of their own. Gula finishes her Speech Gula takes her leave and bestows life on the king of Isin. Advice given by the king of Isin The king of Isin adds a piece of advice: Marduk is to be heeded by all the gods. Marduk triumphs over enemy gods, he decides upon the existence of gods and their sanctuaries. Examples from history: From Akka to Gilgameš Akka of Kiš Enmerkar of Uruk and the sage Adapa Gilgameš of Uruk Fish for Esaĝil (A): Ku-Baʾu The fish offerings were originally administered by divine Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti (=Nabû). Abuse by Puzur-ilī of Akšak Ku-Baʾu appointed to kingship Wine for Esaĝil: Ur-Zababa and Sargon of Akkade Abuse (ordered) by Ur-Zababa Sargon appointed to kingship Crimes of Sargon and punishment The People of Babylon: Narām-Sîn and the enemy hordes Abuse by Narām-Sîn, punishment Gutians appointed to kingship Fish for Esaĝil (B): The Gutians and Utu-ḫeĝal Abuse by the Gutians Utu-ḫeĝal appointed to kingship Crimes of Utu-ḫeĝal and punishment Šulgi sullies the rites : Šulgi is sullied with a skin disease Šulgi appointed to kingship Crimes of Šulgi and punishment Oxen for Esaĝil: Amar-Sîn Abuse by Amar-Sîn Punishment of Amar-Sîn Šu-Sîn achieves salvation, but the sin of Šulgi reaches Ibbi-Sîn Šu-Sîn embellishes Esaĝil and is saved as a reward Punishment for Šulgi’s sin: Catastrophe of Ibbi-Sîn Moral: Learn from history to heed Marduk, Ea, and Nabû Marduk (Šazu) scans the heart Ea is foremost Marduk is king of the gods Nabû appoints the king With Sumu-la-El the rise of Babylon has begun Moral: Heed this advice to save yourself!

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

344

Edition of the Sources

Idealizing Transcription and Translation For details see the score transliteration below. I. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

II. 8 9

III. 10 11 12 13 IV. 14 15 16

V. 17

18 19

Address and Admonition ana [Apil-S]în? š[ar] Bābil qibīma umma ⌈Damiq-ilīšu?⌉ šar Isin-ma [libb]ū kīma [. . . . . . .] . . . . . . . . . . . . palâ/êka [an]āku amāt šitūlti ak-kâšu ašpurkumma atta l[ā . . .] ana libbīka lā tašdud ana ûrti addinu(-)k[um? atta u]l ta[š]mēma uzunka ul taškun ́ tešteneʾʾe ana ṭēmi nasqi ša u[kallimakku] ul taqūlma šanâtīma gimil dumqi elīka ana šakān[i . . .]. .-ma ina libbīka ul ibašši ša ramā[nk]a šullumi išdī u[mmānīk]a kunni ́ a ina qātīka ⌈ultaškin⌉ ana ūmī rūqūti akpudkām

The disregarded Advice is repeated S: aš[rātī]ša kī ašteʾʾû ṭēma [. . . . . . . . . n]asqat? u baṭlat inanna alakta luqbīku[m] ⌈arkāt(i ina?) taḫsisti?⌉ šuʾāti arḫiš limad

Sacrifice of the King of Isin ana Ninkarrak bēltīya bē[l]et Eg[alm]aḫ niqâ aqqīšimma utnēnši suppêša aṣbatma [a]mâti ‹ša› ina libbī[ya aqbīšimma?] ⌈umma⌉ lū anākū́ma nammaššê māt Šumeri u Akkadî ana qātī[y]a mull[î] [šumki] ṣ[ī]ra (var.: [šu]mīki ṣī[rūt]i) ina kiššat mātāti lušāpi nišū māti elīti u šaplīti bilassina [kabit]ta ana qereb [Egalma]ḫ li[šēribūm]a Gula’s vision: Benediction of Isin elletu Gula bēltu ṣīrtu ina šāt m[ū]ši izziza[mm]a amātīya [išmēm]a kīniš īta[mâ ittī]ya [i]kruban(ni) ina asurrakkī manzāza tukān ina anzanunzê . . . . . . . ana šamê rūqūti rēšīka tanašši ina mārī[ka] . . . . . . ⌈kidinnūta . . .⌉

Elevation of Marduk and Babylon S: [ar]kū Marduk šar ilānī ša kiššat šamê u erṣeti (var. A: ⌈šar ilānī ša ilānī . . . . .⌉) (var. C: [šar]ru ša i[lānī . . . . . .]) ru[bû] muštarḫu ā[lšu ušattar] [namm]aššê mat Šumeri u Akkadî ana māt ālīšu Bābil [il(ten)]eqqe [ana] abīšu Ea mummi mā[lik] šamê u erṣeti ana bīt aps[î iḫ]īšma

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

I. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

II. 8 9 III. 10 11 12 13 IV. 14 15 16 V. 17 18 19

345

Address and Admonition Say to [Apil-S]în?, k[ing of] Babylon, thus says ⌈Damiq-ilīšu?⌉, king of Isin: [It is be]ause [you put at risk the well-being of] . . . . your (own) reign, that I have written you word(s) of consultation, (but) you did not [pay attention], you did not take it to your heart! To the instruction that I have given yo[u,] [you] did [n]ot li[s]ten, you did not pay heed! To the choice report that I have [revealed to you], you did not pay attention, (instead) you keep pursuing other things! To secure (divine) favour as a reward for you [. . .] is not in your heart! To keep yo[urse]lf safe and sound, to strengthen the foundations of y[our troo]ps for distant days, I have designed for you and I ⌈have put⌉ (this advice) at your disposal. The disregarded Advice is repeated S: When I sought her (: Gula’s) sh[rine], (as to her) counsel [and advice] she was choice? – but (now) she has ceased (to give further advice). Now (for the last time), I will tell yo[u] how to behave, learn quickly the circumstances of (/ ⌈by?⌉) this ⌈reminder?⌉! Sacrifice of the King of Isin To Ninkarrak, my lady, the la[d]y of Eg[alm]aḫ I offered a sacrifice, I besought her and started to pray, [I told her] the [wo]rds ‹that› were in [my] heart, I spoke thus: “Deliver the people of the land of Sumer and Akkad into my hands, and I will glorify your august [na]me(s) in all the lands! May the people of the upper and the lower land(s) [carry] their [heav]y tribute into [Egalma]ḫ!” Gula’s vision: Benediction of Isin Holy Gula, the august lady, stepped up to m[e] in the dead of n[i]ght, [she heard] my words [an]d spo[ke to] me reliably: “[H]e (: Marduk) has blessed me, (and so) you will establish a place (rooted) in the abyss, in the waters of the deep ⌈. . . . . .⌉ Towards the distant heavens you will (proudly) lift your head, among [your] sons . . . . . privileged status? (for the city of Isin).” Elevation of Marduk and Babylon “[La]ter on, Marduk, the king of the gods (of all heaven and earth), the proud pri[nce], [will elevate his] (own) city (Babylon). [The peo]ple of the land of Sumer and Akkad [he will ta]ke (and assign them) to the land of his city Babylon. [To] his father, Creator Ea, the coun[selor] of heaven and earth, to the House of the Abyss he hurried (and prompted him to say):”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

346

VI. 20 21 22 23 24

Benediction of Marduk and Babylon by Ea [umma B]ābil āl itût kūn libbīya ‹ina› kullat dadmī [lū] šaqât [Es]aĝil parakku ṣīru ana pāṭ kiš[šat] šāmê u erṣeti lū ⌈. . . . . . .⌉ Bēl bēlē āšib parakkī ištu ṣīt Šamši [adi ereb] Šam[ši bilassunu] kabitta liš[dud] ṣalmāt qaqqadi kīma ṣēni lirteʾʾe [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ālu lū našâ rēši ša mātāti šūmān[šu (var.: [š]umē[šu]) ṣīrūtu] [lizzamrū ad-dāriš]

VII. 25 26

Twofold Benediction of Marduk and Babylon by Anu and Enlil amâti mala iqbûšu bēlu Nudimm[ud Anu u] Enlil i[šmûma imgurū qibīssu] ištu išid šamê adi (var.: ana) elât šamê ukannišūš šamê ⌈u erṣeta⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] 27a ina šanî Anu u Enlil ilānū rabûtu kīniš ippalsūšū́ma [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] 27b A: . . .[. . .]. . . ina a[nn]īšunu kīni ⌈kī⌉ʾam [. . . . . . . . . . . . ] 28 ša māti elīti u [š]aplīti lū ussangûšunu [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] 29 ana aširtīšu rabīti li(t)tarrarū ilānū rabûtu ša šamê u erṣeti ana û[rtīšu] appa [li]lbin[ū palḫiš] var.: (This line is missing from text A) 30 ša Esaĝil Etuša ekal šamê u erṣeti rēšīšu kīma šamê ul[lâ lībil] libbašunu 31 temenšu kīma šamê u erṣeti ana ūmī ṣâti kayyāna i[šdāšu lū šuršudā] A: ⌈. . .⌉ temenšu kīma erṣeti ana ūmī ṣâti kī[niš išdāšu lū šuršudā]

VIII. 32

Gula finishes her Speech ina niqîka amāt taqbâ (/-û) īdēma (ana) balāṭ ūmī rūqūti ana šulum ummānīka . . . [. . . . .]

IX. 33a

Advice given by the King of Isin ezib ša ina šutti purussâ iqbâ ezib ša ina šuttīya purussû iqqabâ milka damqa (A: ana) kâša lu[m]lik anā[ku umma] (F: [an]a kâša luštaddi[n]) [ana] ili šâšu ilānū rabûtu ša šamê u erṣeti [a]na il(ī) āli šâšu ilānū rabûtu ša šamê u erṣeti ûrta u[l iddinū] u ṭēm ūmīšunu ibašši ittī[šu] usaḫḫirū i[lu . . . . . . .] ana balāṭ tēdišti ūmiarḫi- u šattišam . . . [. . . . . . . .] (A: [omits] arḫišam šattišam) ana milkīšu nakli ilu mamma(n) ul iʾâr (var. F: ušarri)

33b

A:

34a S: A: 34b A: 35a 35b

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

VI. 20 21 22 23 24

347

Benediction of Marduk and Babylon by Ea “May [B]abylon, the city truly chosen in my heart, be exalted ‹among› all the cities! May [Es]aĝil, the august dais, be [extolled] as far as the borders of al[l] heaven and earth! May the Lord of (all) lords who sit on thrones, from the rising of the sun [to the setting of the] su[n], ta[ke along their] heavy tribute (to Babylon)! May he tend black-headed humanity like sheep, [may . . . . . . . . . !] The city, truly exalted among (all) the lands, [may its august] names [be sung for evermore!]”

VII. 25

Twofold Benediction of Marduk and Babylon by Anu and Enlil “[Anu and] Enlil h[eard and granted] the(se) words, as much as Lord Nudimm[ud] had said to him. 26 From the base of heaven to the zenith of heaven they subjected heaven ⌈and earth⌉ to him, [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] 27a For a second time Anu and Enlil, the great gods, looked upon him reliably [. . . . . . . . . .] 27b A: . . .[. . .]. . . with their reliable con[s]ent they [blessed him] thus: 28 ‘Of the upper and the lower land(s) may [he (: Marduk)] be their leader [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . !] 29 May the great gods of heaven and earth tremble before his great sanctuary, [may] they stroke the nose [timidly] at (hearing) [his] or[der!] var.: (This line is missing from text A) 30 [May] their heart(s) [prompt them] to raise the summit of Esaĝil (and) Etuša, the ‘Palace of Heaven and Earth’ (as high) as the heavens! 31 [May] its (A: ⌈holy?⌉) foundation, like (that of) heaven and earth, [be] firmly [established] for evermore!’ ” VIII. 32

Gula finishes her Speech “I know the word(s) you said (S: to me) at your sacrifice, and in order to [bestow] a life of distant days for the well-being of your troops . . . [. . . . .].”

IX. 33a

Advice given by the King of Isin Apart from the decision she (: Gula) told me in the dream, Apart from the decision that was told to me in my dream, I will give you (another) piece of good advice [:] [To] this god the great gods of heaven and earth [T]o the god(s) of this city the great gods of heaven and earth do n[ot give] order, but (to give them) their daily order is up to [him.] turn (their attention), the g[od(s) . . . . . . .] For continuous renewal, (daily,) monthly, annually . . . [. . . . . . . .] No god opposes his ingenious counsel,

A: 33b 34a S: A: 34b A: 35a 35b

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

348

Edition of the Sources

35c A: F: 36 37a S: A: 37b 38 39

šūma ša libbi b[arû ittīšu] šū libbi i[lānī ibarri] epšu pîšu ikkammû ilānū nakrūtu labšū aršūti uktapparū kīma mēsī [ilu ša] ana ili šâšu ugallalu ilu ša ana il(ī) āli šâšu ugallalu kakkabšu ina šamê ul izzaz ana aširtīšu liltammû rābiṣū ⌈šarrūssu iqatti⌉ ḫaṭṭašu inneṭṭir išittašu itâr ana tillī u k[armī] [(…) ay] išmēšū́ma šar kišš[at šam]ê u erṣet[i] umma ilānū ša šamê u erṣeti šâšu ašruš [idâma]

X. 40

Examples from History: From Akka to Gilgameš u alakti šarrī maḫri ša aštenemmû ana kâša lu[š]an[nâkku] (F: lušannīk[a]) ́ palâšu iski[p] Akka mār En-me-barag[e-si] ⌈. . . . . . .⌉ qebrūtīma Enmerkar šar Uruk nammaššê ušalpitma Ummān-Manda ša apil kalbati š[ū idkâššumma] ⌈. . . . . . . . .⌉ [. . . . ] apkallu Adapa . . . . . . . . . . . . . [. . . . . . . . . .] ⌈. .⌉ [. .] [Bēl ina k]iṣṣīšu elli išmēma (ana) Enmerkar īrur[ma šalamtaš īmi] [ana] Gilgameš šarrūt kiššat mātāti iddinšumma (A: addinšumma) parṣīšu (A: parṣīya) šu[klula umaʾʾiršu] [ā]lš[u Bāb]il kīma šiṭir(ti) šamāwī ubannīma ina Esaĝil . . . . .[. . . . . .]

41 42 43 44 45 46

XI. Fish for Esaĝil (A): Ku-Baʾu 47 S: [M]ār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti ana 3020 rēšēt? šanātīšu [ana nūn tāmarti paqidma] A: u ⌈Mār-Bīt⌉-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti māru rēštû ša Esaĝil ana nūn tāmar[ti paqidma] 48 ina palê Puzur-ilī šar Akšak šukudakkū ša Esaĝil ⌈. . . . .⌉ 49 S: ana naptan bēli rabî Marduk nūna ibarrūma ana naptan Bēl nūna ibarrū[ma] A: ⌈ina kidudê ? . . .⌉ 50 laputtû šarri uttekkir šukudakkū ⌈. . . . . . . . . . .⌉ (A: nūna ēkimū) 51 sebet ūmī ina nasāḫi šukudakkū (ištēn) nūna ibarrūma 52a ina bīt Ku-Baʾu sābīti ana ammammi (nūna) umtašširū 52b inūšu nūnu ‹ša› ūm ana Esaĝil ul īrub nūnu balṭu ‹ul› uṭṭaḫ[ḫi] var.: (This line is missing from text A)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

349

35c A: F: var.: 36

It is [up to] him (: Marduk) to s[can] the (thoughts) of the heart. He (: Marduk) [scans] the heart of the g[ods]. (The phrase is possibly missing from text S) At his command, the hostile gods are bound, and dressed in soiled garments, they are cut to pieces like (mere) mēsu-trees. 37a S: [The god who] sins against this god, A: The god who sins against the god(s) of this city, 37b his star will no longer stand in the skies, and demons shall beleaguer his shrine. 38 (As to that god and his chosen king,) his kingship will cease, his sceptre will be taken, his treasury will turn into a heap of rubble and r[uins]. 39 The king of al[l heav]en and earth [may not] listen to him, (but say): “Gods of heaven and earth, [reject] him and his place!” X. 40 41 42 43 44 45

46

Examples from History: From Akka to Gilgameš And (now), I want to tell you (again) what I have been hearing about the conduct (and fate) of former kings. Akka, the son of En-me-barag[e-si] ⌈. . . . .⌉ the buried ones, and so he (: Marduk) se[t] aside his reign. Enmerkar the king of Uruk wrecked the people, and so [he (: Marduk) summoned up against him] the Ummān-Manda, who was the son of a bitch. ⌈. . . . . . . . .⌉ [. . . . ] The sage Adapa . . . . . . . . . . . . . [. . . . . . . . . .] ⌈. .⌉ [. .] [Bēl] heard (this) [in] his holy [s]hrine and cursed Enmerkar, [and so he became (like) a corpse (while still alive).] S: He gave the kingship over all the lands [to] Gilgameš, and [charged him] to per[form] his rites perfectly. A: (Saying:) “I have given (herewith) the kingship over all the lands [to] Gilgameš, and [I have charged him] to per[form] my rites perfectly!” He embellished h[is (: Marduk’s) cit]y Babylon like the celestial writing, and in Esaĝil . . . . .[. . . . . .]

XI. Fish for Esaĝil (A): Ku-Baʾu 47 S: [M]ār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti for its (: Esaĝil’s) 3020 first? years [was in charge of the fish offering.] A: And Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti, the firstborn son of Esaĝil [was in charge] of the fish offeri[ng]. 48 During the reign of Puzur-ilī king of Akšak, the fishermen of Esaĝil ⌈. . . . .⌉ 49 S: they caught fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk. A: ⌈According to the rites?⌉ . . . they caught fish for the meal of Bēl. 50 The king’s officer(s) took (the fish) away. The fishermen ⌈. . . . . . . .⌉ 51 Seven days having gone by, the fishermen (again) caught a (unique) fish. 52a In the house of Ku-Baʾu the alewife, they let (the fish) glide into a beer jar. 52b In those days, fish of the (same) day did not enter Esaĝil, fresh fish was ‹not› offer[ed]. (Var.: This line is missing from text A)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

350

53 54 55 XII. 56 57 58 59 60 61

Edition of the Sources

Ku-Baʾu ana šukudakkī akala iddin mê iddin nūna balṭa (ana Esaĝil) ušt[aḫmiṭū] ́ Marduk mār rubê ša apsî (A: bēlu rabû Marduk) ḫadîš ippalissīma umma šī lū kīʾam ana Ku-Baʾu (sābīti) šarrūt kiššat mātāti ugdammir[ši] (B: iddinši) Wine for Esaĝil: Ur-Zababa and Sargon of Akkade Ur-Zababa karānī maqqâti ša Esaĝil ana Šarru-kīn (B, F: šāqîšu) (A: ana) šupelli iqb[i] Šarru-kīn (karā[nī]) ul ušpēl ittaʾidma ana Esaĝil uštaḫmiṭ Marduk mār rubê ša apsî ḫadîš ippalissū́ma šarrūt kibrāt arbaʾi iddinšu S: Marduk šar kiš[šat ša]mê u erṣeti šar[rūt kiššati ug]dam[mi]ršū́ma Akka[de ibni] zāninūt Esaĝil epuš gimir āšib parakkī ana Bābil bilassunu (kabitta) liššû šū amāt Bēl iqbûšu ima[ššīma] eper šatpīšu issuḫma (ina) miḫrat Akkade (A: ālīšu) āla īpušma Bābil ana šumīšu ib[b]i Enlil ša iqbûšu ikkiršū́ma ultu ṣīt Šamši adi ereb Šamši ikkirūšū́ma lā ṣalāla īmissu (var.: iškun[šu])

XIII. The People of Babylon: Narām-Sîn and the enemy hordes 62 Narām-Sîn nammaššê (ša) Bābil ušalpitma adi šinīšu ummān Qutî idkâššumma 63 S šarrūssu ana ummān Qutî ittadin var.: nišīšu makkarāniš ittaṭi šarrūssu ana (ummān) Qutî ittadin

XIV. 64 65 66 67 68

Fish for Esaĝil (B): The Gutians and Utu-ḫeĝal Qutû ša tazzimti ilānī palāḫu lā kullumu parṣī (u) uṣurāti šuklula (var.: šutēšura) lā īdû Utu-ḫeĝal šukudakku ina pāṭ irat tâmti nūn tāmarti ibārma (S: inūšu) nūna šuʾāti adi ana bēli rabî Marduk ṭeḫû (var.: ‹uṭ›ṭaḫḫû) ana ili šanîmma ul uṭṭaḫḫi Qutû nūna bašla lā ṭuḫḫâ ina qātīšu īkimma (A: īkimūš[ū́ma]) ina qibītīšu ṣīrti ummān Qutî šarrūt mātīšu īkimma ana Utu-ḫeĝal ittadin (A: ana šarrūt mātīšu ēṭirma) (B: iddin)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

53 54 55 XII. 56 57 58

59 60 61

XIII. 62 63

XIV. 64 65 66 67 68

351

Ku-Baʾu provided the fishermen with bread and water, and they deli[vered] the fresh fish quickly (to Esaĝil). Marduk, the princely son of the Apsû (A: The great lord Marduk) looked upon her favourably, (saying:) “May it be her!” To Ku-Baʾu (the alewife) he gave the kingship over all the lands. Wine for Esaĝil: Ur-Zababa and Sargon of Akkade Ur-Zababa tol[d] Šarru-kīn (B, F: his cupbearer) to alter the wine libations of Esaĝil. (But) Šarru-kīn did not alter (the win[e]). (On the contrary,) he took great care (to deliver the wine) to Esaĝil promptly. Marduk, the princely son of the Apsû looked upon him favourably and gave him the kingship over the four regions. S: Marduk, the king of al[l hea]ven and earth [gav]e him in full the king[ship over the world], and (Sargon) [built] Akka[de.] (Saying:) “Execute the office of the provider of Esaĝil! May all (the kings) sitting on thrones bring their (heavy) tribute to Babylon!” But he (: Sargon) for[got] about the word that Bēl had told him, he took earth from its (: Babylon’s) pit and built a city opposite to Akkade (A: his city), and (also) cal[led] it ‘Babylon’. (Then,) Enlil(-Marduk) denied what he had said to him, too, and (all the people) from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun became hostile to him (: Sargon), and he (: Marduk) imposed on him sleeplessness. The People of Babylon: Narām-Sîn and the enemy hordes Narām-Sîn wrecked the people of Babylon, and so he (: Marduk) summoned up against him the horde of the Gutians, for a second time. He (: Marduk) hit his people as with a goad. (Text S omits this phrase) His kingship he handed over to the (horde of the) Gutians. Fish for Esaĝil (B): The Gutians and Utu-ḫeĝal The Gutian(s were people), to whom respect towards the gods’ desires had not been taught, who did not know how to perform the rites and the (holy) ordinances in perfection (var.: properly). Utu-ḫeĝal, the fisherman, caught a fish (fit) for presentation (to Marduk) at the edge of the open sea. (S: In those days,) that fish would not be offered to any other god, until it was offered to the great lord Marduk. The Gutian(s) took the fish, (which was already) cooked, (but) not (yet) offered, from his hands. (And so Marduk,) by his august command, took the kingship over his land away from the Gutian horde and gave it to Utu-ḫeĝal.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

352

69

Utu-ḫeĝal šukudakku (S+F) (A, B?–D?)

qāssu ana ālīšu ana lemutti ūbilma miḫrēt nāri šalamtašu itb[alā] nāru šalamtašu (var.: pagaršu) it[bal]

XV. 70 71

Šulgi sullies the rites : Šulgi is sullied with a skin disease ana Šulgi mār Ur-Namma šarrūt kiššat mātāti iddin(šum)ma parṣīšu ul ušaklil šuluḫḫīšu ulaʾʾīma annašu ina zumrīš[u i]štakkan

XVI. 72 var.: 73

Oxen for Esaĝil: Amar-Sîn Amar-Suʾena mārušu alpī rabûti ša nīq zagmukki ša Esaĝil uš(te)pēlma (Text A has traces of a differing, but obscure phrase) nikip alpi iqbīšumma (D: qabīšu[mma]) ina nišik šēnīšu im‹tūt›

XVII. 74 75

Šu-Sîn saves himself, but the sin of Šulgi reaches Ibbi-Sîn Šu-Sîn ana (balāṭ) napištīšu Esaĝil kīma šiṭir šamāwī (F: [ša]mê) u[ban]nīma napšātīšu uwa[ttir] ‹lemuttu ša› Šulgi īpušu aranšu Ibbi-Sîn mārašu ī‹missū́ma›

XVIII. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Moral: Learn from History to heed Marduk, Ea, and Nabû ́ a ‹Šazu ibarri› ‹alak›ti šarrī maḫri ālik pāni [li]tāmûka ša libbīkām eli abīšu Ea šamê u erṣeti [mam]ma ul ibni ilu u ištar mam‹man› apilšu ṣīru bēlu rabû M[arduk] il(ān)u ša ilānī rubû ‹muštālu› līp-līpīšu Nabû ša ēna i[n]aššû šarra inambû ‹. . . . . . . . . .› ana Sumu-la-El šarri littīšu ša Anu šumšu im‹bû šarrūt mātīšu iddin› ša ramānka šullumi u mātka kalâša šubta nē‹ḫta šūšubi› adi ūmī balṭāta ina qātīka ‹liššakin›

Colophon 83 S: ṭuppi Marduk-ēṭir aplīšu ša Mušēzib-Bēl! m[ār S]uḫāya pāliḫ Nabû ḫalqa litīr

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

69

Utu-ḫeĝal the fisherman laid his hand on his (: Marduk’s) city with evil intent, and (S+F: the weirs of) the river car[ried] off his corpse.

XV. 70

Šulgi sullies the rites : Šulgi is sullied with a skin disease (Marduk) gave the kingship over all the lands to Šulgi, the son of Ur-Namma. (Šulgi however) did not perform his rites perfectly, but defiled his purification rites, and so he (: Marduk) made his sin manifest in his body (in form of a skin disease).

71

XVI. 72

Oxen for Esaĝil: Amar-Sîn Amar-Suʾena, his son, altered (the number or quality of) the great bulls for the offering for the New Year’s festival of Esaĝil. var.: (Text A has traces of a differing, but obscure phrase) 73 He (: Marduk; D: It was) ordained for him (that he die from) the goring of a bull, and (consequently) he di‹ed› from the ‘bite’ of his sandal. XVII. 74 75

XVIII. 76 77 78 79 80 81 82

Šu-Sîn saves himself, but the sin of Šulgi reaches Ibbi-Sîn Šu-Sîn em[bell]ished Esaĝil like the celestial writing for the sake of (saving) his life, and so he (: Marduk) incr[eased] his life(span). (But Marduk) i‹mposed› the penance for ‹the evil that› Šulgi had done upon his (grand)son Ibbi-Sîn. Moral: Learn from History to heed Marduk, Ea, and Nabû May (your advisors) tell you the ‹conduc›t (and fate) of the former kings (your) predecessors, and (may they tell you) that ‹Šazu› ‹(= He-Who-Knoweth-the-Heart) scans› the (thoughts) of your heart. No god or goddess has created (anything in) heaven and earth, surpassing his (: Marduk’s) father Ea! His lofty firstborn son (is) the great lord M[arduk], the god over (all) the gods, the ‹judicious› prince. His offspring (is) Nabû, he who e[l]evates the lord (into office) and appoints the king ‹. . . . . . . . . .› To Sumu-la-El, the king, his progeny, whose name Anu pro‹claimed, he had given the kingship over his land.› To keep yourself safe and sound, and to let your whole land ‹dwell› in pea‹ce›, may (this advice) ‹be› at your disposal as long as you live!

Colophon 83 S: Tablet of Marduk-ēṭir, the firstborn of Mušēzib-Bēl!, s[on of S]uḫāya. May he who reveres Nabû restore the loss!

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

353

354

21

Edition of the Sources

Figure 21: Text F (BM 47679). The line numbering is the one of the reconstructed text.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

355

Score Transliteration, Transcription and Translation 1 – S ov. 1

2 – S ov. 2

3 – S ov. 3

4 – S ov. 4

5 – S ov. 5

6 – S ov. 6

ana [Apil-S]în? š[ar] Bābil qibīma umma ⌈Damiq-ilīšu?⌉ šar Isin-ma Say to [Apil-S]în?, k[ing of] Babylon, thus says ⌈Damiq-ilīšu?⌉, king of Isin: ⌈a-na⌉ [Ia-pil-d+e]n.zu l[ugal] ⌈eki⌉ ⌈qí-bi⌉-ma ⌈um-mu⌉ ⌈(I)da-mi-iq-diĝir-šu⌉1458 ⌈lugal⌉ pa-šeki-ma1459 [libb]ū kīma [. . . . . . .] . . . . . . . . . . . . palâ/êka [It is be]ause [you put at risk the well-being of] . . . . your (own) reign, [li-ib-b]u-ú1460 ki-ma [x x x x] ⌈x⌉ šu ma ⌈x x x x⌉ bala1461-ku [an]āku amāt šitūlti ak-kâšu ašpurkumma atta l[ā . . .] ana libbīka lā tašdud that I have written you word(s) of consultation, (but) you did not [pay attention], you did not take it to your heart! [a-n]a-ku a-mat ši-tul-ti a-⌈ka-a⌉-šú áš-pur-⌈kúm⌉-ma at-⌈ta⌉ l[a? x]-⌈x-x⌉ ⌈a-na⌉ šà-ka ⌈la taš-du⌉-ud ana ûrti addinu(-)k[um? atta u]l ta[š]mēma uzunka ul taškun To the instruction that I have given yo[u,] [you] did [n]ot li[s]ten, you did not pay heed! a-na ur-ti ad-di-nu(-)k[úm?1462 at-ta u]l ta-[aš]-⌈me⌉-e-ma ú-⌈zu-un-ka ul⌉ taš-⌈ku⌉-un ́ tešteneʾʾe ana ṭēmi nasqi ša u[kallimakku]1463 ul taqūlma šanâtīma To the choice report that I have [revealed to you], you did not pay attention, (instead) you keep pursuing other things! a-na ṭè-mi na-as-qí šá ú-⌈x-x-x⌉ ul ⌈ta⌉-qul-ma šá-na-ti-ma téš-te-né-ʾe-e gimil dumqi elīka ana šakān[i . . .]. .-ma ina libbīka ul ibašši To secure (divine) favour as a reward for you [. . .] is not in your heart! gi-mil dum-qí e-li-ka a-na šá-ka-n[i x x] ⌈x⌉-ma ina šà-bi-ka ul i-ba-áš-ši

1458 Thus according to the copy; in the photograph the traces are illegible. 1459 The title at the end of the line has been affected by a smear or an erasure; strangely

enough, the sign lugal had been written under the erasure, pa.še over it.

1460 Thus according to the photograph. 1461 Written over another, but defective ba‹la›. 1462 Thus according to the copy; the photograph suggests: (-)k[a]. The combination of the

subordinative marker [u] with a dative suffix without a ventive marker is unusual, one expects *addinakku. 1463 Or any similar phrase like u[šannâkku], u[šašmâkka] or u[šagmirakku].

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

356

7 –

S ov. 7 C ov. 1’

8 – S C

ša ramā[nk]a šullumi išdī u[mmānīk]a kunni ́ a ina qātīka ⌈ultaškin⌉ ana ūmī rūqūti akpudkām To keep yo[urse]lf safe and sound, to strengthen the foundations of y[our troo]ps for distant days, I have designed for you and I ⌈have put⌉ (this advice) at your disposal. šá ra-⌈ma⌉-a[n-k]a šul-lu-me iš-di u[m-ma-ni-k]a ku-un-ni a-na u4-mi ru-qu-ti ak-pu-ud-ka-ma1464 ina šumin-ka ul-⌈taš+kin⌉1465 [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x x⌉ [. . . . . ]

S: aš[rātī]ša kī ašteʾʾû1466 ṭēma [. . . . . . . . . n]asqat? u baṭlat When I sought her1467 sh[rine], (as to her) counsel [and advice] she was choice? – but (now) she has ceased (to give further advice). ? ov. 8 áš-[ra-ti]-šu ki áš-te-ʾe-e ṭè-ma [x x x x x x n]a-⌈ás-qá⌉-at (?) ù ⌈ba⌉-aṭ-⌈la⌉-at ? min ov. 2’ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -a]r/-ri ĝeštug [. . . . . . . . . . . . . ]1468

9 – S ov. 9 C ov. 3’

10 – S ov. 10 C ov. 4’

11 – S ov. 11 C ov. 5’

inanna alakta luqbīku[m] ⌈arkāt(i ina?) taḫsisti?⌉ šuʾāti arḫiš limad Now (for the last time), I will tell yo[u] how to behave, learn quickly the circumstances of (/ ⌈by?⌉) this ⌈reminder?⌉! ⌈i-na⌉-an-na a-lak-ti lu-uq-bi-kú[m] ⌈ar⌉-k[a]-⌈at⌉ ⌈(ina?) ĝeštug?-tu⌉ šu-⌈a-tu⌉ ar-ḫi-iš! li-mad [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . .] bi ga/t[a . . . . . . . . . .] ana Ninkarrak bēltīya bē[l]et Eg[alm]aḫ niqâ aqqīšimma To Ninkarrak, my lady, the la[d]y of Eg[alm]aḫ I offered a sacrifice, a-na dnin-kar-ra-ak-a gašan-ia b[é-le]-et é-g[al-m]aḫ ni-qa-a ⌈aq⌉-qí-⌈šim⌉-ma [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x x x x⌉ a-na ša [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [–––––––––––––––––––––––––]––––––––––––––––––––[–––––––––––––––––––]1469 utnēnši suppêša aṣbatma [a]mâti ‹ša› ina libbī[ya aqbīšimma?] ⌈umma⌉ lū anākū́ma I besought her and started to pray, [I told her] the [wo]rds ‹that› were in [my] heart, I spoke thus: ut-nen-ši su-pe-e-šá aṣ-bat-ma [a-m]a-a-[t]i ‹šá› ina šà-bi-⌈x x x x x x⌉ ⌈um?-ma?⌉ lu-ú a-na-ku-ma [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ um!-[m]a ⌈lu!⌉-[ú] a-n[a-ku-ma]

1464 Clear in the photograph; not am!(ak)-li-ka-ma (thus Al-Rawi). 1465 Read from the copy only, the signs are written on the right margin. 1466 After kī in the temporal clause the subordinative *ašteʾʾû is to be expected. The late

Sippar text does not produce it, but I reconstruct it in the idealized version.

1467 The goddess Ninkarrak, introduced by name in line 10 only. 1468 In its lines obv. 2’–4’ (= ll. 8–10), text C had apparently a differing version. 1469 By this ruling, text C sets the beginning of the king’s address apart from the rest.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

12 – S ov. 12 C ov. 6’

13 – S ov. 13 C ov. 7’

14 – S ov. 14 C ov. 8’ C ov. 9’

15 – S ov. 15 C ov. 10’

16 – S ov. 16 C ov. 11’

nammaššê māt Šumeri u Akkadî ana qātī[y]a mull[î] [šumki] ṣ[ī]ra (var.: [šu]mīki ṣī[rūt]i) ina kiššat mātāti lušāpi “Deliver the people of the land of Sumer and Akkad into my hands, and I will glorify your august [na]me(s) in all the lands!” nam-maš-še-e kur šu-me-ri u uri[(ki)] a-na šumi[n-ĝ]u10 ⌈mul⌉-l[i-i] ⌈x x x⌉ ⌈ṣi⌉-[i]-ri ‹ina› kiš-šat kur-kur lu-šá-pu [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . šu]-mi-ki ṣi-⌈i⌉-[ru-t]ú i-na k[iš(!)-šat kur-kur lu-šá-pi] nišū māti elīti u šaplīti bilassina [kabit]ta ana qereb [Egalma]ḫ li[šēribūm]a “May the people of the upper and the lower land(s) [carry] their [heav]y tribute into [Egalma]ḫ!” ùĝmeš kur e-li-tì u ša[p]-li-tì bi-[lat]-si-na [ka-bit-t]u41470 ⌈a-na qé-reb⌉ [é-gal-ma]ḫ li-[še-ri-bu-m]a(!) [ùĝmeš kur e-li-t]i ⌈ù⌉ šap-⌈li⌉-ti bi-lat-s[i-na dugud-tu4] elletu Gula bēltu ṣīrtu ina šāt m[ū]ši izziza[mm]a amātīya [išmēm]a kīniš īta[mâ ittī]ya Holy Gula, the august lady, stepped up to m[e] in the dead of n[i]ght, [she heard] my words [an]d spo[ke to] me reliably: kù-tu4 dgu-la be-el-⌈ti⌉ ṣir-tú i-na šat m[u]-ši iz-zi-za-[am-m]a ⌈enimmeš-ia⌉1471 [iš-me-m]a ki-niš i-t[a-ma-a it-ti]-ia [ana qé-reb é-gal-maḫ li-še-ri-bu-ma kù-tú dgu-la gašan maḫ] i-na šá-a[t mu-ši] [iz-zi-za-am-ma enimmeš-ia iš-me-ma ki]-ni-⌈iš⌉ ⌈i?⌉-[ta-ma-a ki-ia]1472 [i]kruban(ni) ina asurrakkī manzāza tukān ina anzanunzê . . . . . . . “[H]e (: Marduk) has blessed me, (and so) you will establish a place (rooted) in the abyss, in the waters of the deep ⌈. . . . . .⌉” [i]k-ru-ba-an ina a-sur-⌈rak⌉-ki-i ma-an-za-za tu-k[a]-⌈x⌉ ina an-za-nun!-z[e]-⌈e⌉ ⌈x x⌉ ri/ḫu nim ⌈x x⌉-la [. . . . ina a]-sur-[ra-ak-ki-i tu]-ka-nu i-[na . . . . .] ana šamê rūqūti rēšīka tanašši ina mārī[ka] . . . . . . ⌈kidinnūta . . .⌉ “Towards the distant heavens you will (proudly) lift your head, among [your] sons . . . . . privileged status (for the city of Isin).” [a-n]a an-e ru-qu-tu re-ši-ka ta-na-⌈áš⌉-ši ina ma-ri-[ka] ⌈x e li iš/ka⌉ ki!(di)-di-⌈in-nu!-tú⌉ (. . .) [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . r]e-š[i-ka . . . . . . . . . . . k]i-⌈di!⌉-i[n-nu-tú . . .]

1470 Only minor traces extant of ⌈ka-bit⌉- or the like. 1471 Thus with Al-Rawi, although I cannot see the signs in the photograph. 1472 The line was once probably indented.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

357

Edition of the Sources

358

17

S: [ar]kū Marduk šar ilānī ša kiššat šamê u erṣeti (var. A: ⌈šar ilānī ša ilānī . . . . .⌉) (var. C: [šar]ru ša i[lānī . . . . . .]) ru[bû] muštarḫu ā[lšu ušattar] – “[La]ter on, Marduk, the king of the gods (of all heaven and earth),1473 the proud pri[nce, will elevate his] (own) city (Babylon).” d meš S ov. 17 [ar]-ku-ú amar-utu lugal diĝir šá kiš-šat an-e u ki-tì ru-[bu-ú] mu-⌈uš-tar⌉-ḫi e[ri-šú ú-šat-tar] meš A ov. 6’ [. . . . . . . .] ⌈. . . . . . . .⌉ ⌈lugal diĝir šá diĝirmeš⌉ ⌈. . . . . . . . ⌉ [. . . . . . . . . ] meš C ov. 12’ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . šar]-ri šá di[ĝir ........................] 18 – S ov. 18 A ov. 7’ C ov. 13’

19 – S ov. 19 A ov. 8’ C ov. 14’

20 – S ov. 20 A ov. 9’ C ov. 15’

21 – S ov. 21 A ov. 10’ C ov. 16’

[namm]aššê māt Šumeri u Akkadî ana māt1474 ālīšu Bābil [il(ten)]eqqe “[The peo]ple of the land of Sumer and Akkad [he will ta]ke (and assign them) to the land of his city Babylon.” [nam-m]aš-⌈še⌉-e kur šu-me-ri u uriki a-na kur eri-šú tin-tirki ⌈x⌉ [x x]-eq-⌈qé⌉ [. . . . . . . . .] ⌈. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .⌉ ⌈a-na a-mat⌉ ⌈. . . . . . . . ⌉ [. . . . . . . . . ] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . kur šu]-me-⌈ri⌉ u [uriki . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [ana] abīšu Ea mummi mā[lik] šamê u erṣeti ana bīt aps[î iḫ]īšma “[To] his father, Creator Ea, the coun[selor] of heaven and earth, to the House of the Abyss he hurried (and prompted him to say):” [a-na] ⌈a⌉-bi-šu dé-a mu-um-mì ma-[lik] an-e u ki-tì ana é ap-s[i-i i-ḫ]i-⌈iš⌉-ma ⌈. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .⌉ [m]a-⌈lik⌉ an-⌈e⌉ ⌈. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . dé]-a mu-⌈um⌉-m[u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [umma B]ābil āl itût kūn libbīya ‹ina› kullat dadmī [lū] šaqât “May [B]abylon, the city truly chosen in my heart, be exalted ‹among› all the cities!” [um-ma tin]-tirki eri i-tu-ut ku-un šà-bi-⌈ia⌉ ‹ina› kul-lat da-ád-mì [lu-ú] šá-⌈qat⌉ [. . . . .] ⌈ . . . . . . . .⌉ ⌈i-tu-ut kun šà-bi⌉-⌈. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .⌉ [. . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . eri i]-tu-[ut ku-un šà-bi-ia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [Es]aĝil parakku ṣīru ana pāṭ kiš[šat] šāmê u erṣeti lū ⌈. . . . . . .⌉ “May [Es]aĝil, the august dais, be [extolled] as far as the borders of al[l] heaven and earth!” [é-s]aĝ-íl bára ṣi-i-ri a-na pa-aṭ kiš-[šat] an-e u ki-tì lu!-⌈ú⌉ ⌈x⌉ ⌈x⌉ ⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . . ] ⌈. . . . . . . . .⌉ ⌈a-na paṭ⌉ ⌈. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .⌉ [. . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ [ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]

1473 Text A: “the king of the gods among the (other) gods”. 1474 Text A apparently had a differing phrase with ana amāt … “according to the word of …”

instead of the very homophonous ana māt …“to the land of …”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

22 –

S ov. 22 A ov. 11’ C ov. 17’

23 – S ov. 23 A ov. 12’ C ov. 18’

24 – S ov. 24 A ov. 13’ C ov. 19’

25 – S ov. 25 A ov. 14’

26 – S ov. 26 A ov. 15’

359

Bēl bēlē āšib parakkī ištu ṣīt Šamši [adi ereb] Šam[ši bilassunu] kabitta liš[dud] “May the Lord of (all) lords who sit on thrones, from the rising of the sun [to the setting of the] su[n], ta[ke along their] heavy tribute (to Babylon)!” ⌈en en⌉-en1475 a-šib bára iš-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši [a-di e-reb] ⌈dutu⌉-[ši bi-lat-su-nu] ⌈ka⌉-bit-ti liš-[du-ud] [. . . . . . . .] ⌈ . . . . . . . . . . ⌉ [ṣi]-it dutu-⌈ši⌉ ⌈ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ⌉ [. . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . a-šib pa-rak]-ka [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ṣalmāt qaqqadi kīma ṣēni lirteʾʾe [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] “May he tend black-headed humanity like sheep, [may . . . . . . . . . !]” ṣal-mat qaq-qa-du ki-ma ṣe-e-nu li-ir-te-ʾ[e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . .] ⌈. . . . . .⌉⌈ṣe-e⌉-nu ⌈. . . . . . . . ⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈ka?⌉1476 [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ālu lū našâ rēši ša mātāti šūmān[šu (var.: [š]umē[šu]) ṣīrūtu] [lizzamrū ad-dāriš] “The city, truly exalted among (all) the lands, [may its august] names [be sung for evermore!]” eri lu-ú na-šá-a re-e-ši šá kur-kur šu-ma-an-[šú ṣi-ru-tú] [li-iz-za-am-ru ana da-riš] [. . . . . . .] ⌈. . . . .⌉ [ . . . . . . ] ⌈kur-kur⌉ [š]u-⌈me⌉-[šu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] amâti mala iqbûšu bēlu Nudimm[ud Anu u] Enlil i[šmûma imgurū qibīssu] “[Anu and] Enlil h[eard and granted] the(se) words, as much as Lord Nudimm[ud] had said to him.” a-ma-a-ti ma-la iq-bu-šú be-lu dnu-⌈dím⌉-m[ud da-num ù den-líl iš-mu-ú-ma] [im-gu-ru qí-bit-su] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . da-num ù] ⌈den-líl⌉ i[š-mu-ú-ma . . . . . . . . . .] ištu išid šamê adi (var.: ana) elât šamê ukannišūš šamê ⌈u erṣeta⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] “From the base of heaven to the zenith of heaven they subjected heaven ⌈and earth⌉ to him, [. . . . . . . . . . . . .]” iš-tu i-šid an-e a-di e-lat an-e ú-kan-ni-⌈šu-uš an⌉-[e u ki-tì . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈iš⌉-[tu i-šid] an-⌈e a⌉-na e-lat!(man) ⌈an-e⌉ ⌈ú-kan-ni-šu⌉-uš an ⌈u? ki?⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . .]

1475 According to the photograph, the en-signs may perhaps also have been written in

ligature with the divine determinative diĝir: ⌈(d+?)en (d+?)en⌉-(d+?)en. 1476 Probably too far in the middle of the line to read: [ṣalmāt] saĝ!-[du …].

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

360

27a – S ov. 27 A ov. 16’

ina šanî Anu u Enlil ilānū rabûtu kīniš ippalsūšū́ma [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] “For a second time Anu and Enlil, the great gods, looked upon him reliably [. . . . . . . . . .]” ina šá-ni-i da-nu-um ù d+en-líl diĝirmeš galmeš ki-niš ip-pal-su-šu-ma [. . . . . . . . ] ina ⌈šá-ni-i⌉ da-num ù d[en-lí]l diĝirmeš gal⌈meš⌉ ki-niš ⌈ip-pal⌉-[su-šu-ma . . . . .]

27b A: . . .[. . .]. . . ina a[nn]īšunu kīni ⌈kī⌉ʾam [. . . . . . . . . . . . ]1477 – . . .[. . .]. . . with their reliable con[s]ent they [blessed him] thus: ? ! ? A ov. 17’ ⌈x x⌉ [x] ⌈x⌉-nu -ma ina a[n -n]i-⌈šu⌉-nu ki-ni ⌈ki -a⌉-am [x x] ⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . .] 28 – S ov. 28 A ov. 18’ F ov. 1’

29 – var.: S ov. 29 F ov. 2’

ša māti elīti u [š]aplīti lū ussangûšunu [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] “ ‘Of the upper and the lower land(s) may [he (: Marduk)] be their leader [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . !]’ ” šá kur e-li-tu4 u [š]ap-li-ti lu-ú ùz-saĝ-gu-šú-nu [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [šá kur e-l]i-t[ú u ša]p-⌈li!-tì⌉ ⌈lu ùz-saĝ-gu-šu-nu⌉(-)m[a x x] ⌈x igi? x x⌉ [x x] [. . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x a x⌉ [x x -t]i l[u(-ú) . . . . .] ana aširtīšu rabīti li(t)tarrarū ilānū rabûtu ša šamê u erṣeti ana û[rtīšu] appa [li]lbin[ū palḫiš] “ ‘May the great gods of heaven and earth tremble before his great sanctuary, [may] they stroke the nose [timidly] at (hearing) [his] or[der!]’ ” (This line is missing from text A) a-na a-šìr-ti-šú ⌈gal⌉-ti li-tar-ra-ru diĝirmeš galmeš šá an-e u ki-tì ana u[r?-ti-šú ap-pa lil-bi-nu pal-ḫiš] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ap-pa [li]l-bi-n[u pal-ḫiš]

30 – S A A F

ša Esaĝil Etuša ekal šamê u erṣeti rēšīšu kīma šamê ul[lâ lībil] libbašunu “ ‘[May] their heart(s) [prompt them] to raise the summit of Esaĝil (and) Etuša, the ‘Palace of Heaven and Earth’ (as high) as the heavens!’ ” ov. 30 šá é-saĝ-íl ⌈é⌉-tuš-a é-gal an-e u ki-tì re-ši-šú ki-ma ⌈an-e⌉ [ul-lu-ú] [li-bil šà-ba-šu-nu] ov. 19’ [šá é-saĝ-(g)íl] ⌈é-tuš-a⌉ é-gal an-e ⌈ù ki⌉-[t]ì ⌈re⌉-ši-šu ⌈ki-ma an-e ul⌉-l[u-ú] 1478 ov. 20’a [li-bil] ⌈šà-bi⌉-šu-nu ov. 3’ [šá é-saĝ-íl é-tuš-a é-gal an-e u ki-tì re-ši-šú ki]-ma an-e ⌈ú⌉-ul-lu-[ú] [li-bil šà-ba-šu-nu]1479

1477 Only in text A, or squeezed into text S at the end of line 27(a)? 1478 Late Babylonian form with auxiliary vowel [i] instead of [a], see Schaudig 2001, p. 169,

§ IV.2.4.2.c: *libba/išu.

1479 Or else, the end of the phrase (lībil libbašunu) was perhaps written at the beginning of

the following line, which otherwise seems to be rather empty.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

361

31

temenšu kīma šamê u erṣeti ana ūmī ṣâti kayyāna i[šdāšu lū šuršudā] A: ⌈. . .⌉ temenšu kīma erṣeti ana ūmī ṣâti kī[niš išdāšu lū šuršudā] – “ ‘[May] its (A: ⌈holy?⌉) foundation, like (that of) heaven1480 and earth, [be] firmly [established] for evermore!’ ” meš S ov. 31 te-me-en-šú ki-ma an-e ⌈u⌉ ki-tì ana u4 ṣa-a-ti ka-a-nam [iš-da-a-šú lu-ú šur-šu-da] ? 1481 A ov. 20’b ⌈x-x-la ⌉ te-me-en-⌈šu ki-ma⌉ ki-tì a-na u4-me ṣ[a-a-t]i ki-[niš] [iš-da-šú lu šur-šu-da] F ov. 4’ [te-me-en-šú ki-ma (an-e u) ki]-tì a-na u4-mu ṣa-a-ti ka-a-a-nam i[š-da-šú lu šur-šu-da] 32 –

S ov. 32 A ov. 21’ F ov. 5’

ina niqîka amāt taqbâ (/-û) īdēma (ana) balāṭ ūmī rūqūti ana šulum ummānīka . . . [. . . . .] “I know the word(s) you said (S: to me) at your sacrifice, and in order to [bestow] a life of distant days for the well-being of your troops . . . [. . . . .].” ina udu-sískur-ka a-⌈mat⌉ taq-ba-a i-de-ma ba-la-ṭu u4meš [ru-qu-ti a-na . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈ina⌉ ni-qí-ka ⌈enim⌉ taq-bu-ú i-de-ma a-na ba-laṭ u4-me ru-q[u-t]i a-na ⌈šu-x-x⌉ [. . . . . .] [ina udu-sískur-ka a-mat taq-bu-ú i-de-ma] [tin u4meš ru-q]u-⌈ti⌉ a-na šul-mu érinḫi.meš-ka ⌈lu?-x⌉ [. . . . .]

33a

ezib ša ina šutti purussâ iqbâ A: ezib ša ina šuttīya purussû iqqabâ – Apart from the decision she (: Gula) told me in the dream,1482 A: Apart from the decision that was told to me in my dream, S ov. 33a e-zib šá ina máš-ĝi6 eš-bar iq-ba-a A ov. 22’a ⌈e-zib šá⌉ ⌈ina máš⌉-ĝi6-ia eš-bar iq-qa-ba-a F ov. 6’a [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] 33b

milka damqa

(A: ana) kâša lu[m]lik (F: [an]a kâša luštaddi[n]) – I will give you (another) piece of good advice [:] S ov. 33b mil-ki dam-qu ka-a-[šá lu-um-lik A ov. 22’b mil-⌈ka⌉ dam-qu a-na ⌈ka-a⌉-šá lu-[um]-⌈lik⌉ F ov. 6’b [mil-ki dam-qu a-n]a ka-a-šú lu-uš-ta-ad-di[n

anā[ku

umma]

a-na-ku um-ma] ⌈a-na⌉-[ku um-ma] ana-ku um-ma]

1480 Text A refers to “the earth” only and omits “the heavens”. 1481 With ⌈x-x-la?⌉, text A probably uses some adjective to temenšu, put ahead: “its ⌈holy⌉

foundation”. Yet, it seems not to be the expected ⌈e-el-la⌉ or the like.

1482 Literally: “Apart from (the fact) that she has told me the decision in the dream”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

362

34a S: A: – S: A: S A F

[ana] ili šâšu ilānū rabûtu ša šamê u erṣeti [a]na il(ī) āli šâšu ilānū rabûtu ša šamê u erṣeti [To] this god the great gods of heaven and earth [T]o the god(s) of this city the great gods of heaven and earth ov. 34a [a-na] ⌈diĝir⌉ šá-a-šú diĝirmeš galmeš šá an-e u ki-tì meš ov. 23’a [a]-na diĝir eri šá-a-šu diĝir⌈meš⌉ galmeš šá an-e ù ki-tì ov. 7’a [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]

34b –

ûrta u[l iddinū] u ṭēm ūmīšunu ibašši ittī[šu]1483 do n[ot give] order, but (to give them) their daily order is up to [him (: Marduk).] – A: usaḫḫirū i[lu . . . . . . .] A: turn (their attention), the g[od(s) . . . . . . .] 1484 S ov. 34b ur-ti u[l id-di-nu u] ⌈ṭè⌉-e[m u4-mi-šú-nu i-ba-áš-šú it-ti-šu] A ov. 23’b ú-sa-ḫi-ru di[ĝir] ⌈x x x⌉ [x x] F ov. 7’b [ur-ti ul id-di-nu] u ṭè-em u4-mi-šú-nu i-ba-áš-šú it-ti-[šu] 35a

ana balāṭ

– S ov. 35a A ov. 24’ F ov. 8’a

tēdišti ūmiarḫi- u šattišam . . . [. . . . . . . .] (A: [omits] arḫišam šattišam) For continuous renewal, (daily,) monthly, annually . . . [. . . . . . . .] [ana ba-laṭ] te-dir-tu4 u4-mu ⌈ár-ḫi u?⌉ ⌈šat⌉-ti-šam ta? pa? r[a? x x x] ⌈a-na⌉ ba-laṭ te-diš-⌈ti⌉ iti-šam mu-šam ⌈ú?-x x x⌉ [x x] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]

35b

ana milkīšu nakli ilu mamma(n) ul iʾâr (F: ul ušarri) – No god opposes1485 his ingenious counsel, S ov. 35b [. . .] ⌈mil-ki-šú⌉ [. . . . . . . .] 1486 A ov. 25’a ⌈a-na mil-ki-šu x-x-x ⌉ diĝir ma*-am*-ma ul iʾ-a-ri F ov. 8’b [ana mil]-ki-šú nak-la diĝir ma-am-man ul ú-šar-ri 35c A: F: – A: F: var.: A F

šūma ša libbi b[arû ittīšu] šū libbi i[lānī ibarri] It is [up to] him (: Marduk) to s[can] the (thoughts) of the heart. He (: Marduk) [scans] the heart of the g[ods]. (The phrase is possibly missing from text S) ? ? ov. 25’b šu-⌈ma ⌉ šá šà-⌈bi⌉ b[a -ru-ú it-ti-šu] ov. 8’c šu-ú šà-bi di[ĝir? meš i-bar-ri]

1483 1484 1485 1486

Line reconstructed from manuscripts S and F. Thus with the photograph; the copy suggests ⌈ú⌉-[ul . . .]. Literally: “no god goes (A) / begins (F) anything against his ingenious counsel.” Neither damqi “good”, nor nakli (⌈nak-li⌉) “ingenious”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

36 – S ov. 36 A ov. 26’ F ov. 9’

363

epšu pîšu ikkammû ilānū nakrūtu labšū aršūti uktapparū kīma mēsī At his command, the hostile gods are bound, and dressed in soiled garments, they are cut to pieces like (mere) mēsu-trees. [ep]-šú pi-i-šú ik-⌈kam⌉-mu-ú diĝirmeš nak-ru-tu4 l[a!-ab-šu ar-šu-tu uk-tap-pa-ru ki-ma ĝišmes] ⌈ep-šu⌉ pi-i-šu ik-kam-mu-ú diĝirmeš nak-ru-tu lab-šu ár-šu-tu ⌈uk-tap⌉-p[a-ru] ⌈ki-ma⌉ me-[e-si] [ep-šu pi-i-šu ik-kam-mu-ú diĝirmeš nak-ru-tu] [lab-šu a]r-šu-ti uk-tap-pa-⌈ru ki⌉-ma ĝišmes

37a S: A: – S: A: S A F

[ilu ša] ana ili šâšu ugallalu ilu ša ana il(ī) āli šâšu ugallalu [The god who] sins against this god, The god who sins against the god(s) of this city, ov. 37a [diĝir šá] a-na diĝir šá-a-šú ú-gal-la-lu meš 1487 ov. 27’a ⌈diĝir⌉ šá a-na diĝirmeš eri šá-a-šú ú-gal-la-lu ov. 10’a [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]

37b – S A F

kakkabšu ina šamê ul izzaz ana aširtīšu liltammû rābiṣū his star will no longer stand in the skies, and demons shall beleaguer his shrine. meš ov. 37b mul-šú ina an-⌈e⌉ [ul iz-za-az a-na a-šìr-ti-šú lil-tam-mu-u maškim ] meš ov. 27’b mul-šú ina an-e ul iz-za-z[i] ⌈a⌉-[na] ⌈a⌉-š[ìr-t]i-[šú lil-tam-mu-u maškim ] meš ov. 10’b [mul-šú ina an-e ul iz-z]a-az-zi a-na a-šìr-ti-šú ⌈lil⌉-tam-mu-u ⌈maškim⌉

38 –

S ov. 38 A ov. 28’ F ov. 11’

39 – S ov. 39

⌈šarrūssu iqatti⌉ ḫaṭṭašu inneṭṭir išittašu itâr ana tillī u k[armī] (As to that god and his chosen king,) his kingship will cease, his sceptre will be taken, his treasury will turn into a heap of rubble and r[uins]. [lugal-su] i-qat-ta ⌈x x⌉ [x in-né-e]ṭ-⌈ṭi⌉-ir [i-šit-ta-šú i-ta-ri a-na du6 u kar-mi] ⌈lugal-su? i-qat-ta?⌉ ḫaṭ-ṭa-šu in-na-ṭir1488 i-šit-ta-šu i-ta-ar a-na ti-li u [kar-mi] [lugal-su i-qat-ti ḫaṭ-ṭa-šú in-né-eṭ-ṭi-ir i]-⌈šit⌉-ta-šú i-ta-ri a-na du6 u k[ar-mi] [(…) ay] išmēšū́ma šar kišš[at šam]ê u erṣet[i] umma ilānū ša šamê u erṣeti šâšu ašruš [idâma] The king of al[l heav]en and earth [may not] listen to him, (but say): “Gods of heaven and earth, [reject] him and his place!” [a-a i]š-me-šú-ma lugal kiš-š[at an-e u ki-tì . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]

1487 The traces (clearer in the photograph than in the copy) fit this reading best. On the

meaningless plural marker in the spellings diĝirmeš and ku6meš which are used to write the singulars ilu and nūnu in this text, see the commentaries on lines 37 and 51. 1488 Von Soden in AHw I, p. 264, s.v. eṭēru(m) I reads in-neṭ!-ṭir; but -na- is clear from the photograph.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

364 A ov. 29’ F ov. 12’

40

u alakti šarrī maḫri ša aštenemmû ana kâša

– S ov. 40 A ov. 30’ F ov. 13’

41 – A ov. 31’ F ov. 14’

42 –

A ov. 32’ F ov. 14’

43 – S rv. 1 A ov. 33’

44 –

⌈x⌉ [a-a] ⌈iš⌉-me-⌈šu⌉-ma lugal kiš-š[at an]-e ù ki-t[ì] ⌈um⌉-ma ⌈diĝirmeš⌉ šá an-e u ki-tì ⌈šá-šu⌉ ⌈a⌉-[šar-šú i-da-a-ma] [a-a iš-me-šú-ma lugal kiš-šat an-e u ki-tì] [um-ma diĝirmeš šá] an-e u ki-tì šá-a-šú áš-ru-šú [šub-ma] lu[š]an[nâkku] (F: lušannīk[a]) And (now), I want to tell you (again) what I have been hearing about the conduct (and fate) of former kings. [ù a-lak]-⌈ti?⌉ ⌈lugal⌉ maḫ-ri [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈ù⌉ ⌈a⌉-lak-ti lugal maḫ-⌈ri⌉ šá áš-te-nem-mu-ú a-na ⌈ka⌉-a-šá ⌈lu⌉-[šá]-an-[na-ak-ku] [ù a-lak-ti lugal maḫ-ri šá áš-te-nem-mu-ú] [a-na ka-a-šú] lu-uš-šá-ni-k[a]1489 ́ palâšu iski[p] Akka mār En-me-barag[e-si] ⌈. . . . . . .⌉ qebrūtīma Akka, the son of En-me-barag[e-si] ⌈. . . . .⌉ the buried ones, and so he (: Marduk) se[t] aside his reign. ⌈Iak⌉-ka dumu Ien-me-bára-a-g[e-si] ⌈x x x x⌉ ⌈qé⌉-eb-⌈ru⌉-ti-ma ⌈bala-šú⌉ [is-ki-ip] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p]a-la-šú is-ki[p] Enmerkar šar Uruk nammaššê ušalpitma Ummān-Manda ša apil kalbati š[ū idkâššumma] ⌈. . . . . . . . .⌉ [. . . . ] Enmerkar the king of Uruk wrecked the people, and so [he (: Marduk) summoned up against him] the Ummān-Manda, who was the son of a bitch. ⌈. . . . . . .⌉ [. . . . ] I en-me-kár lugal unugki nam-maš-⌈še-e⌉ ú-šal-pit-⌈ma⌉ [ér]in-man-⌈da šá a nig šu⌉-[ú id-ka-šum-ma]1490 / ⌈x x x x su? x x x⌉ [x x x] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x x x⌉ [. . . . . . . .] apkallu Adapa . . . . . . . . . . . . . [. . . . . . . . . .] ⌈. .⌉ [. .] The sage Adapa . . . . . . . . . . . . . [. . . . . . . . . .] ⌈. .⌉ [. .] [x x x x x x x] ⌈x⌉ ka [x x x x x x x x x x x x x] abgal a-⌈da-pà⌉ ⌈x x x x x x x⌉ [x x x x x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x] [Bēl ina k]iṣṣīšu elli išmēma (ana) Enmerkar īrur[ma šalamtaš īmi] [Bēl] heard (this) [in] his holy [s]hrine and cursed Enmerkar, [and so he became (like) a corpse (while still alive).]

1489 The form is a spelling error for *lu-šá-an-ni-ka (šanû D). Furthermore, one rather

expects a dative suffix (*-âkku) instead of the accusative (-ka).

1490 Restored from the repetition of the punishment in line 62.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium S rv. 2 A rv. 1

365

[d+en ina ki-iṣ-ṣi-šu el-l]i iš-me-e-ma a-na I.d+en-me-kár i-ru-ur-[ma] [šá-lam-ta-áš i-mì] [d+en ina k]i-⌈iṣ-ṣi⌉-šu el-li [i]š-me-ma Ien-⌈me-kár⌉ [i-ru-ur-ma] [šá-lam-ta-áš i-mì]

45

[ana] Gilgameš šarrūt kiššat mātāti iddinšumma (A: addinšumma) parṣīšu (A: parṣīya) šu[klula umaʾʾiršu] – S: He gave the kingship over all the lands [to] Gilgameš, and [charged him] to per[form] his rites perfectly. – A: (Saying:) “I have given (herewith) the kingship over all the lands [to] Gilgameš, and [I have charged him] to per[form] my rites perfectly!” (I) d S rv. 3 [a-na ĝiš-(gín-maš)] ⌈lugal⌉-tu kiš-šat kur-kur id-din-šum-ma par-ṣi-šú šu-[uk-lu-lu ú-ma-ʾi-ir-šu] d A rv. 2 [a-na ]ĝiš ⌈lugal⌉-ut kiš-šat ku[r*-k]ur* ad-din-šum-ma ⌈par-ṣi-ia⌉ ⌈šu?-uk-x-x⌉ [ú-ma-ʾi-ir-šu eri-šu šu-an-na] 46 – S rv. 4 A rv. 3

[ā]lš[u Bāb]il kīma šiṭir(ti) šamāwī ubannīma ina Esaĝil . . . . .[. . . . . .] He embellished h[is (: Marduk’s) cit]y Babylon like the celestial writing, and in Esaĝil . . . . .[. . . . . .] [er]i-š[u šu-a]n-na ki-ma ši-ṭir šá-ma-mi ú-ban-ni-ma ina é-sa[ĝ-íl . . . . . .] [ki-ma ši-ṭir]-⌈ti⌉ an-e ú-⌈ban-ni-ma⌉ ina é-saĝ-gíl ⌈x x x x x⌉ [x x x x]

S: [M]ār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti ana 3020 rēšēt? šanātīšu [ana nūn tāmarti paqidma] A: u ⌈Mār-Bīt⌉-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti māru rēštû ša Esaĝil ana nūn tāmar[ti paqidma] – S: [M]ār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti for its (: Esaĝil’s) 3020 first? years [was in charge of the fish offering.] A: And Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti, the firstborn son of Esaĝil [was in charge] of the fish offeri[ng]. d 1491 S rv. 5 [ d]umu-⌈é-kiš⌉-šat-an-e-u-ki-tì ana 3020 ré?-še-tu mumeš-šú [ana ku6 ta-mar-ti pa-qid-ma] ? d ? ? A rv. 4 ⌈ù ⌉ ⌈ dumu -é -kiš-šat-an⌉-u-ki dumu reš-tu-ú ⌈šá é-saĝ-gíl⌉ ⌈ana*⌉ ku6 ta-mar?-[ti pa-qí-id-ma]

47

48 – S rv. 6 A rv. 5

ina palê Puzur-ilī šar Akšak šukudakkū ša Esaĝil ⌈. . . . .⌉ During the reign of Puzur-ilī king of Akšak, the fishermen of Esaĝil ⌈. . . . .⌉ ⌈i⌉-na bala-e Ipuzur5-diĝirmeš lugal a[k]šakki lú šu-ku6-dak ⌈šá⌉ é-saĝ-í[l . . . . . . . .] ina bala Ipúzur-diĝir⌈meš⌉ lugal akšakki šu-ku6-da-ku šá ⌈é-saĝ⌉-gíl ⌈x x x x⌉ [x]

1491 Written as: 10×60 10×60 10×60 10×60 10×60 20.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

366

49

S: ana naptan bēli rabî Marduk nūna ibarrūma ana naptan Bēl nūna ibarrū[ma] A: ⌈ina kidudê ? . . .⌉ – S: they caught fish for the meal of the great lord Marduk. A: ⌈According to the rites?⌉ . . . they caught fish for the meal of Bēl. d S rv. 7a a-na nap-tan en gal-i amar-⌈utu⌉ ku6meš i-ba-ru-ma d+ meš ? A rv. 6 ⌈ina ki-du-de-e (?) x x x⌉-na a-na bur en ⌈ku6 ⌉ i-bar-r[u]-⌈ú ⌉-[ma] 50

laputtû šarri

– S rv. 7b A rv. 7

51 – S rv. 8 A rv. 8 B

1’

52a – S rv. 9 A rv. 9 B

2’

52b – var.: S rv. 10 A rv. B

3’

53 – S rv. 11 A rv. 10 B

4’

uttekkir šukudakkū ⌈. . . . . . . . . . .⌉ (A: nūna ēkimū) The king’s officer(s) took (the fish) away. The fishermen ⌈. . . . . . . .⌉ lú ⌈‹nu›-bánda lugal⌉ ut-te-kìr [lúšu-ku6-dak-ka . . . . . . . . . . . .] lú nu-bándameš ⌈lugal⌉ nu-na e-ki-mu ⌈šu⌉-ku6-da-ku ⌈x x x⌉ [x] ⌈x x⌉ [x]

sebet ūmī ina nasāḫi šukudakkū (ištēn) nūna ibarrūma Seven days having gone by, the fishermen (again) caught a (unique) fish. 7 u4meš ina na-sa-ḫu lúšu-k[u6]-⌈dak⌉ 1-kam ku6meš i-ba-[a]r!-r[u-ú-ma] ⌈7 u4⌉-me ⌈ina na-sa⌉-ḫi ⌈šu⌉-ku6-da-ku ⌈nu⌉-na i-bar-ru-[ ]-⌈ú?⌉-[ma] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i]-bar-[ru-ú-ma] ina bīt Ku-Baʾu sābīti ana ammammi (nūna) umtašširū In the house of Ku-Baʾu the alewife, they let (the fish) glide into a beer jar. ina é fkù-dba-ú munus-⌈kurun-na a-na⌉ dugam-ma-am um-taš-[ši-ru (. . .)] ina é fkù-d⌈ba-ú munus?sa⌉-bit a-na am-ma-am*-me ⌈nu?-nu?⌉ ⌈um-taš⌉-[ši-r]u [ ] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . um-taš]-ši-[ru] inūšu nūnu ‹ša› ūm ana Esaĝil ul īrub nūnu balṭu ‹ul› uṭṭaḫ[ḫi] In those days, fish of the (same) day did not enter Esaĝil, fresh fish was ‹not› offer[ed]. (This line is missing from text A) i-nu-šú nu-nu ⌈(x)⌉ ḫe-pí ‹šá› u4-1-‹kam› a-na é-saĝ-íl ul ir-ru-bi ⌈nu-nu⌉ bal-[ṭu ul uṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫi] (This line is missing from text A) [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nu-nu ba]l-ṭu ‹ul› uṭ-ṭaḫ-[ḫi] Ku-Baʾu ana šukudakkī akala iddin mê iddin nūna balṭa (ana Esaĝil) ušt[aḫmiṭū] Ku-Baʾu provided the fishermen with bread and water, and they deli[vered] the fresh fish quickly (to Esaĝil). f kù-dba-ú a-na lúšu-ku6-dak-ka nindaḫi-a id-din me-e id-din ku6meš b[al!-ṭu (ana é-saĝ-íl) uš-taḫ-mi-ṭu] f kù-d⌈ba-ú⌉ a-na [š]u-ku6-da-ku nindameš ⌈id⌉-din ameš ⌈id-din⌉ ⌈ku6meš⌉ ⌈bal!⌉-⌈x⌉ [ ] ⌈uš*⌉-t[aḫ*-mi-ṭu] [fkù-dba-ú a-na šu-ku6-da-ku nindameš id-din ameš id-din] [nu-nu bal]-ṭu a-na é-saĝ-íl uš-t[aḫ-mi-ṭu] © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium F rv. 1’

[fkù-dba-ú a-na šu-ku6-da-ku nindameš id-din ameš id-din] [nu-nu bal-ṭu a-na] ⌈é-saĝ-íl⌉ [uš-taḫ-mi-ṭu]

54

́ Marduk mār rubê ša apsî (A: bēlu rabû Marduk) ḫadîš ippalissīma umma šī lū kīʾam Marduk, the princely son of the Apsû (A: The great lord Marduk) looked upon her favourably, (saying:) “May it be her!” d amar-utu dumu ru-bé-e šá [ap-s]i-i ḫa-diš ip-‹pa›ḫe-pí-lis-[si-ma] [u]m-ma ši-[i lu-ú ki-a-am] be-lu4 gal-ú ⌈damar⌉-utu ḫa-diš ip-pa-lis-si-ma um-ma ši-i lu ki-[a-am] [damar-utu dumu ru-bé-e šá ap-si-i ḫa-diš ip-pa-lis-si-ma] [um]-ma ši-i lu-ú ki-a-⌈am⌉ [damar-utu dumu ru-bé-e šá ap-si-i ḫa-diš ip-pa-lis-si-ma] [um-ma ši-i l]u-⌈ú⌉ ki-a-[am]

– S rv. 12 A rv. 11 B

5’

F rv. 2’

55 – S rv. 13 A rv. 12 B

6’

F rv. 3’

56 – S rv. 14 A rv. 13 B

7’

D ov. 1’b F rv. 4’

57 – S rv. 15 A rv. 14 B

8’

ana Ku-Baʾu (sābīti) šarrūt kiššat mātāti ugdammir[ši] (B: iddinši) To Ku-Baʾu (the alewife) he gave the kingship over all the lands. a-na fkù-dba-ú munus-ku[ru]n-nam lugal-ú-u[t k]iš-[šat kur-kur] [ug]-da-[am-mir-ši] a-na fkù-dba-ú ⌈lugal-ut kiš⌉-šat kur-kur ug-dam-mir-[ši] [a-na fkù-dba-ú lugal-ut kiš-šat kur-k]ur id-din-ši [a-na fkù-dba-ú lugal-ut kiš-šat kur-kur] u[g]-dam-mir-[ši] Ur-Zababa karānī maqqâti ša Esaĝil ana Šarru-kīn (B, F: šāqîšu) (A: ana) šupelli iqb[i] Ur-Zababa tol[d] Šarru-kīn (B, F: his cupbearer) to alter the wine libations of Esaĝil. I ur-dza-ba4-ba4 k[a-ra-ni] ma-aq-qa-⌈a⌉-[ti šá é-saĝ-íl] [a-na Ilugal-gin (lúšu-du8-a-šú) šu-pel-li iq-bi] ⌈ur⌉-dza-ba4-ba4 ĝiš⌈ĝeštinmeš⌉ ma-qa-a-ti šá é-saĝ-gíl a-na ⌈lugal-gi-na⌉ ⌈a-na⌉ šu-pel-[li iq-bi] [ur-dza-ba4-ba4 ĝišĝeštinmeš ma-qa-a-ti šá é-saĝ-í]l ana lugal-gin lúšu-du8-a-šú šu-pel-li i[q!-bi] [Iur-dza-ba4-b]a4 ka-ra-[ni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [Iur-dza-ba4-ba4 ka-ra-ni ma-aq-qa-a-ti šá é-saĝ-íl] [a-na Ilu]gal-gin lúšu-du8-a-šú šu-pe-el-lu iq-b[i] Šarru-kīn (karā[nī]) ul ušpēl ittaʾidma ana Esaĝil uštaḫmiṭ (But) Šarru-kīn did not alter (the win[e]). (On the contrary,) he took great care (to deliver the wine) to Esaĝil promptly. I lugal-gin ka-r[a-ni u]l uš-pe-⌈él⌉ i[t-ta-id-ma a-na é-sa]ĝ-í[l uš-taḫ-miṭ] lugal-gi-⌈na⌉ ul uš-pe-⌈él*⌉ ⌈it⌉-ta-id-ma ⌈ana é-saĝ-gíl⌉ [uš-taḫ-m]e-e[ṭ] [lugal-gi-na ul uš-pe-él it-ta-id]-ma ana é-saĝ-íl uš-taḫ-miṭ

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

367

Edition of the Sources

368 D ov. 2’a D ov. 2’b E II’ 1’f F rv. 5’

[lugal-gi-na] šu bal ‹nu›-mu-u[n-a5 . . . . . . . . . . . .] [lugal-k]e-en ul uš-p[el . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (1’) [a-n]a ⌈é-saĝ⌉-[íl] (2’) [u]š-taḫ-m[iṭ] [lugal-gi-na (ka-ra-ni) ul uš-pel it-ta-id-ma] ⌈a⌉-na é-saĝ-⌈íl⌉ uš-taḫ-m[iṭ]

Marduk mār rubê ša apsî ḫadîš ippalissū́ma šarrūt kibrāt arbaʾi iddinšu S: Marduk šar kiš[šat ša]mê u erṣeti šar[rūt kiššati ug]dam[mi]ršū́ma Akka[de ibni] – Marduk, the princely son of the Apsû looked upon him favourably and gave him the kingship over the four regions. S: Marduk, the king of al[l hea]ven and earth [gav]e him in full the king[ship over the world], and (Sargon) [built] Akka[de.] d S rv. 16 amar-utu lugal ki[š-šat a]n-e u ki-tì šar-[ru-ut kiš-šat ug]-⌈dam⌉-[mi-i]r-šú-ma! a-kà-[dèki ib-ni] d A rv. 15 ⌈ amar⌉-utu dumu nun šá abzu ḫa-diš ip-pa-lis-su-ma lugal-ut k[ib-ra-a]t a[r-ba]-ʾi i[d-din-šú] B 9’ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [lugal-ut kib]-rat ar-ba-ʾi id-din-šú C rv. 1’ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] d D ov. 3’a [ amar-u]tu dumu nun abzu-ke4 [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] d D ov. 3’b [ amar-ut]u dumu ru-bé-e šá ap-s[i-i] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (3’) d E II’ 3’ff amar-utu (4’) ⌈dumu⌉ ru-bé-e (5’) šá ap-si-⌈i⌉ ḫa-diš (6’) ip-pal-l[i-s]u-ma (7’) lugal-ú-ut (8’) kib-ra-a-tu4 (9’) ar-ba-ʾi (10’) id-din-šú d F rv. 6’ [ amar-utu dumu nun šá abzu ḫa-diš ip-pa-lis-su-ma] [lugal-ú]-tu kib-rat ar-ba-ʾi id-din-š[u]m 58

59 – S rv. 17 A rv. 16 B

10’

C rv. 2’ D ov. 4’a D ov. 4’b E II’ 11’ff F rv. 7’

zāninūt Esaĝil epuš gimir āšib parakkī ana Bābil bilassunu (kabitta) liššû (Saying:) “Execute the office of the provider of Esaĝil! May all (the kings) sitting on thrones bring their (heavy) tribute to Babylon!” za-ni-nu-ut é-s[aĝ-í]l e-pu-u[š gi-mir] ⌈a-šib⌉ ⌈bára⌉meš a-na [tin]-⌈tirki⌉ bi-lat-su-⌈nu ka-bit-tú⌉ l[i-iš-šu-ú] ⌈za-ni-nu-ut⌉ é-saĝ-gíl ⌈e-pùš⌉ ⌈gim-ra?⌉ ⌈a⌉-š[ib] bá[ra] [ana k]á-diĝir-raki bi-lat-su-n[u liš-šu-ú] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gi-mir a-šib b]árameš ana tin-tirki bi-lat-su-nu ka-⌈bit⌉-t[ú liš-šu-ú] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d]ù!-uš g[i!-mir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [nam-ú-a] ⌈é-saĝ-íl-la⌉ ak-⌈a⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [za-n]i-nu-t[u4 é-min] ⌈e⌉-pu-u[š . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (11’) za-ni-nu-‹ut› (12’) é-saĝ-íl (13’) e-pu-uš gi-mir (14’) a-šib bára (15’) ana ba-bi-lim (16’) [b]i-⌈lat⌉-su-n[u] (rest broken) [za-ni-nu-ut é-saĝ-íl e-pu-uš gi-mir a-ši]b bára a-na tin-tirki bi-lat-su-nu liš-šu-ú

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

60 –

S rv. 18 A rv. 17 A rv. 18 B

11’

C rv. 3’ C rv. 4’ D ov. 5’a D ov. 5’b D ov. 6’a D ov. 6’b F rv. 8’

61 –

S rv. 19 A rv. 19 B

12’

C rv. 5’ D ov. 7’a D ov. 7’b F rv. 9’

369

šū amāt Bēl iqbûšu ima[ššīma] eper šatpīšu issuḫma (ina) miḫrat Akkade (A: ālīšu) āla īpušma Bābil ana šumīšu ib[b]i1492 But he (: Sargon) for[got] about the word that Bēl had told him, he took earth from its (: Babylon’s) pit and built a city opposite to Akkade (A: his city), and (also) cal[led] it ‘Babylon’. šu-ú a-mat d+e[n i]q-bu-š[u . . . . . . . .] e-per šat-pi-šú is-su-⌈uḫ⌉-ma mi-iḫ-rat a-kà-dèki eri i-pu-uš ⌈šu-ú* a*⌉-mat d+en i[q*-bu-šu . . . . . .] ⌈e⌉-per* šat-pi-i-šu i-suḫ-ma [ ] ina ⌈miḫ-rat⌉ ⌈eri-šu⌉1493 ⌈eri⌉ i-pu-uš-ma ká-diĝir-raki a-na mu-šú i[m-bi]1494 [. . . . . . . . . . . mi]ḫ-rat a-kà-dèki eri i-pu-uš-ma tin-tirki [ana mu-šú im-bi] [šu-ú a-mat d+en i]q-bu-šu i-ma-[áš-ši-ma e-per šat-pi-šú is-suḫ-ma] [miḫ-rat a-kà-d]èki eri i-pu-[uš-ma] ⌈tin⌉-[tirki ana mu-šú im-bi] [e-n]e enim en-⌈e⌉ [im-ma]-an-du11-[ga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈šu⌉-ú ⌈a⌉-[mat d+en i]q-bu-šu [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] gaba-r[i] ⌈a⌉-k[à-dèki e]ri mu-[un-dù . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] mi-⌈iḫ-rat⌉ [a-kà-dèki e]ri i-p[u-uš-ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [šu-ú a-mat d+en iq-bu-šu i-maš-ši-ma e-per šat-pi-šú is-s]uḫ-ma mi-iḫ-ret a-kà-dèki eri i-pu-uš tin-tirki ‹ana› mu-šú i[m-b]i Enlil ša iqbûšu ikkiršū́ma ultu ṣīt Šamši adi ereb Šamši ikkirūšū́ma lā ṣalāla īmissu (var.: iškun[šu]) (Then,) Enlil(-Marduk) denied what he had said to him, too, and (all the people) from the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun became hostile to him (: Sargon), and he (: Marduk) imposed on him sleeplessness. d+ en-líl šá i[q-bu-š]ú i[k-ki-ir-šu-m]a ul-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši a-di e-reb dutu-ši ik-ki-ru ḫe-pí ḫe-⌈pí⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . .] [d+en-líl] ⌈šá iq⌉-bu-šu ik-kir6-šu-ma iš-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši a-di e-reb du[tu-ši] ik-ki-ru-šu-ma la ṣa-la-lu ĝar-[šu] [d+en-líl šá iq-bu-šu ik-kir-šu-ma iš-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši a-di e-re]b dutu-ši ik-ki-ru-šú-ma la ṣa-la-la i-mid!-s[u] [d+en-líl šá iq-bu]-šu ik-kìr-šu-ma ul-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši ⌈a⌉- [di e-reb dutu-ši] [ik-ki-ru-šú-ma (la ṣa-la-la i-mid-su)]1495 d+ en-líl-le níĝ-⌈du11⌉-[ga?]-⌈ni ba⌉-an-⌈kúr⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] d+ ⌈ en⌉-líl šá iq-bu-šu ik-k[ir-šu-ma iš-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši a-di e-reb dutu-ši] [ik-ki-ru-šú-ma (la ṣa-la-la i-mid-su)] [d+en-líl šá iq-bu-šu ik-kìr-šu-ma ul-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši] ⌈a⌉-di e-reb dutu-ši ik-KÌR-šu-ma la ṣa-⌈la⌉-la i-mid-⌈su⌉

1492 The latter part of the phrase is missing from text S, if not written on the right margin. 1493 Text A omits “Akkade” (as correctly observed already by Güterbock 1934, p. 52, note

10; pace Grayson 1975a, p. 149, note on l. 51), and says “his city” instead.

1494 Line indented; the correct numbering would be “17b”. 1495 C (and also D) probably had no room at the end of the line for lā ṣalāla īmissu.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

370

62 – S A A B C C D F F

Narām-Sîn nammaššê (ša) Bābil ušalpitma adi šinīšu ummān Qutî idkâššumma Narām-Sîn wrecked the people of Babylon, and so he (: Marduk) summoned up against him the horde of the Gutians, for a second time.1496 I d ki rv. 20 na-ram- [30 nam-maš-še-e šá k]á-diĝir-ra ú-šal-pit-ma en 2-šú érin gu-ti-um id-kaš-šum-ma d ki rv. 20 ⌈na⌉-ram- 30 ⌈nam⌉-maš-š[e-e š]á ká-diĝir⌈ ⌉-ra ú-šal-p[it-ma] rv. 21a ⌈a-di⌉ ši-ni-šú érin qu-ti-[i i]d-ka-šum-ma (I) d ki 13’ [ na-ram- 30 nam-maš-še-e šá ká-diĝir-ra ú-šal-pit-ma] meš ki [a-di ši-ni-šú éri]n gu-ti-i id-kaš-šum-ma I d ki rv. 6’ [ na-ram- 3]0 nam-maš-še-e ká-diĝir-ra [ú-šal-pit-ma] rv. 7’a [en 2-šú u]m-ma-an gu-ti-um id-ka-áš-šum-ma d ov. 8’a ⌈na-ra-am- ⌉30 [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] I d ki rv. 10’ [ na-ram- 30 nam-maš-še-e šá ká-diĝir-ra ] ⌈ú⌉-šal-pit-ma rv. 11’a [en 2-šú érin gu-ti-um id-kaš-šum-ma]

63 S šarrūssu ana ummān Qutî ittadin var.: nišīšu makkarāniš ittaṭi šarrūssu ana (ummān) Qutî ittadin – He (: Marduk) hit his people as with a goad. (Text S omits this phrase) His kingship he handed over to the (horde of the) Gutians. S rv. 21 [lugal]-ut-su a-na érin gu-ti-um it-ta-din meš (22) A rv. 21b ùĝ -šú ma-ak-ka-ra-niš i[t-ta-ṭi] lugal-us-su a-na um-⌈ma⌉-an qu-ti-i it-ta-[din] meš B 14’ [ùĝ -šú ma-ak-ka-ra-niš it-ta-ṭi lugal-us-su a-na gu-ti-ik]i it-ta-din meš (8’) C rv. 7’b ù[ĝ -šú ma-ak-ka-ra-niš it-ta-ṭi] [lugal-ut-s]u! a-na gu-ti-umki it-[ta-din] meš F rv. 11’b [ùĝ -šú ma-ak-k]a-ra-niš it-ta-ṭi lugal-us-su a-na gu+ti-[i i]t-ta-din 64 –

S rv. 22 A rv. 23 A rv. 24 B

15’

C rv. 9’ F rv. 12’

Qutû ša tazzimti ilānī palāḫu lā kullumu parṣī (u) uṣurāti šuklula (var.: šutēšura) lā īdû The Gutian(s were people), to whom respect towards the gods’ desires had not been taught, who did not know how to perform the rites and the (holy) ordinances in perfection (var.: properly). [gu-ti-um šá ta-z]i-im-tu4 diĝi[r pa-la]1497-ḫu la kul-lu-mu par-ṣi u ĝiš-ḫurmeš {šuk!(šá)-lu-} šuk-⌈lu-lu ḫe⌉-pí qu-te-ú šá ta-⌈zi⌉-im-te diĝir pa-la-ḫa la kul-lu-[mu] par-ṣi ĝiš-ḫur⌈meš⌉ šu-te-šu-ra la i-du-[ú] [gu-ti-umki šá ta-zi-im-tu4 diĝirmeš pa-la-ḫu la kul-lu-mu] [p]ar-ṣi ĝiš+ḫurmeš šuk-lu-lu la i-du-ú1498 [gu-ti-umki šá t]a-⌈az-zi-im⌉-tu4 diĝirmeš pa-la-ḫu la kul-lu-mu [par-ṣi ĝiš-ḫurmeš šuk-lu-lu la i-du-ú] [gu-ti-um šá ta-zi-im-tu4 diĝirmeš pa-la-ḫu la kul-lu-mu] par-ṣi ĝiš-ḫurmeš šuk-lu-lu la i-du-ú

1496 After he had done so with Enmerkar, see line 42 above. 1497 Thus according to the photograph; the copy restores the text as diĝir ⌈ ⌉ pa-la-⌈ḫu⌉. 1498 Combining the evidence from the photograph and the distorted copy.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

65 – S rv. 23 A rv. 25 B

16’

C rv. 10’ F rv. 13’

66

Utu-ḫeĝal šukudakku ina pāṭ irat tâmti nūn tāmarti ibārma Utu-ḫeĝal, the fisherman, caught a fish (fit) for presentation (to Marduk) at the edge of the open sea. [dutu-ḫé-ĝál šu]-ku6-dak-ka ina pa-a[ṭ i-rat tam]-tu4 ku6meš ta-mar-tu4 i!(an)-bar-ma d utu-ḫé-ĝál šu-ku6-da-ku ina paṭ i-rat tam-tì nu-na ta-mar-ti i-bar-[ma] [dutu-ḫé-ĝál šu-ku6-da-ku ina paṭ i-rat tam-tì nu-na ta-mar-ti] i-bar-ma [dutu-ḫé-ĝál šu-ku6-da-ku ina p]a-aṭ!(ṣi) i-rat!(ḫu) tam-tì nu-nu t[a-mar-ti i-bar-ma] [dutu-ḫé-ĝál šu-ku6-da-ku ina paṭ i-rat tam-tì nu-na t]a-mar-ti i-bar-ma

(S: inūšu)

nūna šuʾāti adi ana bēli rabî Marduk ṭeḫû (var.: ‹uṭ›ṭaḫḫû) ana ili šanîmma ul uṭṭaḫḫi – (S: In those days,) that fish would not be offered to any other god, until it was offered to the great lord Marduk. 1499 S rv. 24 ⌈i-nu-šú⌉ ⌈nu⌉-[nu šu]-⌈a⌉-tu4 a-di a-na [en gal-i] damar-utu ṭè-ḫu-ú ‹ana› diĝir šá!(a)-nim-ma ‹ul uṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫi› A rv. 26 nu-un šu-a-⌈ti⌉ a-di a-na be-lí ⌈gal⌉ damar-utu ṭe-⌈ḫu⌉-ú ana diĝir šá-nim-ma ul u[ṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫi] B 17’ [(i-nu-šú) nu-nu šu-a-tu a-di ana be-lí gal damar-utu ṭe-ḫu-ú] [ana diĝir šá-nim-m]a ul uṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫu1500 C rv. 11’ [(i-nu-šú) nu-nu šu-a-tu a-di ana] den gal-i damar-utu ‹uṭ›-ṭaḫ-ḫu-ú [ana diĝir šá-nim-ma ul uṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫi]1501 F rv. 14’ [(i-nu-šú) nu-nu šu-a-tu a-di ana den gal-i damar-utu uṭ-ṭ]aḫ-ḫu-ú a-na diĝir šá-nim-ma ul ⌈uṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫu⌉ 67 – S rv. 25 A rv. 27 B

18’

C rv. 12’ F rv. 15’

68 – 1499 1500 1501 1502

Qutû nūna bašla lā ṭuḫḫâ ina qātīšu īkimma (A: īkimūš[ū́ma]) The Gutian(s) took the fish, (which was already) cooked, (but) not (yet) offered, from his hands. gu-ti-⌈um⌉ n[u-n]u ba-áš-lu la [ṭuḫ-ḫa-a] ina qá-ti-šú i-ki-im-ma qu-tu-ú nu-na ba-áš-la la ṭuḫ-ḫa-a ina šu-šú e-ki-mu-š[u-ma] [gu-ti-um nu-nu ba-áš-lu la ṭuḫ-ḫa-a ina qá-ti-šú i-ki]-im-ma [gu-ti-um nu-nu ba-áš-lu la ṭuḫ]-ḫa-a i-⌈na⌉ qa-ti-[šú i-ki-im-ma] [gu-ti-um nu-nu ba-áš-lu la ṭuḫ-ḫa-a i-na q]á-ti-šú i-kim-ma ina qibītīšu ṣīrti ummān Qutî šarrūt mātīšu īkimma ana Utu-ḫeĝal ittadin (B: iddin) (A: ana1502 šarrūt mātīšu ēṭirma) (And so Marduk,) by his august command, took the kingship over his land away from the Gutian horde and gave it to Utu-ḫeĝal.

Reasonably clear from the photograph. Read from the photograph. Squeezed into the end of this line, or at the beginning of the following one. Serving as nota accusativi to denote the second accusative of object.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

371

Edition of the Sources

372 S rv. 26 A rv. 28 B

19’

C rv. 13’ F rv. 16’

69 – S rv. 27 A rv. 29 B

20’

C rv. 14’ D rv. 1’a D rv. 1’b F rv. 17’

ina ⌈qí⌉-bi-ti-⌈šú ṣir⌉-ti éri[n gu-ti-um l]ugal-ú-tu kur-šú i-ki-im-ma a-na dutu-ḫé-ĝál it-ta-din [ina q]í-bi-⌈ti⌉-šu ṣir-te érin-an qu-ti-i a-na lugal-ut kur-šú e-ṭir-ma a-na dutu-ḫé-ĝál ⌈it-ta-din⌉* [ina qí-bi-ti-šú ṣir-ti érin gu-ti-um lugal-ú-tu kur-šú i-ki-im-ma] [a-na] dutu-ḫé-ĝál id-din [ina qí-bi-ti-šú ṣir-ti érin gu-ti-um ša]r-ru-ut kur-šú i-k[i-im]-ma a-na I[dutu-ḫé-ĝál it-ta-din] [ina qí-bi-ti-šú ṣir-ti érin gu-ti-um lugal-ú-tu k]ur-šú i-kim-ma a-na I.dutu-ḫé-ĝál it-ta-d[in] Utu-ḫeĝal šukudakku qāssu ana ālīšu ana lemutti ūbilma (S+F) miḫrēt nāri šalamtašu itb[alā] nāru šalamtašu (var.: pagaršu) it[bal] (A, B?–D?) Utu-ḫeĝal the fisherman laid his hand on his (: Marduk’s) city with evil intent, and (S+F: the weirs of) the river car[ried] off his corpse. d utu-ḫé-ĝál lúšu-ku6-⌈dak-ka⌉ šu-[su] ⌈a⌉-na eri-šú ‹ana› ḫul-ti ú-bil-ma mi-iḫ-ret íd adda-šú it-b[a-la] [dutu]-ḫé-ĝál šu-ku6-da-ku šu-su a-na eri-⌈šú⌉ ana ḫul-ti ú-bil-ma íd šá-lam-ta-šú [it-bal] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]⌈íd⌉ pa-gar-šú it-[bal] [dutu-ḫé-ĝál šu-ku6-da-ku š]u-su a-⌈na⌉ munus+ḫul [ana er]i-šú ú-b[il-ma] [íd adda-šú it-bal] ⌈dutu-ḫé⌉-[ĝál šu-ku6-(da-ke4?) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] d utu-ḫé-ĝál šu-ku-⌈dak-ku⌉ [šu-su a-na eri-šú ana ḫul-ti ú-bil-ma] [íd adda-šú it-bal] [I.dutu-ḫé-ĝál lúšu-ku6-da-ku šu-su ana eri-šú ana ḫul-ti ú-bil]-ma mi-iḫ-ret íd šá-lam-ta-šú it-[ba-la]

70 – S A C D D F

ana Šulgi mār Ur-Namma šarrūt kiššat mātāti iddin(šum)ma (Marduk) gave the kingship over all the lands to Šulgi, the son of Ur-Namma. d ? I d rv. 28 a-na šul-gi dumu(+nita ) ur- nam[ma l]ugal-ú-tu kiš-šat kur-kur ! id-di-in -ma d d d ! rv. 30 [ana ]⌈šul⌉-gi dumu ⌈ur- ⌉namma lugal-ut kiš-šat kur -kur [i]d-din-šum-[ma] d I d ! rv. 15’ [a-na šul-gi dumu ur- ]⌈namma⌉ šar-ru-u[t kiš-š]at kur-[kur id-di-in-ma] d d rv. 2’a šul-gi dumu ur- namma-ke4 n[am-lugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] d d rv. 2’b ana šul-gi mar ur- namma [lugal-ú-tu kiš-šat kur-kur id-di-in-ma] d I d rv. 18’a [ana šul-gi dumu ur- namma lugal-ut kiš-šat kur-kur id-din-ma]

71 –

parṣīšu ul ušaklil šuluḫḫīšu ulaʾʾīma annašu ina zumrīš[u i]štakkan (Šulgi however) did not perform his rites perfectly, but defiled his purification rites, and so he (: Marduk) made his sin manifest in his body (in form of a skin disease).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

373

par-ṣi-šú ul ú-šak-lil šu-[luḫ]-ḫi-šú ⌈ú⌉-la-ʾi-i-ma an-na-šú1503 ina! zu!(su)-um-ri-š[ú i]š-tak-kan rv. 31 [par-ṣi-š]u ul ⌈ú⌉-šak-lil šu-luḫ-ḫi-šu ⌈ú-le⌉-ʾi-ma an-⌈na-šú ina zu⌉-u[m-ri-šú iš-tak-kan] rv. 16’ [par-ṣi-šú ul ú-šak-lil šu-luḫ-ḫi]-šú ú-la-ʾi-i-⌈ma⌉ ⌈an-na⌉-šú ina z[u-um-ri-šú iš-tak-kan] rv. 3’a ⌈me⌉-bi šu nu-un-⌈šu⌉-du7 ⌈šu-luḫ-bi⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] rv. 3’b [par]-ṣi-šu ul ú-šak-lil šu-lu[ḫ-ḫi-šu ú-la-ʾi-i-ma] [an-na-šú ina su-šú iš-tak-kan] rv. 18’b [par-ṣi-šú ul ú-š]ak-lil šu-luḫ-ḫi-šú ú-la-ʾi-⌈i-ma⌉ an-na-š[ú ina su-šú ĝar-an]

S rv. 29 A C D D F

72 –

S A C D D F

Amar-Suʾena mārušu alpī rabûti ša nīq zagmukki ša Esaĝil uš(te)pēlma Amar-Suʾena, his son, altered (the number or quality of) the great bulls for the offering for the New Year’s festival of Esaĝil. var.: (Text A has traces of a differing, but obscure phrase) I d+ meš meš rv. 30 amar- en.zu-na dumu-šú gu4[ ] gal [šá] udu-sískur zag-muk šá é-saĝ-íl ? ? uš-⌈(te )-pe ⌉-el-ma ? rv. 32 [. . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈a⌉-na ⌈qer-bi-šu⌉ é-saĝ-gíl ⌈x x x x x⌉ šá ⌈udu x x x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . ] I d meš rv. 17’ [ amar- en.zu-na dumu-šu gu4 galmeš] šá ni-iq zag-muk šá é-sa[ĝ-íl] [uš-(te)-pel-ma] d rv. 3’a [amar]- ⌈en⌉.zu-na dumu-na gu4 gal-gal-l[a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [. . . . . . . . . . . . ] d meš m eš rv. 3’b [amar]- en.zu-na dumu-šú gu4⌈ ⌉ gal [ šá ni-iq zag-muk šá é-saĝ-íl] [uš-(te)-pel-ma] I d meš rv. 19’a [ amar- en.zu-na dumu-šu gu4 galmeš šá ni-iq zag-muk šá é-saĝ-íl] [u]š-pel-ma

73 – S A C D D F

nikip alpi iqbīšumma (D: qabīšu[mma]) ina nišik šēnīšu im‹tūt› He (: Marduk; D: It was) ordained for him (that he die from) the goring of a bull, and (consequently) he di‹ed› from the ‘bite’ of his sandal. rv. 31 ni-kip gu4 iq-bi-šum-ma ina ni-šik kuše:[si]r-šú im-‹tu-ut› rv. 33 [. . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x x x x x x x x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] rv. 18’ [ni-kip gu4 iq-bi-šum-ma ina ni]-šik še-ni-šú [im-tu-ut] ! ! rv. 4’a [si-t]un gu4 (mu)-da nam mu-un-ta[r . . . . . . . . . . . . .] rv. 4’b [ni-k]ip gu4 qa-bi-šu[m-ma ina ni-šik še-ni-šú im-tu-ut] rv. 19’b ⌈ni⌉-kip gu4 iq-bi-šum-ma ‹ina› ni-šik še-ni-[šú im-tu-ut]

74 –

Šu-Sîn ana (balāṭ) napištīšu Esaĝil kīma šiṭir šamāwī (F: [ša]mê) u[ban]nīma napšātīšu uwa[ttir] Šu-Sîn em[bell]ished Esaĝil like the celestial writing for the sake of (saving) his life, and so he (: Marduk) incr[eased] his life(span).

1503 Written over an erasure, looking like: dutu … .

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

374 S rv. 32 C rv. 19’ D rv. 5’a D rv. 5’b F rv. 20’

75 – S rv. 33 C rv. 20’ D rv. 6’a D rv. 6’b F rv. 21’

76 –

S rv. 34 C rv. 21’

77 – S rv. 35 C rv. 22’

78 – S rv. 36 C rv. 23’

79 –

šu-den.zu-na a-na tin zimeš-šú ⌈é⌉-[s]aĝ-íl ki-ma ši-ṭir šá-ma-mi ⌈ú⌉-‹ban-ni-ma zimeš-šú ú-at-tir› [Išu-den.zu-na a-na tin zimeš-šú] ⌈é⌉-saĝ-íl ki-ma ⌈ši-ṭir⌉ [šá-ma-mi] [ú-ban-ni-ma zimeš-šú ú-at-tir] [šu-den.z]u-na zi-ni-šè é-[saĝ-íl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [šu-den.z]u-na ana na-piš-t[i-šú é-saĝ-íl ki-ma ši-ṭir šá-ma-mi ú-ban-ni-ma] [zimeš-šú ú-at-tir] [Išu-den.zu-na a-na tin zimeš-šú é-saĝ-íl ki-ma ši-ṭir a]n-⌈e ú⌉-[ban]-⌈ni⌉-ma ⌈zimeš⌉-šú ú-a[t-tir] I

‹lemuttu ša› Šulgi īpušu aranšu Ibbi-Sîn mārašu ī‹missū́ma› (But Marduk) i‹mposed› the penance for ‹the evil that› Šulgi had done upon his (grand)son Ibbi-Sîn. ḫe-pí munus ‹ ḫul šá› dšul-gi i-pu-šú a-ra-an-š[ú] ⌈I⌉im-bi-d30 dumu-šú i-‹mi-id-su-ma› [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] a-ra-an-šú I[im-bi-d30 dumu-šú i-mi-id-su-ma] [níĝ-ḫul dšul-g]i-⌈ra⌉ mu-u[n-dím-ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . . . . dšu]l-g[i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ [. . . . .] ́ a ‹Šazu ibarri› ‹alak›ti šarrī maḫri ālik pāni [li]tāmûka ša libbīkām May (your advisors) tell you the ‹conduc›t (and fate) of the former kings (your) predecessors, and (may they tell you) that ‹Šazu› ‹(= He-Who-Knoweth-the-Heart) scans› the (thoughts) of your heart. ḫe-pí ‹a-lak›-ti lugal maḫ-ri a!(za)-lik pa-ni [li]-ta-mu-ka šá šà-bi-ka-ma ‹dšà-zu i-ba-ar-ri› [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . li]-ta-mu-k[a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] eli abīšu Ea šamê u erṣeti [mam]ma ul ibni ilu u ištar mam‹man› No god or goddess has created (anything in) heaven and earth, surpassing his (: Marduk’s) father Ea! e-li ad-šú dé-a an-e u ki-tì [ma]-am-‹ma› ul ib-ni diĝir u diš-tar ma-am-‹man› [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m]am-ma ul [ib-ni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] apilšu ṣīru bēlu rabû M[arduk] il(ān)u ša ilānī rubû ‹muštālu› His lofty firstborn son (is) the great lord M[arduk], the god over (all) the gods, the ‹judicious› prince. ibila-šú ṣi-i-ri en gal-ú da[mar-utu] diĝirmeš šá diĝirmeš ru-bu-‹ú muš-ta-lu4› [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . diĝ]irmeš šá [diĝirmeš . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] līp-līpīšu Nabû ša ēna i[n]aššû šarra inambû ‹. . . . . . . . . .› His offspring (is) Nabû, he who e[l]evates the lord (into office) and appoints the king ‹. . . . . . . . . .›

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium S rv. 37 C rv. 24’

80 – S rv. 38 C rv. 25’

81 – S rv. 39 C rv. 26’

82 – S rv. 40

375

li-ip-li-pi-šú dnà šá e-ni ⌈i⌉-[na]-⌈áš⌉-šu-ú lugal i-nam-bu-ú ‹. . . . . . . . . .› [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i-na-áš-š]u-ú [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ana Sumu-la-El šarri littīšu ša Anu šumšu im‹bû šarrūt mātīšu iddin› To Sumu-la-El, the king, his progeny, whose name Anu pro‹claimed, he had given the kingship over his land.› a-na Isu-mu-la-diĝir lugal li-⌈it⌉-ti-šú šá da-num mu-šú im-‹bu-ú› ‹lugal-ut kur-šú id-din› [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . li-i]t-ti-šú šá [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ša ramānka šullumi u mātka kalâša šubta nē‹ḫta šūšubi› To keep yourself safe and sound, and to let your whole land ‹dwell› in pea‹ce›, šá ra-man-ka šul-lu-mu ⌈ù! kur-ka⌉ ka-la-šú šub-ti né-‹eḫ-ti šu-šu-bu› [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] adi ūmī balṭāta ina qātīka ‹liššakin› may (this advice) ‹be› at your disposal as long as you live! a-di u4meš bal-ṭa-a-ti ina qa-ti-ka ‹liš-šá-kin›

Colophon (Sippar manuscript only) 83 S: ṭuppi Marduk-ēṭir aplīšu ša Mušēzib-Bēl! m[ār S]uḫāya pāliḫ Nabû ḫalqa litīr – S: Tablet of Marduk-ēṭir, the firstborn of Mušēzib-Bēl!, s[on of S]uḫāya. May he who reveres Nabû restore the loss! I.d I d+ ! I S rv. 41 dub-pi amar-utu-sur a-šú šá kar- en du[mu s]u-ḫa-a-a d pa-liḫ nà ḫal-qa gur Com: The Esaĝil Chronicle is styled as a royal letter of Damiq-ilīšu of Isin addressing Apil-Sîn of Babylon. According to the storyline, it is the second letter of a pair, sent because the first letter had not been heeded. Without pressing this point too much, we should give credit to the superb intellectual feat unfolding. In styling itself as the second letter in a row, the letter increases its authoritative potential. If anyone in the ancient audience might have complained about some point not made clear enough in this letter, the ancient intellectuals could have argued that the supreme morals would have been stated even more clearly and more beautifully in the first letter, which had not been heeded. This first letter, however, is not preserved in the stream of Babylonian tradition – it probably never existed. The topic of a first version which is not preserved is an interesting feature. In the Hebrew Bible, it appears in the story about the first version of the tablets of the covenant, written by Yahweh himself, which Moses shattered at the sight of the Israelites paying hommage to the golden calf (Ex 32:15–19). A variation of the theme occurs in the story about the first scroll dictated by Yahweh to Jeremiah, written by Baruch and burnt by Jehoiaqim (Jer 36).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

376

In private letters from the Old Babylonian and Old Assyrian period, we can regularly hear the reproach that an addressee had not answered or heeded earlier letters for a couple of times.1504 Among rulers, this reproach can lead to a declaration of war. In an address to Ik-Teššup, the king of Šubria, which is preserved in Esarhaddon’s Letter to the God Aššur, Esarhaddon rebukes the foreign king for not obeying his orders. After having sent three letters in vain, the Assyrian king has led his troops towards the capital of the king of Šubria. Now, it is too late for Ik-Teššup to beg Esarhaddon’s pardon. Esarhaddon ridicules him:1505 – im-matēma talteme awāt šarri danni adi šinīšu? u anāku šarru dandannu adi šalāšīšu ašpurkamma lā tašmâ zikir šaptīya (…) ana šipirtīya lā taddâ lētka “Have you ever heard (that) a mighty king (issues his) order twice? And I, an almighty king, have written you (even) three times, but you would not listen to the words of my lips, (…), you would not pay heed to my letter.” Similarly, in Nabopolassar’s Letter to Sin-šarru-iškun (“Declaration of War”), the literary figure of Nabopolassar rebukes Sîn-šarru-iškun for not paying heed to his earlier letter:1506 – zikir šumīya ul galtāt qibīt pīya ul magrāt [u an]a ṭuppi ašpurkamma lā š[emât] “The mentioning of my name you did not fear, my command you did not obey, [and] you did not l[isten t]o the tablet I sent to you.” After this reproach, the figure of Nabopolassar announces that he will attack, conquer and destroy Nineveh. As opposed to the examples quoted above, the letter under discussion is not a declaration of hostilities, but the announcement of the future glory of Babylon by a king of the First Dynasty of Isin. Since the early Neo-Babylonian kings stem from the Second Dynasty of Isin,1507 Babylon in fact talks to herself in this letter, in the guise of her own godmother. The names of the kings are not well preserved. As it appears, the pair consists of: – Damiq-ilīšu of Isin (ruled for 23 years, ca. 1816–1794 BCE) – Apil-Sîn of Babylon (ruled for 18 years, ca. 1830–1813 BCE) So there is an overlap betwen the two rulers in ca. 1816–1813 BCE, i.e. in the last four years of Apil-Sîn, and the first four years of Damiq-ilīšu. This means that the Esaĝil Chronicle, styled as a royal letter,1508 may have been imagined as written by Damiq-ilīšu at the beginning of his reign, if the chronology of this period was known by the time of the composition of the text. The inscriptions of Damiq-ilīšu (Frayne, RIME 4, pp. 102–106) do not offer any mark or hint that would suggest 1504 See the numerous examples collected in CAD Š/3, p. 45 s.v. šinīšu a, 2’ “two times” and

CAD Š/1, p. 235 s.v. šalāšīšu b–c “three times”.

1505 After Borger, Asarh., pp. 103–104, tablet II, col. I:29–31. 1506 After Gerardi 1986, p. 35, obv. 16’–18’; I read the last line as [u a-n]a dub-pu áš-pur-kam-

ma la š[e(20)-ma-a-at], with ana as nota accusativi.

1507 See Brinkman 1976–1980 (RlA 5), pp. 183–184, §§ 1–2. 1508 Charpin (2004, p. 116) mentions the text briefly as an example of the genre of fictional

royal correspondence.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

377

why he was a focus of attention. The year names of Damiq-ilīšu do not present anything particularly interesting, either.1509 In the first millennium, a ruler by the name Damiq-ilīšu is also mentioned in a very framentary text that deals with the Kassite king Agum I and with Babylon and (its) shrines in a highly unclear context: šumu dārû ša Damiq-ilī[šu] “the everlasting name (or offspring?) of Damiq-ilī[šu]”.1510 In this fragment, neither Agum nor Damiq-ilīšu are given proper political titles. So it is unclear whether the text deals with Damiq-ilīšu of Isin or with the third king of the Sealand by the same name. Much the same applies to a passage in the Dynastic Chronicle from the first millennium referring to Simbar-Šipak as belonging to “the dynasty of Damiqilīšu”.1511 This remark probably pertains to the king of the Sealand, since the First Dynasty of Isin appears to have ended with Damiq-ilīšu. For Apil-Sîn no inscriptions are extant up to now (Frayne, RIME 4, p. 330). Although Apil-Sîn of Babylon is a rather dull and meaningless figure to us, he appears to have played a rather important role in history according to the Babylonians in the first millennium. He is mentioned in two short excerpts from chronicles in Late Babylonian school texts. The one excerpt reads:1512 – (1) ana tarṣi Sābû mār Sumû-la-Il (2) saḫmašātu iššaknāma nakrū šibṭu sugû (3) u ḫabbātū nišī Bābil uṣaḫḫir(ū)1513 (4) Bābil marṣiš ittenpuš (5) sebe šanāti qablu u tāḫāzu ina māti lā ipparik (6) ina ūmīšū́ma šar ḫammāʾī māta udallil (7) ana rēši agāʾe? ša Sumû-la-Il abīšu (8) [šarru] Apil-Sîn mārušu ina kussîšu iddekīš(u) “(1) At the time of Sābû (Sābium), the son of Sumû-la-Il, (2) turmoil set in, and enemies, plague, famine (3) and robbers reduced the people of Babylon. (4) Then, Babylon was treated miserably. (5) For seven years, battle and strife 1509 See Sigrist 1988, pp. 39–42. 1510 Briefly discussed by Brinkman 1976, p. 96, no. Da.5.1 (K 3992); recently edited by Stein

2000, pp. 177–178, no. Kc 1; l. 10: mu da-ru-ú šá Isig5-diĝir-[šú (…)].

1511 Grayson 1975a, p. 142, no. 18, V:3’: érin bala sig5-diĝir-šú (King 1907/II, p. 145);

Brinkman 1993–1997 (RlA 8), pp. 6–8 on Damiq-ilīšu of the Sealand.

1512 “Neo-Babylonian Chronicle about Sābium and Apil-Sîn”; Leichty & Walker 2004, p. 207, BM

29440, entry 1, photograph on p. 206; copy by Waerzeggers 2015a. Transliteration: (1) ana tar-ṣi Isà-bu-ú dumu Isu-mu-la-diĝir (2) saḫ-maš-a-tú iš-šak-na-ma lúkúr šib-ṭu su-gu7 (3) u ḫab-ba-a-tu ùĝme tin-tirki u-ṣa-aḫ-ḫir (4) tin-tirki mar-ṣi-iš it-ten-pu-uš (5) 7 mu-an-nameš qab-lu u mè ina kur la ip-pa-rik4 (6) ina u4-mi-šu-ma lugal im-gi kur ú-dal-li-lu (7) ⌈a-na⌉ re-ši a!-ga!-e šá Isu-mu-la-diĝir a-bi-šú (8) [lugal] Ia-pil-d30 dumu-šú ina ‹ĝiš›gu-za-šú id-de-kiš. – In line 7, Erle Leichty (Leichty & Walker 2004, p. 207) reads a-na UŠ ib-bi-e and translates “he (Sabium) was named as successor”, which makes no sense in this part of the text. Moreover, Leichty’s translation changes the active voice in the verb he proposes to passive (see also note 1514 below). Furthermore, the third sign is not [uš] but [ri], the [ib] looks more like [igi.min] or [ši a!], and the broad [bé] may rather be an abbreviated or unfinished [ga]. The other option, reading ri-IB!-BÉ-e, makes no sense. In the reading proposed above, ana serves as nota accusativi. Sābium ruled only for about fourteen years, so it is quite possible that at the end of Sābium’s reign a former official or vassal of Sumû-la-Il staged a coup d’état which was suppressed by Apil-Sîn. 1513 As a hallmark of late Akkadian, the plural is not clearly marked, neither in the nouns (e.g. lúkúr, l. 2), nor in the verb (u-ṣa-aḫ-ḫir).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

378

Edition of the Sources

were not intercepted in the land. (6) At that time a rebel king oppressed the land. (7) This? (former) slave of Sumû-la-Il, his (grand-)father, (8) [king] ApilSîn, his (grand-)son, then removed from his throne.”1514 In the other Late Babylonian school text,1515 there is a short note about Apil-Sîn which reports that he did not rule the Sealand and that he built the great wall of Babylon with his workmen. In either excerpt, the early years of the First Dynasty of Babylon obviously were considered a period of unrest and quarrel, of weakness and disregard of Babylon’s status. Asking how the Babylonians might have combined these traditions about Apil-Sîn and his role as addressee in the Esaĝil Chronicle, we are probably safe in surmising that – in keeping with the logic of the story – Apil-Sîn apparently heeded the moral of the chronicle in the end, and paved the way to Babylon’s pre-eminence under Hammurapi by some pious deed in Marduk’s favour. 2: At the beginning of this line, I tentatively restore *libbū (ša/kīma), literally “(the reason) consists in …”, “it is because …”; cf. CAD L, p. 173, s.v. libbu 4a, 1’d’ on libbū ša “because”, see also ibidem 4a, 1’b’, libbū in commentaries = ca. “this means”; AHw I, pp. 550–551, s.v. libbu C, 2. Similar to arkū (from warkum, see line 17 below), libbū is the Late Babylonian locative of libbum (von Soden 1995, § 66d). 5: The term šanâtu “other/strange/perverse things” occurs also in Esarhaddon’s description of the sins of the Babylonians which led to the fall of Babylon in 689 BCE, see Source 74, A 4, B2 2 and C 8. 11: Al-Rawi transliterates the latter half of the line as: ‹šá?› ina lìb-bi [eš]-te-néú šá-a-šú [aq-bi]-⌈šim⌉ ‹um-ma› lu-ú a-na-ku-ma, which would translate as “[I told] her (the words that) [I] had sought in my heart”. This is in fact an interesting proposition, but it matches neither the copy, nor the photograph. 12: nammaššû normally means “creatures (of the steppe)” or “herds of (wild) animals”, but in lines 12, 18, 42 and 62 it is used to designate the “people (of Babylon or Babylonia)”, see chapter 11.3, B. 15: This is probably already part of Ninkarrak’s speech. She announces to her king that she and her city have been blessed by another god, i.e. certainly Marduk, the king of the gods. Apparently, she is given permission to establish Isin’s rule until Marduk will establish the rule of Babylon (l. 17). I understand [i]k-ru-ba-an in text S as ikruban(ni) “(Marduk) has blessed me”. The shortened form of the accusative suffix -anni occurs quite often in Late Babylonian, see Schaudig 2001, p. 145. Another, but less likely, reading is: [i]k-ru-ba diĝir “the god has blessed me”. 16: If restored correctly, Gula, the tutelar deity of Isin, announces here the privileged status (kidinnūtu) of a city, which is certainly here city Isin. On this privileged status (kidinnūtu), see pp. 143 and 229f.

1514 Leichty (Leichty & Walker 2004, p. 207) translates the active perfect (*iddekīšu) in the

last line unfoundedly as a passive: “Apil-Sin, his son, was deposed from his throne.”

1515 Leichty & Walker 2004, p. 212, BM 29297.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

17:

18: 20:

22:

23: 24:

379

*arkū is the Late Babylonian form of the locative warkum “in the rear/later on”, in the same way as libbum becomes libbū (von Soden 1995, § 66d; see also above on line 2). CAD produces rather unnecessarily an independent entry *arkûm (warkûm) “later on” (CAD A/II, p. 290). I restore ā[lšu ušattar] “(Marduk) [will elevate his] city (Babylon)” or a similar phrase with *ušašqa etc. A form of watāru Š proposes itself as a restoration since it is used in the elevation of Babylon at the beginning of the Codex Hammurapi: “When An and Enlil had elevated (ušātirūšu) Babylon among the cities of the world” (CH I:16–19). On the term nammaššû see the commentary above on l. 12. It is not utterly clear whether Ea or Marduk is talking in the lines 20–24. The suffix of the first person singular in line 20 may point to Marduk, but then he would talk of himself in the third person in line 22. I suppose that Ea is talking and blessing Marduk and Babylon, the “new Eridu”,1516 which he addresses as “his” chosen city (in line 20). This solution is corroborated by lines 25–27b with Anu and Enlil consenting and joining in the blessing “uttered by Nudimmud”. So, I understand lines 20–24 as the blessing by Ea-Nudimmud, with line 25 as a résumé, introducing the second blessing by Anu and Enlil. The city of Babylon, respectively the noun ālu “city”, is obviously construed here as a feminine noun, with the feminine stative šaqât. The change from masculine to feminine in ālu may be due to the influence of Aramaic feminine noun *meḏīttā “city”; see here note 500 on p. 106 above for another example, and see also CAD A/I, p. 379 in the introduction on feminine ālu as a West-Semitism. This blessing is a variant of a phrase from the Poem of Erra: – bilassun kabitta lišdudū ana qereb Šuʾanna (Bābil)1517 “May (the kings of foreign lands) bring their heavy tribute to Babylon!” Here, in the Esaĝil Chronicle, Marduk is the subject, not the foreign kings. Marduk as the one who calls the foreign lands to bring their tribute to Babylon is also portrayed in the Marduk Prophecy, saying: išâ bilātīkina mātātu ana āl Bābilimma! “Bring, ye lands, your tribute to the city of Babylon!” (Source 34, D 14).1518 On the term ṣalmāt qaqqadi “black-headed (people)”, a poetic designation for “(all) humanity”, see chapter 11.3, C. The stockphrase našâ rēši (CAD N/II, p. 80, s.v. našû adj., a: “with raised head”) is a construction of the type watram ḫasīs(im)/emqam birkīn in the uneigentliche Annexion, see von Soden 1995, § 64d*. As to the gender of the

1516 See George 1992, pp. 38, 251–253, on Tintir I:21: eri-du10ki = ki-min (= ba-bi-lu) eri ṭa-a-bi

“Eridu = Babylon, the Sweet-City”; see also Source 57, l. 4 and Source 48.

1517 Cagni 1969, p. 124, V:35; phrase quoted by Marduk-apla-iddina II in his Eʾanna-

Cylinder (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 138, no. B.6.21.1, l. 34).

1518 Full list of examples from this text: Borger 1971, p. 6: I:36–37, p. 7: I:16’–17’; p. 8: II:16–

17, translation there on p. 16.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

380

26:

28:

29:

30:

Edition of the Sources

masculine adjective našâ, the city is construed here as a masculine noun, as opposed to line 20 above, where it is construed as a feminine noun. As to šūmān[šu], the status constructus plural with no case vowel before suffixes instead of the older forms *šumānū/-īšu becomes quite normal in Late Babylonian Akkadian, see e.g.:1519 – šu-ma-an-šu-un (acc. pl.: *šumānīšun; Nebuchadnezzar II) (Zabłocka & Berger 1969, p. 123, II:9) – šu-ma-an-šu-un (nom. pl.: *šumānūšun; Nabonidus) (Schaudig 2001, p. 375, no. 2.7 II:26) The august names of Babylon which are to be sung for evermore are certainly those collected and explained in the first tablet of the list Tintir (George 1992, pp. 37–41). For my restoration of zamāru (N) see in a similar context: šušqûssu ina sammî lizzamirma “(Babylon’s) exaltation may be sung to the accompaniment of the harp!”1520 The orthography an u ki “heaven and earth” appears also in manuscript A rev. 4 (l. 47). One may wonder whether the realm of “(all of) heaven and earth” is consistently described as reaching “from the base of heaven to the zenith of heaven” (ištu išid šamê adi elât šamê), with a focus on the celestial part. However, the very same phrase also designates “the entire world” in the inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian and Late Babylonian kings (see CAD E, p. 79, s.v. elâtu A 5c, 2’; Tiglath-pileser III, Nebuchadnezzar II, and Neriglissar). ussangû (ùz-saĝ) literally means “lead goat/bellwether”. In Tintir I:35, the term ùz-saĝ appears in Babylon’s epithet ùz-saĝ an-ki-a (“lead goat of heaven and earth”) which is analogously, not literally, translated into Akkadian as markas šamê [u erṣeti] “bond of heaven [and earth]”, see George 1992, pp. 40, 261. A very similar phrase from a kudurru from Nippur, issued in the name of Nebuchadnezzar I, extols the power of the orders of Enlil: – Enlil (…) ša ana nadān ûrtīšu Igigī appa ilabbinū ūtaqqû palḫiš 1521 “Enlil (…) at the issuing of whose command the Igigī gods stroke the nose, waiting timidly.” Etuša (é-tuš-a) “House-(where-Marduk)-has-taken-(his)-seat” is the name of Marduk’s cella within Esaĝil. George (1992, p. 273; 1993, p. 156, no. 1176) reads the name of Marduk’s cella as é-umuš-a (“House-of-Command”) and the corresponding name of his ceremonial ship as ĝišmá-umuš-a because of orthographic variants using -ša/šá for the final -a. This, however, only narrows the question how to read the sign down to a Sumerian word ending in [š]. With Lambert (in RA 91, 1997, p. 74) I prefer to read KU = tuš

1519 Schaudig 2001, p. 172 § IV.2.4.4.b, p. 176 § IV.2.6.2.f. 1520 šu-uš-qu-us-su ina ĝišzà-mí li-iz-za-mir-ma (…); Pinches 1882, p. 16, no. 4, rev. 11;

Standard Babylonian alliterative and acrostic hymn to Babylon, quoted in CAD Š/III, p. 384, s.v. šušqûtu; CAD Z p. 38, s.v. zamāru 4. 1521 After Paulus 2014, p. 492, I:5–6.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

32: 34a: 34b: 35a:

35c: 36:

381

= wašābu “to dwell” instead of KU (/TÚG) = umuš = ṭēmu “command, (divine) counsel”. I read the name of Marduk’s ship as ĝišmá-(u5)-tuš-a (thus also CAD R, pp. 409–410, s.v. rukūbu 1a, 2’a’) “The-ship-(Marduk)-isto-take-(his)-seat-upon”. Here, u5 certainly bears a clear connection to “riding” and to rukūbu “vehicle used for riding (*rkb)”. At the same time it might be a sophisticated orthography for the Sumerian prospective prefix u-, even if spurious here. The entry from a list from Ugarit (Syria 12, 1931, pl. 47, no. 3:7; George 1992, p. 273) lists a more complete form, giving “the god” as the subject: [ĝišm]á-diĝir-tuš-a “The-ship-the-god-has-taken-(his)seat-upon”. Salonen (1939, p. 61) proposed the reading ĝišmá-(u5)-ku-a, with ku-a as possibly deduced from *(u)gu4-a “creator”. This, however, can be dismissed in the light of the orthographies using -ša/šá. The wish uttered here in l. 30 turns the well-known phrase ša TN rēšīšu kīma šamê ullâ ubla libbašu(nu) “his (/ their) heart prompted him (/ them) to raise the summit of TN (as high) as the heavens” into a precative or a future statement. The blessing thereby anticipates the work to be done by the gods in Enūma elîš (VI:49ff), as they set out to build Esaĝil for Marduk: – i nīpuš parakka / i niddi parakka (Ee VI:51/53) “Let us set up a shrine (for him)!” – ša Esaĝil (…) ullû rēšīšu (Ee VI:62) “Of Esaĝil (…) they raised its summit.” The form érinḫi.meš in text F is conflates the plural markers ḫi-a and meš. On the question whether the orthography diĝirmeš in text A really means a plural or is just meaningless, see the commentary on line 37. I understand usaḫḫirū and [iddinū] as gnomic preterita (Mayer 1992). The phrase ana balāṭ tēdišti means literally “for the life/continuity of renewal”. For ana balāṭ “going on” see also šattamma ana balāṭ adannu ītiq “this year and going on (into the next), the appointed time passed” (Ludlul II:1; Lambert 1960a, p. 38; reading šattammma with CAD Š/II, p. 201, s.v. šattu 1c, 1’). This line probably deals with Marduk as the lord of time, ruling day, month and year (cf. Ee V:1–25). The form te-dir-tu4 in the Sippar text is due to the Late Babylonian sound change [rt] > [št], and probably also supported by the sound change [št] > [lt], leading up to an interchangeable mixing of [rt], [št], and [lt].1522 In the sequence “daily, monthly, annually” (*ūmišam *arḫišam šattišam) the scribe of manuscript S apparently shortened the first two adverbs by their ending -šam. The fact that he spelled the first adverb as u4-mu instead as *u4-mi is no contradiction, since in Neo- and Late Babylonian Akkadian short final vowels were dropped in the pronunciation anyway. This line refers to Marduk’s capacity as Šazu, see the commentary on l. 76. Lines 36–39 draw upon the fate of Marduk-Bēl, as decreed by the assembly of the gods and related in Enūma elîš IV. No god may oppose Marduk, which is enforced by death penalty, see the discussion on pp. 115ff.

1522 Von Soden 1995, § 30j; Schaudig 2001, pp. 124–125, § III.1.2.a.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

382

Edition of the Sources

Marduk is given full power to destroy and create by his command. Testing his power, Marduk destroys and re-creates a star (lumāšu). Marduk’s ability to switch a star off and on again, i.e. killing a god and bringing him back to life, is referred to in lines 37a-b. The corresponding passages in Enūma elîš (IV:17–18) run as follows: – (17f) Bēlu ša takluk napištaš gimilma / u ila ša lemnēti īḫuzu tubuk napšassu (…) (21) (22) šīmatka Bēlu lū maḫrat ilīma abātu u banû qibi liktūnū (23) (24) epšu pîka liʾʾabit lumāšu tūr qibīšumma lumāšu lišlim (17) – “ Bēl, spare the life of the one who trusts in you, (18) but spill the life of the god who plots evil! (…) (21) The fate (decreed by) you, oh Bēl, may be foremost among the gods! (22) To destroy and to create may be firm (with you) for all time, order (it)! (23) By your command let the star be destroyed, (24) and order again, so that the star may be safe and sound again.” In the two following lines (Ee IV: 25–26), Marduk-Bēl turns a star off and on again as a test or demonstration of his power. The “mēsu-trees” are the other gods of the universe. The wood of the mēsu-tree, native to Babylonia, and that of the imported musukkannu (ĝišmes-má-kan-na) the “mēsu-tree-from-Makan”, probably a kind of teak, was prominent among the materials the statues of Mesopotamian gods were made of. The cores of these statues were mostly carved from these kinds of wood which was given the epithets “the flesh of the gods (šīr ilī), the pure tree (iṣu ellu)” (Poem of Erra, tablet I:150–151; Cagni 1969, p. 74) or “the everlasting wood” (iṣu dārû), see CAD M/II, p. 34 s.v. mēsu a and c (iṣu dārû); CAD D, p. 118, s.v. dārû 2b: iṣu dārû “everlasting wood” as epithet for musukkannu. The “everlasting musukkannu wood” finds its echo in the image polemics of biblical literature, referring to the wood as ha-mesukkān ʿēṣ lō yirqab (Isa 40:20) the “musukkannu-wood, the wood that does not rot” as the wood the images were made of, see the discussion by Dick 1999, p. 23 with note j; Hurowitz 2012, pp. 280–282 with note 45 also on the Hebrew ‫מייש‬, a cognate of mēsu and the Arabic (mays), see below. Gershevitch (1957) and Maxwell-Hyslop (1983) identified musukkannu with dalbergia sissoo Roxburgh. Ibidem on p. 71, Maxwell-Hyslop briefly addressed the possibility of equating Akkadain mēsu with Arabic mays/ mēs, the celtis australis (see also CAD Ṣ, p. 241, s.v. ṣulmu discussion). According to Canaan (1914, pp. 62–63, 87), who indeed identifies the Arabic mays/mēs-tree with the celtis australis, branches of the sacred ʿūd mēs “mēs-trees” growing around the “mosque of Omar” at Jerusalem are considered to be good for warding off the evil eye. Canaan in fact means the Dome of the Rock on the temple mount (Ḥaram aš-šarīf), not the mosque of Omar near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Muristan below, since the legends he relates deal with the trees which are believed to have once surrounded the temple of Solomon. The mēs-trees growing on the Ḥaram aš-šarīf are also dealt with by Kriss & Kriss-Heinrich 1960, pp. 147–148 with fig. 84. Another grove of sacred mēs-trees is found at © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

37:

383

Karak in Jordan (Kriss & Kriss-Heinrich 1960, p. 186). I owe these references to the Arabic mēs-tree to Werner Arnold (Heidelberg). The wording of the line, using kapāru D “to cut to pieces” and “mēsu-tree”, draws on a Sumerian-Akkadian phrase which is used repeatedly in Babylonian religious poetry. The phrase deals with the power of Enlil, respectively of Marduk, and can be reconstructed as follows: – *(umun eneĝani) mes galgala gugurušame – *(ša bēli amāssu) mēsī rabbūti ukappar – “He (/The Lord’s word) cuts the great mēsu-trees to pieces.” I quote some examples in their individual context: Udam kiʾamus (1) – [(umun) e-ne-è]ĝ-ĝá-ni ĝišmes gal-[gal-la] gú-gur5-[ru]-u[š àm-me] [(šá be-lu4) a-mat-su mé]-si ra-ab-bu-ti [ú-kap-par] Reisner 1896, p. 7, no. 4, ll. 34–35; Cohen 1988/I, p. 123, l. 22. Udam kiʾamus (2) – ĝišmes gal-gal-la [gú-gur5-ru-uš àm-me] mé-si rab-bu-tú [ú-kap-par] Reisner 1896, p. 10, no. 4, ll. 157–158; Cohen 1988/I, p. 131, b+151 (FM). Agalgal buru susu (1) – ĝišmes gal-gal-la (a) gú-gur5-[ru-uš àm-me] mé-e-si rab-bu-ti ú-kap-pár [ ] Reisner 1896, p. 18, no. 9, obv. 32–33; Cohen 1988/II, p. 506, a+87. Agalgal buru susu (2) – ⌈ĝišmes gal⌉-gal-[la (a)] gú-gur5-ru-uš àm-[me] [mé-e-si rab-bu-ti] ú-kap-pár [ ] [ ] Reisner 1896, p. 21, no. 10, obv. 32–33; Cohen 1988/II, p. 506, a+87. Uruḫulake of Gula – [ĝišmes gal]-gal-la (a) gú-gur5-ru-uš à[m-me] [mé-e-si rab-b]u-tú ú-kap-p[ar] Reisner 1896, p. 95, no. 52, rev. 33–34; Cohen 1988/I, p. 260, b+116 (FM). In lines 34a and 37a the sign diĝir = ilu “god” is written a couple of times with a meaningless plural determinative. The clearest example is ⌈diĝir⌉meš = ilu (singular) from manuscript A in line 37a, with clear singular suffixes in the following lines (37b–39) referring to it, starting with kakkabšu (mulšú) “his star” in line 37b: … mul-šú (l. 37a-b, text A) – ⌈diĝir⌉meš There is also a stock phrase in lines 34a and 37a which runs slightly different in manuscripts A and S. It can be reconstructed as follows: S: ana ili šâšu “To this god” – [a-na] ⌈diĝir⌉ šá-a-šú (l. 34a, text S) – a-na diĝir šá-a-šú (l. 37a, text S) A: ana il(ī) āli šâšu “To the god(s) of this city” šá-a-šu (l. 34a, text A) – [a]-na diĝirmeš eri šá-a-šú (l. 37a, text A) – a-na diĝirmeš eri

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

384

39:

40:

41:

Edition of the Sources

It appears that manuscript A uses the spelling diĝirmeš with a meaningless plural determinative for the singular, most clearly in the first occurrence of the word in line 37a with the pairing ilu – kakkabšu. Another example of this orthographical habit, which is quite common in the first millennium, can be found in the spelling ku6meš for the singular nūnu “fish”, see the commentary on line 51 (p. 391 below). The latter half of the line is preserved best in manuscript F. For the restoration of the line of thought, dealing with angry Marduk commanding and the gods rejecting and abandoning (nadû) the object of his wrath, see e.g. the line from an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I: – Bēlu īgugma kimilta irši iqbīma māta iddûši ilānūša (…)1523 “The Lord (Marduk) became enraged and full of wrath. He commanded, and the gods abandoned the country.” In manuscript F, the form áš-ru-šú (= *ašruš “his place”) might also be a late form for the plural *ašrīšu “his places”, displaying a hypercorrect nominative (*ašrūšu). The expression alakti šarrī maḫri “conduct (and fate) of former kings” is the Babylonian term which comes closest to the notion of “history of kings of old”, see the discussion on pp. 21f. and 114f. above. The meaning of šanû D, literally “to do again” > “to repeat/to transmit” oscillates here between “telling” and “repeating” the disregarded advice from the first letter; cf. the reproach in lines 2–9. Sadly, the main part of this interesting line is preserved only in manuscript A. The personal names at the beginning of the line are reasonably clear, as is the end of the line which is backed up by manuscript F. The traces in the middle of the line can be read either as qebrūtu “buried (corpses)”, or as ibrūtu “colleagues”: a) ⌈Iak⌉-ka dumu Ien-me-bára-a-g[e-si] ⌈x x x x⌉ ⌈qé⌉-eb-⌈ru⌉-ti-ma ⌈bala-šú⌉ [is-ki-ip] – “Akka, the son of En-me-barage-si . . . the buried ones, and so he (: Marduk) se[t] aside his reign.” b) ⌈Iak⌉-ka dumu Ien-me-bára-a-g[e-si] ⌈x⌉ ⌈ina ukkin?-ri?⌉ ib-⌈ru⌉-ti-ma ⌈bala-šú⌉ [is-ki-ip] – “Akka, the son of En-me-barage-si . . . in the assembly? of the colleagues, and so he (: Marduk) se[t] aside his reign.” I am inclined to read “corpses” and to understand Akka’s sin as desecration of graves. This kind of sacrilege appears to be also the topic of another tradition dealing with Adapa and Enmerkar, see the commentary below on line 44. See Selz (2003) and briefly Frayne (RIME 1, p. 363) on the possible – but rather unlikely – identity of Akka of Ĝiša-Umma with Akka of Kiš(i). I hesitate to assume that the Sumerians did not keep Ĝiša and Kiš(i) apart.

1523 Frame, RIMB 2, p. 26, no. B.2.4.8, ll. 17–18a, Akkadian version only: be-lu4 i-gug-ma ki-

mil-ta ir-ši / iq-bi-⌈ma ma-a⌉-ta id-du-ši diĝirmeš-šá (…).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

42:

385

The honourific title in the Early Dynastic period was “king of Kiš”, and certainly not “king of Ĝiša”. Selz (2003, p. 509 with note 44) understands aka and ak-kà as shortened forms of the onomastic type *aka-DN, corresponding to Akkadian names of the type *lipit-DN “handiwork of DN”, likewise Marchesi in Marchesi & Marchetti 2011, p. 100, note 28; Andersson 2012, pp. 60, 127. The structural type and the meaning of the name Akka are actually not clear. Names of the type *AK-DN/TN occur quite frequently in the early Early Dynastic period, but they disappear after the Fara period, and the meaning of the element AK is still a matter of debate.1524 The problem with the equation of aka and liptu “handiwork (of DN)” is that the Akkadian names of the type *lipit-DN were frequent down to the Old Babylonian period, and if *aka-DN would have been its well established Sumerian counterpart, the name would probably not have disappeared as early as the Fara period. On the king En-me-barage-si of Kiš, the earliest datable king of the Early Dynastic period, see p. 141 above with note 653. nammaššû normally means “creatures (of the steppe)” or “herds of (wild) animals”, but in lines 12, 18, 42 and 62 it is used to designate the “people (of Babylon/Babylonia)”, see chapter 11.3, B. The abuse apil kalbati “son of a bitch” also occurs in the Old Babylonian Sumerian composition a du10-ga ur-ra (“He is a good seed of a dog”).1525 Comparable phrases (“a monkey from the mountain, whose judgement is not good, whose advice is confusing”, “looking like an ape”, “with the instinct of a dog”) are regularly hurled at “barbarian” enemies like the Gutians or the Amorites in Sumerian literature.1526 Another “beastly” metaphor is used to describe the Ummān-Manda, the foes of Narām-Sîn of Akkade in the Standard Babylonian recension of the Cuthean Legend: “A people with partridge bodies, a race with raven faces”.1527 In the Cuthean Legend, too, the Ummān-Manda appear in the story of ill-fated Enmerkar (see here below, on l. 44).1528 Here, the barbarian horde of the Ummān-Manda is probably construed as a singular, as in the omen of Source 58, l. 2; see also the discussion on p. 243 above. One might think of restoring the plural *šu-[nu] “th[ey]” in the break, but I prefer the singular to go with the term apil kalbati.

1524 Krebernik 1998, p. 261; Krebernik 2002, p. 12. 1525 Sjöberg 1972, p. 107, no. 1, l. 1, with commentary on p. 109. 1526 Sjöberg 1972, p. 110 with many examples in the commentary on no. 1, l. 3: “a monkey

from the mountain”. On the Sumerian-Babylonian disdainful and racist attitude towards “uncivilized foreigners” see the discussion here in chapter 11.4, C. See also pp. 254f. above with the discussion of the term “mountain monkeys” used for foreigners in a fictional letter of Ibbi-Sîn (CKU no. 24; Source 1: B1, l. 14; B2, l. 19) and in the year name Ibbi-Sîn 23. 1527 After Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, pp. 308, 336 (scores) l. 31: ummāna (/ṣābī = érinmeš) pagri iṣṣūr-ḫurri amīlūta āribu pānūšun. 1528 See Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, pp. 304–309, ll. 11–30: the fate of Enmerkar; ll. 31ff.: introduction of the Ummān-Manda.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

386

44:

Edition of the Sources

I have tentatively restored the lost phrase at the end of the line, i.e. šalamtaš īmi “he became (like) a corpse”, from the equally fragmentary legendary tradition about the fate of Enmerkar as it is told in the Cuthean Legend. This legend has it that Enmerkar was cursed by the great gods through the mouth of his diviners. The cursing of Enmerkar ends in the following phrases: – (21) [ina] erṣeti […] lipparqud pagarka!1529 (22) adi ⌈lā⌉ [iqbûma ilān]ū rabûtu (23) Enmerkar šalam[taš īmi]1530 dīna marṣa Šamaš iškun – “‘May your corpse lie [unburied upon] (the face of) the earth!’ And even before the great [god]s [had finished speaking], Enmerkar [had become (like) a] corp[se]. A bitter judgement Šamaš had passed (upon him).” In the following lines, Enmerkar’s personal punishment is extended to the ghosts of his family, kin, and folk, condemning all of his clan to drink muddy, foul water (mê dalḫūti) in the netherworld.1531 As it seems, the reason for this punishment is influenced by the element of reproaching Enmerkar for not leaving behind an account of his fate in writing, so that future kings could read and learn from it, and bless him (Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 306, ll. 28–30). The Akkadian trope “to become (like) a corpse” (šalamtaš emû) is usually understood in a transferred sense. One may wonder, however, whether the image should not be understood in a more direct, a more drastic, and a more illustrative way. It is reminiscent of the fates of later kings like Antiochos IV Epiphanes or Herod Agrippa who turned into rotting corpses when still alive, with worms consuming their bodies.1532 Thus was the classic illustrative punishment for rulers rotten to their very hearts, who had turned against the gods, sometimes having themselves celebrated as “living gods”. In the case of Antiochos IV, the punishment is said to have overcome him on Babylonian soil, when he returned from an unsuccessful attempt to loot the temples at Susa. The legend might have been formed by earlier Babylonian stories about wicked kings, and Enmerkar might have been the literary ancestor of all these kings turning into corpses when still alive.

1529 See Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 304, ll. 17–23; scores p. 336. My reconstruction of

line 22 relies on text C (CT 13, pl. 41), obv. I:1’: ⌈a-‹di› la⌉ [(…)], and on text G (Gurney & Finkelstein, STT 1, no. 30), obv. I:22: a-di [la iq-bu-u-ma diĝir]meš galmeš. 1530 en-me-kár ⌈adda⌉-[taš i-me (…)] (manuscript C I:2’= CT 13, pl. 41; obv. I:2’; Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, pp. 304–305, 336, l. 23. Goodnick Westenholz reads lú.ú[š-šú (…)] = šal[amtašu (…)] without restoring the phrase with emû. 1531 Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 306, l. 27. 1532 Other examples include Herod the Great, Sulla, Galerius and Philip II of Spain. The disease, called phthiriasis, appears to be an intellectual construct in the first place, a classic divine punishment – in particular in the cases of Antiochos IV and Herod Agrippa – but it may have been shaped by the actual sight of a weakened and dying body attacked by parasites, see Africa 1982; Eckhardt 2008.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

387

Apart from the Esaĝil Chronicle, there is another piece of a chronicle-like legendary history dealing with Adapa, Enmerkar and Marduk-Bēl.1533 The text is broken and its context is not established easily, but it is no commentary on the Esaĝil Chronicle, as Lambert (1962, p. 74, no. 13) had surmised, see Frahm 2011, 259–260. Apparently, an “old corpse” (šalamtu labirtu) is seen during the reign of Enmerkar in the city of Uruk, perhaps even in his very palace. Adapa and Enmerkar dig nine cubits deep, they find a tomb and destroy its door, but they do not find the corpse which seems to have left the grave. Later on, a heavy metal door is made by a smith to lock the tomb. That story recalls the note in the present chronicle (l. 41) on Akka of Kiš, who seems to have tampered with the graves of “buried ones” (qebrūtu), if correctly restored. Šuʾanna (= *ša emūqāšu šaqâ “whose might is exalted”), regularly written without the determinative ki, is the name of a city quarter and an epithet of Babylon, see George 1992, pp. 241–243, 373–375. The phrase kīma šiṭir(ti) šamāwī ubannīma “he embellished xy like the celestial writing” means “he made xy as bright and beautiful as the stars”. Apart from the examples here with Gilgameš and with Šu-Sîn in line 74 below, the phrase is apparently used exclusively by Nebuchadnezzar II in the reports on his embellishing Esaĝil and Ezida (CAD Š/III, p. 144, s.v. šiṭirtu b); see the discussion on p. 128. A variation, using šiṭir burūmê instead, is employed by Esarhaddon and Aššurbanipal (CAD B p. 345, s.v. burūmû b), but not as often as by Nebuchadnezzar. Typical phrases run like this: – Esaĝil [aznu]nma kīma šiṭirti ša[māw]ī ubanni Ezida ušaklilma u[ša]nabiṭ šaššāniš 1534 “[I ado]rned Esaĝil and made it as beautiful as the cele[sti]al writing, I completed Ezida and ma[de] it as bright as the sun.” – Esaĝil ušāpīma ūmiš unammir Ezida ušaklilma kīma šiṭirti šamāwī ubanni 1535 “I made Esaĝil shine forth like the bright day, I completed Ezida and made it as beautiful as the celestial writing.” It appears that Nebuchadnezzar followed here the good example set by Gilgameš and Šu-Sîn, very much as he did in the case of the fish offering for Marduk, when he followed the good example set by Ku-Baʾu, see the discussion in chapter 10.3.

46:

1533 K 5763, edited by Lambert in AfO 17, 1954–1956, p. 321; Picchioni 1981, pp. 105–109;

Glassner 2005a, pp. 294–295; Foster 2005, pp. 531–532. é-saĝ-⌈íl⌉ [az-nu]-⌈un-ma⌉ (5) ki-ma ši-ṭi5-ir-ti ša-[ma-m]i ú-ba-an-ni7 (6) é-zi-⌈da⌉ ú-ša-akli-il-ma (7) ú-[šá-a]n-⌈na-bi⌉-iṭ ša-aš-ša-an-ni-iš (Zabłocka & Berger 1969, p. 123, I:4–7, after the photo on pl. III; Berger 1973, p. 263, Nbk.-Zyl. II, 9. For more examples of the type *ú-šá-an-na-bi-iṭ instead of *ú-šá-an-bi-iṭ see Schaudig 2001, p. 134, § III.4.2.a). 1535 (20) é-saĝ-íl ú-ša-pi-ma (21) u4-mi-iš ú-na-am-mi-ir (22) é-zi-da ú-ša-ak-li-il-ma (23) ki-ma ši-ṭi5ir-tì ša-ma-mi ú-ba-an-ni7 (ZA 2, 1887, p. 138, I:20–23; Langdon 1912, p. 80, no. 3, I:20–23; Berger 1973, pp. 264–266, Nbk.-Zyl. II, 10). 1534

(4)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

388

Here in line 46, but also in lines 47, 48, 56, 57, 59 and 72, manuscript A from Aššur writes the name of the temple Esaĝil consistently as é-saĝ-gíl, not as é-saĝ-íl. The peculiar orthography é-saĝ-gíl has many possible esoteric interpretations,1536 the plainest one is probably “the foremost House (é-saĝ) of the Prince (gíl = rabû/rubû)”. In the early Neo-Babylonian period, the orthography is used in a kudurru inscription issued around the 25th regnal year of Nabû-mukīn-apli (954 BCE),1537 that is just one year prior to the lightning that struck Etemenanki in 953 BCE, according to the Religious Chronicle.1538 The same orthography also occurs in the early NeoBabylonian label of the seal of Adad-of-Esaĝil.1539 I assume that this seal had been dedicated also by Nabû-mukīn-apli in the course of the restoration work after the lightning, see pp. 180f. above with note 854 and fig. 12 on p. 181. Over the following centuries, the spelling é-saĝ-gíl was quite common in texts written in Assyria during the first millennium.1540 But it is found only very rarely in texts from Babylonia. The orthography occurs, of course, in esoteric commentaries elaborating on the various hidden meanings of the name of the temple Esaĝil,1541 but these esoteric orthographies were not employed to write the temple’s name in everyday use. During the 8th–6th centuries, the normal orthography in texts from Babylonia was é-saĝ-íl. But in the time of the Assyrian domination, in particular during the reigns of the Sargonids, the orthography é-saĝ-gíl was very common in texts issued in Assyria or by Assyrian kings; see here e.g. the excerpts from the inscriptions of Esarhaddon (Source 74: A 5, D 2, D 4, E 1). The orthography é-saĝ-gíl also occurs in the texts of two kudurru inscriptions drafted during the reigns of Aššur-nādin-šumi1542 and Šamaš-šumu-ukīn1543 as kings of Babylon. They were the sons of the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon respectively. This is probably a sign that the adminis1536 Cf. the interpretations spelled out in the The Esaĝil Commentary (George 1992, pp. 80–

81, no. 5).

1537 é-saĝ-gíl (King 1912, p. 61, pl. LXIX, I:42, Nabû-mukīn-apli; written in or after the 25th

year of the king (I:18).

1538 On the lightning see Source 37, III:19’ and the discussion in chapter 7.1. 1539 níĝ-ga damar-utu na4kišib šá diškur šá é-saĝ-gíl “Property of Marduk – Seal of Adad-of-

1540

1541 1542 1543

Esaĝil” (Weissbach 1903, p. 17 with fig. 2, pl. 6, no. 3; Borger, Asarh., p. 29, § 12; Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 165–166, no. B.6.31.1; Leichty, RINAP 4, pp. 248–249, no. 118). Assyrian royal inscriptions: é-saĝ-gíl (I R 35, no. 2, l. 1, Kalḫu, Adad-nārārī III; Borger, Asarh., p. 131, Esarhaddon; Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 167–170, in all the bricks of Esarhaddon from Babylon dealing with Esaĝil; Streck 1916/II, p. 262, l. 30 = Lehmann 1892, pl. 37, Nineveh, Aššurbanipal). – Literary texts from Nineveh: é-saĝ-gíl (Livingstone 1989, p. 23, no. 9, l. 4 = George 1987, p. 40); [é-s]aĝ-gíl (Livingstone 1989, p. 94, no. 37, l. 27’ = CT 15, pl. 44). – Neo-Assyrian letters and treaties: é-saĝ-gíl (Parpola 1993, p. 292, no. 354, l. 9 = CT 53, pl. 28, no. 75); é-saĝ-gíl (3×) ∥ é-sag-íl (1×) (Watanabe 1987, p. 113, l. 431). See e.g. George 1992, pp. 80–81, no. 5 (The Esaĝil Commentary). [é]-⌈saĝ-gíl⌉ (ZA 78, 1988, pp. 81–82, col. III:7’). é-saĝ-gíl (King 1912, p. 75, pl. *10, rev. 44, 48).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

47:

48:

389

tration of these Assyrian princes consisted at least partly of scribes trained in Assyria. I suppose that the esoteric meaning of é-saĝ-gíl as “the foremost House of the Prince (Marduk)” was less offensive to Aššur’s claim to supremacy than the meaning of é-saĝ-íl as “the House that raises its Head (over all the other temples)”. After Assyria had fallen, in Late Babylonian texts from the Seleucid period, é-saĝ-gíl is regularly found alongside é-saĝ-íl also in Babylonia.1544 The Esaĝil Chronicle is a good example to observe the distribution of the two spellings. Conspicuously, the name of the temple Esaĝil is consistently written é-saĝ-gíl in the version from Aššur (text A) of the chronicle only, as opposed to é-saĝ-íl in the versions of the same text from Babylonia.1545 Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti “Son-of-the-House-of-all-Heaven-and-Earth”: This is a divine name of the type: Mār-bīti/Mār-TN “Son-of-TN”, and clearly a manifestation of Nabû. The temple name employed appears to be an Akkadian translation of a Sumerian name like *é-an-ki-šár-ra “House of all Heaven and Earth” (George 1993, p. 67, no. 72). Correspondingly, Marduk is called dLugal-dimmer-an-ki-a “King of the Gods of Heaven and Earth” (Ee V:112). In the composition Damkina’s Bond, preserved in a NeoAssyrian and a Neo-Babylonian manuscript, Marduk in turn is addressed as Mār-Bīti-ša-Apsî, “Son-of-House-of-the-Apsû” (ddumu-é-šá-abzu, ll. 25, 26, 27, 32; Lambert 2013, p. 324). In the phrase ana 3020 rēšēt šanātīšu “for its (: Esaĝil’s) 3020 first years”, the 3020 years are apparently the term of duty when the god Nabû himself was in charge of looking after the fish offering for Esaĝil, a task that was later accomplished by human kings. I take rēšēt as a status constructus from rēštu “beginning/first part” in plural. The suffix -šu “his/its” in šanātīšu “his/its years” of the Sippar text probably refers to the temple Esaĝil and its first 3020 years of existence after the world had been created and the temple had been built by the gods. The reading of the name of the king of Akšak as *Puzur-ilī here in the Esaĝil Chronicle relies mainly on manuscript S, which spells the name as I puzur5-diĝirmeš. In manuscript A, one might even wonder whether to read I púzur-d 30 = Puzur-Sîn, which – if correct at all – might be due to a conflation of this king with the son of Ku-Baʾu, Puzur-Sîn of Kiš (Jacobsen 1939, p. 106, VI:9; SKL online edition: ETCSL, text: 2.1.1, l. 244; see also P. Michalowski, “Puzur-Suen”, in: RlA 11 [2006–2008], p. 134). In the Sumerian King List, the name of this king of Akšak appears as *Puzur-Niraḫ (or -Irḫan), see Jacobsen 1939, p. 106, VI:1, p. 179, with note 23; P. Michalowski,

1544 See e.g. von Weiher 1988, pp. 10, 266 no. 58, é-saĝ-gíl (rev. III:36’) alongside é-saĝ-íl

(rev. III:34’); Cole 1994, p. 231. Both von Weiher’s and Cole’s transcriptions (“é-saĝgil”) are to be corrected. The orthography also occurs in manuscripts of the chronicles dealing with Nabonidus (e.g. the King of Justice) from the Seleucid period, see Schaudig 2001, p. 98, § II.2.5.e. 1545 Whenever the name appears, in lines 46, 47, 48, 56, 57, 59, 72.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

390

Edition of the Sources

“Puzur-Niraḫ”, in: RlA 11 (2006–2008), p. 133. The younger form of the name in diĝirmeš may well be a misunderstanding for the older element d muš = Niraḫ (or Irḫan, Wiggermann 1998–2001 [RlA 9], pp. 50–571), which occurred at some point in the tradition. The term šukudakku “(temple) fisherman” (see p. 168 above) is a loanword from Sumerian. However, trying to establish the exact relationship between šukudakku (or šuḫadakku) and the Sumerian terms šu-ḪA(ku6), šuḪA(ku6)-ḫád(UD)-da, is a matter of vexing complexity. The reading šukudakku instead of šuḫadakku – which is perhaps to be favoured since the term šu-ḪA(ku6) is placed in the homophonous šaḫû-section of the lexical list Nabnītu1546 – rests very much on only one late manuscript which spells the word with šu-ku-, here in line 69 of the Esaĝil Chronicle: šuku-⌈dak-ku⌉ (D). Supporting the reading with [ku(d)], there is another example of ḪA = ku6 = [kud] or [kuř] in the Sumerian term ZAG.ḪA = en7ku6 / enku = *enku(-ř) “fisheries inspector” (Bauer 1975–1976, p. 7). In the same direction points the sign-name of šu-ḪA in the lexical list Diri-watru: [min (= šu-u)-k]u-ú-a-ku.1547 The variant orthographies šu-ḪA (= ku6) and šu-ḪA6 (= ku6-gunû) used for the terms bāʾiru and šuKUdakku probably do not allow to decide on the pronunciation.1548 The peculiar ending of the Akkadian loanword in -akku recalls a Sumerian genitive or perhaps some construction with the verbal base a5-k “to do”. This, however, is strangely at odds with the original Sumerian term, which appears to have been pronounced šukuř or šuḫař, ending in [ř], not in [k]. There are Old Sumerian examples spelling the plural quite unequivocally šu-ḪA-DU-ne = šu-ku6-ře6-ne = *šukuř-ene “fishermen”.1549 The Akkadian loanword šukudakku, however, appears to be derived from the extended variant šu1546 MSL 16, p. 245, Nabnītu tablet 31, I:12: šu-ḪA = ŠU-ku. A copy of the tablet (Neo-

Assyrian from Nineveh, with an Aššurbanipal colophon) is given by Bezold 1921, p. 117. The tablet is now in the Hilprecht Sammlung, Jena (HS 1350). The entry is quoted in CAD Š/III, p. 227, s.v. šukudakku lex. Von Soden 1976, p. 428 read the line as šu-ku6 = šuku-ud?-d[a?-ku] (quoting HS “1950”). Finkel in MSL 16, p. 245 separated the traces in the latter half of line 12 and established them as a new line 13, arriving at: (12) šu-ḪA = ŠUku / (13) muš[en-dù MIN(?)]. The traces in the copy fit mušen very well, and grouping the “fisher” and the “bird-catcher” (lúmušen-dù = ušandu) together is, of course, an alluring thing to do, but since there are no further manuscripts and no glossenkeile in the copy corroborating Finkel’s division, it is not all satisfactory. 1547 Gong 2000, p. 181 s.v. ŠU.KUA; MSL 15, pp. 170–171 with note on line 100. 1548 See CAD B, p. 31, s.v. bāʾiru, and the spelling šu-ḪA6-ḫád-da from an Old Babylonian seal impression from Ur (Figulla & Martin, UET 5, no. 411, seal l. 3; Charpin 1986, p. 119). 1549 Bauer 1975–1976, p. 7. Bauer’s arguments have been discussed approvingly by Englund 1990, pp. 232–233 and Selz 1993, pp. 69–70. On the possible meaning of the term šu-ku6 as “the one who catches fish (ku6) with the hand (šu)” see Englund 1990, p. 232 and Selz 1993, p. 70. Selz supposes a type of professional name parallel to šu-i (< *ì) = gallābu “barber”, i.e. “the one who rubs in oil (ì) with his hand (šu)”. – With šu-i, there is also a variant producing a loanword in Akkadian in -akku: šu-(i)-gi-na = šu(i)ginakku “barber” (CAD Š/III, pp. 211–212).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

50:

51:

391

ku6-ḫád(UD)-da. Salonen suggested a connection to ḫád “to dry (fish)”, and reconstructed the term as *šuḫa-ḫadak “fisher who dries fish”, resulting in the loanword šuḫadakku, by means of haplology.1550 Reading the first element šuku(ř) instead of šuḫa(ř) would, in fact, deprive his elegant argument of its reasoning, the haplology. The text from Aššur (A) has a clear-cut phrase with ekēmu: “They took the fish away”. The text from Sippar (S) uses a perfect tense of nakāru D instead (“he changed/altered”), without mentioning an object. In using the root nakāru “to change/to become different or hostile”, the text subtly develops a deeper notion: The king’s officer alters (*nkr) the cult, because he (and probably the king, too) has become hostile (*nkr) towards Marduk. That is why Marduk will change (*nkr) his attitude, too, and will become hostile (*nkr) towards the officer and his king. sebet ūmī ina nasāḫi “seven days having gone by”: The phrase occurs also in the Standard Babylonian recension of the Cuthean Legend, see Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 302, l. 7. Manuscript S writes 1-kam ku6meš = ištēn nūnu, indicating that is was “one fish”, or rather a “unique fish” since it is hardly conceivable that the fishermen of Esaĝil only caught one fish per week. Since that “unique fish” was rather small – it fitted into a beer jar (see the commentary on l. 52a below) – it must have been a particularly beautiful and flawless specimen, an unblemished fish fit to be presented to Marduk as nūn tāmarti “fish tribute” (see also the comment on p. 169 above). Most clearly in line 51 (1-kam ku6meš = ištēn nūnu = “a unique fish”) and in line 53 with the various orthographies for the singular *nūnu balṭu “fresh (living) fish”,1551 the logogram with the plural marker ku6meš can obviously stand for the – sometimes collective – singular.1552 This observation is also valid for lines 49 (ku6meš) and 50 (nu-na = nūna), as well as for the fixed expression nūn tāmarti “fish tribute”. The term nūn tāmarti is found in various orthographies in lines 47 and 65: ta-mar?-[ti] (l. 47, text A) – ku6 meš ta-mar-tu4 (l. 65, text S) – ku6 – nu-na ta-mar-ti (l. 65, text A) – nu-nu t[a-mar-ti] (l. 65, text C) In the following line 66, the very same fish (nūna šuʾāti) is clearly singular, as it is in line 67: nūna bašla lā ṭuḫḫâ. So the plural marker in ku6meš (l. 65, text S, as in l. 53, texts S and A with the term nūnu balṭu) has no meaning. The same spelling habit, which is probably nothing but an orthographical

1550 Salonen 1969–1970; idem 1970, p. 42 on šu-ḫa (/-ku6) “fisher”; ibidem p. 46 on šu-ḫa-

ḫád-da “fisher who dries fish”. Salonen explained the term as *šuḫa-ḫadak = šuḫadakku, by haplology from *šuḫaḫadakku, with the latter part being a genitive construction: *ḫád-a-ak “of the drying process”. 1551 ku6meš b[al!-ṭu] (S) ∥ ⌈ku6meš⌉ ⌈bal!⌉-⌈x⌉ (A) ∥ [nu-nu bal]-ṭu (B). 1552 On the superfluous plural determinative meš when used with singular nouns in Late Babylonian see Streck 1995, p. 9; Schaudig 2001, pp. 102 (§ II.2.7.a), 105 (II.2.8.e).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

392

52a:

52b:

54:

Edition of the Sources

upholstery to mark a logogram, can be found in the spelling diĝirmeš for the singular ilu, see the commentary on line 37. The vessel called ammammu (dugam-ma-am, lexically explained as namḫāru ša sābî “receptacle of the brewer”) is a jar, apparently used for scooping beer from a vat.1553 In the Ur III-period, a probably related vessel called dug am-am-da-dù could hold one sìla (i.e. ca. one litre).1554 So the fish hidden in it appears not to have been very big, see also p. 169 above. On Ku-Baʾu see also Radner (2005b, pp. 551–552) who supposes a partial mix-up between the queen Ku-Baʾu of Kiš and the goddess Kubaba of Karkemiš, based on spellings of the name of the goddess with the sign kùinstead of ku- and the fact that either figure had something to do with fish. Neither argument is strong. Firstly, kù “holy” makes sense in the name of a deity in any case. Secondly, the element “fish” plays a completely different role in the two settings. In the story about Ku-Baʾu the fish constitute a meal offering, an offering to be eaten, whereas in the cult of Kubaba of Karkemiš eating fish was probably forbidden, as we can deduce from her later cult under the name Dea Syria (Atargatis – Astarte) in the near-by city of Hierapolis (“the Holy City” – Mambug – Βαμβὺκη) on the Euphrates in the 2nd century CE; see Lightfoot 2003, pp. 65–72 on the intimate connection of the Dea Syria to fish and on the ban of fish-eating in her cult; ibidem pp. 254–255, § 14: edition and translation of the report of Lucian on the meaning of fish in her cult. This line is missing from the oldest manuscript A from Aššur. It had been fitted into the text as a gloss during the Late Babylonian period, after Nebuchadnezzar II had reorganized and improved the fish offerings for Marduk (Source 77, ll. 4–5). A similar, but shorter comment on those times before Nebuchadnezzar is also found in the remark inūšu “in those days” in line 66. On either gloss see chapter 10.3, in particular pp. 198ff. The orthography ir-ru-bi (text S) instead of *i-ru-bi/-ub for īrub is not particularly nice, but acceptable. Spellings of this kind are quite common in Late Babylonian, see Schaudig 2001, p. 110, § II.2.13. Since this line obviously is a literal quotation from the Brisa inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II (Source 77, ll. 4–5), I reconstruct the preterite (īrub) which is also found there (ī[r]umma from *īrubma). Otherwise, one might consider whether the scribe in fact wanted to produce a present tense (irrub) expressing that the fish did not “use” to enter the temple. In saying umma šī lū kī’am “may it be her!”, Marduk calls Ku-Baʾu to kingship. The phrase literally means “May she be so (i.e. king) accordingly!”, i.e. “May she exercise the office of the provider of Marduk’s temple”. As opposed to the king in charge (Puzur-ilī, l. 48), she has proved herself ready and able to act as the “provider” (ú-a/zāninu) of Marduk’s

1553 CAD A/II, pp. 67–68. See Sallaberger 1996, pp. 72, 74, 98 on the dugam-ma-am as a small

vessel for beer. See Civil 1964, pp. 70, 85 on the (dug)am-am as a vessel to take beer from the lamdir vat (from the “drinking song” gakkule gakkule of the Ninkasi hymn, l. 55). 1554 Waetzoldt 1970–1971, table after pp. 12 and 14.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

temple, in providing Marduk’s fishermen with “food and water” (*ú a = akalu u mû), see in detail p. 146 above. A slightly different phrase (umma lū kī’am “May it/he be so!”) occurs in broken context in a Neo-Babylonian chronicle fragment dealing with Lipit-Eštar of Isin: “Enlil (said) thus: ‘May it/he be so!’” – Enlilma lū kīʾam1555 Marduk-apla-iddina II is called to kingship by Marduk with a similar but more elaborate phrase, which also formulates the task of his reign: – [iqb]i ina ṣīt pîšu annûmma lū rēʾû mupaḫḫir sapḫāti1556 “(Marduk) [sa]id, giving the order: ‘May he be the shepherd who will gather the scattered (people)!’” These phrases in direct speech give the divine consent to a king’s rule. In an even more condensed form these formulas appear to be referred to in what is called the “word that Bēl spoke to the king”: – amāt Bēl iqbûšu ǁ Enlil ša iqbûšu (see here in lines 60–61) “The word that Bēl/Enlil spoke to him” – šarru ša annâ iqbûšu (Source 59, line 12) “The king, to whom (Enlil once) said ‘yes’” Very much like in the case of a (vassal) treaty, this “word of Bēl” is not to be forgotten by the king, or otherwise Bēl will change his “yes” to a “no”, see the commentary on line 61 below. In Neo- and Late Babylonian Akkadian, *šupêlu can turn into šupellu, by means of quantitative metathesis (Schaudig 2001, p. 136, § III.4.5). At the end of the line, my restoration Akka[de ibni] “[(Sargon) built] Akka[de]” (only in the manuscript from Sippar) follows the information on Sargon provided by the Sumerian King List:1557 – (269) lugal a-kà-dèki lú a-kà-dèki (270) mu-un-dù-a “(In Akkade Šarrum-kīn became king, being) the king of Akkade, the one who built Akkade.” Even though it may sound stereotyped to us, the phrase ana Bābil bilassunu (kabitta) liššû recalls a line from the Poem of Erra (V:35): – bilassunu kabitta lišdudū ana qereb Bābil (Šuʾanna)1558 “(The governors of all the places) may bring their heavy tribute into Babylon!” The phrase is quoted more verbally by Marduk-apla-iddina II in l. 34 of his Eʾanna cylinder: [bi]lassunu ⌈kabitta⌉ lišdudū a[n]a qereb Bābil (Šuʾanna).1559

56: 58:

59:

1555 1556 1557 1558 1559

393

en-líl-ma lu ki-a-am (CT 13, pl. 45, K 2973 obv. I:5’); Grayson 1975a, p. 190; Glassner 2005a, pp. 274–275 (translation erroneous). After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 137, no. B.6.21.1, l. 15. Jacobsen 1939, p. 110, VI:34–35; online edition: ETCSL, text 2.1.1, lines 269–270. After Cagni 1969, p. 124, V:35. After Frame, RIMB 2, p. 138, no. B.6.21.1, l. 34. d+

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

394

60: 61:

62:

63:

For the topic “forgetting the word of a god” see the discussion on p. 153. The sequence Marduk (l. 58), Bēl (l. 60), Enlil (l. 61) certainly does not mean anything but giving different names or titles to the god of Babylon as the king of the gods. The whole passage (ll. 56–61) is about Marduk and Babylon, and although this is the only time when Marduk is called “Enlil” in the Esaĝil Chronicle (ll. 25 and 27a mean the original Enlil of Nippur), Marduk can be understood as Enlil here very well. Marduk had turned into the “Enlil of the gods” in the first millennium, see p. 216 above. In the phrase Enlil ša iqbûšu ikkiršū́ma, nakāru G “to change/to be come hostile” with a personal object (-šu “him”) and a topical object (ša iqbûšu “what he said to him”) means “to deny a statement or agreement”; see CAD N/I, pp. 165–166 s.v. nakāru 5. The item Marduk denied would be his “firm yes” to Sargon, see the discussion on p. 153 above. Text F uses a closed syllable-sign (CVC) to write ikkirū in the second half of the line: ik-KÌR-šu-ma, with kìr that can according to the spelling habits of the Late Babylonian period spontaneously be extended to write [kir+vowel] = [kiru]. So, the two actions of this sentence, both of which involve nakāru, are also connected orthographically. Sleeplessness in a positive sense, meaning “tirelessness”,1560 is a motif known e.g. from the inscriptions of Gudea of Lagaš, mostly in a phrase describing that the king would “not let sweet sleep enter his eyes”1561 as long as performing divine orders. Sargon is punished here by Marduk with sleeplessness in its painful form for his negligence, see the discussion of this motif above on p. 153. nammaššû normally means “creatures (of the steppe)” or “herds of (wild) animals”, but in lines 12, 18, 42 and 62 it is used to designate the “people (of Babylon/Babylonia)”, see chapter 11.3, B. Marduk repeats the punishment used against Enmerkar (l. 42), see the discussion of this element on pp. 143 and 155. For the logic of the text, the barbarian hordes of the Ummān-Manda (l. 42) and those of the Gutians (ummān Qutî, l. 62) are freely interchangeable, see also p. 241 above. In manuscript S, this line (S rev. 21) is indented, looking like line “20b”. According to the photograph there is no erasure at the beginning of the line. But blank space is left there, apparently for *nišīšu makkarāniš ittaṭi, which was not written down, however. The sign [lugal] is clearly broken off on the tablet, but it is restored in the copy. “He hit his people as with a goad (makkarāniš)”: Smiting people with a goad is also known from the biblical story of Šamgar (Jud 3:31): “And after him was Šamgar the son of ʿAnat, who slew six hundred men of the Philistines with an ox goad (‫ ;)במלמד הבקר‬and he also delivered Israel.”

1560 For the royal epithet *muš(3)--nu-túm / lā mupparkû “the one who does not cease (to

care tirelessly)” for a deity and a temple, see Seux 1967, pp. 185–187, 426.

1561 *igi-e ù du10-ga nu-ši-ku4 (Gudea Cyl. A 6:11; 19:23; see also A 17:8–9; Edzard, RIME 3/1,

pp. 72, 79, 81).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

64:

66:

68:

69:

395

The LXX, perhaps in trying to make that image more plausible, replaces the “ox goad” with a “plowshare” (ἐν τῷ ἀροτρόποδι τῶν βοῶν). The verb naṭû changed from the u/u-class (Old Bab.) to the i/i-class (Standard Bab.), as did e.g. ḫadû, too.1562 See on this line the discussion of the problem of collective punishment on pp. 128ff. below. My interpretation takes palāḫu to be the subject of the subordinate clause with the verb kullumu (stative + subordinative). However, understanding the Gutian(s), in collective singular or plural, as the subject, is not excluded. In this case, palāḫu “to respect” would turn into the first object: Qutû ša tazzimti ilānī palāḫa lā kullumu/-ū. The construction is quite similar to the following phrase from the text of Sargon’s 8th campaign, in which the (correctly formed) nominatives aṣû siḫru u târu appear to be the subjects of *kullumū: a-ṣu-ú si-iḫ-ru ù ta-a-ru si-mat ta-ḫa-zi la kul-lu-mu “(the horses) had not yet been taught the advancing, turning and going back which is necessary in battle” (TCL 3, l. 173). In using tazzimtu (*taprist of nazāmu, originally “lament”) to express nizmatu “wish/desire”, the text is consistent with other Standard Babylonian texts from the first millennium.1563 The same gloss inūšu “in those days” is also inserted into the Late Babylonian version of line 52b. On either gloss see chapter 10.3, in particular pp. 199ff. In text S, diĝir šá!(a)-nim-ma is stretched out until the end of the line, with a large empty space between the signs -nim- and -ma. The ancient Vorlage clearly was damaged at this point and the scribe erroneously used up the space he would have needed to write the missing ul uṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫi. Furthermore, the missing ana and the writing diĝir šá!(a)-nim-ma, which in fact looks exactly like da-num-ma, suggest that the scribe did not understand the phrase at all. In text C, damar-utu ‹uṭ›-ṭaḫ-ḫu-ú is a simple aberratio oculi from one utsign (utu) to the other (uṭ). Text A from Aššur uses ana as nota accusativi with eṭēru “to take away” in order to denote the second accusative of object. This use is also found in Aramaic with the preposition la/le “to/for”, being the counterpart of Akkadian ana, and being also used to denote the direct object from Imperial Aramaic on.1564 So, the use of ana as nota accusativi in Akkadian is probably triggered by Aramaic.1565 The phrase qāta ana Bābil ana lemutti wabālu “to lay one’s hand on Babylon with evil intent”, which describes the sin of Utu-ḫeĝal here, occurs also in the summary of the crimes of Tukultī-Ninurta I in Chronicle P, see Source

1562 Schaudig 2001, p. 225, § IV.7.5.b. 1563 Landsberger and Bauer, in: ZA 37, 1927, p. 90, note 6; AHw III, p. 1341, s.v. tazzimtu(m) 6;

CAD T, pp. 303–304, s.v. tazzimtu 2.

1564 Segert 1975, p. 350 § 6.5.2.3.6; Hug 1993, p. 71. 1565 Von Soden 1995, § 114e; Schaudig 2001, p. 254, § V.6 ana l, pp. 311–312 § VII.2.4.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

396

73: 74:

Edition of the Sources

71, B, IV:9–10. It is a variant of the catchphrase *lemutta (ana Bābil) kapādu “to plot evil (against Babylon)”, see p. 213 above with note 996. Only recently, De Zorzi (2016, pp. 130–134), in discussing the divinatory tradition on Utu-ḫeĝal (see also Source 30, G), proposed the certainly correct solution for the enigmatic term mi-iḫ-ret in manuscripts S and F. She understands miḫrēt as the status constructus of the feminine plural of miḫru “weir”. She is certainly also right in assuming that the phrase miḫrēt nāri šalamtašu itb[alā] “the weirs of the river car[ried] off his corpse” conflates and condenses two related events: First, the dam breaks and then the river washes away the corpse. De Zorzi (2016, p. 131) found a very similar example in an apodosis from the sixth tablet of the chapter Šumma manzāzu: – meḫru ina sekēr nārīšu imaqqut ikkimanni1566 “A weir will collapse during the damming of its canal and take me away.” Previously, and in lack of a better idea, I tried to make sense of mi-iḫ-ret by understanding it as the status absolutus (miḫret) of miḫirtu, meaning “as a counterpart” or “in correspondence”, matching the sin which the king committed. That is why I translated the term with “dementsprechend” in Schaudig 2012a, pp. 437–438. As De Zorzi (2016, p. 133) correctly remarked, this was a little bit difficult from the very start. In manuscript S, at the end of the line, there are traces of two sloping horizontals discernible in the copy and the photograph, matching a Late Babylonian -b[a-] very well. This allows us to reconstruct here the plural feminine verbal form it-b[a-la] = itb[alā]. Manuscript A does not employ the term miḫrēt and presents the more concise version that “the river [carried off] his corpse”. However, the verb is broken: [it-bal]. Contrary to Al-Rawi’s (1990, p. 7, B 20) transliteration, it-bal is not preserved in manuscript B either, it is it-[bal]. In manuscripts B, C and D the lines are broken, but judging from the available space, these manuscripts probably also had the short version. On the death of Amar-Sîn see in detail chapter 7.3, king no. 12. Šu-Sîn’s pious deed makes him the peer of Gilgameš, see the commentary on line 46 and the discussion on pp. 128 and 164 above. Šu-Sîn’s reward is only preserved in manuscript F. At the end of the line, I prefer to restore the traces as ú-a[t-tir] “he increased” from (w)atāru. Possible is also ú-ṣ[i-ib] “he ad[ded]” from (w)aṣābu, see the examples with “life” as object in CAD A/II, p. 352, s.v. aṣābu 1a, 1’. Less likely, by the proportions and phraseology, is ú-l[a-ab-bir] “he br[ought (his life) to old age]”. In the sign la, the frontal horizontal wedge is usually larger than in

1566 K 3846, obv. 15: (…) me-eḫ-ru ina se-ker íd-šu šub kar-an-ni; early Neo-Assyrian manus-

cript from Nineveh. See Boissier 1905, p. 64, ll. 13-“14”; Nougayrol 1950, p. 38; Starr 1978–1979, pp. 51–52; Koch-Westenholz 2000, pp. 106–107, l. 11; De Zorzi 2016, p. 131. There is also a later version from the time of Aššurbanipal (Koch-Westenholz’ manuscript D, BM 81-2-4, 198). There, however, the apodosis is broken.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

75:

76:

77: 78:

397

the sign on the tablet and labāru (D) is almost never combined with terms for time or life. For more examples of “increasing one’s life(span)” see the phrases with balāṭa (w)utturu in CAD A/II, p. 490, s.v. atāru 2a, 1’. For the emphatic plural of abundance (cf. von Soden 1995, § 61p*) in napšātu (zimeš) see e.g. zimeš gíd-dameš ad-da-nak-ka (Nabû to Aššurbanipal:) “I will give you a long life” (Livingstone 1989, p. 33, no. 13, obv. 24). At least in the texts S and D the Akkadian name of king Šu-Sîn is written I šu-den.zu-na, using a pseudo-Sumerian orthography with the ending -na, which is only in place with genuine Sumerian names like Iamar-den.zu-na = Amar-Suʾena(k). The scribe of Text D produced the form zi-ni-šè as a direct translation of ana napištīšu “for the sake of his life”. The classic votive formula requires the expression nam-ti-la-ni-šè. Calling Šulgi’s deeds “evil” and restoring *lemuttu is the least one can do here. The rather plain term also appears in the descriptions of Šulgi’s wickedness in Source 48, rev. 6, and in Source 49, obv. 12. One might also think of the more dramatic *ikkibu (níĝ-gig) “taboo/sacrilege”, the term used for Sargon’s sin in the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 44, obv. 20). In aranšu, I take the suffix -šu to refer to Šulgi, meaning literally “his penance”. It is his sin and it is “his” penance which is to be expected as a retaliation. In fact, Ibbi-Sîn was the grandson (*mār māri) of Šulgi and not his son (māru), but his “descendant” (māru, too) in any case, see on p. 40 above. The term *alaktu restored by me takes up the topic of line 40, the “conduct (and fate) of former kings” (alakti šarrī maḫri). Another possible restoration would be ‹epšē›ti (= ‹ep-še-e›-ti) , the “‹deed›s” of the former kings. Line 76 refers to the capacity of Marduk as Šazu (dšà-zu) “He-WhoKnoweth-the-Heart”, the one who checks (barû) the thoughts of the heart (ša libbi) of gods and men, see also line 35c. On the impact of this concept see the discussion on p. 118 above. – Šazu (dšà-zu) mūdē libbi ilānī ša ibarrû karša (Enūma elîš VII:35–36) ēpiš lemnēti lā ušēṣû ittīšu “(Marduk’s name is also) Šazu, He-Who-Knoweth-the-Heart of the gods, he who checks the mind, who never ever let (even) a (single) evil-doer escape from his (punishment).” Ea subdued Apsû and Mummu and established his dwelling on top of Apsû, thus creating a precursor of the world, surrounded by water and later re-created by Marduk (Ee I:60–78). This line contains a pun, drawing upon the homophony of ilān(u) ša ilān(ī) (“god of the gods”) or on the title Enlil = Ellil > Illil, understood as *il-il(ī).1567 Already in line 17, the manuscript from Aššur (text A) employed a homophonous variation, calling Marduk šar ilānī ša ilānī “the king of the

1567 See Schaudig 2001, p. 158, § IV.2.1.j; there, in the inscriptions of Nabonidus, the title is

given to the moon-god Sîn at the expense of Marduk.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

398

79: 83:

Edition of the Sources

gods among the (other) gods”: ⌈lugal diĝirmeš šá diĝirmeš⌉. The idea “god of the gods” is elaborated upon in Enūma elîš (VI:119–120), when the gods declare Marduk to be their god: – (119) lū zīzāma ṣalmāt qaqqadi ilānī (120) nâši mala šuma nimbû šū lū ilni “Let the people be split (in the veneration of various) gods, but as for us, as many as we are, may he be our god!” This verse is a subtle introduction not only of henotheism, but, on the divine level, even of monotheism. Polytheism is here disqualified as a peculiarity of the divided, disunited and even confused humanity. At the end of the line, the restoration ‹muštālu› proposes itself. The term (rubû) muštālu “judicious (prince)” is a standard epithet of Marduk, see CAD M/II, p. 284, s.v. muštālu a, 1’. It underlines his character as a god of wise judgement and decision here in the chronicle, and it fits well into the end of the phrase by its syllable structure. Here, in paralellismus membrorum with šarru “king”, ēnu certainly means “ruler”, not “ēn-priest”. The text from Sippar is the only one to display a colophon. Unfortunately, the colophon only mentions the name of the scribe, not the title of the composition. In his edition princeps of the copy of the Esaĝil Chronicle from the library of Ebabbar at Sippar, F.N.H. Al-Rawi (1990, pp. 8, 10, rev. 41) read the colophon of the tablet as follows: – ṭup-pi I.dAMAR.UTU-ēṭir(SUR) A-šú šá IKAR-dx [x x x] x-ḫa-a-a pa-liḫ dAG ḫal-qa GUR. “Tablet of Marduk-eṭir, son of Eṭir-[…] of …; a worshipper of Nabu. Return if lost.” This reading has been adopted by Glassner in his editions of Mesopotamian chronicles, with minor changes in the translation.1568 I think the reading and interpretation of the colophon can be improved (see already Schaudig 2009), as follows: – ṭuppi Marduk-ēṭir aplīšu ša Mušēzib-Bēl! m[ār S]uḫāya pāliḫ Nabû ḫalqa litīr – “Tablet of Marduk-ēṭir, the firstborn of Mušēzib-Bēl!, s[on of S]uḫāya. May he who reveres Nabû restore the loss!” – dub-pi I.damar-utu-sur a-šú šá Ikar-d+en! du[mu Is]u-ḫa-a-a pa-liḫ dnà ḫal-qa gur I propose to identify the scribe’s father mentioned in the colophon with the scribe (ṭupšarru) Mušēzib-Bēl, son of Lâbâši, descendant of Suḫāya, who was active in Sippar during the years 17–25 of Dareios, i.e. in 505–497 BCE. He is also mentioned in texts dated from Dareios 10 to 32, i.e. in 512– 490 BCE.1569 If Marduk-ēṭir, the scribe of the extant tablet, is his son, he

1568 Glassner 1993a, p. 218; idem 2005a, pp. 268–269. 1569 Bongenaar 1997, p. 490: active in Sippar in Dareios 17–25, mentioned in texts from

Dareios 10 and 32. – Jursa 1999, p. 282 (index); mentioned in texts from Dareios 20[+x?]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

399

would have been active in Sippar during the first decades of the fifth century, i.e. up to the period of the “end of the archives” after the suppressed revolt in the second regnal year of Xerxes (484 BCE).1570 Since the copy of the Esaĝil Chronicle he prepared seems not to be the work of an experienced scribe, and since there are apparently no tablets extant which can be attributed to him as a professional scribe, he probably was still an apprentice when he copied that text. According to Pedersén (1998, p. 197), the latest dated tablet from the Sippar library comes from the reign of Cambyses II (529–522 BCE). If the dating of Marduk-ēṭir is correct, it could lower the dating of the library by some 3 decades: Suḫāya (ancestor) Lâbâši (grandfather) Mušēzib-Bēl (father) ca. 512–490 BCE (Dareios 10–32) Marduk-ēṭir (son) (ca. 490–484 BCE) The interpretation of the pious wish at the end of the colophon should be adjusted, too. I understand the phrase ḫal-qa gur as a request (ḫalqa litīr “may he restore the loss”) to restore the many breaks and losses that are marked with the comment ḫepi “broken” or visibly by hatchings throughout the text. The request is directed towards some future scribal colleague who would of course also worship Nabû (pāliḫ Nabû), the god of the scribal art. Al-Rawi’s and Glassner’s interpretation of the phrase as “return if lost” is probably dependent upon the request litīršu “may (the scholar who has borrowed the tablet from the library) bring it back again” found in some colophons of the first millennium.1571 There is, however, a much closer resemblance to the virtually identical request (šuma) ḫepâ lišallim “may he restore the broken (line)”, equally found in colophons.1572 And in view of the many breaks and losses marked on the tablet by the ancient copist, this interpretation is certainly the choice to make.

and 24: p. 173, BM 42397, 11f., Dar. 24; p. 197, BM 42548, 11, Dar. 20[+x?]; p. 212, BM 42591+, 11f, date broken. – From the colophon of another tablet from the Sippar library we also know a certain Mušēzib-Bēl, [son of] Šamaš-mukīn-apli (Heeßel & AlRawi, in: Iraq 65, 2003, p. 232, ll. 45–46). There is also a Mušēzib-Marduk, son of Ṣillāya, descendant of Suḫāya attested in Sippar in the early years of Dareios, who is, however, to be kept apart from Mušēzib-Bēl, son of Lâbâši, descendant of Suḫāya, see C. Waerzeggers in: Akkadica 122, 2001, p. 68. 1570 Waerzeggers 2003–2004; Baker 2008. 1571 Hunger 1968, p. 13, and in nos. 91, 96, 97. 1572 Hunger 1968, p. 13, 135, no. 498, l. 3: ḫepâ lišallim; see ibidem nos. 383–384 for the request: mu BE-a li-[š]al-lim (var.: gi; Gurney & Hulin, STT 2, no. 174 rev. 11’, no. 177 rev. 11), which is probably to be understood as: šuma *ḫepâ lišallim “may he restore the broken line”; see also CAD Š/I, p. 223, s.v. šalāmu 8e and CAD Š/III, p. 296, s.v. šumu 5e.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

400

Source 36: The Book of Prodigies: Omens of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 14) & Ku-Baʾu (KBO 4) Obj:

The Book of Prodigies; two almost complete tablets (A–B), one fragment (C): A: Rm 155 CT 29, pls. 48–49 (photo: CDLI no. P365974). B: Rm 2, 286 Weidner in: AfO 16, 1952–1953, p. 262. pl. 14. C: Sm 1918 London, BM, copy: fig. 22; reverse of a tablet, parallel to ll. 24–33 of the reconstructed text, obverse destroyed, with remains of the right margin; height 3,3 cm, width 5 cm, thickness ca. 0,6 cm; published with kind permission of the Trustees of the British Museum.

22

Prov: Date:

Figure 22: Rev. of text C (Sm 1918), obv. destroyed. The line numbering is that of the reconstructed text.

(Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (A and B, probably also C). Neo-Assyrian copies from an older, probably Babylonian original; according to their colophons, tablets A and B have been copied by Nabûzuqup-kēnu, scribe under Sargon II and Sennacherib, active according to dated tablets from 716–683.1573 Fragment C displays a pecularity in the writing of a sign in line 28 (see the commentary), which may be taken as a hint that the texts have not been written by Nabû-zuqup-kēnu himself. The focus of the extant version on the god Marduk and the city of Babylon speaks basically in favour of a Neo-Babylonian date for the composition. However, there are also omens dealing with Enlil and Nippur (l. 12: omen no. 16; l. 20: no. 32; l. 28: no. 42), which would well work in an older setting. The colophons do not give any special date or historical circumstance when the tablets were copied, but from a Babylonian letter sent to the vizier of an Assyrian king – probably Sargon II – which deals precisely with this kind of omens, we may securely assume that they were prepared by Nabû-zuqup-kēnu in the course of the conquest of Babylonia under Sargon in 710 BCE.1574 Later, they were also certainly checked before

1573 PNA 2/II, pp. 912–913, s.v. Nabû-zuqup-kēnu. 1574 See the discussion in chapter 10.1 and the political letter of Source 38.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

401

Sennacherib set out to destroy Babylon in 689 BCE. Nabû-zuqup-kēnu probably collected this material to check whether there were any signs indicating that Babylon and Babylonia were about to fall. These omens were probably also among the signs which according to Esarhaddon (Source 74, A 1, B1 1, C 17–19) had been observed in all heaven and earth before the destruction of the city by Sennacherib in 689 BCE. Lit: King 1907/I, pp. 215–219. – Boissier 1905, pp. 253–255. – Frank 1914. – Glassner 1986, p. 60. – Guinan 2002. Cont: Collection of 47 “non-canonical” (aḫâtu, l. 34) omens, considered to have been observed in advance to the fall of Babylonia (nadû māt Akkadî, l. 34) during the reign of Ibbi-Sîn (l. 1). See the discussion of this text and the Religious Chronicle (Source 37) in chapter 8. The omens dealing with unnatural births and sexually deviant behaviour are discussed on pp. 136f. above and in chapter 10.5. For the sake of clarity, I count the complete collection as one Ibbi-Sîn omen (ISO 14). Furthermore, I count the sexual omen no. 5 in line 4 as Ku-Baʾu omen (KBO 4), even though it does not give the name of Ku-Baʾu. However, the omen is virtually identical with the omen KBO 6 (Source 41, A), dealing with an anomaly having both vulva and penis. Since there is no proper “canon” of texts in Babylonian literature comparable to that of Jewish or Christian religious literature, the translation “non-canonical” for Akkadian aḫû may be a little bit out of place here.1575 Still, it expresses best what is probably meant: It denotes this group of omens as not coming from the traditional collections of omens from which the other omens dealing with Ibbi-Sîn are taken, but from an extraneous, additional, perhaps oral stream of tradition. Lieberman’s proposal to understand the aḫû material as an appendix or excursus serves well here.1576 The “normal” omens on Ibbi-Sîn come from collections dealing with the liver, rarely from anomalies and from the inspection of the skies, see the overview on pp. 96f. The present collection, however, is very close to Šumma ālu, a collection of ominous signs taken from the daily experience of ordinary life. The vast majority of these omens had very probably not been observed by professional diviners under controlled conditions, but by ordinary people all over the country in their every day life. Though taken as ominous, these omens probably never had the standing of omens observed under the holy conditions of an extispicy performed on a sacrificial lamb. And, to the best of my knowledge, there are no “historical”omens in Šumma ālu, dealing with individual kings and their fate. So, the term aḫâtu (“extraneous” or “additional”) in line 34 certainly denotes that the omens do not come from the classic lore of divination, but from various other, perhaps more popular and less-controlled streams of tradition. CAD (A I, p. 212, s.v. aḫû 3c) groups this line among the meaning “unusual, ill-portending”, but such a 1575 On the problems of the term “canon”, in particular in divination, see recently Böck

2000, p. 21; Rochberg 2010, pp. 65–69; Koch 2015, pp. 52–54.

1576 Lieberman 1990, p. 308.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

402

Edition of the Sources

translation misses the point. These omens are “ill-portending” indeed, since they have come to announce the fall of Babylonia (l. 34). “Unusual” they may be as well, but in the sense of “extraneous/non-canonical” (CAD A/I, p. 212, s.v. aḫû 2b). According to its colophon, the tablet lists 47 non-canonical omens announcing the fall of Babylonia, the “land of Akkad”. The individual omens are not marked in the text, so one has to make a choice as to how to group them. I have chosen to count full individual sentences, with a subject and a predicate, even if there is more than one grammatical subject. That is why I count line 11 as one omen (no. 14), although there are 3 individual animals. Guinan (2002, p. 32) divides this line into 3 omens, according to the animals mentioned. The same applies to line 16 with omen no. 25, which Guinan (2002, p. 33) counts as two. As can be seen from the verb in the plural, this is to be considered one sentence and one omen. And as becomes apparent from lines 14–15, the whole phrase is repeated if it is considered to present a new omen. On the other hand, Guinan (2002, p. 34, no. 39) counts the omens dealing with the anomaly in lines 24–26 as one. But I think this group is made up of five separate omens, commenting upon individual traits, each of which is considered ominous. Several of the omens find their match in the imagery in biblical and rabbinical literature, see pp. 101f. on the meaning of the “ram with the four horns” (omen no. 4, cf. no. 32) and pp. 136f. on the “sexual transgressions” of humans (omens nos. 18–21), animals (omens nos. 7, 22–24, 30) and plants (omens nos. 10, 44). Contrary to Glassner (1986 p. 60), I cannot see any similarity between the omens of this collection and the narrative dealing with wild beasts at the end of the Sargon Birth Legend (edition by Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, pp. 44–49). Transliteration, Transcription, and Translation 1 [it]tātu ša ina tarṣi IBBI-AŠIM-BABBAR (= IBBI-SÎN ) šarri mala ina Bābil ū māt Akkadî innamrā – (Ominous) [s]igns, which were seen in the time of king IBBI-SÎN, in Babylon, as well as in the land of Akkad (: Babylonia). meš A ov. 1 [ĝiš]kim ša ina tar-ṣi I⌈babbar⌉-a-še-em-me-íb-bi 200 ma-la ina ká-diĝir-raki ù [kur uriki igimeš] meš B ov. 1 [ĝiškim ša ina tar-ṣi I babbar-a-še-em-me-íb-bi 20]0 ma-la ina ká-diĝir-raki ù kur uriki igim[eš] ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– awīl mê ina āli innamir (no. 2) 2 qaqqadu naksu iṣīḫ (no. 1) / – A severed head laughed. A ‘water-man’ was seen in the city. A ov. 2 saĝ-du nak-su i-ṣi-iḫ : lú ameš ina er[i igi-ir] B ov. 2 [saĝ-du nak-su i-ṣi-iḫ :] lú ameš ina eri igi-ir 3 – A ov. 3 B ov. 3

sisītu (/urītu) ina pūt šumēlīša ištēt qarnu aṣât (no. 3) A mare (was seen) from whose left (side of the) forehead a horn grew out. munus anše-kur-ra ina saĝ-ki gùbu-šá 1-et si è-at [munusanše-kur-ra ina saĝ-ki gùbu-šá] 1-et si è-at

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

4 – – A ov. 4 B ov. 4

5 – A ov. 5 B ov. 5

6 – – A ov. 6 B ov. 6

7 – A ov. 7 B ov. 7

8 – – A ov. 8 B ov. 8

9 –

immeru erba qarnātūšu ina Dēr ittanmar (no. 4) sinništu ziqna zaqnat u sapsāpa kazrat (/ *kezret) išara u ūra šaknat (no. 5) A ram with four horns was seen in Dēr. A woman (was seen who) had a beard and a curly moustache, and (who) had a penis and a vulva. udu-níta 4 simeš-šú ina bàd-anki it-tan-mar : munus ziq-na zaq-na-at ù tùn-bar kaz(gaz)-⌈rat⌉ ĝ[ìš u gal4-la ĝar-át] [udu-níta 4 simeš-šú ina bàd-anki it-tan-mar :] munus ziq-na zaq-na-at ù tùn-bar kaz-rat ĝìš u gal4-la* ĝar*-át* ina āl Ṭaban gušūrū ša bītāti arī (/ larî) uš(t)ēṣû (no. 6) In the city of Ṭaban, the roof beams of the houses sprouted twigs. i-na eri ṭa-ban ĝiš-ùrmeš ša émeš pameš [èmeš] [i-na eri ṭa-ban ĝiš-ùrmeš ša] émeš pameš èmeš / erṣetu ūmišamma rigimša itta(na)ddi (no. 8) ārib-zēri ittaʾlad (no. 7) A (male?) seed-crow gave birth (like a mammal?). The earth kept rumbling every day. buru5-še-numun it-ta-aʾ-lad : ki-tì u4-mi-šam-ma gù-š[á šub-šub-di] [buru5-še-numun it-ta-aʾ-lad] : ki-tì u4-mi-šam-ma gù-šá šub-šub-di ina āl Bīt-Albadā erû ina sapanni šadî ittanma[r] (no. 9) In the city Bīt-Albadā copper was foun[d] in the midst of the mountains. i-na eri é-al-ba-da-a urudu ina sa-pan-ni kur-i [it-tan-mar] [i-na eri é-al-ba-da-a urudu] ina sa-pan-ni kur-i it-tan-ma[r] ina Bābil gišimmaru zikaru uḫinna ittaši (no. 10) / gišimmaru ša 6 qaqqadātūšu itta[nmar] (no. 11) In Babylon a male date palm bore green dates. A date palm with 6 tops was se[en]. i-na tin-tirki ĝišĝišimmar nita ú-ḫi-nu it-ta-ši : ĝiš ĝišimmar ša 6 sa[ĝ-dumeš-šú it-tan-mar] [i-na tin-tirki ĝišĝišimmar nita ú-ḫi-nu] it-ta-ši : ĝiš ĝišimmar ša 6 saĝ-dumeš-šú it-ta[n-mar]

B ov. 9

ina qaqqad gišimmari tālu sissinna uš(t)ē[ṣi] (no. 12) On the top of a date palm, a young date palm gre[w] a date spadix. i-na saĝ-du ĝišĝišimmar ĝišĝišimmar-du13-du13 sis-sin-na [è] [i-na saĝ-du ĝišĝišimmar ĝišĝišimmar-d]u13-du13 sis-sin-na ⌈è*]

10 –

ina (araḫ) Ṭebēt gišimmaru imbâ uš(t)ē[ṣi] (no. 13) In (the month) Ṭebēt a date palm gre[w] a fiber.

A ov. 9

403

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

404 A ov. 10 B ov. 10

11 – A ov. 11 B ov. 11

12 – – A ov. 12 B ov. 12

13 – A ov. 13 B ov. 13

14 – – – – A ov. 14 B ov. 14

15 – – – A ov. 15

16 – A ov. 16

Edition of the Sources

i-na itiab ĝišĝišimmar ĝišKA-GÍR-ĝiš[immar è] [i-na itiab ĝišĝišimmar ĝišK]A-GÍR-ĝišimmar ⌈è*] nēšu barbaru šaḫâpu ana āli ītelû (no. 14) A lion, a wolf, and a marsh boar came up into the city. ur-maḫ ur-bar-ra šaḫ-ĝišgi a-na eri i-t[e-lu-ú] [ur-maḫ ur-bar-ra šaḫ-ĝišgi a-n]a eri i-te-lu-[ú] kalab-urṣi ina bītāti ittanmar (no. 15) / erṣet Nippur dišpa [iḫ]ī[l] (no. 16) A badger was seen inside of buildings. The soil of Nippur [ex]u[ded] syrup. ur-ki ina émeš it-tan-mar : ki-tì nibruki là[l i-ḫ]i-i[l] [ur-ki ina émeš it-tan-mar : ki-t]ì nibruki làl [i-ḫi-il] erṣet māt Akkadî Bābil u māḫāzī bušâša uktallim (no. 17) The soil of the land of Akkad, of Babylon, and (all the other) cities exposed its possessions. ki kur uriki ká-diĝir-raki ù ma-ḫa-zi níĝ-šu-šá ⌈uk⌉-tal-lim [ki kur uriki ká-diĝir-raki ù ma-ḫa-zi n]íĝ-šu-šá u[k-tal-lim] eṭlu ana aḫātīšu iṭ(ṭe)ḫi (no. 19) eṭlu ana ummīšu iṭ(ṭe)ḫi (no. 18) (no. 20) eṭlu ana emētīšu iṭ(ṭe)ḫi (no. 21) eṭlu ana mārtīšu iṭ(ṭe)ḫi A man approached his mother (with sexual intent). A man approached his sister (with sexual intent). A man approached his daughter (with sexual intent). A man approached his mother-in-law (with sexual intent). guruš ana ama-šú te guruš ana nin(9)-šú te guruš ana dumu-munus-šú te guruš ana e-me-ti-šú te [guruš ana ama-šú te guruš ana nin(9)-šú te] [guruš ana dumu-munus-šú te guruš ana e]-⌈me⌉-[ti-šú te] šēlebu ana kalbi iṭ(ṭe)ḫi (no. 21) alpu ana imēri iṭ(ṭe)ḫi (no. 22) (no. 24) kalbu ana šaḫî iṭ(ṭe)ḫi An ox approached a donkey (with sexual intent). A fox approached a dog (with sexual intent). A dog approached a pig (with sexual intent). gu4 ana anše te ka5-a ana ur-gi7 te ur-gi7 ana šaḫ te iṣṣūr-ḫurri peṣû abāya peṣû ina āli ittanmar[ū] (no. 25) A white partridge (and) a white abāya-bird were seen in the city. buru5-ḫabrud-damušen babbar àbamušen babbar ina eri it-tan-ma-r[u]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

17 – A ov. 17

18 – – A ov. 18

19 – – A ov. 19

20 – – A ov. 20

21 – A ov. 21

22 – A ov. 22

23 – A rv. 1 C rv. 1’

ina (araḫ) Araḫsamna miqitti išāti ina Esaĝil ina bīt tinūri ittabši (no. 26) In (the month) Araḫsamna lightning struck the kitchen (“house of the oven”) of Esaĝil. i-na itiapin šub-ti izi ina é-saĝ-íl ina é ti-nu-ri it-tab-š[i] miqitti išāti ina Abul-Uraš ittabši (no. 27) / mukīl-rēš-lemutti ina papāḫi ina kankanni ittanma[r] (no. 28) Lightning struck the Uraš Gate. A mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon was seen in the cella, in the pot-stand. šub-ti izi ina abul-duraš it-tab-ši : saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za ina pa-pa-ḫi ina kan-kan-ni it-tan-ma[r] kakkabū ultu šamê inda(na)qqutūni (no. 29) / ina qereb māt Kaldi kalbu zikaru ittaʾlad (no. 30) Stars kept falling from the skies. In the midst of Chaldea a male dog gave birth. mulmeš ta an-e šub-šubmeš-ni : ina qé-reb kur kal-di ur-gi7 nita it-ta-aʾ-lad ina āli ṭābtu ittanmar (no. 31) / ina aḫi Nār-šanî bibbu ittanmar (no. 32) Salt was seen in the city. On the (yonder) bank of the Nār-šanî canal a wild ram was seen. i-na eri munu it-tan-mar : ina a-ḫi íd šá-a-ni bi-ib-bu it-tan-mar ina Bābil ina tuqsiqqê (/ lamḫuššê) Bēl pagar murašî i[ttanmar] (no. 33) In Babylon, in the divine-dress of Bēl the corpse of a wildcat w[as found]. i-na tin-tirki ina túg-sig5 d+en adda sa-a-ri i[t-tan-mar] miqitti išāti ina (araḫ) Tašrīt ina Esaĝil ina bīt ruqqi [ittabši] (no. 34) In (the month) Tašrīt lightning [struck] the house of Esaĝil (where the) copper pots (are kept). šub-tì izi ina itidu6 ina é-saĝ-íl ina é ⌈urudušen⌉ [it-tab-ši] [sinništu k]ī ūlidu kī ša pīri kutâ šakin u [. . . . . .] (no. 35) [W]hen [a woman] gave birth, (the child) had a trunk (lit.: “jug”) like that of an elephant and [. . . . . .] [munus1577 ki]-⌈i⌉ ú-li-du ki-i šá am-si ku-ta-a šá-kin ⌈ù⌉ [x x x] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]

1577 After munus, there is probably no place to restore gurun = inba “anomaly”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

405

406

24 – A rv. 2 C rv. 2’

25 – A rv. 3 C rv. 3’

26 – A rv. 4 C rv. 4’

27 – A rv. 5 C rv. 5’

28 – A rv. 6 C rv. 6’

29 – A rv. 7 C rv. 7’

30 – A rv. 8 C rv. 8’

Edition of the Sources

[sinništu arr]aba kī ū[lidu] (no. 36) When [a woman] ga[ve birth (the child was) a dor]mouse. [munus ár-r]a-bu ki-i ú-[li-du] [munus ár-ra-bu ki-i] ⌈ú⌉-[li-du] [appašu] u īnāšu yaʾnu (no. 37) It had no [nose] and eyes, [ap-pa-šú] u igimin-šú ia-aʾ-nu [ap-pa-šú u igimin-šú ia-aʾ-nu

uznā u pagru ⌈maḫṣū] (no. 38) (its) ears and trunk were ⌈wounded]. ĝeštugmin u pag-r[u sìg-ṣu] ĝeštugmin u pa]g-ru ⌈sìg⌉-[ṣu]1578

[ina libb]i lašḫīšu ištēt šaptu šaknat / ištēt šinnu ina libbi i[si] (nos. 39–40) [Withi]n its jaws, it had one lip, (and) one tooth in the j[awbone]. [ina šà-b]i la-áš-ḫi-šú 1-et šap-tú šak-na-at 1-e[t šin-na ina šà uzume-zé] [ina šà-bi la-áš-ḫi-šú 1-et šap-tú šak-na-at 1-e]t šin-na ina šà u[zume-zé] [ina Bar]sipa ina Ezida mû ina igārati ittalkūn[i] (no. 41) [At Bor]sippa, the waters came into the (enclosure) walls of Ezida. [ina bár]-sipaki ina é-zi-da ameš ina é-gar8meš [it-tal-ku-ni] [ina bár-sipaki ina é-zi-da ameš ina é-ga]r8meš it-tal-ku-n[i] [ina Ni]ppur ina ūm Enlil ina libbi karāni kunuk šadîšu arrabu mītu itta[nmar] (no. 42) [At Ni]ppur, on the day (of the festival) of Enlil in the wine sealed in its place of origin a dead dormouse was fo[und]. [ina nib]ruki (= [en-l]ílki) ina u4-mi d+en-líl ina ⌈šà⌉ ĝišĝeštin ku-nu-uk kur-i-šu á[r*-r]a-bu m[i-tú it-tan-mar] [ina nibruki ina u4-mi d+en-líl ina šà ĝišĝeštin ku-nu-u]k kur-i-šu ár-ra-bu mi-tú it-ta[n-mar] [ina] Dilbat ina kirâti gišimmaru uḫinna sadrū (no. 43) [At] Dilbat, the date palms in the orchards kept growing green dates. [i-na] dil-batki ina ĝiškiri6meš ĝišĝišimmarmeš ú-ḫi-na [sad]-⌈ru⌉ [i-na dil-batki ina ĝiškiri6meš ĝišĝišimmarme]š ú-ḫi-na sad-ru pillû u tittu ina libbi gišimmari ittanmarū (no. 44) A pillû-plant and a fig-tree were found (growing) in a date-palm. [ĝ]išnam-tar ù ĝišpèš ina šà ĝišĝišimmar it-tan-ma-ru [ĝišnam-tar ù ĝišpèš ina šà ĝišĝiš]immar it-tan-ma-ru

1578 Or ⌈sìg⌉-[iṣ] = *uznē u pagra ⌈maḫiṣ] “[it is] wounded at (its) ears and trunk”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

31 – A rv. 9 C rv. 9’

32 – A rv. 10 B rv. 10’ C rv. 10’

33 – A rv. 11 B rv. 11’ C rv. 11’

34 – A rv. 12 B rv. 12’

35 – A rv. 13 B rv. 13’

36 – A rv. 14 B rv. 14’

407

ina Dēr ina naptan ilānī kalâma mukīl-rēš-lemutti ittanmar (no. 45) At Dēr, the mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon was seen at the meal(s) of all the gods. i-na bàd-anki ina nap-tan diĝirmeš ka-la-ma saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za it-tan-mar [i-na bàd-anki ina nap-tan diĝirmeš ka-la-m]a saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za it-tan-mar ina qereb māt Kaldi ĝišimmaru qarna šakin (no. 46) In the midst of Chaldea a date palm had a horn. i-na qé-reb kur kal-di ĝišĝišimmar qar-nu šá-kin [i-na qé-reb kur kal-di ĝišĝišimmar qar]-⌈nu⌉ [šá-kin] [i-na qé-reb kur kal-di ĝišĝiš]immar qar-nu šá-kin ina Ka-ḫili-su mukīl-rēš-lemutti ina kankanni ittanmar (no. 47) (At Babylon,) in Ka-ḫili-su (the gate of the chapel of Zarpānītu in Esaĝil) a mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon was seen in the pot-stand. i-na ká-ḫi-li-sù saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za ina kan-kan-ni it-tan-mar [i-na ká-ḫi-li-sù saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za ina ka]n-⌈kan⌉-‹ni› it-ta[n-mar] [i-na ká-ḫi-li-sù saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za ina] ⌈kan-kan-ni it⌉-tan-mar ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– 47 ittātu aḫâtu ša ana nadê māt Akkadî illikāni 47 non-canonical1579 (ominous) signs that have come (with respect) to the ruin of the land of Akkad (: Babylonia). 47 ĝiškimmeš a-ḫa-a-ti ša a-na šub-e kur uriki ĝenmeš-ni [47 ĝiškimmeš a-ḫa-a-ti ša a-na šub-e] kur uriki ĝen⌈meš-ni⌉ libirabigin absaram banʾe (kīma labīrīšu šaṭirma bari) According to its original written and checked. libir-ra-bi-gin7 ab-sar-àm ba-an-è [libir-ra-bi-gin7 ab-sar-àm] ba-an-è ṭuppi Nabû-zuqup-kēnu ṭupšarri (B adds:) [mār Marduk-šumu]-iqīša ṭupšarri Tablet of Nabû-zuqup-kēnu, the scribe. (B adds:) [the son of Marduk-šumu]-iqīša, the scribe. lú dub-pi I.dnà-zu-qu-up-gi-na dub-sar I.d I.d lú [dub-pi nà-zu-qu-up-gi-na dumu amar-utu-mu]-ba-šá dub-sar

1579 For the meaning of aḫâtu (“extraneous/additional/assorted/non-canonical”) see the

remarks on pp. 401f. above.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

408

Edition of the Sources

Com: This text deals with omens which were considered in antiquity to have been observed prior to the fall of Babylonia under Ibbi-Sîn of Ur, announcing the devastation of the land. This fact has been missed until since, due to two misinterpretations. The first point which can be shown easily is that the text does not deal with the fall of the dynasty of Akkade, as has been supposed earlier,1580 but with the fall of the land of Akkad (kur uriki = māt Akkadî, ll. 1, 34), i.e. Babylonia. 1: The second and more tricky point is, that the king’s name in line 1 had not yet been identified, or only wrongly: Frank (1914, p. 157) read the name as I [Ka]r-še-im-me-íb-bi. Unger (1931, p. 273) proposed Qa(?)-še-im-me-ib-bi, followed by Glassner (1986, p. 60) who read the name as I⌈Qa?-a?⌉-še-em-meéb-bi. Guinan, following an idea proposed by Finkel, was on the right track when she took the name as a cryptography. Guinan and Finkel correctly identified the element a-še-em-me as a writing for AŠ-ím in dAŠ-ímbabbar(2), an epithet of the moon-god Sîn (see below).1581 But they also took éb-be as a rendering of babbar(2) and they read the name on the whole as I⌈Ìr?⌉-a-še-em-me-éb-bé, taking it as a cryptography for Warad-Sîn of Larsa. This king, however, does not play any role in the historical memory of Babylonia, neither is the first sign in the name under discussion the sign ìr = wardu. I contend that the orthography of the name is in fact a cryptography for king Ibbi-Sîn of Ur, using an epithet for the theophoric element – *Ašimbabbar for *Sîn – and writing the complete name back to front:1582 – I⌈babbar⌉-a-še-em-me-íb-bi: babbar-Ašem-Ibbi: Ibbi-Ašim-babbar: Ibbi-Sîn Writing the name back to front may have aimed at three possible goals at the least: The one is to becloud the king’s identity, hiding the text’s meaning as belonging to the secret lore of divination. But since the topic of the text is specified clearly as omens pertaining to “the land of Akkad (= Babylonia)” in the title and in the colophon (ll. 1, 34), another interpretation seems possible as well. It is conceivable that the name of the unfortunate and infamous king had been written back to front in order to diminish its ominous impact. And since the texts are copies made by Nabû-zuqup-kēnu from an older, certainly Babylonian original, the graphic diminishing would be quite in place in order to diminish the negative impact for Babylonia. There are more examples of turning writing back to front in order to reverse or to diminish its impact. One example is the famous reversal of the number of 70 years determined for Babylon’ desolation after the destruction by Sennacherib. By the grace of Marduk the number 70 (𒐕𒌋) was turned upside-down to 11 (𒌋𒐕) in cuneiform sript:1583 1580 Thus Glassner 1986, p. 60: “La chute d’Akkadé”. The dynasty of Akkade would have

been called by the name of the city (a-kà-dèki) or by the term palû Akkadî “dynasty of Akkade”, see e.g. Source 11 and Source 23. 1581 See Guinan 2002, pp. 35, 38 and 40. 1582 Presented already in my paper read at the RAI 2008 at Würzburg. 1583 Borger, Asarh., p. 15, episode 10a. See also p. 193 above with note 913.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

409

– 70 šanāti … išṭurma … elîš ana šapliš ušbalkitma … 11 šanāti … iqbi “(Marduk) had (in fact) written seventy years (for Babylon to lie desolate), but he turned over above and below and (gracefully) ordered eleven years (only, without deleting a single wedge).” Another example of writing back to front in order to diminish its impact is found in an omen report dealing with a fire in a temple struck by lightning.1584 In this report, several nouns and a verbal form are written in reverse. The verbal form is innappaḫu, written: – ḫu-pa-nap-in = *in-nap-pa-ḫu “flaring up” Apart from the words written back to front the text also displays sophisticated orthography that makes it quite clear that the scribe meant to produce a piece of cryptography. Furthermore, writing the misfortune back to front can be understood as a graphic “de-flaring” of the ominous fire, calming it down together with the divine wrath that had caused it. A similar inversion in the area of pronunciation may lie behind the enigmatic “Sign of the Flood” of the Standard Babylonian Gilgameš epic. A line in this epic (George 2003/I, p. 706, tablet XI:46–47) and other comments in Babylonian divinatory literature understand the “breadcake” kukku as a sign of Enlil’s wrath (George 2010). Did the Babylonians hear kukku as an inversion of uggug “he is fuming with rage”? The opposition of tenuis and media [k:g] is weakened when the consonant closes the syllable. I understand *babbar-a-še-em(-me-) as a syllabic rendering of the divine name dAŠ-ím-babbar(2), an epithet of the moon-god Sîn. This epithet is equated with the Akkadian term dNawra-ṣīt, another name of Sîn which means “Bright-in-Rising”. If dAŠ-ím-babbar(2) can be analysed with the “classic” Sumerian we know, we are safe to isolate babbar(2) as nawru “bright”. The verbal base ím means “to run” and is equated with Akkadian šanû (CAD Š/I, p. 409, šanû D). So the image that emerges is that of “a bright runner”, an image certainly fit for the moon. If this is correct, one may wonder whether the spelling with -me- in (a-še)-em-me- might be a rendering of the marû participle *ím-e(d) “running”. This, however, is probably too sophisticated in the present case. Moreover, the syllabic renderings from the Old Babylonian period (see below) do not suggest a form like *ime-babbar. So, the spelling with -me- is either a deliberately misleading sandhi writing, luring the uninformed into reading *-a-še-emme-éb-bi, or in fact an actual sandhi, if the ill-fated name is not only written, but also pronounced back to front as *Babbar-Ašem-Ebbi. The reading of the first element, however, is a problem. The sign AŠ can render the numeral aš “one” and the adjective dili “(a)lone”. There are syllabic, unorthographic spellings of the epithet that in fact propose a

1584 Beaulieu 1995. On reverse writing in the Silbenvokabular A see Farber 1999, p. 120.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

410

Edition of the Sources

reading *ddili-ím-babbar(2) “the bright one running alone”.1585 As far as I see, there are four examples attested, and all of them date to the Old Babylonian period: (CT 58, no. 44, obv. 4’; perhaps from Sippar) – di-li-bar6-bar6-r[a] (S 7/1600 = IM 95317, l. 8)1586 – di-il-im-ba?-pa-ra – dil-lim-bábbar-ra (MA 35) ∥ dili-bábbar-ra (MB 18’)1587 This would mean, of course, that a rendering *a-še-em-me-babbar for *Dilîm-babbar is out of place, since one should not expect to have two different forms of this unique epithet. Nevertheless, I think that understanding a-še-em-me- as a rendering of *ašim- is in place, at least as far as this late esoteric text is concerned.1588 After the Old Babylonian period, no corresponding spellings proposing *dili- in this divine name are extant. In its classic orthography dAŠ-ím-babbar, the divine name occurs next to dNanna passim in balaĝs and eršemmas. In the classic god lists from the first millennium BCE, An = Anum and An = Anu ša amīli, the epithet occurs one time each. In either case, it is explained by an Akkadian phrase extolling the “bright rising” of the moon-god dNawra-ṣīt: – dAŠ-ím(im)-babbar = dnam-[ra-ṣi-it]1589 – AŠ-‹ím›-babbar-ra = min (d30) šá ṣi-su nam-rat1590 As it appears, the scribes had problems with the element ím. It was either in need of glossing, or erroneously omitted. The sign AŠ (aš/dili), however, passed uncommented. This probably means that the scribes attributed to it – albeit erroneously – the simple and common pronunciation “aš” from the very start. So, clinging to the reading *a-še-em-me+babbar, we are either left with the possibility that the original pronunciation of the epithet as Dilîm-babbar got lost after the Old Babylonian period, or with another level of cryptography that hides the reading behind a “simple pronunciation” of the signs. In favour of the first possibility one could refer to the case of the Urukean goddess Ama-sagnudi, the “Incorruptible-Mother”. Her name is properly to be spelled as dama-ság-nu-di, but it could be misunderstood as

1585 Krebernik 1993–1997 (RlA 8), pp. 362–363, § 2.3; Cohen 1996, pp. 11–12; Alster 2004. –

1586 1587 1588

1589 1590

Cohen (1996, p. 11, note 20) interprets dAŠ-ím-babbar(2) as ddili-ím-babbar(2) which he understands as *ddílimím-babbar(2) “white (or shining) bowl”. Text from Sippar; Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1994, p. 74; quoted also in Krebernik 1993– 1997 (RlA 8), p. 363 and Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1995, p. 206. Two parallel manuscripts of a text from Mê-Turran (Mê-Turnat, Tell Ḥaddād); Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1995, pp. 197, 206. See also Alster (2004, p. 3) who discusses Finkel’s and Guinan’s proposition to understand a-še-em-me in this very case as a rendering of AŠ-ím in dAŠ-ím-babbar(2), see p. 408 above. An = Anum III:26; Litke 1998, p. 119; gloss ‘im’ in one manuscript. An = Anu ša amīli l. 38, composite transliteration; Litke 1998, p. 231; beginning of the line with the Sumerian epithet preserved in YBC 2401, XI:134 (Litke 1998, pl. XLIV).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

411

ama-ság-nu-du7 (= ul). Finally, the name becomes corrupted as dama-saqqa-nu-úl (= nu), even in a text written at Uruk itself in ca. 213 BCE.1591 The orthography 200 (= iššebu) = šarru “king” is particularly frequent in Old Babylonian omens from Susa.1592 But it was also in use in the astronomical omens of the series Enūma Anu Enlil, see e.g. here in Source 55, line 5. Many of the omens listed in the following lines also appear in the terrestrian omen collection Šumma ālu. Guinan (2002, pp. 31–34) has thoroughly investigated which source the omens might have been taken from. Her results are not repeated here, the reader is referred to her list. Only problematic or interesting cases will be discussed here again. Most striking is the fact that in the apodoses of those omens of other collections, whose protases are identical with the omens listed in the Book of Prodigies, do not explicitly mention Ibbi-Sîn or his fate. So it is in fact rather unclear how and why these omens became connected to Ibbi-Sîn in particular. Guinan (2002, p. 31) has drawn attention to the fact that the rubra of the Book of Prodigies given in lines 1 and 34 are quite reminiscent of the following passage from the 88th tablet of Šumma ālu:1593 – šumma ittātu lemnētu ḫaṭâtu aḫâtu ša ma[la] ina māti ālānī ekallāti ū eqlēti ugārī innamrā[ma] ālu šū issappaḫ ekallu šū iḫalliq eqlētu ugārū šu[nu innaddû] “If evil, ill-portending, and strange signs are seen, be it in the country, the cities, the palaces, or in the fields, (this means) that this city will be scattered, this palace will be destroyed and th[ose] fields and pastures [will lie fallow and abandoned.]” It appears that there is not much missing at the end of these lines, despite of the rather large break in the copy. My reconstruction of mala at the end of line 20 relies on the construction mala … ū … “as much as … or/as well as …”,1594 supplanting an older construction with lū “either” in NeoBabylonian. The very same construction is also found in the opening line of the Book of Prodigies: – [it]tātu ša ina tarṣi Ibbi-Sîn šarri mala ina Bābil ū māt Akkadî innamrā “(Ominous) [s]igns, which were seen in the time of king Ibbi-Sîn, in Babylon, as well as in the land of Akkad (: Babylonia).” Directly following in the same paragraph of Šumma ālu tablet 88 there is another omen which addresses the idea of wilderness and chaos invading order. This is also an important topic of the Book of Prodigies and of the d

1591 Beaulieu 1992, pp. 51–52. 1592 Labat 1965b, pp. 259–260; Nougayrol 1972; Labat 1974, pp. 5–6. 1593 CT 40, pl. 46, K 3969+7120, obv. 20–22: diš ĝiškimmeš ḫulmeš ḫa-ṭa-a-tu4 a-ḫa-a-tu4 šá ma-

[la] / ina kur erimeš é-galme u a-šà a-gàr igimeš-[ma] / eri-bi bir-aḫ é-gal-bi záḫ a-šà a-gàrb[i šubmeš]. 1594 See e.g. mala itteru ū imaṭṭû “whether it be more or less”; Late Babylonian examples in AHw III, p. 1398 s.v. ū 1b; AHw II, p. 636, s.v. maṭû(m) II, G 3a.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

412

2:

3:

Edition of the Sources

Religious Chronicle (Source 37).1595 That other omen from Šumma ālu tablet 88 runs as follows: 1596 – šumma mimma ša ina māti lā ibaššû ina āli innamir āl[u š]ū is[sappaḫ? …] “If anything that does not (normaly) exist in the land is seen in a city, [th]at cit[y] will be d[ispersed? …]” So, the compiler of the Book of Prodigies might well have drawn rather directly on texts like Šumma ālu tablet 88. In this respect, it is rather odd that there are no obvious and direct correlations between the omens collected in the Book of Prodigies and the apodoses of the corresponding omens from Šumma ālu. Since the omens of the Book of Prodigies are by their rubra in general designated as “omens of Ibbi-Sîn”, one might have expected a reference to Ibbi-Sîn or to šaḫluqtu “disaster” in the apodoses of Šumma ālu. But this is almost never the case, even in those omens whose protases can be found verbally or nearly verbally in Šumma ālu. These omens are omens nos. 1 (l. 2), 16 (l. 12), 21 (l. 14), 22 (l. 15), 24 (l. 15), 25 (l. 16), 31 (l. 20), no. 44 (l. 30). They will be discussed in the commentary below. The only omen that seems to point verbally to šaḫluqtu “disaster” appears to be the match of omen no. 44 in line 30. So it remains a little bit unclear why these particular omens were attributed to Ibbi-Sîn. Omen no. 1, the “severed head laughing”, is one of the most prominent omens of this collection. It is very probably also to be restored in a letter from Babylonia addressed to Sargon II (Source 38, obv. 29). The very same omen is also found in Šumma ālu: – šumma qaqqadu naksu iṣīḫ kišitti ummāni ⌈…⌉ […]1597 “If a severed head laughs, the (king’s own) army will be taken captive1598 ⌈…⌉ […]” A diš saĝ-du tar-su i-ṣi-iḫ kur-tì érin-ni ⌈x⌉ […] B diš s[aĝ!-du tar]-su i-⌈ṣí⌉-iḫ ki-ši[t-ti érin-ni …] No omens which are exactly parallel are known to me. The omen series Šumma izbu lists an omen dealing with an anomaly growing one horn from the forehead, without specifying its right or left side. There, the meaning is positive and means the “weapon of Sargon”.1599

1595 See in more detail the discussion on pp. 174ff. below in chapter 8. 1596 CT 40, pl. 46, K 3969+7120, obv. 23: diš mim-ma šá ina kur nu ĝál-ú ina eri igi-ir er[i-b]i

b[ir?-aḫ …]. 1597 Guinan 2002, p. 31; text A = CT 41, pl. 22, rev. 19; text B = CT 40, pl. 46, rev. 52. 1598 Literally “taking of the army”, but certainly not in a positive sense. This would rather be expressed as *kišitti qāti ummānīya “booty of the hands of my army”. 1599 Šumma izbu 9:34’ (Leichty 1970, p. 117, see also pp. 8–9; De Zorzi 2014, p. 599). From a parallel omen listed there two lines earlier (Šumma izbu 9:32’, horn growing from the head, see also 9:33’) one can conclude that it further means that the land of the king will expand, that his weapons will be strong and that the king will have no opponent. Porter (1983, p. 18) compares these omens from Šumma izbu to the he-goat with the single great horn between the eyes from the vision of Daniel 8:5. On elements

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

4:

5:

1600

1601 1602 1603 1604

413

Omen no. 4: The “ram with four horns” recalls the vision of Daniel 8:8. The vision of Daniel (8:3) also incorporates the element “ram standing on the (yonder) bank of a (border) canal”, which is here omen no. 32 in line 20. On either omen see the discussion on pp. 101f. above. As befits a powerful image like the “ram with four horns”, its position within the text is also determined by the element “four”: It is omen no. 4 in line no. 4. The manuscripts are identical in their layout. Other omens which treat the topic of the horns of rams can also be found in the series Šumma izbu, dealing with anomalies (Leichty 1970, pp. 8–9, excerpt). The city of Dēr, where the omen is said to have occurred, gives a hint to Elam as the aggressor by means of geographical association. Dēr was situated on the eastern border of Babylonia to Elam, being so to speak the last highway stop before Susa.1600 In the words of Mār-Issar, scholar and agent of Esarhaddon in Babylonia: – Dēr ina muḫḫi taḫūmi ša māti šanīti šū1601 “Dēr is on the border to (that) other country (i.e. Elam).” Nebuchadnezzar I started his famous attack on Elam from Dēr,1602 as did Aššurbanipal in 653 BCE.1603 Already in the late 10th century Dēr had been conquered by the Assyrians under Adad-nārārī II, and annexed as an Assyrian province in the 8th century.1604 During the reign of the late NeoAssyrian kings, it was an important Assyrian base against the Babylonian Arameans and Elam. Here, in the same text, Dēr also occurs in omen no. 45 (line 31). Omen no. 5: The idea of having both vulva and penis, but associated with an anomaly, is found as an omen of Ku-Baʾu the alewife who ruled the land like a man (Source 41, A). Although listed here among the omens sent in the reign of Ibbi-Sîn, it may well be reckoned as an omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 4). On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). Ṭaban (= Dūr-Papsukkal?) appears to be another major city in the central Tigris region, located on the river Ṭaban, see Fuchs 2011, p. 233. There is also a city Ṭabānu in the vicinity of Borsippa, see Zadok 1985 (RGTC 8), p. 316. The roof beams sprouting twigs, being cut and “dead”, without any connection to the ground, belong to the group of unnatural births among these omens, see the discussion on pp. 136f. and in chapter 10.5. comparable to the visions of Daniel see here the omens no. 4 and 32 from ll. 4 and 20, and the discussion on pp. 101f. above. Well attested from the beginnigs of written documentation in the third millennium, see Selz 1991, pp. 29, 41; Michalowski 2013, pp. 311–314. For Dēr’s importance in the first millennium see Frame 1992, p. 223; Postgate & Mattila 2004, pp. 240–242; Frahm 2009. See also Unger 1938 (RlA 2), pp. 199–200. After Parpola 1993, p. 285, no. 349, rev. 21–22. Frame, RIMB 2, p. 34, no. B.2.4.11, I:14. Frame 1992, p. 122. Brinkman 1968, p. 178; Frame 1992, p. 222; Radner 2006–2008 (RlA 11), p. 65, no. 72.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

414

6:

1605 1606 1607 1608 1609 1610 1611 1612 1613

Edition of the Sources

Omen no. 7: The form ittaʾlad (it-ta-aʾ-lad, ll. 6, 19) looks like a candidate for a perfect N of walādu (or pret. Ntn, both *ittawlad “xy was born”) with a transition from [w] to a strong [ʾ]. Yet, according to omen no. 30 in line 19 it is best to be understood as a variant of *ittalad (perf. G), with an active voice: “xy gave birth”.1605 Omen no. 8: The “earth rumbling” denotes the noise produced during an earthquake. It can howver not be excluded here that according to the ancient mind the earth could rumble and shout without quaking. The expression rigma nadû “to call out/to rumble/to make noise” is normally said of Adad thundering,1606 but also of a fire crackling, weapons clashing, and said of sounds that were produced by the stars and the earth.1607 That the earth’s rumbling is an expression for an earthquake becomes fairly clear from a phrase like: šumma erṣetu … irūb … rigimša iddīma “if the earth quakes … and rumbles”.1608 The image of the earth rumbling or shouting is very old. It appears already in Early Dynastic cosmologies, with heaven and earth talking or shouting at each other, in a cosmic thunderstorm:1609 – (I:10) u4 na-du7-du7 (11) nin na-ĝír-ĝír (12) an-né ki-da (13) enim an-dab6-e (14) ki an-da enim an-dab6-e 1610 “The storm was butting, the lightnings were flashing, Heaven talked with Earth, Earth talked with Heaven.” – (II:2) an ki teš-ba sig4 an-gi4-gi4 1611 “Heaven and Earth shouted at each other.” After the Early Dynastic period, there is a long gap on this topic in epic literature. The next examples apparently come from the Standard Babylonian recension of the Epic of Gilgameš in the 1st millennium. There are two descriptions of a cosmic thunderstorm, seen in a dream, with heaven and earth shouting at each other: – ilsû šamû qaqqaru īpul 1612 “The heavens roared, the earth responded.” – (101) [i]lsû šamû qaqqaru irammum (…) (103) [ibr]iq birqu innapiḫ išātu 1613 “The heavens [r]oared, while the earth was rumbling. (…) Lightning [fl]ashed down, fire flared up.” It appears that it is the heavens that start the roaring, and it is the earth that responds. The dependence of earthquakes on the roaring of the See also CAD A/I, p. 290, s.v. alādu 1a, 2’; CAD A/II, p. 266, s.v. āribu 1d: ārib zēri. Adad rigimšu inaddi etc., see CAD R pp. 332–333, s.v. rigmu 4. CAD R p. 331, s.v. rigmu 1f, g, i. Lacheman 1937, pp. 2, 6, l. 19. Van Dijk 1964, pp. 36–37, 40, 43. Barton Cylinder; Alster & Westenholz 1994, pp. 18, 26. Tablet from Ĝirsu; Sollberger, CIRPL, p. 57, Ukg. 15; Bauer 1998, p. 517. Epic of Gilgameš, tablet VII:166; George 2003/I, pp. 642–643. Epic of Gilgameš, tablet IV:101, 103; George 2003/I, pp. 592–593.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

415

heavens is also expressed in omens starting with the phrase šumma šamû issûma erṣetu irtūb “If the heavens shout, and then the earth quakes”, with a perfect tense in the second verb (râbu) as an expression of the consecutio temporum.1614 Consequently, the majority of the omens dealing with earthquakes is listed in the Sîn and Adad sections of the astrological series Enūma Anu Enlil,1615 and in the omen series iqqur īpuš (§§ 100–101),1616 following on the Adad section (§§ 88–94) and the weather section (§§ 95– 99 rain and winds). We would certainly expect the earthquake omens to appear in collections of terrestrian omens, but there are in fact only rather few and scattered omens in the terrestrian omen series Šumma ālu, dealing with the earth rumbling (ramāmu) and shouting (šasû).1617 I think that listing earthquakes among the celestial omens of the Adad and the Sîn section of Enūma Anu Enlil goes beyond the ancient philosophy that celestial and terrestrian omens correspond to each other.1618 As we can deduce from the arrangement of the omens among the Adad sections in the omen series mentioned above, it was apparently Adad who was held responsible to have shaken the earth with his lightning and thunder. The connection between earthquakes and Adad thundering is also indicated by the beginning of an omen like: šumma erṣetu inūšma Adad ina šamê rigimšu iddi “If the earth quakes and Adad shouts in the skies”.1619 There are also other interpretations: According to a letter of the Assyrian scholar Balasî to the king (Esarhaddon), it is the creator Ea, who made the earthquakes and the rituals as well that can undo their harm.1620 According to a note of his colleague Issar-šumu-ēriš, it is Ereškigal, the queen of the Netherworld, who devastates the surface of the earth with 1614 diš an bad-ma ki ir-tu-⌈ub⌉ (Lacheman 1937, p. 2, l. 20 (copy); reading after Weidner

1615

1616 1617 1618

1619 1620

1939–1941, p. 232, note 13); text from Nuzi, 2nd mill. For more examples of that phrase, spelling the verbal form syllabically as is-su-ma, see Hunger 1992, no. 36 (K 124), obv. 1, 6, 8, rev. 3–4 (second half often broken) = the examples from Thompson, RMA, no. 267 quoted in CAD Š/II, p. 150, s.v. šasû 1f, and in CAD R, p. 55, s.v. râbu 1a, 1’. The strange writing “bad” (= petû/nesû) for *issû (3rd plural preterite from šasû “to shout”) stems from the homophonous *issû (3rd plural preterite from nesû “to move back”). Various omens in Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 35 and Adad no. 20, see Labat 1965a, pp. 188–189, note 4, p. 190, note 1; Lacheman 1937, pp. 1, 4. For earthquakes listed among the signs of Adad see Maul 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 53 on Enūma Anu Enlil, tablets 37–49. Labat 1965a, pp. 188–191; Maul 2003–2005 (RlA 10), p. 58 on iqqur īpuš §§ 100–101: earthquakes among the signs of Adad and the weather. Guinan 2002, p. 32, on l. 6. Differently apparently Oppemheim 1974, p. 208 in a short remark on the seismic phenonema in Enūma Anu Enlil. On the impact of the concept that the signs sent by heaven and earth correspond to each other see the discussion on pp. 98f. above. Lacheman 1937, pp. 3, 7, l. 25. Parpola 1993, p. 41, no. 56, rev. 9–12; Fadhil 1993, p. 275; Maul 1994, p. 8. These lines, however, do probably not present Ea as a god who is responsible for earthquakes in particular, even though he dwells in the deep, but rather as the creator of all, who created every omen and the apotropaic rituals as well.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

416

Edition of the Sources

her cries.1621 For geological reasons, earthquakes occur quite frequently in the North of the Iraq, i.e. in Assyria, and not in the South, i.e. in Babylonia.1622 In the inscriptions of Assyrian kings and in the reports of Assyrian scholars earthquakes are dealt with regularly.1623 As a phenomenon, earthquakes were also known in Babylonia, but probably not from direct experience, even though two earthquake omens are quoted in the ritual dealing with a collapsed wall of the Anu temple at Uruk from the Seleucid period.1624 In ignorance of the natural causes, earthquakes were taken as a sign for the cosmos coming asunder, or as an act of deities smashing heaven and earth in wrath.1625 There were apotropaic rituals (namburbi/dullu) that were to be preformed against the evil indicated by earthquakes.1626 Stars falling from the skies (l. 19, omen no. 29) are the other side of that image, with the stars, being the nails that keep the heavenly sheet in place that holds the upper waters back, coming off from the face of the skies like buttons flying off a garment. See the telling illustration of the Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina (fig. 15 on page 224),1627 with the upper waters forming the floor of the heavenly abode of Šamaš, and the stars below keeping the sheet of the horizon and the waters above in place. The stars recall the rosette-shaped nails that fix metal-sheets to temple-doors. The earth rumbling and the stars falling forms the threatening image of the cosmos falling apart, and of another flood being about to break forth from the cosmic stores of the waters above and below. The apocalyptic idea of the skies collapsing is also touched upon in a letter of an Assyrian king, probably Aššurbanipal: – miqitti šamê mīnu šū? kayyā[mān]u šamê ibašši? 1628 “Falling of the skies, what does this mean? The skies are fore[v]er, aren’t they?” At first sight, this quotation seems to address the question whether the skies might collapse some day,1629 or whether the universe is forever. At 1621 “If Ereškigal roars like a lion, the (surface of the) earth of the land will become

1622 1623 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629

desolate (innaddi)” (Hunger 1992, no. 36 [K 124], obv. 10–11; Weidner 1939–1941, p. 232–233; Fadhil 1993, pp. 275–276). In that note (K 124), probably quoted from Virolleaud, ACh, Adad no. 20:64, and in another fragment (K 4458 = Weidner 1939– 1941, p. 232), the cries of Ereškigal are likened to those of a lion, of a wolf, a fox, and of a pig – kind of an early Richter magnitude scale? Fadhil 1993, pp. 271, 275. Fadhil 1993, pp. 272–275. Linssen 2004, pp. 102, 284, 286, obv. l. 16. Fadhil 1993, pp. 275–276; CAD R, pp. 56–57, s.v. râbu B 1b, 2b; CAD N/II, p. 115, nâšu 4. namburbi: Parpola 1993, no. 10, obv. 6, 7; no. 56, rev. 12, s. 2. – dullu: Parpola 1993, no. 56, rev. 6; no. 202, obv. 13, rev. 15’; no. 203, rev. 2. – Fadhil 1993, p. 277. King 1912, p. 121 with note 4, pl. XCVIII; Woods 2004, p. 26, fig. 1. Parpola 1970a, pp. 172–173, no. 226, obv. 11–12; Parpola 1983, p. 218, no. 226; Parpola 1993, p. 235, no. 295, obv. 11–12. See also Parpola 1983, p. 218, referring in the commentary on this letter (no. 226) to dream-omens concerning falling stars (Oppenheim 1956, p. 283).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

7:

8:

417

second sight however, one realizes that behind the seemingly naive question another topic is hiding. These lines may well contain a trick question of the Assyrian king (Aššurbanipal) or his consultants, testing or even mocking the addressee, a certain Urad-Gula. This scholar had been working at court as a physician and exorcist under Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, but had been dismissed after Aššurbanipal had become king. In hope to get employed again, Urad-Gula and his father Adad-šum-uṣur started to write petitions and begging letters, pestering Aššurbanipal for a job, but apparently to no avail.1630 Now, in the letter quoted above, miqitti šamê1631 is probably the same as miqit šamê (“fallen from heaven”), a rather well-known term designating epilepsy (Stol 1993, pp. 7–9). Asking such a rather obvious or even silly question might mean that the king was not educated enough to know the answer.1632 But why did he not ask any of the many scholars crowding his entourage? Why did he ask the unemployed petitioner, and in writing, triggering a written answer? Given the rather peculiar figure of Urad-Gula, I think that the Assyrian king (Aššurbanipal), acting naive, was setting a trap for the desperate applicant whom he clearly regarded as incompetent. Bīt Albadā apparently is a place in the mountainous area on the border between Babylonia and Assyria.1633 The use of sapannu (CAD S, p. 157: “flatlands”, with “sea” or “mountains” in the sense of “in the midst of”) recalls the underlying root sapānu “to flatten/to level” (hence Guinan’s “level area”). The ominous meaning of the occurrence of “copper in the midst of the mountains” may indeed be an echo of the “use of copper axes to widen the passes through difficult mountains”, as Guinan proposes, a topos that is part of the vocabulary of military campaigns. The association which immediately comes to one’s mind when imagining a date palm with six heads is the vision of six kings sprouting forth from one root or trunk. In lexical lists as well as in a colophon of a text of the time of Sennacherib, the “date palm” (ĝišĝišimmar/gišimmaru) – being “the king of the trees”1634 – is used as a sophisticated orthography to write the word “king” (šarru).1635 “Six enemy kings, being brothers sprouting from one root” is in fact the imagery employed to characterize the demonic enemy kings of the Ummān-Manda who were attacking Babylonia and Narām-Sîn according to the Cuthean Legend. The Middle Babylonian

1630 See e.g. Parpola 1993, pp. 231–234, no. 294. Detailed discussion by Parpola 1987. 1631 Written šub-ti an-e, and paired with the deities Ninkilim and Ninurta in the lines 1632 1633 1634 1635

ahead, which demonstrates that the quotation is taken from an incantation. Thus Fincke in AfO 50, 2003–2004, p. 121. Also, she mistakes Urad-Gula for Nabû-nāṣir. Guinan 2002, p. 40; Groneberg 1980 (RGTC 3), p. 11 on Albadā. A line from the Fable of the Willow (Lambert 1960a, p. 165, line 17). CAD Š/II, p. 77, s.v. šarru, lex.; see e.g. MSL 12, p. 94, Lú-ša I:34; MSL 3, p. 76, Sa Vocabulary, fragm. V, line 9’. – Colophon: Borger in: BiOr 30, 1973, p. 171, IV:48. See also Frahm 1997, p. 277. – The figurative meaning of the date palm has been discussed in connection with images of a date palm on monuments of Esarhaddon by Roaf & Zgoll 2001, p. 286.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

418

9: 12:

Edition of the Sources

recension from Boghazköy gives the number of these kings as six, “united in brotherhood (atḫû), and 600 were their troops”.1636 Annoyingly, the Standard Babylonian recension of the Cuthean Legend which was in circulation in the first millennium gives the number of the kings as seven, and lists their seven names.1637 Hence the fine match would have been disturbed by then. Perhaps this is a sign that the imagery of omen no. 11 was borrowed from the Cuthean Legend still in the Middle Babylonian period. The element “6 heads” of omen no. 11 is also found in: – ki-en-gi saĝ 6 (“six-headed Sumer”), a designation for Yamūt-Baʿal or Emūt-Balum, a land east of the Tigris. The orthography was in use in the Old Babylonian period, and survived into the tradition of the first millennium.1638 Fritz Hommel (1907) combined this orthography with the six-headed monster which appears among the “warriors slain by Nin-Ĝirsu”:1639 – ur-saĝ šeĝ9-saĝ-àš “the warrior ‘six-headed deer’” (Gudea Cyl. A 25:25) Among the slain warriors lined up as trophies of Nin-Ĝirsu is also the “date-palm” (ĝišimmar, Gudea Cyl. A 26:2). The number six as an ominous element also appears in the liver omen of Source 62. There, it is the path of the liver being sixfold which indicates the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster. For a discussion of other omens dealing with the numbers six and seven (cf. the omen discussed in the commentary below) in the sense of “many” or “totality” see Winitzer 2017, pp. 431–438, chapter 5.4.1.3.2: “Five and Beyond”. The term ĝišĝišimmar-du13-du13 may also be read suḫuššu or šakinnu. As to the omen no. 16: erṣet Nippur dišpa [iḫ]ī[l] “The soil of Nippur [ex]u[ded] syrup”, there are also other omens about the “soil of the country” exuding syrup, which in fact are no perfect matches, since they do not mention Nippur. Guinan, however, lists them as duplicates, and so we shall have a look at them. The texts read like this:1640

1636 Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 286, side B:7’–8’. 1637 Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 310, lines 37, 40–46. 1638 Inscription of Samsu-iluna: Frayne, RIME 4, p. 387, line 95 = Sollberger, in RA 63, 1969,

p. 35, line 105; p. 39, note 1: referring to Deimel, ŠL II/3, p. 900, no. 461:99 (= lex.), and Weidner, in AfO 16, 1952–1953, p. 17. See also Schroeder, KAV, no. 183, rev!:3 = MSL 11, p. 35: rev. 3: ma-da ki-in!-gi! saĝ 6iš (!) kur e-m[ut-ba-l]i. 1639 See also Annus 2002, p. 113. – The “six-headed deer” is also found in a balaĝ for Ninurta-Nergal: šeĝ9-saĝ-àš ḫur-saĝ-ĝá mu-un-ug5 = (šūma “ditto”) ina šadî tanār/tušmīt “You killed the six-headed deer in the mountains” (IV R 30, no. 1 rev. 11 = Cohen 1988/II, pp. 460, 463, l. 44). For the translation ‘deer/gazelle’ (probably not: ‘wild ram’) see also the sign-form of šeĝ9 which showed in its oldest forms a kind of antler (Mittermayer 2005, pp. 54–61). 1640 Guinan 2002, p. 32; A = Freedman 1998, pp. 21, 338 incipit of tablet 60; B = CT 39, pl. 10, K 3092+, l. 3; C = CT 39, pl. 13:3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

13:

419

– šumma erṣet māti dišpa (var.: dāma) iḫīl mātu šī ilemmin “If the soil of a land exudes syrup (var.: blood), this land will turn bad.” A diš ki kur làl (var.: úš = dāmu “blood”) i-ḫi-il kur-bi i-lem-mìn – šumma erṣet māti dišpa iḫīl mātu šī dannata [immar] “If the soil of a land exudes syrup, this land [will see] hardship.” B diš ki kur làl i-[ḫ]i-il kur-bi dan-na-ta5 [igi-mar] C diš ki kur làl i-ḫi-il k[ur-bi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] Here again, as above with omen no. 1 in line 2, the apodoses are highly negative, but do not point unambiguously to the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster. The earth exuding syrup while Adad is thundering is also dealt with in the hermerological omen series iqqur īpuš.1641 The idea of the “earth giving away its riches gratuitously” seems to be expanded in the following omen no. 17 of line 13. The beginning of tablet 88 of Šumma ālu deals also in a similar context with syrup being “seen” in the country: – šumma dišpu ina māti innamir nazāq māti gamār palê (B inverted)1642 šumma dišpu ina erṣet māti innamir mātu arbūta illak – “If syrup is seen in the land, (this means) grief for the land, ruin of the dynasty.” “If syrup is seen in the soil of the land, (this means that) the land will become waste.” A [diš là]l i-na kur igi-ir na-zaq kur til bala-e [diš l]àl i-na ki kur igi-ir kur ár-bu-ta5 ĝen-ak (CT 39, pl. 31, K 3811+, obv. 1–2) B diš làl ina kur [igi-ir til bala]-⌈e⌉ na-zaq kur diš làl ina ki [kur igi-ir kur á]r-bu-ta5 ĝen-ak (CT 40, pl. 45, K 3969+, obv. 8–9; immediately followed by an omen on “salt in the pastures of a city”; see p. 422 with note 1651 in the commentary on omen no. 31 in line 20.) The translation proposed by Guinan 2002, p. 38: “The earth exposed its wealth to the land of Akkad, Babylon, and the other temple cities” probably misinterprets the line. For that translation, with kullumu construed with two accusatives, one should expect to see the primary accusative of object (bušâša) precede the secondary accusative, the land and the people. Here, in the first millennium, I would even expect the verb to be construed with the preposition ana “to”. The omen probably deals with precious stones or metals found when digging Babylonian soil. This must have occurred regularly, albeit by pure chance, and would have nevertheless been understood as an omen. Especially finding material (stones, metal) from foundation deposits when tearing down and

1641 Labat 1965a, pp. 180–181, § 93. 1642 The omen occurs also in Šumma ālu tablet 2:30 (Freedman 1998, p. 68).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

420

Edition of the Sources

rebuilding a temple was regarded as ominously unfortunate or unfavourable.1643 This did not apply to building inscriptions,1644 but only to the materials scattered into the foundations. Apart from being a means of magic purification and also an embellishment, these offerings apparently were regarded as a kind of price to be paid to the earth as a redemption for the interventions of the building process, to be accepted and consumed by it.1645 Finding them again must have appeared as if the earth returned indignantly the price given as charge for a successful building. 14–15: On the meaning and impact of the omens dealing with incest see the discussion on p. 137 in chapter 7.2. A very similar list of incestous offences is given among many other evil omens, most of which are of the Šumma ālu type, in the Standard Babylonian “Prayer to the Gods of the Night” from the 1st millennium:1646 – ina šuttīya ana ummīya bānitīya ana ummi emētī‹ya› ana aḫātīya lū aṭḫi “(Or be it that your wrath and punishment has overcome me because) in my dream I have approached my mother who begot me, (or) my mother-in-law, (or) my sister (with sexual intent).” For omen no. 21 (a man approaching his mother-in-law), Guinan (2002, p. 33) quotes an unpublished manuscript of Šumma ālu 103:26’, without giving the apodosis. But apparently it was not “an omen of Ibbi-Sîn”, since she would would have noted it. 15: Similar omens dealing with “unnatural” sexual relations between various animals are also covered in Šumma ālu tablet 80 (/72).1647 The protasis of omen no. 22 (ox on donkey) finds its perfect match there, but the apodosis is regrettably dark and unclear:1648 – šumma alpu ana imēri iṭḫi il(i) māti idannin ⌈šubta?⌉ issappaḫ [aḫ]i? šarri māta [šuʾā]tu ikaššad 1643 Ambos 2004, pp. 69–70, 74. Omens dealing with a man finding precious metals etc.

1644 1645

1646 1647

1648

when demolishing a house or a foundation are part of iqqur-īpuš § 6 (Labat 1965a, pp. 62–65) and of Šumma ālu tablet 4 (Freedman 1998, pp. 84–85). Ambos 2004, pp. 70, 75. When in the course of rituals clay is taken from a clay pit in order to form figurines, the clay pit is given a “present” (níĝ-ba = qīštu) in advance in the form of beads or grains of precious stones and metals, very much as a payment. See e.g. Wiggermann 1992, pp. 12–13, ll. 147–148: giving the payment, ll. 155–157: addressing the clay pit: “Your pieces of silver are given to you, you have received them; your gift you have received, and so (…) I pinch off the clay”; Maul 1994, pp. 47, 486, 491, l. 20. On similar gifts in the course of building rituals see Ambos 2004, pp. 71–75. Oppenheim 1959, pp. 285, 288, ll. 85–86; see also Oppenheim 1956, pp. 227–228; Petschow 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 149 § 6; Butler 1998, p. 64. Guinan 2002, p. 33. CT 39, pl. 26; the tablet is designated as no. 72 in its colophon, but reconstructed as no. 80 according to the library numbering, see CT 39, p. 7. For more sex omens of this kind see also Heeßel 2007a, p. 27, no. 6 rev. IV:2’–17’. CT 39, pl. 26, obv. 20.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

16:

19:

20:

421

– “If an ox approaches a donkey (with sexual intent), the god of the land will become strong;1649 (or:) the ⌈dwelling?⌉ will be dispersed; (or:) [the broth]er? of the king will seize [th]is land” ì-lí kur i-dan-nin – diš gu4 ana anše te ki-⌈tuš!?⌉1650 bir-aḫ [še]š? lugal kur [šú-a]-tu kur-ád For omen no. 24 (dog on pig) Guinan (2002, p. 33) quotes the same protasis from Šumma ālu tablet 80 (/72). Unfortunately, the apodosis is lost: diš urgi7 ana šaḫ [te …] (CT 39, pl. 26, obv. 3). Omen no. 25: No omens dealing with a white partridge and a white abāyabird seen in the city are known to me. Guinan 2002, p. 33 refers to omens dealing with white partridges: – If seen in a city: prices will diminish, destruction of Adab. (Freedman 1998, p. 66, Šumma ālu tablet 2:25 and 88:27) – If seen on the roof of a palace: dark day for the king. (Freedman 1998, p. 66, Šumma ālu tablet 2:26 and 88:29) There is a clear relationship between “Adab” (UD.NUN.KI) and the “dark day” (ūmu daʾmu = UD.MUD.NUN.KI), see Freedman 1998, p. 67, on line 26. A black partridge announces eclipses, plagues, enemies and locusts (Freedman 1998, pp. 66–67, Šumma ālu 2:28 and 88:28). The “birdcall texts” from Aššur, Nineveh and Sultantepe link the partridge to the Asakku demon, but not as his personification, but as the bird which chases him away, crying “Go away, Asakku! Go away Asakku!” (Lambert in: AnSt 20, 1970, pp. 114–115). For ittaʾlad see the commentary above on line 6. As in omen no. 10 in line 8, the noun zikaru “male” is certainly used as an adjective emphasizing the disturbing sex of the “(male) dog” (kalbu). The form inda(na)qqutūni is dissimilated from *imta(na)qqutūni (Gtn maqātu). On the meaning of the imagery of the falling stars see the end of the commentary on the earthquake in l. 6, omen no. 8. On dream omens with stars falling and also on the text under discussion see briefly Oppenheim 1956, p. 283. For omen no. 31 (ina āli ṭābtu ittanmar “salt was seen in the city”), Guinan (2002, p. 33) quotes the following match, which is, however, not very

1649 Or “the god will become oppressive? as to the land” (ilu māta idannin) ? 1650 CAD S, p. 156, s.v. sapāḫu 8b reads ki-a = ruṭibtu “flooded ground”, but this does not

seem to make any sense here. CAD K, p. 335, s.v. kibru (= ki-a) 1b takes the signs ì-lí kur for idigna and reads Idiqlat idannin KI.A BIR-aḫ “the Tigris will be rampant, ruin(?) the embankment”. The erroneous equation ki-a = ayakku “sanctuary” proposed by Nötscher (in Orientalia 51–54, 1930, p. 160, l. 20) for this apodosis is only derived from the misunderstood passage é-an-na é-ki-a ∥ é a-a-ak é diĝir-ti (quoted in CAD A/I, p. 224, s.v. ajakku lex.).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

422

21:

Edition of the Sources

close, since it was certainly important whether the omen occurred inside or outside a city. However, this omen is quoted directly after one of the dišpu omens discussed on p. 419 above in the commentary on l. 12. For the ancient scholars the omens appear to have been related: – šumma ṭābtu ina namê [ā]li [innamir ālu šū] ikkir 1651 “If salt [is seen] in the pastures of a [c]ity, [this city] has (already) defected.” Omen no. 32: The “wild ram” (bibbu) is the mouflon, a wild animal living in the mountain ranges of Western Asia (Caucasus and Zagros). Here, it signifies wilderness and probably Elam (Iranian mountains). The metaphors of omen no. 4 (see above, l. 4) and of omen no. 32 are very close to the vision of Daniel 8:3, 5–8, see the discussion on pp. 101f. above. The term bibbu is also used to designate a stellar constellation meaning Nergal, the god of the netherworld, announcing destruction, plague, and death.1652 In the Underwold Vision of an Assyrian Crown Prince there is a “divine Bibbu (dbi-ib-[b]u!), the slaughterer (ṭābiḫu) of the underworld” (Livingstone 1989, p. 74, no. 32, rev. 19). Despite its peculiar orthography with a stressed first syllable in *šanû, the canal spelled íd šá-a-ni probably means the *Nār-šanî “the-Canal-of-theDeputy”, a canal in the Nippur region.1653 “Good-quality (woolen) cloth/dress” (túg-sig5, ṣubātu damqu, etc.) is an item referred to regularly in texts from the third millennium onwards.1654 Here, it certainly denotes a more specific “good-dress” of Marduk. Furthermore, it is certainly not to be rendered by *ṣubātu damqu, but by a single term. This becomes clear from the fact that the Akkadian genitive construction does not allow of an adjective to stand between the regens and the rectum. The construction has to be split by the determinative pronoun: ṣubātu damqu *ša Bēl. So, túg-sig5 cannot be read *ṣubātu damqu here but must denote another, single word. The same attire of Marduk, also written túg-sig5 (d+en), occurs in a text describing the sacrileges of king Nabû-šum-iškun. There, we are told that Nabû-šum-iškun blasphemously clad the god Nabû in the “good-dress” of his father Marduk.1655

CT 40, pl. 45, K 3969+, obv. 10: diš munu ina na-⌈me-e⌉ [e]ri [igi-ir eri-bi] ik-kir. Meinhold 2009, pp. 165–166. See Zadok 1985 (RGTC 8), pp. 383–384, on “Nār-šanû” and, Aramaized, Nār-šanā. Akkadian: lubāru, lubūšu, ṣubātu damqu, lubuštu damiqtu. See in Ur III: túg-sig5 “goodquality (woolen) cloth” besides gada-sig5 “good-quality linen” (Waetzoldt 1972, pp. 260–263, 273, passim in no. 88). In an Old Babylonian Sumerian literary text: túg-sig5 (UET 6/1, no. 1, obv. II:17, Enki and Nin-ḫursaĝa; Waetzoldt 1972, p. 108). Akkadian ṣubātu damqu etc.: CAD D, p. 72 s.v. damqu 5c; CAD Ṣ p. 223, s.v. ṣubātu 1a, 1’ b’. 1655 von Weiher 1988, pp. 8, 265 no. 58, obv. II:11–12; Cole 1994, pp. 228, 234, commentary on p. 239. Cole, certainly erroneously, assumes that the king dresses himself in the garment of Marduk. 1651 1652 1653 1654

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

423

I think that the “good-dress” (túg-sig5) is a Sumerian term for a dress worn by gods, called in Akkadian *tuqsiqqû (CAD: kusiqû et al., see below) or lamḫuššû. Either term is explained as “good dress” (ṣubātu damqu) in entries from lexical lists. The lexical information provided by CAD (K) can be summarized as follows: – kusiqû, lamḫuššû = ṣubatu damqu “good (divine) dress”1656 The approaches to identify the word *kusiqû changed over the years, and so we find the references cited in a bewildering variety: – ku-sì-qu-u/ku-sì-qá-ú/túg se-ga-ú/KU se-ga-ú1657 CAD K (1971) reads the first word as kusiqû (ku-sì-qu-u), but the sign kucan, of course, be read túg (“cloth”) as well. It may also be taken as a determinative: túgsi(q)qû.1658 The second element, sì (= sè-g/sig10), standing just ahead of -qu-, looks more like an orthography for the syllable [siq] than for [si]. I propose to read *tuqsiqqû and to derive it as a loanword from túg-sig5, with an artificial Sumerian nomilization ending in -aʾu > -û. The individual references from the lists are as follows:1659 1. Gurney & Hulin, STT 2, no. 393 (Malku), obv. 42–43: túg-sì-qu-u = min (l. 20: ⌈ṣu⌉-[b]a-tu) dam-qu – (42) [l]am-ḫu-uš-šú-u = min min (ṣu-ba-tu dam-qu) – (43) 2. CT 18, pl. 22 (K 2036; Malku), obv. I:15’–16’: = ṣubātu damqu] – (I:15’) túg-sì-q[u(!)-u = ṣubātu damqu] – (I:16’) lam-ḫuš-[šú-u 3. CT 18, pl. 25 (K 7764; Malku), I’:4’: [túg-sì-qu-u = mi]n dam-qu – (I’:4’) [lam-ḫu-uš-šú-u = mi]n dam-qu – (I’:5’) 4. CT 18, pl. 11 (K 169; An = Anum (lex.) VII), obv. II’:16’–17’: = min (l. 15’: ṣu-ba-tu) sig5 – (II’:16’) [túg-sì-qu]-ú min – (II’:17’) [lam-ḫu-uš-šú]-⌈ú⌉ = min 5. Hrůša 2010, pl. 15 (DŠ 32–10, Malku), obv. I:25’–26’: = min dam-qu – (I:25’) ⌈túg⌉-sì-qá-ú = min – (I:26’) lam-ḫuš-šu-ú 1656 CAD K (1971), p. 585, s.v. kusiqû (a fine garment), lex.: ku-sì-qu-u (var. ku-sì-qá-ú), lam-

ḫu-uš-šu-ú = ṣu-ba-tu dam-qu / ṣu-ba-tu sig5 (Malku VI 42–43 ∥ An VII 139). The text with the variant ku-sì-qá-ú (= reference no. 5, below) is published by Hrůša 2010, pl. 15. 1657 The forms in se-ga-ú quoted by CAD are apparently mistakes for sè-ga-ú, see note 1656. The references are: CAD D (1959), p. 72, damqu 5c: túg se-ga-ú, lam-ḫu-uš-šu-ú = ṣubatu dam-qu (var. sig5) Malku VI 42–43, var. from An VII 139–140. – CAD Ṣ (1962), p. 222, s.v. ṣubātu (lex.): KU se-ga-ú, lam-ḫu-uš-šu-ú = min dam-qu ibidem [= Malku VI] 42–43. – CAD L (1973), p. 59, s.v. lamḫuššû (lex.): lam-ḫu-uš-šu-ú = ṣu-ba-tu dam-qu Malku VI 43, An VII 140. – The references for *kusiqû (CAD K [1971], p. 585) are listed in note 1656. 1658 A very close parallel is the textile called tuglīlû (túg-li-lu-ú, CAD T, p. 451), previously cited under kulīlû (CAD K, p. 503). The references are also from the lexical lists Malku (VI:59; see Hrůša 2010, pp. 264, 411) and An (VII:151). 1659 Edited by Hrůša 2010, pp. 263, 410, Malku VI:42–43.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

424

24:

25:

Edition of the Sources

Another, yet less likely solution is to take túg-sig5 not as a complete dress, but only as a part of such, perhaps as an orthography for sissiktu “hem”, respectively for the dyed and embroidered textile elements that were added to the plain main dress. When written ideographically, sissiktu “hem” is spelled túg-síg in most cases, but rarely also túg-sig (AHw II, p. 1051, s.v. sissiktu 3) and túg-bar-sig. So túg-sig5 is not out of way. As to the element “wildcat” (sa-a-ri = murašû) one may note that, apart from the fact that it was a wild animal again which had entered Babylon and Esaĝil (see on this topic pp. 174ff.), the “wildcat was the taboo of Enmešarra” (sa-a-ri níĝ-gig den-me-šár-ra; quotation from the Nippurian Taboos 3, Lambert 2013, p. 286). Enmešarra was a primeval god who was defeated and killed by Marduk. Literally: “When [a woman] ga[ve birth to a dor]mouse.” The traces fit [árr]a-bu “[dor]mouse” best, and the restoration matches the omen no. 42 from line 28. The element common to both omens is the disturbing observation that the dormouse apparently had entered sealed or closed bodies: a vat or a woman’s womb. Omen 37: Since the anomaly had some kind of mouth (l. 26), the nose (appu) is the only prominent part of the face missing. And since the logogram kìri “nose” is the same sign as ka “mouth”, it was probably spelled syllabically (*ap-pa), for the sake of disambiguation. A child growing teeth already at birth is gernerally considered a bad omen and is interpreted in the sense of “devouring”:1660 – “If a woman gives birth, and at birth (the child) already has one tooth: The land will be disturbed by divine command”. – Two teeth and more: “The granary of the king will be used up, the days of the prince are at an end, the land will experience hard times, troubles for the land.” Omen 38: For a baby being born wounded see also: “If a woman gives birth and the child is covered with abrasions” (šīlī mali lit. “is full of rents”, Šumma izbu 4:21; Leichty 1970, p. 68; De Zorzi 2014, p. 444). The signs pag-ru sìg can, of course, as well be read ḫu-ru-pa. However, I cannot see any connection to the word ḫuruppu (“hip” or “tail”, see below) in the following entry from an commentary on Šumma ālu: [… ḫ]uru-up-pa-šú-nu ú-šaq-qu-ma “they raise their [h]ips” (CT 41, pl. 28, obv. 14). However, Guinan (2002, pp. 34, 36, on line 25) does and reads ⌈ḫu⌉-ru⌈pa⌉-[ ]. According to its rubrum the text mentioned above is a commentary on tablet 40 (obv. 26, reconstructed), that is tablet 42 (“If oxen are dancing in the city square”) according to the reconstruction by Freedman (1998, p. 18, note 2; Labat 1933, pp. 42–44). Two entries from a text dealing with the ominous movements of an ox comment on the ox raising (šaqû D) or lowering (šapālu D) his hip (ḫu-ru-up-pa-šú, Gurney & Finkelstein, STT 1, no. 73:133–134; JNES 19, 1960, p. 35). I translate “hip” in accordance with

1660 Šumma izbu 4:27–28 (Leichty 1970, p. 69; De Zorzi 2014, pp. 444–445).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

26: 27: 28: 30:

31:

32: 33: 34:

425

AHw I, p. 360, s.v. ḫuruppu(m) (2: “Hüftschale des Rindes”); CAD translates “tail” instead (CAD Š/II, p. 22, s.v. šaqû A, 2b: “if an ox raises its tail”). For omens dealing with the jaws and teeth of anomalies see Šumma izbu 7:51’–76’; Leichty 1970, pp. 93–95 (VII:43’–68’); De Zorzi 2014, p. 534–538. Omen no. 41 is very close to the ominous incident reported in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), line II:15. The only difference is that the flooding there effects Esaĝil. In text C, the sign [u]k in [ku-nu-u]k is written slightly differently from uk in text A, without the ḫal-sign after the infixed u4. This may be taken as a hint that the tablets were not written by Nabû-zuqup-kēnu himself. pillû-plants growing on or in a date palm are dealt with in CT 41, pl. 22, rev. 25 and in Ebeling, KAR, no. 180, obv. II:7’. In either case, the apodosis is lost. In CT 41, pl. 22, rev. 25 the beginning of the apodosis apparently started with nam-gilim-ma = šaḫluqtu “disaster”. Although the omen is not completely identical with omen no. 44 in line 30 (a pillû-plant and a figtree in a date-palm), this is nevertheless the rare case when we find a hint why the omen was attributed to the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster:1661 – šumma pillû ina gišimmari ūṣīma ša[ḫluqtu …]1662 “If a pillû-plant has grown in a date palm, (this means) dis[aster …] In manuscripts A and C, the name of the mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon (saĝ-ḫulḫa-za) is written with a variant form of the sign saĝ. Text C exchanges a horizontal wedge in the front against a winkelhaken. That variation occurs also in manuscript A, where a normal saĝ is augmented with a winkelhaken. The copy of manuscript A in CT 29, pl. 49 does not render it completely right, it looks more like the collation given here alongside. This variant sign form is not used in the other occurrences of the demon’s name in ll. 18 and 33, nor in the other saĝsigns in this text. Since qarnu is feminine (see also the feminine stative aṣât in line 3), it is here an accusative to the stative šakin: The tree is “set with a horn”. In text B, the omission of ‹ni› in [ka]n-⌈kan⌉-‹ni› which may well be ignored (*kan-kan = kankannu), is the only deviation among the virtually identical copies A and B, apart from the filiation in the colophon. The colophon states that the text contains 47 signs. This is not a round number nor a sacred one like 3, 7, or 50. It is a prime number, the last one below 50, the number of Enlil, and of the names of Marduk. Since the number is explicitly given, it probably has some hidden meaning.

1661 The term šaḫluqtu “annihilation, disaster” is the key word of the šahluqti Ibbi-Sîn “Ibbi-

Sîn Disaster”, see the overview on p. 93. The orthography nam-gilim-ma = šaḫluqtu is also used in Source 54, line 3. 1662 CT 41, pl. 22, rev. 25: I šum4-ma ĝišnam-tar ina ĝišĝišimmar è-ma nam-g[ilim-ma …].

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

426

Edition of the Sources

Source 37: The Religious Chronicle Obj:

The Religious Chronicle (BM 35968). Text: King 1907/II, pp. 70–86 (edition), pp. 157–179 (copy).1663 Prov: From Babylon, according to the text’s focus, see already King 1907/I, p. 225; see also Waerzeggers 2012, p. 291 on the acquisition of the tablet. Date: Neo-Babylonian period. The manuscript dates to the Late Babylonian or Seleucid period (4th–3rd cent. BCE). A rare phrase in combination with the topic of “beasts and Arameans laying waste the land” suggests that the text was known to the scribes and scholars of Sargon II in the late 8th cent. BCE, see the commentary on IV 8’. The method of the text, i.e. collecting ominous incidents dated to particular days and years of individual kings, is a characteristic feature of the astronomical diaries best known from the Late Babylonian and Seleucid periods. Beaulieu (2000, p. 360) gives several similar omens from diaries dated to the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II and Dareios II, and to the Seleucid era. Lit: King 1907/I, pp. 212–240 (discussion, on the edition see above). – Unger 1931, pp. 274–276, no. 17 (excerpts). – Grayson 1975a, pp. 133–138, chronicle 17. – Glassner 1993a, pp. 232–234, no. 50. – Glassner 2005a, pp. 296–301, no. 51. Cont: The chronicle lists portents which had been observed nearly exclusively in Babylon (see the beginning of the commentary on pp. 436f.) from the time of Nabû-šumu-libūr (ca. 1033–1026 BCE) to Nabû-mukīn-apli (ca. 978–943 BCE), with seven Babylonian kings in between.1664 In the preserved parts of the text, only Nabû-šumu-libūr and Nabû-mukīn-apli are mentioned by name. The reigns of Simbar-Šipak and Eʾulmaš-šākin-šumi can be deduced from the number of the regnal years mentioned in the text (see the commentary on II:1). During the short reigns of Ea-mukīn-zēri and Kaššû-nādin-aḫḫī, no incidents appear to have been observed. I:(1/)16-… Nabû-šumu-libūr (I:16) ca. 1033–1026 BCE II:1–26a (Simbar-Šipak) ca. 1025–1008 BCE (Ea-mukīn-zēri, no omens) ca. 1008 BCE (Kaššû-nādin-aḫḫī, no omens) ca. 1007–1005 BCE II:26b-… (Eʾ)ul[maš-šākin-šumi] ca. 1004–988 BCE (Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur I, text broken) ca. 987–985 BCE (Širikti-Šuqamuna, text broken) ca. 985 BCE (Mār-Bīti-apla-uṣur, text broken) ca. 984–979 BCE III–IV Nabû-mukīn-apli (III:6’b, …, IV:5’) ca. 978–943 BCE The text deals with the disturbances and destructions by the Arameans and probably also by the Suteans in the early Neo-Babylonian period. The disorder brought about in the land is perceived as rooted in divine wrath. The omens which are painstakingly listed and dated are virtually identical with those collected in 1663 The tablet was not available for collation but has been collated from photographs. 1664 After Brinkman 1968, pl. I after p. 76.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

427

the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), dealing with the earlier devastation of Babylonia in the reign of Ibbi-Sîn. Probably, the scholars had been listing these omens in expectation of a major catastrophe like the one of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster to occur again, see the discussion in chapter 8. A large proportion of the omens listed in this chronicle consists of wild animals entering Babylon “seen” or “unseen”. On this danger see also the excerpt from the Poem of Erra (Source 39) – in particular line 38 – and the discussion on pp. 174f. above in chapter 8. From other texts, we have glimpses into the unrest and devastation the raids by the Arameans and Suteans brought to Babylonia: An inscription of Simbar-Šipak (ca. 1025–1008 BCE)1665 tells us that a throne dedicated to Enlil by Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE) had been abducted from Nippur during the reign of Adad-aplaiddina (ca. 1068–1047 BCE) by the Arameans and Suteans who were raiding and plundering Sumer and Akkad. Apparently, the Assyrians (“Subartu”) took the throne as spoils from the Arameans in turn. Some unnamed Assyrian king recognized this throne as a property of Enlil and dedicated it to the god Aššur (the Assyrian Enlil) at Aššur. Later the throne was returned to Nippur (“from Baltil to Duranki”). When restored to its place by Simbar-Šipak, the throne was dedicated to Marduk, the “lofty Enlil of the gods”, certainly in an attempt to complete the “Enlil-fication” of Marduk even at Nippur (Hurowitz 1997). During the same period of unrest, the cult statue of Šamaš vanished from the temple Ebabbar at Sippar, as reported by the Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina.1666 Line

(Ominous) Event

Omen unseen /seen /removed

I:6–7 I:12 I:15 I:17 I:22, 23 II:1 II:2, 5 II:3–4 II:6 II:7–8 II:9–11

[wild animal] hostilities? [wild animal/a demon?] lion [2 demons?] king is late for a month king does not scatter (incense) regular offerings during festival wolf badger panther

seen and killed

II:12–13 II:14 II:15 II:16–17 II:18 II:19–20

deer eclipse? & fire (halo?) in the sky water chariot of Bēl does not go out Bēl does not go out city wall

seen couching, killed seen

couching in the west, killed seen, but not killed floating down the Euphrates, killed and brought to dry land entering, killed (seen) flooding (Esaĝil)

seen moving (i.e. giving way)

1665 Frame, RIMB 2, pp. 71–73, no. B.3.1.1; Brinkman 1968, pp. 152–153, with note 922;

Hurowitz 1997.

1666 King 1912, pp. 120–127, pls. XCVIII–CII; recent edition by Woods 2004.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

428

Line

(Ominous) Event

Omen unseen /seen /removed

II:20–26

[lion]

III:2’

wolf

III:3’–4’

deer

III:4’ III:4’–6’ III:7’ III:8’–9’ III:9’ III:10’ III:11’ III:11’–13’

Arameans become hostile Bēl does not go out Arameans become hostile Bēl does not go out proper offering not offered Bēl does not go out proper offering not offered lion

lurks in the west, kills people during festival, is killed couching in the west, seen and killed entering unseen, seen and killed

III:13’ III:14’ III:16’–17’ III:17’–18’ III:19’ IV:1’–6’

Bēl does not go out Bēl does not go out for 9 years protective genius evil demon Adad smites the ziqqurrat king does some pious building work hostilities cease

IV:7’

entering unseen, seen in the west and killed

seen moving (i.e. leaving) seen entering, driven out (seen)

Transliteration, Transcription and Translation I

1

– – I

2

I

3

I

4

I

5

I

6

– –

[enūma Aramu (?) māta ušḫarriru . . .]. .1667 [When the Aramean (?) laid waste the land . . .]. . [e-nu-ma lúa-ra-mu (?) kur uš-ḫar-ri-ri x x x] ⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ d30 [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉meš [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]meš-ni [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ ⌈ki?⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina bīt B]ēlet-Ninua inn[ami]r (/ īm[ur]ū) [. . . . . . . . . xy] was se[e]n [in the temple of B]ēlet-Ninua [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina é dg]ašan-ni-nú-a ig[i-i]r (/ ig[i-r]u?)

1667 For the reconstruction of the first line, i.e. the title of this composition, see the

commentary on p. 444 on line IV 8’.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium I

7

I

8

I

9

– –

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] gazmeš-šú [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] tin-tirki it-ta-[x]

429

(= idūkūšu “they killed it”)

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina bī]t? Bēltīy[a] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in the templ]e? of Bēltīy[a] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina ][é?⌉ dgašan-i[a]

– –

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina (araḫ)] Simān illikūni [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] they came [in (the month)] Simān [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina iti]sig4 ĝenmeš-⌈ni⌉

I

11

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ íd⌈idigna⌉

I

12

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ittek[i]r? [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] he became hosti[l]e? [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] it-te-k[i]r?

I

10

– – I

13

– – I

14

– – I

15

– – I

16

I

17

– – – I

18

I

19

I

20

I

21

I

22

(= Idiqlat “Tigris”)

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] . . adi Abul-maḫīri [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] . . to the Market Gate [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ a-di abul-ki-lam [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina ] E-Ursaĝ ša pīḫāt Nippur [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .in ] E-Ursaĝ which is in the district of Nippur [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ina ] é-dur-saĝ šá nam nibru⌈ki⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]. . . ša īmurūš[u] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]. . . which they saw [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉-it-ti šá i-mu-ru-š[u] [ina (araḫ) x, x. ūmi ša x. šatti ša N]abû-šumu-libūr šarri [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] nēšu irbiṣma idūkūšu [In (the month) x, on the xth day of the xth year of] king [N]abû-šumulibūr, [. . . . . . . . . . .] a lion was (found) couching, and (people) killed it. [ina itix u4-x-kam šá mu-x-kam šá dn]à-mu-li-bur lugal [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ur-maḫ ná-ma gazmeš-šú [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ ĝenmeš-ni (= illikūni “they came”) [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ]-li id-di-⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉-šú id-da-bu-ub (= iddabub “he spoke”) [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ dtaš-me-tu4 (= Tašmētu) [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] it-tan-mar (= [a demon?] ittanmar “was seen”)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

430 I

23

I

24

I

25

I

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉1668 it-tan-mar [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉-us-su-ma

(= [a demon?] ittanmar “was seen”)

– –

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . abul su-uš-š]i ki-ta-i [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . abul sušš]i šaplî [. . . . . . . . . . . of] the outer (‘lower’) suššu gate.

26

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x x x⌉ (Large break) * * *

II

1

II

2

– – – II

3

II

4

–

– – II

5

– – II

6

– –

ina (araḫ) Ayyār 11. ūmi šarru ikšuda[mma] puḫādī ša aṣê Bēl un[akki]sma ul i[sr]u[q(ma)] (1) The king (Simbar-Šipak) arrive[d] on the 11th of (the month) Ayyār, [and] (2) he sl[augh]tered the lambs for the procession of Bēl, but he did not [sc]att[er (incense), (and)] ina itigu4 u4-11-kam ⌈lugal⌉ ik-šu-da[m-ma] sila4meš šá a-ṣe-e d+en ú-n[ak-ki]s-ma ul i[s-r]u[q-(ma)] niqî u paššūr ili ša adi ūm akīti [iq]qû erbet ūmi ina Esaĝil u bītāt ilānī kī šalmi iqqû (4b) (the priests) kept offering (3) the (regular) offerings and the meal for the god(s) which they had been [of]fering up to the day of the akītu festival (4a) for four (more) days in Esaĝil and the (other) temples of the gods, as if everything was all right. siskurmeš u ĝišbanšur diĝir šá a-di u4-mi a-ki-⌈tì⌉ [iq]-qu-ú 4 u4-mi ina é-saĝ-íl ù é diĝirmeš ki-i šal-me iq-⌈qu⌉ adi ūm niqî šarru ul isruq šešgallu isruqma bīta ipqid Up to the day of the offering the king did not scatter (incense), but the high priest scatterd and took care of the temple. a-di u4-mi siskurmeš lugal ul is-ruq šeš-gal is-ruq-ma é ip-qid ina (araḫ) Duʾūz ina eberti ereb Šamši barbaru irbiṣma idūkūšu In (the month) Du’ūz a wolf was (found) couching (in the quarter) on the western bank (of the Euphrates), and (people) killed it. ina itišu ina bal-ri dutu-šú-a ur-bar-ra ná-ma gazmeš-šú

1668 This might be either [a-lu]-⌈ú⌉ the “alû-demon”, or [dsaĝ-ḫul-ḫ]a-⌈za(!)⌉ the “mukīl-rēš-

lemutti-demon”. In this line and in the preceding one the text probably deals with demons, not animals, since the note idūkūšu “they killed it” is missing.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium II

7

II

8

– – – II

9

II

10

II

11

– – – – II

12

II

13

– – – II

14

– – II

15

– – II

16

II

17

– – –

431

ina (araḫ) Ab kalab-urṣi ina Abul-Uraš ina bāb bīt šatammi asû u…[m]a ītamrūšu In (the month) Ab physicians ⌈…⌉ and saw a badger at the Uraš Gate in the gate of the temple administrator’s residence. ina itine ur-ki ⌈ina⌉ abul-duraš ina ká é šà-tam lúa-⌈zu⌉meš ú-⌈x-x-x⌉-[m]a i-tam-⌈ru-šu⌉ ina (araḫ) Tašrīt 25. ūmi nimru balṭu nāra iqqeleppū́ma ina kutal Eĝidru-kalamma-[s]u[mm]u idūkūšū́ma ana tābali ušēlûniššu On the 25th day of (the month) Tašrīt a live panther floated down the river, and (people) killed it behind (the temple) Eĝidru-kalamma[s]u[mm]u and carried it to dry land. ina itidu6 u4-25-kam nim-ru ⌈bal-ṭu⌉ íd iq-qé-lep-pu-ma ina ku-tal é-ĝišĝidru-kalam-ma-[s]u[m-m]u i-du-ku-šu-ma ana ta-ba-li ú-še-lu-niš-šu ina (araḫ) Ab 16. ūmi ša 7. šatti šina ayyalū ana Bābil īrubūnimma idūkūšunūti In (the month) Ab, on the 16th day of the 7th year (of Simbar-Šipak) two deer entered Babylon and (the people) killed them. ina itine u4-16-kam šá mu-7-kam 2 dàra-mašmeš a-na ká-diĝir-raki i-ru-bu-nim-ma i-du-ku-šu-nu-ti ina (araḫ) Simān 26. ūmi ša 7. šatti ūmu ana mūši itūrma išātu ina libbi šamê b[arâ]t In (the month) Simān, on the 26th day of the 7th year (of Simbar-Šipak), day turned to night and a fire was s[ee]n in the midst of the skies. ina itisig4 u4-26-kam šá mu-7-kam u4-mu ana ĝi6 ⌈gur-ma⌉ izi ina šà an-e i[gi-ká]r ina (araḫ) Ulūl ša 11. šatti mû ina qabal igāri ša kisalli šaplî illikūni In (the month) Ulūl of the 11th year (of Simbar-Šipak) the waters came within the (encircling) wall of the outer (“lower”) court (of Esaĝil). ina itikin šá mu-11-kam ameš ina múru é-gar8 šá kisal ki-ta-i ĝenme[š]-ni 13. šatta, 14. šatta, 15. šatta, šalāš šanāti arki a[ḫā]miš narkabassu ša Bēl ultu 3. ūmi ša (araḫ) Addār adi (araḫ) Nissān ul [ū]ṣâ In the 13th, 14th, and 15th year (of Simbar-Šipak), for three years in suc[c]ession, the chariot of Bēl did not [g]o out (in procession) from the 3rd day of (the month) Addār until (the month) Nissān. mu-13-kam mu-14-kam mu-15-kam 3 mumeš ar-⌈ki⌉ a-[ḫa]-míš ĝiš gigir-su šá d+en ta u4-3-kam šá itiše en iti⌈bára⌉ ⌈ul⌉ [ú]-⌈ṣa-a⌉

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

432 II

18

– – II

19

II

20a

– – – II

20b

II

21

II

22

–

– – – II

23

– – II

24

– – II

25

– – II

26

– –

ina (araḫ) Nissān ša 15. šatti Bēl ul ūṣâ In (the month) Nissān of the 15th year (of Simbar-Šipak), Bēl did not go out (in procession). ina itibára šá mu-15-kam d+en ul ú-ṣa-a ina (araḫ) Ayyār 14. ūmi 17. šatti šalḫû ša Abul-Uraš kī idūlu ītamrūšu On the 14th day of (the month) Ayyār of the 17th year (of Simbar-Šipak), the outer city wall at the Uraš Gate was seen to move. ina itigu4 u4-14-kam šá mu-17-kam šal-ḫu-ú šá abul-⌈duraš⌉ ki i-du-lu i-tam-ru-šú ina (araḫ) Simān 15. ūmi ša ⌈17/18⌉. šatti [Bē]l ultu Abul-Ištar ana nāri kī ūri[d]u ana Bābil kī īruba ina eberti ereb Šamši [nēšu] On the 15th day of (the month) Simān of the ⌈17/18⌉th year (of Simbar-Šipak), (21)when (20b)[Bē]l was going dow[n] from the Ištar Gate to the river, and when he was entering Babylon (again), on the western bank (of the Euphrates) [a lion] ina itisig4 u4-15-kam šá mu-⌈17/18⌉-[kam d+e]n ta abul-d15 ana íd ki-i ú-ri-[d]u ana tin-tirki ki i-ru-ba ina bal-ri dutu-šú-a [ur-maḫ] a[na ap]i ašib šina ṣābī iddūk parakka ša bāb bīt d[DNxy] was couching i[n the cane]brakes. It killed two soldiers. At the dais (in front) of the gate of the temple of d[DNxy], a[na a-p]i a-šib 2 érinmeš id-duk bára šá ká é ⌈d?⌉[x x] dalāti ša abul sušši šaplî k[ī īdilū] wh[en they closed] the doors of the outer (“lower”) suššu gate, ĝiš meš ig šá abul su-uš-ši šap-li-i k[i i-di-lu] u [ana š]uttati kī imqutu idūkūšū́ma u[šēlûšu] and when (the lion then) fell [into a p]it, they killed it, and th[ey removed it (from the pit and brought it into the steppe,)] ⌈ù⌉ [a-na š]u-ut-ta-tu4 ki im-qu-tu gaz-šú-ma ⌈ú⌉-[še-lu-šú] ⌈. .⌉ [. . (ul) i]ttūrūni ina 14. šatti (ša) (Eʾ)ul[maš-šākin-šumi . . . .] ⌈. .⌉ [. . and t]hey did [(not)] come back (to the festival). In the 14th year of (Eʾ)ul[maš-šākin-šumi, . . . .] ⌈x x⌉ [x (ul) i]t-tu-ru-ni ina mu-14-kam ⌈ul⌉-[maš-ĝar-mu x x x]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium II

27

– – II

II

. . . [. . . . . .] . . ištarātu ṣābū . . . . [. . . . .] “ . . . [. . . . . .] . . goddesses, soldiers . . . . [. . . . .]” x x [x x x a]k iš8-tármeš érinmeš x x x [x x x]

– –

[. . . . . .] . . . . iddinū/-u [. . . . . ] “[. . . . . .] . . . . they gave / which he gave [. . . . . ]” [x x x x] x x x id-di-nu [x x x x]

29

[x x x x x x x] x [x x x x x x x]

28

433

(Large break) * * * (Large break) III 1’

[x x x] la x [x x x x x x x x x x x]

III 2’

ina (araḫ) Ayyār barbaru ina e[berti ereb Šamši ina] Kirû-samānītu irbiṣma īmurūšū́ma idūkūšu In (the month) Ayyār a wolf was couching (in the quarter) on [the western bank (of the Euphrates)] in (a place called) ‘Eighth-Orchard’, and (people) saw it and killed it. ina itigu4 ur-bar-ra ina b[al-ri dutu-šú-a ina] ĝiškiri6–8-ni-tu4 ná-ma i -mu-ru-šu-ma gazmeš- šú

– – III 3’ III 4’a

– – – III 4’b III 5’

– – – III 6’b III 7’ III 8’ III 9’

ina (araḫ) Ayyār ayyalu ša erēbšu ana āli mamma lā īmuru ina Bāb-Bēlīya īmurūšū́ma idūkūšu In (the month) Ayyār a deer, which nobody had seen entering the city, was seen in the Gate-of-My-Lord, and (people) killed it. ina itigu4 dàra-maš šá ku4-šú ana eri mam-ma la i-mu-ru ina ká-en-ia i-mu-ru-šu-ma gazmeš-šú ina (araḫ) Nissān ša 7. šatti Aramu nakir šarru ana Bābil lā īl[â]mma Nabû la illik(a) (6’a) u B[ēl lā ūṣâ] In (the month) Nissān of the 7th year (of Nabû-mukīn-apli), the Aramean(s) became hostile. The king did not go up to Babylon, and so Nabû did not come, and B[ēl did not go out.] ina itibára šá mu-7-kam lúa-ra-mu na-kir lugal ana tin-tirki la el-l[a-a]m-ma d+nà la il-li-ku (6’a) ù [d+]e[n la ú-ṣa-a] ina (araḫ) Nissān ša 8. šatti (ša) Nabû-mukīn-apli šarri Aramu nakirma bāb nēberi ša āl Kār-Bēl-mātāti iṣbatma šarru lā ībiramma Nabû lā illik(a) u Bēl lā ūṣâ niqâ ša akīti ina Esaĝil kī pîš[u u]l iqqi

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

434

–

– – – – III 10’ III 11’a

–

– – III 11’b III 12’ III 13’a

–

– – – III 13’b

– – III 14’b

– – III 15’b

– –

In (the month) Nissan of the 8th year of king Nabû-mukīn-apli, the Aramean(s) were hostile (again) and seized the gate of the crossing of the city Kār-Bēl-mātāti (“Quay of the Lord of the lands”), and so the king did not come over. Thus Nabû did not come and Bēl did not go out. (The king) did [no]t offer the offering of the akītu festival according to h[is] (: Bēl’s) order. ina itibára šá mu-8-kam d+nà-gin-a lugal lú a-ra-mu na-kir-ma ká né-bé-ri šá eri kar-en-kur-kur iṣ-bat-ma lugal la i-bi-ram-ma d+nà la il-li-ku ù d+en la ú-ṣa-a siskur ša a-ki-ti ina é-saĝ-íl ki-i pi-i-š[ú u]l iq-qi ina (araḫ) Nissān ša 19. šatti (ša) Nabû-mukīn-apli šarri (ki-min) (= Nabû lā illik(a) u Bēl la ūṣâ niqâ ša akīti ina Esaĝil kī pîšu ul iqqi) ⌈niqâ⌉ [g]inâ iq‹qi› In (the month) Nissān of the 19th year of king Nabû-mukīn-apli (ditto) (= Nabû did not come and Bēl did not go out, the king did not offer the offering of the akītu festival according to Bēl’s order), (but the high priest) of‹fered› (at least) the [re]gular ⌈offering⌉. ina itibára šá mu-19-kam d+nà-gin-a lugal ki-min ⌈siskur⌉ [g]i-na iq-‹qi› ina (araḫ) Duʾūz ša 16. šatti nēšu ša erēbšu ana āli mamma lā īmuru ina eberti ereb Šamši ina Kirû-samānītu īmurūšū́ma idūkūšu In (the month) Du’ūz of the 16th year (of Nabû-mukīn-apli), a lion which nobody had seen entering the city was seen (in the quarter) on the western bank (of the Euphrates) in (a place called) ‘Eighth-Orchard’, and (people) killed it. ina itišu šá mu-16-kam ur-maḫ šá ku4-šú ana eri mam-ma la i-mu-ru i-na bal-ri dutu-šú-a i-na ĝiškiri6–8-ni-tu4 i-mu-ru-šu-ma gazmeš-šú ina 20. šatti (ša) Nabû-mukīn-apli šarri (14’a) Bēl ul ūṣâ u Nabû ul illik(a) In the 20th year of king Nabû-mukīn-apli, Bēl did not go out, and Nabû did not come. i-na mu-20-kam d+nà-gin-a lugal (14’a) d+en ul ú-ṣa-a ù d+nà nu ĝen-ku tiše šanāti arki aḫāmiš Bēl ul ūṣâ u Nabû ul illk(a) For nine years in succession, Bēl did not go out, and Nabû did not come. 9 mume egir a-ḫa-míš (15’a) d+en ul ú-ṣa-a ù d+nà ul ĝen-ku ina ⌈25.⌉ šatti (ša) Nabû-mukīn-apli šarri In the ⌈25th⌉ year of the king Nabû-mukīn-apli, ina mu-⌈25⌉-kam d+nà-gin-⌈a lugal⌉ © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium III 16’

– – III 17’

–

– III 18’

– – III 19’

– –

kāribu ša imitti ša bāb papāḫi [š]a [Bēl] the (protective) kāribu-genie who (stands) on the right-hand side of the gate of the cella of [Bēl] d ka-ri-bu šá zag-dib šá ká pa-pa-ḫi [š]á* ⌈d+⌉[en] kī idūlu ītamrū mukīl-rēš-lemutti ina bītāt mayyāli was seen to move. An (evil) mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon (18’) was seen (17’) in the bed chambers ki i-du-lu i-tam-ru dsaĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za ina é-ĝišnámeš ša Nabû ittanmar š[ūṣ]u ina muḫḫi l[ā alāk]i ša Nabû ina libbi šīri ittanmar of Nabû; (the demon) was d[riven o]ut. With regard to (the fact) that Nabû [had] n[ot com]e (to Babylon the evil) was (also) seen in the meat (of the sacrificial lamb when the ominous incident was checked by divination). ša d+nà it-tan-mar ⌈è]-[ṣ]u ina ugu-⌈ḫi*⌉ n[u* ĝe]n* šá d+nà ina šà uzu ⌈it-tan⌉-mar ina (araḫ) Šabāṭ 21. ūmi ša 26. šatti (ša) Nabû-mukīn-apli šarri Adad rigimšu iddīma išāssu ina nuḫar [ušamqit] On the 21st day of (the month) Šabāṭ of the 26th year of the king Nabûmukīn-apli, Adad thundered and [he let] his fire [fall] into the nuḫar (, the temple on top of the ziqqurrat, at Babylon). ina itizíz u4-21-kam šá mu-26-kam d+nà-gin-a lugal d iškur gù-šú šub-di-ma izi-šú ina nu-ḫar [šub(-it)] (Large break)

IV 1’

– – IV 2’

– – IV 3’

– –

435

* * *

[. . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈(eli ša)⌉ pāna [. . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈(more than)⌉ before [. . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x x x⌉ pa-na [. . . . . . . . . ina li]bbi ušēšib [. . . . . . . . .] he made dwell [the]rein. [. . . . . . . . . ina š]à-bi ú-še-šib [. . . . . . abullu ša] suššu yaʾnu [. . . . . . a (city or temple) gate which] had no suššu [. . . . . . . . abul šá] su-uš-šú ia-aʾ-nu

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

436

[ina x. šatti (ša) Nabû-mu]kīn-apli šarri [in the xth year of] king [Nabû-mu]kīn-apli [ina mu-x-kam d+nà-gi]n-ibila lugal

IV 4’

– –

[. . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ Nabû-mukīn-apli šarru sušša king Nabû-mukīn-apli [had a] suššu [made] [. . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ d+nà-gin-ibila lugal su-uš-šú

IV 5’

– –

[. . . . . . . . . rab]bûti/e]bbūti iškun (and) he set up [gr]eat/[ho]ly [. . . . . . . . .] [. . . . . . . . . ra-a]b-bu-ti/e]b-bu-ti iš-kun

IV 6’

– –

[(ṣaltu inūḫma)? irb]ub kakku [(The quarrel grew still)?, and] the weapon [rele]nted. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . ir-b]u-ub kak-ku ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

IV 7’

– –

Colophon IV 8’ [enūma Aramu (?) māta u]šḫarriru – “[When the Aramean (?) l]aid waste [the land]” – [e-nu-ma lúa-ra-mu (?) kur u]š-ḫar-ri-ri IV 9’ IV 10’

[. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈x⌉

Com: Unless indicated otherwise, all incidents reported in the chronicle occurred to Babylon or its temples, most prominently in Esaĝil. Apart from Babylon in general, the omens listed occur most frequently in places with a strong connection to either Marduk or Nabû. Certainly, these places were the ones with most intense ominous meaning for the author. Although the chronicle is badly damaged, one gains the impression that the chronicler was not very interested in incidents occurring e.g. in temples of Adad, Ištar, Bēlet-ilī, etc. Apart from the temples of Marduk and Nabû, the quarter on the western bank of the Euphrates must have been of some particular ominous meaning.1669 Babylon: – Babylon in general (II:13) – Ištar Gate (II:21) – Uraš Gate, the temple administrator’s residence (II:7) – Outer city wall at the Uraš Gate (II:19) – Market Gate (I:13) – Western bank (II:6, 22) 1669 One is reminded of the story about the scholars of Babylon warning Alexander the

Great not to enter Babylon from the east looking west, towards the setting sun, but rather to enter it looking east (Arrian, Anabasis, Book 7, 16.5–17.5).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

437

– Western bank, ‘Eighth-Orchard’ (III:2’, 12’) (II:23–24) – Probably western bank, area of the temple of [DNxy] Temple of Marduk (Esaĝil and Etemenanki); listing the omens in order of appearance, we can observe the evil creeping up and finally reaching the living quarters of Marduk, which must have been deserted by the god: (I:9) – [templ]e? of Bēltīy[a] – Outer court (of Esaĝil) (II:15) – Gate-of-My-Lord (III:3’) – Gate of the cella of [Bēl] (III:16’) – Temple on top of the ziqqurrat Etemenanki (III:19’) Temple with a statue of Marduk, on the western bank of Babylon: – [Temple of B]ēlet-Ninua (I:6) Temples of Nabû (in Babylon): – Eĝidru-kalamma-[s]u[mm]u (II:10) – Bed chambers of Nabû (in empty Ezida in Babylon?) (III:17’–18’) Places outside Babylon: – E-Ursaĝ in the district of Nippur (I:14) – “Gate of the crossing” of the city Kār-Bēl-mātāti (III:7’) I list this last incident, an attack by Arameans (III:7’), among the ominous events, since there are strong references to Marduk in the place names: nēberu in bāb nēberi (“gate of the crossing”) does not only mean “crossing/ferryboat”, but is also the name of the star of Marduk. And the “Lord-of-the-Lands” (*en-kur-kur-ra) was a famous title of Enlil, and later of Marduk, see below on line III:7’. I 1: This is the reconstructed first line and the title of the composition, restored from the remains of the colophon (IV 8’). I 6: On the temple of Bēlet-Ninua at Babylon, called é-ĝiš-ḫur-an-ki-a, see George 1993, p. 95, no. 409; idem 1992, pp. 324–325. The temple is attested already in Tintir IV:32, V:101, i.e. prior to the Assyrian domination of Babylon. It was the seat of one of the seven (main) statues of Marduk in Babylon (George 1997a, p. 65, obv. 6; Lambert 1997, p. 76, obv. 6). George 1992, p. 325 reads the verbal form at the end of the line as ig[i-r]u = *īmurū “they saw”. In the copy however, it looks more like ig[i-i]r = *innamir “it was seen”. I 8: it-ta-[x]: Only one sign seems to be missing at the end, but it is not easy to restore it. Possible is *it-ta-ṣi “he went out (from Babylon)”, whereas *ittalak “he went (to Babylon)” should rather be *it-tal-ka; and *ittanmar “it was seen (in Babylon)” should be written *it-tan-mar. Another possibility is *it-ta-[ši] “(a tree in Babylon) bo[re strange fruit]”, as in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), l. 8. I 9: The place may read [é⌉ dgašan-i[a] “[the templ]e of Bēltīy[a]”, i.e. the chapel with the cella of Zarpānītu in Esaĝil, ceremoniously called é-dàraan-na (George 1993, p. 74, no. 145). This would mean that the evil omen occurred very much right in the very heart of Esaĝil. Since we are here at the beginning of the list of bad omens, one might also consider to read [kisa]l dgašan-i[a] “[the cour]t of Bēltīy[a]”, or even [k]á! dgašan-i[a] “[the

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

438

I 10: I 13:

I 14: I 25:

II 1:

II 4:

Edition of the Sources

gat]e of Bēltīy[a]”,1670 in order to keep the evil a little bit at a distance, and to give the chronicle the opportunity to create a crescendo leading up to the evil omens occurring in the living quarters of Marduk and Nabû in column III. The name of the month Simān (itisig4) is the only reasonable case where a single sig4 without the plural marker meš for sig4meš “bricks” might occur. The Market Gate (Abul-maḫīri) is one of the gates inside Babylon, probably a relict of the older and smaller fortifications from the period of Hammurapi. It probably gave access to the religious quarter Eridu from the south. In the larger wall of the later periods, the Uraš Gate appears to have been its equivalent, leading into the city from the south.1671 There are several temples with the basic element *é-ur-saĝ (George 1993, p. 156, nos. 1185–1186, 1188), but none of them is said to be situated in the vicinity of Nippur. I restore the “outer (‘lower’) suššu gate” here after abul su-uš-ši šap-li-i in II 24. The term suššu designates an unclear element of Babylonian gates, see CAD S, p. 418–419, s.v. suššu. It appears to play a role in the same text also in IV 3’ and 5’. As King (1907/I, p. 224) and Grayson (1975a, p. 134, note on II:1–29) have pointed out, there are only two kings between Nabû-šumu-libūr (I:16) and Nabû-mukīn-apli (III:6’b) who ruled long enough to cover the number of regnal years mentioned in the second column of this text. These king are Simbar-Šipak (18 years) and Eʾulmaš-šākin-šumi (17 years). If the mention of a 17th/18th regnal year in II:20b and a 14th regnal year in II:26 appear in chronological sequence, the text probably deals with Simbar-Šipak in II:1– 26a and from II:26b on with Eʾulmaš-šākin-šumi. The introduction of a new king in the second half of II:26 may seem somewhat abrupt, but the possibility that the chronicler left the chronological order in favour of grouping events of a similar content from the reign of Simbar-Šipak – as he did in III:10’ – is very slim, since in this case he would have listed the earlier date first. Furthermore, there seem in fact to be traces of the name of Eʾulmaš-šākin-šumi = ⌈ul⌉-[maš-ĝar-mu], see the commentary on II:26. The king arrives on the 11th of Ayyār for a cultic event which obviously is the procession of Bēl (II:2) on occasion of the akītu festival (II:3). The akītu festival, however, is to start on the 1st of Nissān, and so the king is late for a whole month and some days. kī šalmi “as if everything was all right”: Here, the Religious Chronicle writes the phrase ki-i šal-me, which I take for a rather clear example of an adverbial phrase made up from the preposition kī + an adjective, i.e. kī šalmi. The Nabonidus Chronicle (see below) employs the same phrase for a couple of times, writing it ki šal-mu consistently. There, the ending [u] is

1670 See George 1992, pp. 121–123, 392 on the temple or chapel of Bēltīya, on the court of

Bēltīya and on the gate of Bēltīya (Ka-Lamma-arabi).

1671 George 1992, pp. 372–373, p. 20 fig. 3, p. 24 fig. 4.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

439

probably due to the indifference of the Late Babylonian orthography towards final vowels: *kī šalmi/u. However, we might also understand the phrase as a stative of šalāmu (3rd sg.) in the subordinative: *kī šalmu “as if it was all right”. So, although the construction is not entirely clear, in the light of ki-i šal-me in the Religious Chronicle (II:4) I take also the other examples as renderings of the phrase *kī šalmi “like safe-and-sound” > “as (if everything was) all right”. As stated above, the phrase also occurs a couple of times in the Nabonidus Chronicle.1672 As is generally known, the Babylonian New Year’s Festival had to be cancelled during Nabonidus’ stay in Arabia for ten years, from 552 to 543 BCE. Nabonidus set out onto the campaign into Syria and Arabia in the second month (Ayyār) of his third year, i.e. in May-June 553 BCE.1673 During the following ten years, Nabonidus stayed in North Arabia, roaming the caravan routes between Tayma and Medīna (Yaṯrib). After ten years, Nabonidus’ stay in Arabia ended rather abruptly. In his own inscriptions, Nabonidus dates the end of his sojourn to the 17th of Tašrīt (VII) of his 13th regnal year (October 543 BCE), when the moon-god Sîn allowed him to return to Babylon.1674 So he was certainly back in Babylon by the month of Nissān (I) of his 14th regnal year (April-May 542 BCE). During his stay away from Babylon, rule at home was maintained by the crown prince Belshazzar. The crown prince, however, could not make up for the absence of his father in important rituals of the state that called for the participation of the ruling king, such as the Babylonian New Year’s Festival.1675 This means, that the festival had to be cancelled for ten years in succession, from Nabonidus’ 4th to his 13th regnal year, i.e. from Nissān 552 to 543 BCE. This is even one year more than the period of nine years listed here in III:14’b. Nearly for each of those years, the Nabonidus Chronicle tells us that Nabonidus did not attend the akītu festival, that the festival was consequently cancelled, but that the offerings were nevertheless given “as if everything was all right” (*kī šalmi/u, see the comment above).1676 The individual references are spelled out as follows:

1672 Grayson 1975a, pp. 104–111, chronicle 7. 1673 Beaulieu 1989, p. 168. Sources: The Royal Chronicle (Schaudig 2001, p. 592, P4 IV 26–29)

and the Nabonidus-Chronicle (Grayson 1975a, p. 105, I:11ff).

1674 The date is given in the stelae of Nabonidus from Ḫarrān (Schaudig 2001, p. 491, no.

3.1 1 II 13, + parallel). The 17th of Tašrīt is a day regarded favourable by the Babylonian hemerologies and it is very probably the day of the akītu festival of Sîn of Ḫarrān, see Beaulieu 1989, p. 152; Beaulieu 1993b, p. 255 with note 40; Schaudig 2001, p. 491, note 699 with earlier literature. 1675 See Beaulieu 1989, pp. 186–187. 1676 See the account of the Nabonidus Chronicle (Grayson 1975, pp. 106–108; Beaulieu 1989, p. 150). According to the reproach of the Verse Account (Schaudig 2001, p. 567, P1 II 11’), Nabonidus did this with malicious intent.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

440

II 14:

II 15:

Edition of the Sources

(1) k[i šal-mu] (II:7) 7th year.1677 (2) ki šal-mu (II:12) 9th year. (3) ki šal-m[u] (II:21) 10th year. (4) [ki šal-m]u (II:25) 11th year. (5) ki šal-mu (III:8’) 17th year. This last example (no. 5) is highly instructive. As stated above, Nabonidus must have been back in Babylon by the month of Nissān of his 14th regnal year (April-May 542 BCE). For the period from the 12th to the 16th regnal year of Nabonidus, the text of the Nabonidus Chronicle is broken. In the 17th year of Nabonidus – the date is broken in III:5’, but certainly correctly restored – the akītu festival was celebrated again kī šalmi “as if everything was all right”, although Babylonia was already preparing for the attack of Cyrus and the gods of the land were taken from their shrines and brought to Babylon (ibidem III:8’b–12’). With the remark kī šalmi the author of the chronicle probably wanted to make it clear that although Nabonidus fulfilled his religious duties again at least as late as his 17th year, it was too late for him. The punishment of Marduk was on its way. Grayson translated the phrase kī šalmi with “as in normal times”.1678 But šalmu is more than “normal”. It is “in good condition, safe and sound, favourable, propitious”. And the point here is that even though on the surface things may look all right when the festival is held again “as if everything was all right”, below the surface nothing is all right and disaster is looming. It is possible that this paragraph deals with an eclipse of the sun, even though the usual expression *Šamaš attalâ ištakan is not employed (King 1907/I, pp. 232–235). Winckler (1907, col. 593) pleaded for caution and thought of some other atmospheric event. Weidner (1912) argued for a heavy thunderstorm. The event is dated to the 7th regnal year of a Babylonian king who is very probably Simbar-Šipak (ca. 1025–1008 BCE). Fotheringham (1920, pp. 104–107) connected the event to the total solar eclipse on July 31, 1062 BCE. Rowton (1946, pp. 106–107) proposed the solar eclipse which was visible at Babylon at sunset on May 9, 1012 BCE, although early May seems to be a date a too early for the 26th of Simān (ca. June-July). Bloch (2010, p. 72–73) connects it to the partial solar eclipse of July 11, 1015 BCE. Brinkman (1968, p. 68, note 345) is sceptical about the validity of the evidence provided by the chronicle, as is Stephenson 1997, pp. 143–146. The “lower” (i.e. “outer”) court (kisallu šaplû) is probably the main courtyard of the “eastern annexe” of Esaĝil, as opposed to the kisallu elēnû “upper court” or kisalmāḫu “Great Court” where the shrines of Marduk and Zarpānītu are located (George 1992, p. 404). The ominous incident is

1677 The Nabonidus Chronicle (II:8) combines this note with the same phrase used here in

the Religious Chronicle (II:5): šešgallu isruqma bīta ipqid “the high priest offered (incense) and took care of the temple”. 1678 Grayson 1975a, p. 109, with a note on the Nabonidus Chronicle III:8; ibidem p. 134, Religious Chronicle II:4.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

II 23:

II 24: II 26:

441

virtually identical with the omen of disaster listed in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36, l. 27, omen no. 41). There, the waters come running into the courts of Ezida at Borsippa. The ominous meaning of water flooding the temples of Marduk and of his son Nabû certainly refers to “Tiʾāmat attacking” again, see the comment on p. 177 above. a[na a-p]i a-šib: The text uses the sign pi also in pi-i-š[ú] (III 9’). For ana x ašābu “to get seated into/onto x” instead of ina x ašābu “to sit in/on x” see e.g. ana šubtīya tattašab “she moved in with me” (CT 22, pl. 37, no. 202, obv. 7–8, NB letter; CAD A/II, p. 402, s.v. ašābu 2b end). For the idea “sitting down to lie in wait” see e.g. ana ušbīšunu ittašbūni “they sat down to wait” (Epic of Gilgameš, Standard Babylonian edition, tablet I:170; George 2003/I, pp. 548–549). The term suššu designates an unclear element of Babylonian gates, see CAD S, p. 418–419, s.v. suššu. It appears to play a role in the same text also in I 25 and in IV 3’, 5’. If the evil indicated by the beast was to be eliminated successfully, the men who removed the dead animal and who probably brought it back into the steppe were certainly not to return into the city during the festival. There is a typological parallel from the Seleucid ritual for the New Year’s Festival at Babylon: The slaughterer and the exorcist who were to slaughter a sheep and to purify Esaĝil on the 5th day with the carcass of the sheep had to go to the Euphrates with their faces turned to the west after their work was done, they had to throw the carcass and the head of the sheep into the river and to go into the steppe. They were not allowed to reenter Babylon again as long Nabû from Borsippa was staying there.1679 The idea that “coming back” directly after an evil had been removed would mean “contamination” is also found in the namburbi rituals: After a man had been purified and delivered from evil by a namburbi ritual, he was not to look backwards and was not to return the way he had come. Furthermore, he was to stay in another place than his own for two days and was allowed to retun home only on the third day.1680 Due to the break in the present chronicle, we do not know, however, whether the chronicle in fact mentioned here that the men indeed made that mistake and polluted Babylon again by coming back. As to the question whose 14th regnal year is mentioned here, either Simbar-Šipak’s or Eʾulmaš-šākin-šumi’s, see the commentary on II:1. King’s copy suggests that there are traces of the sign ⌈ul⌉ of the royal name ⌈ul⌉-[maš-ĝar-mu]. The determinative pronoun ša is always missing before the royal name in the dates the chronicle gives, see III:6’b, 9’, 10’, 13’b, 15’b, 19’. Names referring to the temple Eʾulmaš can be spelled without the term for “temple” (é), and with or without the divine determinative (Brinkman 1968, p. 46). The personal marker is not used in this chronicle.

1679 Linssen 2004, pp. 221, 230, ll. 353–363. 1680 Maul 1994, p. 107.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

442

Edition of the Sources

III 7’:

Kār-Bēl-mātāti is probably a small town just south of Babylon, at a place where the river Euphrates could be crossed easily.1681 Although the Arameans who cause trouble here are quite an ordinary, political enemy, their action also appears to convey an ominous meaning. In its name, the town contains a reference to the “Lord-of-the-Lands” (*en-kur-kur-ra), once a title of Enlil, but here certainly an epithet of Marduk. The term nēberu “ford/crossing” in its meaning “ferryboat” is also the name of Marduk’s star, the planet Jupiter.1682 So here the Arameans, an element from the “outside” just like the wild animals, breaks into a place normally ruled by Marduk and prevent the nēberu to do its proper job, i.e. “the king could not cross” (ebēru) and come to Babylon. The “crossing of Kār-Bēl-mātāti” also plays a role in the Divine Love Lyrics from Babylon being the place were a lover (Marduk) and his beloved (Ištar) meet.1683 III 10’: The chronicler deals with the 19th year of king Nabû-mukīn-apli directly after his 8th year (III:6’b) and before his 16th year (III:11’b), because the events of both the 8th and the 19th year concern the cancellation of the akītu festival and are to be treated together. III 11’a: Grayson 1975a, p. 137 claimed that the first sign was not siskur (against King) and that before IG one could read -[b]u-ut or [su]m?-na = nadna. However, I think reading ⌈siskur⌉ [g]i-na iq-‹qi› with King’s copy is still the best solution. III 2’ + III 12’: Preserved completely in l. 12’ and partly broken in l. 2’, the place where the omen occurred is called Kirû-samānītu ‘Eighth-Orchard’, located somewhere on the western bank of the Euphrates. No other references to that place are known to me. III 3’: The “Gate-of-My-Lord” (Bāb-Bēlīya) is probably the simple name of one of the gates of Esaĝil (George 1992, pp. 402–403). As a term, it corresponds to Bāb-Bēltīya “Gate-of-My-Lady”, which is the simple name of Ka-Lammaarabi (George 1992, p. 96, l. 9’), identified with the northern gate of Esaĝil (D) by George (1992, p. 86). III 16’: zag-dib = imittu: Transferred use for imittu “right side” from imittu “shoulder”. George 1992, p. 395 proposes to read at the end of the line bāb pa-pa-ḫi [bēlti-i]á ka[mî(bar)] “the outer gateway of Bēltīya’s cella”. III 18’: I understand ⌈è]-[ṣ]u (= u[d-du-ṣ]u) as *šūṣu (stative aṣû Š) “(the demon) was driven out”. Read perhaps also *uštēṣi (aṣû Št, passive) with the same meaning. Less likely is *ūṣi “(the demon) went out (on his own)”. In Late

1681 Grayson 1975a, p. 258; W. Röllig, “Kār-Bēl-mātāte”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 422–423;

Zadok 1985 (RGTC 8), p. 195; Brinkman 1968, p. 122 with note 706.

1682 CAD N/II, p. 147, s.v. nēberu 3; Cavigneaux & Krebernik 1998–2001a (RlA 9), pp. 191–192;

Brown 2000, p. 58. On omens dealing with the celestial Marduk, i.e. Nēberu and the “yoke-star” (Nīru), sometimes equated with him, see Source 54, l. 1, and Source 57, l. 2. 1683 Lambert 1959, pp. 10, 14, K 6082, col. B:13.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

443

Babylonian, the “wrong” final vowel, i.e. -ṣu instead of *-ṣi, does not necessarily hamper this reading. The phrase ina libbi šīri ittanmar “(the evil) was (also) seen in the meat” certainly means that the ominous appearance of a demon in the temple was checked by divination and found confirmed as “being present” in the liver (šīru) of a sacrificial lamb in divination, see the discussion above on p. 99. So the omens confirmed one another. III 19’: Adad smites the temple on top of the ziqqurrat Etemenanki, on the 21st of Šabāṭ in the 26th year (953 BCE) of Nabû-mukīn-apli (978–943 BCE). Etemenanki is not mentioned by name, but the nuḫar is the temple on top of a ziqqurrat (CAD N/II, p. 313; AHw II, p. 800; George 1992, p. 424) and the omens listed occurred at Babylon, hence this omen deals with Etemenanki. See on this omen in more detail p. 177 above. I read izi-šú ina nu-ḫar with King’s copy. Grayson (1975a, p. 138) produces without any comment the reading išāti-šú NU ḪAR […] “his fire …[…]”. King, however, combined the signs -šú+ina and read them as lem-, arriving at *išātu lemnu “evil fire”. This, however, is to be excluded, since išātu is a feminine noun and the adjective should read *lemuttu. In the first millennium, spellings like izi-šú instead of *izi-su for *išāt+šu = išāssu are a rather mechanical but nevertheless common way to combine a noun or a verb ending in a dental with a suffix.1684 For the phrase *išātu ina bīti maqātu which I have restored here see the same phrase in a Neo- or Late Babylonian letter from Uruk, dealing with lightning which had struck a temple:1685 – (ina) 2. ūmi ša (araḫ) Tašrīti ina mūši išātu ina bīt Nergal (/ Palil) tandaqut “On the 2nd day of (the month) Tašrīt, during the night, fire has fallen into the temple of Nergal (/Palil).” IV 3’–7’: The term suššu (IV 3’, 5’) designates an unclear element of Babylonian gates, see CAD S, p. 418–419, s.v. suššu. It appears to play a role in the same text also in I 25 and in II 24. After the chaos documented in the columns before, peace takes finally over when the king does some pious deed for Marduk, apparently a restoration or construction work, certainly at Babylon. The moral pointed out is obviously “keep to Marduk, and your enemies will be scattered before you”. The same logic is employed in two chronicles dealing with the Babylonian king Adad-apla-iddina (ca. 1068– 1047 BCE), who had been reigning only shortly before the periods covered by the Religious Chronicle. Chronicles 24 and 25 relate that in his reign the Arameans and a usurper king rebelled against him and desecrated all the 1684 See Schaudig 2001, p. 109, § II.2.11.a on spellings like ap-pa-lis-šú-nu-ti and ú-šá-aṣ-bit-

šú-nu-t[i-ma] from the inscriptions of Nabonidus.

1685 Clay, YOS 3, no. 91: (7b) u4-2-kam (8) šá itidu6 ina mu-ši (9) i-šá-a-ta ina é digi-du (10a) ta-an-da-

qu-ut; editions: Ebeling 1930–1934, p. 76f, no. 91; Oppenheim 1967, pp. 189f, no. 139; Beaulieu 1991, pp. 101–102. Oppenheim’s translation “fire broke out” (= *išātu innapiḫ/ittabši) lacks the nuance that the fire had “fallen” (maqātu, from heaven). See CAD I–J, p. 228, s.v. išātu 1 a) 1’ for more examples.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

444

IV 8’:

Edition of the Sources

sanctuaries of the land. They demolished Dēr, Duranki (= Nippur), Sippar and Parsā (= Dūr-Kurigalzu). The Suteans carried off the booty of Sumer and Akkad. But in the end Adad-apla-iddina appears to have prevailed. The assessment of Adad-apla-iddina in either chronicle is positive. The king is said to have executed Marduk’s rites in perfection (*parṣīšu ušaklil).1686 [u]š-ḫar-ri-ri = *ušḫarriru(/-ū): In Neo- and Late Babylonian, the ending [u] of the subordinative, as well as the ending [ū] of the verbal plural is regularly written with signs ending in -i.1687 [enūma Aramu (?) māta u]šḫarriru “[When the Aramean (?) l]aid waste [the land]”: This line certainly quoted the title of the composition, i.e. its first line (*I:1). The signs propose a verbal from of šuḫarruru “to become dead silent”, or of šuḫruru “to lay waste”. The form *ušḫarrir is the normal preterite of šuḫarruru, but it also occurs as the preterite of šuḫruru (normal: *ušaḫrir). So it means either “[x] became dead silent” or “[x] laid [y] waste”. The full reconstruction proposed here is, of course, hypothetic, but quite likely. Disturbances caused by the Arameans are addressed explicitly in lines III:4’–9’. Very much like the text under discussion, an inscription of Sargon II combines the elements “lions and wolves roaming the countryside”, “Arameans laying waste the land” and the rather rare expression ušḫarrirū “they laid waste” in a description of the desolate situation of Babylonia before Sargon’s rule. It is so close to the topics of the Religious Chronicle that I suppose that Sargon’s scribes deliberately made an intertextual reference to this text:1688 – kalbū u zībū ina qerbīšin īmidūma idakkukū kalūmiš. ina māt madbari šâtu Aramū Sutû āšibūt kuštāri munnabtū sarrū mār ḫabbāti šubassun iddûma ušḫarrirū mēteqšu (…) Aramī mār ḫabbāti ina kakki ušamqit ša nēšī u barbarī aškuna dabdâšun “Dogs and jackals assembled in the (thickets and the woods which had grown all over Babylonia), and they gamboled like lambs. In that desert country, Arameans and Suteans, tent-dwellers, fugitives, a treacherous and plundering race had pitched their dwellings and laid waste its roads. (…) The Arameans, the plundering race, I slew with arms, and the lions and wolves I defeated completely.”

1686 See in more detail p. 127 above. 1687 Schaudig 2001, p. 188 § IV.3.1, p. 195, § IV.3.6.a, e. 1688 Nimrud prisms of Sargon II, col. V:54b–60, and 70b–72; Gadd in: Iraq 16, 1954, p. 192, pl.

50. Transliteration: (VII:54b) kal-bu (55) ù zi-i-bu i-na qer-bi-ši-in (56) e-mi-du-ma i-dak-ku-ku kalu-míš (57) i-na kur ma-ad-bar šá-a-tú lúa-ra-me (58) lúsu-ti-i a-ši-bu-ut kuš-ta-ri (59) mun-nab-tu sa-ar-ru dumu ḫab-ba-ti (60) šu-bat-sún id-du-ma uš-ḫar-ri-ru me-te9-eq-šú (…) (VII:70b) lúa-rame dumu ḫab-ba-ti (71) i-na ĝištukul ú-šam-qit ša ur-maḫmeš (72) ù ur-bar-rameš áš-ku-na bad5bad5-šú-un.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

445

It is highly interesting to see how Sargon groups the Arameans and Suteans with lions (nēšū) and wolves (barbarū), the very topic of the Religious Chronicle. Furthermore, in using military vocabulary (dabdâ šakānu “the defeat completely”), otherwise used with human enemies, he anthropomorphizes the lions and the wolves and arranges them side by side with the Arameans as their ominous and beastly counterpart in the same way again as the chronicle does. In describing their actions he uses the rare and literary phrase – ušḫarrirū (uš-ḫar-ri-ru, VII:60) “they laid waste” – which also appears here in the colophon of the chronicle. Source 38: Excerpts from a Political Letter Quoting Omens of Disaster Obj:

Excerpt from a political letter. The importance of the letter is underlined by its extremely small size (ca. 74 × 35 × 19 mm): It may well have been smuggled out of Babylon sewn into a hem, as a matter of high treason. Text: CT 54, pl. 68, no. 204 (K 7530 + Rm 2, 483; photo: CDLI no. P238683), obv. 23–30. The collation in fig. 23 below presents the omens in lines 28– 30 on the bend to the lower margin.

23

Figure 23: Collation of K 7530 + Rm 2, 483, obv. 28–30.

Prov: Date:

Found at Nineveh, sent from Babylon(ia). First millennium, late 8th century, probably shortly before the attack of Sargon II on Marduk-apla-iddina II in 710 BCE, since the letter conveys bad omens for the king of the Sealand occupying the throne of Babylon (l. 24), i.e. Marduk-apla-iddina.1689 Lit: Dietrich 1967–1968, pp. 201–202, no. B I 6a. – Vera Chamaza 2002, pp. 245–247, no. 1. – Dietrich 2003, pp. 27–28, no. 24. Cont: Marduk has mercy on Babylon and sends omens of disaster for Mardukapla-iddina II, “the king of the Sealand”, announcing a good opportunity for Sargon II to take Babylonia; see the discussion on pp. 195f. above. Probably in response to letters like this, Sargon’s scholar Nabû-zuqup-kēnu produced the copies of the Book of Prodigies (Source 36), in order to check the omens. 1689 See already Dietrich 2003, p. 27, note on no. 24.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

446

–

[ana ā]līšu Bābil salīma irtaši an[a muḫḫi] [sakāp] kussî ḫalāq palê ša māt tâmti pān[īšu iltakan] (25) [iltapra it]tāti lemnēti mādāti ša ana āl[i u māti] (26) [(illikā) iṣṣūr]ū aḫûtu ana Esaĝil u Bābi[l] (27) [u (mimma) um]āmū ṣēri aqrūtu ana libbi āli [īteterrubūni] (margin, 28) […] ḫilēpū aḫûtu ina āli imt[īdū] (29) [iṣṣīḫ qaqqad]u naksu mukīl-rēš-lemu[tti] (30) [ina E- / bīt …] kan(kan)na ultabalkitū […] (rest broken) (obv. 23–24) “(Marduk) has become reconciled [with] his [ci]ty Babylon again, [and – he has made up his] mind (and ordained) the throne (of Marduk-aplaiddina) [to be overthrown] and the dynasty of the Sealand to vanish. (25–27) [He has sent] numerous evil [p]ortents which [(have come)] regarding the cit[y (of Babylon) and the land.] Strange [bird]s [and (all kinds of)] rare wild [b]easts of the steppe [kept entering] Esaĝil and Babylon, right into the very heart of the city: (margin, 28) […] strange willow trees have become nu[merous] in the city; (29) a severed [hea]d [laughed]; mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demo[ns] (30) overturned the pot stand [in the temple …] (rest broken) (obv. 23) [a-na e]ri-šú tin-tirki sa*-lim ir-⌈ta⌉-ši a-n[a ugu] – (24) [sa-kap ĝi]šgu-za záḫ bala-e šá kur a-ab-ba pa-n[i-šú il-ta-kan] (25) [il-tap-ra ĝiš]kimmeš lem-né-ti ma-da-a-tú šá ana er[i u kur] (26) [(ĝenmeš) mušen]meš a-ḫu-ti ana é-saĝ-íl u tin-t[irki] (27) [ù (mim-ma) u-m]a-mi edin aq-ru-tú ana šà eri [ku4meš] (margin, 28) […] ĝiškìmmeš a-ḫu-tú ina eri im-t[i-du] (29) [iṣ-ṣi-iḫ saĝ-d]u tar-su saĝ-ḫul-ḫ[a-zameš] (30) [ina é …] ⌈ĝiškan⌉ balam[eš …] (rest broken) Com: The name of the sender of the letter is broken but restored by Dietrich (2003, p. 27) as Bēl-iqīša who appears to have been an official of unknown duties and rank active in Babylonia during the reign of Sargon II.1690 Dietrich (2003, p. XXIII) identifies him as Bēl-iqīša the prelate (šatammu) of Esaĝil and Ezida who was in office during the reign of Esarhaddon or even as late as Aššurbanipal.1691 This identification is not unambiguously corroborated by any positive statement in the letters, but it is not implausible. In identifying and quoting the omens of disaster, the writer of the letter obviously demonstrates his erudition. 25: Dietrich (1967–1968, p. 201, and 2003, p. 28), followed by Vera Chamaza (2002, p. 245), proposed to read the last signs in line 25 as a personal name beginning with the theophoric element Nabû. This cannot be excluded, since the ligature I.d+nà for Nabû quite often looks just like a whirl of horizontals and verticals. I think, (obv. 23) (24)

1690 PNA 1/II, p. 315, s.v. Bēl-iqīša 3. 1691 PNA 1/II, p. 315, s.v. Bēl-iqīša 6.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

26:

28:

29:

447

however, that the traces rather read ana er[i …] “regarding the cit[y …]”, see the collation above. However, if Dietrich’s proposition is right, the name in line 25 could be restored as I.d+n[à-mu-li-bur] or as I.d+n[à-gin-a], referring either to Nabûšumu-libūr (ca. 1033–1026 BCE), or to Nabû-mukīn-apli (ca. 978–943 BCE). The numerous strange and evil portents sent during the reigns of these two monarchs had been collected in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37). The Religious Chronicle is badly damaged, but since it starts with Nabûšumu-libūr early in its first column (I:16), and deals with Nabû-mukīn-apli throughout its last two columns (III:6–IV:5), no other king but these two could have been referred to in the letter, since the seven kings in between do not bear names starting with the divine name Nabû.1692 Finally, there is no possibility to connect the traces to any of the spellings of the name of Ibbi-Sîn, i.e. to Ii-bi(2/5)-…, Iim-bi-… or to the cryptography I ⌈babbar⌉-a-še-em-me-íb-bi from the Book of Prodigies (Source 36, l. 1).1693 The restoration of mušen “bird” rests on a line from the Diviner’s Manual, using the singular: iṣṣūr šamê aḫû “a strange bird of the sky” (Oppenheim 1974, p. 199 line 5). It makes a nice pair with the terrestrial animals in the line below. This sounds very much like an omen from Šumma ālu. However, the only omen from Šumma ālu dealing with a willow tree (ḫilēpu) known to me is one with a positive meaning: – šumma ina mušpal āli ḫilēpu innamir mātu šī idammiq1694 “If in the low-lying part of a city a willow is seen, this land will be fine.” In the case of the omen recorded in the letter, the negative meaning is certainly caused by the attributes “strange” and “(too) many”. Numerous good examples of the negative meaning of “(too) many” elements of the same kind being extant in a city are listed in Šumma ālu tablet 1:80–146 (Freedman 1998, pp. 32–37). Apart from that, the willow is a tree growing in watery places and may have been taken as an indicator for the waters of a new flood coming or for Tiʾāmat attacking, making up for ground lost in the cosmic battle against Marduk.1695 In the first half of the line, Vera Chamaza (2002, p. 246) and Dietrich (2003, p. 28) read [lug]al ḫas-su “the circumspect [ki]ng”, which would be a good choice in other circumstances. But once these lines are identified as omens, the reading is out of place. TAR-su is certainly to be read tar-su = naksu “cut off”, which, of course, recalls the famous ominous severed head

1692 See the table presented by Brinkman 1968, pl. II after p. 76. 1693 See the overview on p. 42 above. 1694 diš ina túl-lá eri ĝiškìm igi kur-bi sig5 (CT 39, pl. 11, obv. 50; CAD Ḫ, p. 185, s.v. ḫilēpu;

Freedman 2017, p. 175, T. 60:65’, Šumma ālu excerpt tablet 60).

1695 See the comment on pp. 176f. above. In the present corpus, there are two cases of

water inundating Esaĝil and Ezida, listed as an event in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37, II:15) and as an omen in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36, l. 27, omen no. 41).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

448

Edition of the Sources

that laughed (qaqqadu naksu iṣīḫ), placed prominently at the beginning of the Book of Prodigies (Source 36, l. 2). The broken sign in front of TAR-su is not [lug]al, but […-d]u, which makes the reading [saĝ-d]u = qaqqadu “head” virtually safe. The same orthography appears in Šumma ālu: saĝ-du tar-su (CT 41, pl. 22, rev. 19; see the commentary on Source 36, l. 2). Omens dealing with mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demons are found e.g. in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37, III:17’–18’) and the Book of Prodigies (Source 36, ll. 18, 31, 33). There, the mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon is “seen” (amāru N) inside temples in various places, e.g. in the bedroom of Nabû, at the dining places of the gods, or in the pot stands (kankannu). Here, as it appears, the demons even managed to overturn (nabalkutu Š) the pot stand (ĝiškan = kannu/kankannu). Source 39: Excerpt from the Poem of Erra Obj:

Prov: Date:

Excerpt from the Poem of Erra (tablet IIc:35–43). A: Ebeling, KAR, no. 169, p. 306, obv. IV:48–50. C: A 130, BiOr 14, 1957, pl. 2 after p. 8, ll. 4’–11’. K: Cagni 1969, pl. IV, rev. 1’–7’ (with ll. 4’, 5’, and 7’ indented). T: Gurney & Finkelstein, STT 1, no. 18, rev. 5’–8’. Z: Iraq 51, 1989, p. 113, fig. 1, rev. IV:23’–31’. A, C, K and T are the sigla used by Cagni, Z is the text from Mê-Turnat. (Babylonia); manuscripts from Aššur (A, C), Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe, T), Nineveh (K), and Mê-Turnat (/ Mê-Turran = Tell Ḥaddād, Z). First millennium; the poem’s author or compiler is a certain Kabti-ilīMarduk, son of Dābibī.1696 Dābibī was the eponymous ancestor of a prominent Babylonian family, attested particularly at Babylon and Uruk from the early 8th century to the early 2nd century.1697 So, if Kabti-ilīMarduk was indeed a historical figure, he is quite certainly to be dated to the early first millennium, even if this cannot be done any more precisely up to now. The Babylonians, however, dated him to the remote past. In a Late Babylonian text from Seleucid Uruk, Kabti-ilī-Marduk is listed as the most prominent scholar (ummânu) in the time of a king whose name is very probably to be restored as “Ibbi-Sîn”:1698 – [ina tarṣi Ibb]i-Sîn šarri Kabti-il(ī)-Marduk ummânu – [“In the time of] king [Ibb]i-Sîn, Kabti-il(ī)-Marduk (was his) scholar.” I lú – [ina tar-ṣi i-b]í-d30 lugal Iidim-il-dšú um-man-nu The restoration of Ibbi-Sîn is the proposal of van Dijk who edited the text. The line above deals with Gilgameš and the scholar Sîn-lēqi-unninni, the

1696 Cagni 1969, pp. 31, 126 (V:42), 254–255; Edzard 1976–1980d (RlA 5, p. 284). The name of

Kabti-ilī-Marduk has – certainly correctly – been restored in the Catalogue of Texts and Authors as the author of the Poem of Erra (Lambert 1962, p. 64, no. III, 2). 1697 J.A. Brinkman and S. Dalley in ZA 78, 1988, p. 90; PNA 1/II, p. 358, s.v. Dābibī 1. 1698 J. van Dijk in UVB 18, 1962, p. 44, 51, pl. 27, obv. 13. The term ina tarṣi is restored from the traces in obv. ll. 1–3. See also Cagni 1969, p. 44; Lenzi 2008b, p. 141.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

449

line below with Išbi-Erra and the scholar Si-du, also called Enlil-ibni. Among other kings whose names end in the divine name Sîn and who might be listed between Gilgameš and Išbi-Erra, Narām-Sîn ([Ina-ra]m-d30) of Akkade and Šu-Sîn ([Iš]u-d30) of Ur make good candidates for restoring the traces, too.1699 However, grouping and contrasting Ibbi-Sîn with IšbiErra makes good sense. If correctly restored, this connection to Ibbi-Sîn is important. It gives the clue as to why omens of disaster like those mentioned below in lines 37–43 and listed in more detail in the Book of Prodigies were considered to have occurred in the time of Ibbi-Sîn (ina tarṣi Ibbi-Sîn, Source 36, l. 1). In this respect, grouping Gilgameš with Sîn-lēqiunninni and Ibbi-Sîn with Kabti-ilī-Marduk demonstrates that the Babylonians connected the authors of the Standard Babylonian recensions of the Gilgameš Epic or the Poem of Erra to those kings the poems were considered to deal with as contemporaries, ignoring datable history. Generally, the Poem of Erra is taken to refer to a catastrophe that occurred in the early first millennium, perhaps in 8th century. However, the poem does in fact not abound in any reliable clues as to the date of its composition. Connecting the disturbances caused by the Suteans at Uruk, as described in tablet IV:55–62, to the changes in the cult of Ištar, allegedly done by the Urukeans themselves and dated to the reign of Erība-Marduk (ca. 770–760 BCE) by Nabonidus,1700 as von Soden and others did,1701 never rested on strong arguments. Von Soden’s line of reasoning consisted mainly of a weak argumentum ex silentio, the non-mentioning of the particular temple name Etemenanki – which is mentioned in tablet I:128 of the poem – in firmly datable sources predating the reign of Esarhaddon.1702 While Beaulieu’s (2001) reconstruction of an abduction of a statue of Ištar from Uruk in the 8th century, combining evidence from the Uruk Prophecy and the Sacrileges of Nabû-šuma-iškun with inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus, looks very plausible in itself, I find it 1699 Helle (2018, p. 233) reads [na?-ra]m?-d30, because “the traces indicate that the last sign

ended in a vertical wedge”, as does -bí-. So this is no argument against Ibbi-Sîn.

1700 In the Babylon Stele III: 16’–29’, see Schaudig 2001, p. 517. 1701 Von Soden 1971, pp. 255–256. See recently Beaulieu 2000a, pp. 25–27; Beaulieu 2001;

Frahm 2011, p. 348.

1702 Usually, elements of a temple complex were subsumed under the main name of the

temple. Von Soden mentioned, but did not give much credit to the reference to the ziqqurrat of Esaĝil, called ziqqurrat apsî elītu “the lofty/upper ziqqurrat of the Abzu” in Enūma elîš VI:63. Neither did von Soden mention the entries for “Etemenanki” in Tintir IV:2 and related texts (George 1992, pp. 58, 298–300; George 1993, p. 149, sub no. 1088). Even though the majority of the manuscripts may come from late find-spots such as the library of Aššurbanipal, we are safe to surmise that they are older than e.g. Esarhaddon. Strangely enough, the completely interpolated figure of the “Yahwist” with “his” tales about the “tower of Babel” figured as a datable authority for von Soden (1971, p. 256). We may add that the nuḫar, the temple on top of the ziqqurrat of Esaĝil, i.e. Etemenanki, is mentioned in the Religious Chronicle in an entry dated to the 26th year (953 BCE) of Nabû-mukīn-apli (Source 37, III:19’).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

450

Lit: – – –

Edition of the Sources

hard to see the connection to the rather tropical description of Uruk’s mischief under the Suteans in the Poem of Erra (tablet IV:55–62). The figure of the “ruthless governor” (šakkanakku ekṣu, tablet IV:59), which is part of this lament, is too unspecific to understand it as a reference to any particular Babylonian king or official. Rather, this character appears to be part of the typification of Sutean chaos and recalls the type of a foreign tyrant like Kutir-Naḫḫunte II who was infamous for oppressing the Babylonian cult centres.1703 Within the fabric of the poem it can be understood as the fulfilment of Erra’s threat to install a “rogue” (isḫabbu) in the royal palace, see line 36 of the excerpt below.1704 Unconvincingly, Franke (2014, p. 325) even tries to date the poem to a period as late as the reign of Esarhaddon. The hardest evidence for dating the poem still appears to be the term “Suteans”, the wicked enemies of the Babylonians (“Akkadians”), together with the Subarians, the Assyrians, the Elamites, the Kassites, the Gutians, and the Lullubians (tablet IV:131–134). The Suteans invaded Babylonia in the mid-11th century, and caused considerable devastation.1705 Since the author looks forward to their downfall and to the rise of the Babylonians as a major power, the text is unlikely to have been composed later than the mid-8th century, when Assyria became the dominating power down to the end to the 7th century. So, Lambert’s proposal to date the epic to the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina (ca. 886–855 BCE), Babylonia’s avenger of the Suteans, still holds probability.1706 But since the Kassites, who did not play any menacing role any more in the 9th century, are included into the list of enemies, we should look for an earlier date. I think that a date some time after the Sutean raids in the mid-11th century BCE, but still close enough to the time when the Kassites were a power worth boasting of despoiling them,1707 e.g. at some time during the 10th century BCE, is a probable date for the composition. I think that Oppenheim (1964, p. 268) had the right inkling when he connected the composition of the Poem of Erra to “a dark period” after the devastation of Babylonia done by Šutruk-Naḫḫunte and his son Kutir-Naḫḫunte in the 12th century, see also p. 69 above. Cagni 1969, pp. 88–91, tablet IIc:35–43. Al-Rawi & Black 1989. Müller 1994, p. 791. Dietrich 2001, p. 34.

1703 See the discussion of abduction no. 3 in chapter 4.2, as well as Source 33, Source 72 (C)

and the commentary on pp. 533f.

1704 For the topic of the “governor turning against his own city”, in this case the city of

Babylon, see also the Poem of Erra tablet IV:23–35.

1705 Brinkman 1968, p. 285. 1706 Lambert 1957–1958, p. 400. 1707 See the epithet of Nebuchadnezzar I (1125–1104 BCE): šālilu Kaššî “the despoiler of the

Kassites” (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 34, no. B.2.4.11, l. 10). There, Nebuchadnezzar also boasts of having defeated the Lullubeans and the Amorites.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

451

Cont: Erra plans to destroy humanity and announces omens of disaster, in particular wild animals of the steppe which are to enter the cities unseen. This group of omens appears also prominently in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37). 35 – A IV 48 C 4’ T rev. 5’ Z IV 23’

36 – A IV:49 C 5’ T rev. 6’ Z IV 24’

37 – A IV:50 C 6’ K rev. 1’ T rev. 7’ Z IV 25’

38 – C 7’ K rev. 2’ T rev. 8’ Z IV 26’

39 – C K rev. 3’ Z IV 27’

[a]na šubāt ilānī ašar lemnu lā iʾâru nûʾa ušerreb (var.:) ašar lā âri Into the dwellings of the gods where the wicked is not to enter (var.: a place which is not to be approached), I shall introduce a brute. [a]-na šu-bat diĝirmeš a-šar lem-nu la iʾ-a-r[u nu-ʾa ú-še-rab] [a-na šu-bat diĝirmeš a-šar la a-ri nu]-⌈ʾa⌉ ú-še-rab [an]a šu-bat ‹diĝirmeš› a-šar la a-ri n[u-ʾa ú-še-rab] [a-na šu-bat diĝirmeš a-šar la a-r]i nu-ʾa-a ú-šèr-reb ana šubat rubê Into the dwelling of the prince a-na šu-bat!(bi) ru-bé-e [a-na šu-bat ru-bé-e [ana] šu-bat nunmeš [a-na šu-bat ru-bé-e

ušešša[b] isḫabba I shall instal[l] a rogue. ú-še-šá-[ab is-ḫab-ba] ú-še-šá-ab i]s-ḫab-ba ú-še[š-šá-ab is-ḫab-ba] ú-še-šá-ab] is-ḫab-ba

ušerreb umām nasīkāti ana (libbi?) māḫāzī (Strange) beasts from far-away lands I shall have enter the cities. ú-ma-am [n]a7-si-[k]a-[ti a-na ma-ḫa-zi ú-še-rab] [ú-ma-am na-si-ka-ti a-na ma-ḫa-zi] ⌈ú⌉-še-er-rab ú-[ma-am na-si-ka-ti a-na ma-ḫa-zi ú-še-reb] [ú⌉-ma-mi na-si-k[a-ti a-na ma-ḫa-zi ú-še-rab] [ú-ma-am na-si-ka]-tú! a-⌈na šà?⌉ ma-ḫa-zi ú-še-reb āl innammarū erēba From the city where they will be appearing, I shall conceal (their) entering. [eri in-nam-ma-ru e-re-ba] eri in-MAR-ma-ru e-re-b[a [er]i in-⌈nam⌉-ma-r[u e-re-ba [eri in-nam-ma]-ru e-re-ba

uzamma

ú-za-am-ma ú-za-am-ma] ú-za-am-ma] ú-za-am-me

umām šadî ušerreda ana māti I shall bring down beasts from the mountains to the country. (either missing or squeezed into the beginning of the next line) ú-ma-am šá-di-i ú-še-re-d[a ana kur] [ú-ma-am šá-di-i] ú-šèr-re-da ana kur

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

452

40

ēma

– C 8’ K rev. 4’ Z IV 28’

41 – C 9’ K rev. 5’ Z IV 29’

42 – C 10’ K rev. 6’ Z IV 30’

kibsu

iššakkinu ušaḫrarū rebīta (var.:) ušaḫrab(ū) qerbēti Wherever they tread, they will devastate the city square (var.: environs). [e-ma kib-su iš-šak]-ki-nu ú-šaḫ-ra-ru re-bi-ti e-ma kib-⌈su⌉ i[š-šak-ki-nu] / ú-šaḫ-ra-bu [qer-bé-te] [e-ma kib-su] iš-šak-ki-nu ú-šaḫ-ra-ba qer-bé-te umām ṣēri lā ērib ṣērimma (ina) rebīt āli ušallak Beasts of the steppe, which do not walk (lit.: “enter”) the steppe (, though), I shall make roam the city square (instead). [ú-ma-am edin la e-rib edin-ma (ina) re-bit e]ri ú-šal-lak ú-ma-am edin la ⌈e⌉-[rib edin-ma] / re-bit eri ⌈ú⌉-[šal-lak] [ú-ma-am edin l]a e-rib edin-ma ina re-bit eriki ú-šal-lak itta ulammanma māḫāzī unamma I shall make the omen(s) bad, and lay waste the cult centres. [it-ta ú-lam-man-ma ma-ḫa-zi] ú-nam!-me it-ta ú-lam-man-ma ma-ḫa-[zi ú-nam-ma] [it-ta ú-lam]-ma-am-ma ma-ḫa-zi ú-nam-ma

43 –

ana šubāt ilānī [ašar] lemnu lā iʾirru mukīl-rēš-lemutti ušerreb Into the dwellings of the gods [where] the wicked is not to enter I shall make the mukīl-rēš-lemutti-demon(s) enter. C 11’ [a-na šu-bat diĝirmeš a-šar lem-nu la iʾ-i-ru] saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za ú-še-rab meš K rev. 7’ a-na šu-bat diĝir⌈ ⌉ [a-šar lem-nu la iʾ-i-ru] / saĝ-ḫu[l-ḫa-za ú-še-reb] meš Z IV 31’ [a-na šu-bat diĝir a-šar] lem-ni la iʾ-i-ru saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za ú-šèr-reb1708 Com: Among the omens announced by Erra here in ll. 37–43, one group stands out. That is the group of beasts of the mountains and the steppe which are to enter the cities unseen. This group of ominous beasts appears also prominently in the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), see below on line 38. The other important group is dealt with in ll. 35–36. In fact, these lines do not deal with omens, but tell us that Erra, in order to bring about a most thorough devastation, will install “a brute, a rogue”, i.e. an incompetent idiot with criminal energy in the office of kingship. 35: For the 3. sg. prs. of âru with subordinative ending, one might have expected the form *iʾirru instead of iʾâru, as in line 43. The form may be an erroneous conflation with the phrase lā âri from the variant, resulting in something like: *lā-(i)ʾâr(u). The most common orthography for nûʾu “brute/stupid” is *nu-ʾ-ú, but also nu-a (mB) and nu-ʾi (SB).1709 It is a well-known parallel to isḫabbu “rogue” (following here in line 36). 1708 At the end of the line, after saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za, there are traces of a razed ú-. The verbal

form ú-šèr-reb stands indented below.

1709 See CAD N/II, p. 356, s.v. nûʾu lex. and 1.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

36:

37: 38:

40:

453

Among the manuscripts from Assyria (A, C, K and T), at least text C from Aššur produces the Assyrianism ušerrab for ušerreb in lines 35, 37 and 43. Manuscript T writes nunmeš, suggesting a plural “princes”. This, however, is quite unlikely, since the text apparently pairs the king of Babylonia (= the “prince”) with the gods here. So the use of meš may be either a “meaningless” use of the plural determinative,1710 or perhaps a mix-up with the “gods” (= *diĝirmeš) a line ahead, which has in fact been erroneously omitted from the manuscript in turn. The syllablic value na7 is quite common in the first millennium, see Woodington 1982, p. 123; Schaudig 2001, p. 115, § II.2.15.3, no. 3. Literally: “The city where they will be appearing, I shall make miss (their) entering.” Earlier editors have mistaken the infinitive erēbu “the entering” for the participle ēribu “the one who enters”, arriving at translations like “the city where they appear I will deprive of any person entering”, or “as to the one who is seen entering a city, I will deprive him”. However, the topic here is clearly that beasts of the steppe enter a city unseen. On the particular danger of wild animals entering a city “unseen” see the list of “seen” and “unseen” entries in the introduction to the Religious Chronicle (Source 37) and the discussion on pp. 174f. The phrase ēma kibsu iššakkinu means literally “wherever their track(s) will be set.” The form *iššakkin appears to be a late by-form to normal *iššakkan (N present). The scribe of manuscript Z with the verbal form ú-šaḫ-ra-ba = ušaḫrab perhaps understood the term umām šadî “beasts from the mountains” from line 39 as a collective singular.

Source 40: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 5) Obj:

Prov:

Omen from the liver; pān tākalti tablet 15. A: K 2722 + K 4012 + K 8817, obv.? 4, collated; (unpublished, photo: CDLI no. P394632). B: BM 75224, rev. 13 (indented, copy: Starr 1993, p. 235; collated). C: K 3760 (CT 28, pl. 49), rev. 15’ (indented, broken) (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (A, C) and Babylon (B). The colophon of manuscript B gives the name of the scribe Itti-Marduk-balāṭu, son of Ša-nāšīšu, known from the filiation of his son, Nabû-apla-iddina (Tallqvist 1914, p. 122, no. 20). Nabû-apla-iddina is known from texts drafted mainly in Babylon and dated from Nebuchadnezzar 16 to Nabonidus 6.1711 This indicates that his father Itti-Marduk-balāṭu spent his life in Babylon, roughly during the late 7th and early 6th century BCE.

1710 This orthographic peculiarity is quite common in the first millennium, see Schaudig

2001, pp. 102 (§ II.2.7.a), 105 (II.2.8.e). Clear examples are found here in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 34, 37, 51, see the commentary on line 51. 1711 Tallqvist 1914, p. 122, no. 20. Earliest and latest reference: Strassmaier, Nabuch., no. 108:3 (Nbc. 16, Babylon); Nabon., no. 239:1 (Nbn. 6, Babylon); all texts written at

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

454

Edition of the Sources

Date: First millennium: 7th–6th century BCE. Lit: Nougayrol, in: RA 60, 1966, pp. 90–91 (note on BM 75224 = text B). – Starr 1977, pp. 159–160. – Starr 1993, pp. 232–233, on rev. 22–23. – Koch-Westenholz 2000, pp. 401–402. – Winitzer 2017, p. 94. Cont: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 5); for the Old Babylonian precursors see Source 17 and Source 18. On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). – šumma nīru šamiṭma ina libbīšu kakku izziz – If the yoke is rubbed off and a weapon mark stands in its centre, ĝiš tukul iz-z]i-zu! A [be ni-ri šá-miṭ-ma ina šà-šú ĝiš tukul gub-iz B be ni-ri šá-miṭ-ma ina šà-šú ĝiš tukul gub-iz] C be ni-ri šá-miṭ-ma [ina šà-šú – –

amūt Ku-Baʾu sābīti ša tibîma šalmat qabla muḫrī (it is) an omen of Ku-Baʾu the alewife, who (once was told): “Rise, (you) corpse! Face the battle!” šá zi-ma šal-mat múru muḫ-r[i] A bà-ut dkù-dba-ú munus-kurun-na šá zi-ma adda múru muḫ-ri B bà-ut fkù-dba-ú munus-kurun-na šá zi-ma šal-mat múru muḫ-ri] C [bà-ut dkù-dba-ú munus-kurun-na Com: The rather unusual orthography in manuscript A (and probably also in C, both from Nineveh) that writes the queen’s name with a divine determinative is also found in Source 42. Starr (1977, p. 159) claimed that the two omens A and B had varying protases each. After collation, the difference is only in a varying orthography of the verbal form *izziz: [iz-z]i-zu! ∥ gub-iz. In manuscript A, the sign -zu! looks as if the scribe had rather clumsily transferred a Babylonian zu into an Assyrian one. The phrase šá zi-ma could, of course, also be interpreted as ša itbûma “who rose”. However, in the Old Babylonian precursor the imperative is spelled out syllabically: ša ti-bé-e (Source 17, l. 13). For the first word in line 14 of Source 17, which is in fact qá-a[b-lam], Nougayrol (1950, p. 22) tentatively proposed ĜIŠ.Š[UB (?)] = tilpānu “bow”. Starting from this misreading, Starr (1977, p. 159) also misread the sign adda = šalamtu “corpse” for pan = qaštu “bow” in text B of the present omen (Source 40). Reading pan = qaštu was not a satisfactory solution from the very start, since one expects the normal orthography with the determinative ĝiš: ĝišpan = qaštu. This misreading resulted in the reconstruction of the spurious phrase *qašat qabli muḫrī “receive the bow of battle!”. In 1982, the readings PAN and GIŠ.P[AN (?)] = “bow” were adopted by CAD Q (p. 149, s.v. qaštu 1d) for the present omen and for the omen from Source 17. In 1993, Starr (1993, p. 232–233) repeated his erroneous reading from 1977, Babylon, except for two texts written at Dannatu, probably not far from Babylon (Strassmaier, Nabuch., no. 179:3, 8 (Nbc. 27, Dannatu); no. 327:3,8 (Nbc. 37, Dannatu).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

455

augmented with a copy of text B (BM 75224, ibidem p. 235). However, the sign he took for pan is, in fact, adda (LÚ×ÚŠ) = šalamtu “corpse” (BM 75224, rev. 13), see the collation here alongside. In 2013, the spurious phrase *qašat qabli muḫrī “receive the bow of battle!” was so well established that it triggered a similar misreading in Source 18, see the commentary there. Source 41: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 6) Obj:

Omens from (human?) anomalies (izbu, not preserved in the canonical series Šumma izbu, see Leichty 1970, p. 8). Text: CT 28, pl. 6, K 766, A = ll. 1–4, B = ll. 5–7. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant manuscript is from Nineveh. Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Weidner 1928–1929, pp. 229–230. – Leichty 1970, p. 8. – Parpola 1970a, pp. 280–281, no. 327; Parpola 1983, p. 343, no. 327. – Hunger 1992, p. 131, no. 241. – Stol 2000, p. 164. – Radner 2005b, p. 551. – Ambos 2009, p. 5. Cont: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 6 = A). Omen B is a variation on the topic of omen A without a historical setting. On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). A šumma izbu išara u ūra [šakin] amūt Ku-Baʾu ša māta ibēlu māt šarri ḫarbūta illak – If an anomaly [has] (both) penis and vulva, (it is) an omen of Ku-Baʾu who ruled the land. The land of the king will become waste. (1) be iz-bu ĝìš u gal4-la [ĝar] – (2) bà-ut fkù-dba-ú (3) ša kur i-be-lu4 (4) kur lugal kar-tú ĝen B šumma izbu išara u ūra šakinma iškē lā īši mār ekalli māta umaʾʾar (šanîš): šarra ibâr – If an anomaly has (both) penis and vulva, (but) has no testicles, a courtier will govern the land; (variant): will revolt against the king. (5) be iz-bu ĝìš u gal4-la ĝar-ma šir nu tuku – (6) dumu é-gal kur ú-ma-ar (7) 𒑲 lugal i-bar Com: The omens are associative, but not fully illustrative. The sexual ambiguity of the figure of Ku-Baʾu is not in her body, but in her exercising the male office of

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

456

Edition of the Sources

kingship as a woman.1712 A eunuch, on the other hand, is not characterized by having a penis and a vulva, but by not having testicles any more. Nevertheless, the omens clearly develop their line of thought along the ideas of “sexual ambiguity or discrepancy”, and “exercising kingship”. The primary trigger is the anomaly described in omen A, understood as a hint to the “female king” Ku-Baʾu. Omen B is clearly dependent upon and secondary to omen A in its structure and arrangement, since the idea “eunuch” could have been conveyed by an anomaly with a penis and no testicles alone, without a vulva. But then, the element “exercising kingship” would have been missing, since it comes in only in combination with the “female king” Ku-Baʾu of omen A. A: The uneasiness of the ancient scholars with a woman exercising power (see the discussion on pp. 150ff. above), even though Ku-Baʾu was primarily remembered as a good king, can be seen from the second part of the apodosis: māt šarri ḫarbūta illak “the land of the king will become waste”. A virtually identical omen, but dealing with a grown up woman having both vulva and penis, and not giving the name Ku-Baʾu, is found in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36, l. 4, omen no. 5 = KBO 4). B: The difference between the omens A and B consists in the information that the anomaly in omen B has no testicles. This steers the interpretation towards a mār ekalli “son of the palace”, i.e. a courtier. I understand this as a support for the sometimes contested view that courtiers were often eunuchs, at least in the first millennium.1713 Source 42: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 7) Obj:

Omen from the liver; multābiltu commentary 4. A: Nougayrol 1969 (Iraq 31), p. 59, AO 7756, obv. 7’. B: Koch 2005, p. 258, l. 38, pl. 15, text B (K 3829), obv. II:12. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (B, probably also A). Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Nougayrol 1945, p. 17, no. 64 (= A). – Koch 2005, p. 258, l. 38. Cont: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 7). On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). – šumma amūtu kīma imšukkimma uṣurāti saḫrat amūt Ku-[Baʾu . . . .] – If the liver is like a domed lid and encircled by designs, (it is) an omen of (divine) Ku-[Baʾu . . . .] A be bà gin7 im-šu-uk-ki-ma ĝiš-ḫurmeš saḫ-rat bà-ut dkù-[dba-ú . . . .] B be bà gin7 im-šu-uk-ki-[ma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] Com: The rather unusual orthography writing the queen’s name with a divine determinative is also found in Source 40. 1712 See the discussion of Ku-Baʾu in chapter 7.3, king no. 5. 1713 See Deller 1999; Tadmor 2002; Ambos 2009. An extensive, yet inconclusive inspection

of the admittedly difficult materia is presented by Pirngruber 2011.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

457

Source 43: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 8) Obj:

Omen from the liver; multābiltu commentary 4. A: Nougayrol 1969 (Iraq 31), p. 60, AO 7756, obv. 10’–11’. B: Nougayrol 1969 (Iraq 31), p. 62, note 6. Koch 2005, p. 259, l. 41, pl. 15, text B (K 3829), II:15–16. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (B, probably also A). Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Nougayrol 1969, pp. 60, 62, obv. 10’–11’. – Koch 2005, p. 259, l. 41. Cont: Omen of Ku-Baʾu (KBO 8): [Ku-Baʾu(?), the a]lewife, is killed by her sons. On Ku-Baʾu see chapter 7.3, king no. 5 (ll. 51–55 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). – šumma šanû (šumšu) amūtu kīma ḫašî ittabši ṣēra ibnīma ubāna lā ī[š]i amūt [Ku-Baʾu(?) sā]bīti ša mārūša idūkūši [. . . . . .] – If – secondly – the liver is featured like the lungs, and it forms a plain and h[a]s no finger, (it is) an omen of [Ku-Baʾu(?), the a]lewife, whose (own) sons killed her [. . . . . .]. A be mìn-ú mu-šú min-ma edin dù-ma šu-si nu tu[ku-š]i1714 (= bà gin7 mur it-tab-ši) munus-kúrun-na] / šá dumumeš-šá gazmeš-ši [. . . . . . .] bà-u[t fkù-dba-ú(?) B be mìn-ú bà gin7 mur i[t-tab-ši edin dù-ma šu-si nu tuku-ši] [bà-ut fkù-dba-ú(?)] / [mu]n[us-k]úrun-na šá dumumeš-[šá gazmeš-ši . . . . . .] Com: The interesting apodosis which has it that Ku-Baʾu was killed by her sons is a repetition from the omen a line ahead, fully preserved in manuscript A: – šumma amūtu kīma ḫašî ittabši aššat amīli mārūša idukkū[ši]1715 “If the liver is featured like the lungs, the man’s wife will be killed by her (own) sons.” The attribution of the omen to the alewife Ku-Baʾu who became king rests on the reading [sā]bīti ([mu]n[usk]úrun-na) “[a]lewife” in text B II:16. This, however, is a very strong indicator, since this professional title is typical of Ku-Baʾu and there is no other alewife but her figuring in Babylonian historical omen literature. The only other candidate might be Šiduri the wise alewife famous from the Gilgameš Epic, but she never figures outside of that epic.1716 The unique information given here, that Ku-Baʾu apparently was held to have been killed by her own sons, is not backed up from other sources. If correctly attributed to her, it would, of course, imply that, after she was rewarded with kingship by Marduk for her pious deed, she must have committed some hideous sin against Marduk to be punished so grievously in the same way as the wicked kings Tukultī-

1714 Thus after Nougayrol 1969, p. 60; Koch 2005, p. 259 reads without brackets: tuk-ši. 1715 be bà gin7 mur it-tab-ši dam lú dumumeš-šá gazme[š-ši]; Nougayrol 1969 (Iraq 31), p. 59,

AO 7756, obv. 9’; Koch 2005, p. 259, l. 40, text A:9’.

1716 George 2003/I, pp. 148–149.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

458

Edition of the Sources

Ninurta I and Sennacherib, who both took Babylon and deported the statue of Marduk from there to Assyria.1717 Source 44: Chronicle of Early Kings: Sargon of Akkade & the Soil of Babylon Obj:

Excerpt from the Chronicle of Early Kings. Text: King 1907/II, p. 115, obv. 18–23. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant tablet (BM 26472) is probably from Borsippa (Waerzeggers 2012, p. 292). Date: First millennium: Neo- or Late Babylonian. Lit: King 1907/II, pp. 8–9. – Grayson 1975a, pp. 153–154, chronicle 20, A:18–23. – Glassner 1993a, p. 219. – Glassner 2005a, pp. 270–271. Cont: Sargon of Akkade (Ilugal-gin lugal a-kà-dèki, obv. 1) takes the soil of Babylon captive. On Sargon of Akkade see chapter 7.3, king no. 7 (ll. 56–61 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). (obv. 18) eper e(s)sê ša Bābil issuḫma – (19) itê Akkade gabarâ Bābil īpuš (20) ana ikkib īpušu bēlu rabû Marduk īgugma (21) ina ḫušaḫḫi nišīšu igmur (22) ultu ṣīt Šamši adi ereb Šamš[i] (23) ikkirūšū́ma lā ṣalāla īmiss[u] (obv. 18) – He tore out the soil from the pit of Babylon and (19) next to Akkade he built a counterpart of Babylon. (20) At the sacrilege he committed the great lord Marduk became enraged and (21) with a famine he exterminated his people. (22) From sunrise to su[n]set (23) (all the people) became hostile to him, and he (: Marduk) inflicted him with sleeplessness. (obv. 18) e-pe-er e-se-e šá ká-diĝir-raki is-suḫ-ma – (19) i-te-e a-kà-dèki gaba-ri ká-diĝir-raki i-pu-uš (20) a-na níĝ-gig i-pu-šu en gal-ú damar-utu i-gu-ug-ma (21) ina ḫu-šaḫ-ḫu ùĝme-šú ig-mu-ur (22) ul-tu ṣi-it dutu-ši a-di e-reb dutu-š[i] (23) ik-ki-ru-šú-ma la ṣa-la-la i-mi-id-s[u] Com: The same story is told in the omen of Source 45, and in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 60. Sargons’s deed is condemned as a “sacrilege” (ikkibu “taboo/sacrilege”) because taking Babylon hostage in the form of its sacred soil and “doubling” the city by producing a rivalling “counterpart” (gabarû) aimed at diminishing magically the power and meaning of the singular and holy city Babylon, the true and only centre of the world. On the role of Babylon see the 1717 See Source 71, Source 72 and the discussion on pp. 123ff.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

459

discussion on pp. 105f. above. On the motif complex “taking the earth of a conquered city hostage” and “building a (rivalling) counterpart (gabarû/tamšīlu) elsewhere” see the discussion on p. 154. On the concept of urbicide (“city-killing”) see the discussion on pp. 70f. On the motif of “sleeplessness” see the commentary on line 61 of the Esaĝil Chronicle and the discussion on p. 153 above. Source 45: Omen of Sargon of Akkade: The Soil of Babylon Obj:

Omen from the liver; multābiltu tablet 14–15. Text: K 2130, obv. 7–11; King 1907/II, p. 129; collated. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant text is a tablet from Nineveh (K 2130), which, according to its colophon,1718 was written by king Aššurbanipal himself. There is also a fragment of a version in Neo-Babylonian characters (BM 67404; King 1907/II, pp. 139–141), from which, however, the part under discussion is completely lost. Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: King 1907/II, pp. 27–28, obv. 7–11 = § 3. – Nougayrol 1945, p. 20, no. 73. – Grayson 1966, p. 73, note 4. – Starr 1986, cols. 633, 635, 637 on obv. 7–11. – Koch 2005, pp. 226–227, § 3. Cont: Sargon of Akkade takes the soil of Babylon captive. On Sargon of Akkade see chapter 7.3, king no. 7 (ll. 56–61 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). (7) šumma amūtu imittaša šumēlša kīma akali ugdabbirma – šīla n[aqba]t u ubānu elīša (/ elīšu) nīlat (8) amūt Šarru-kīn ša ina šīri annî kiššū[t Bā]bil ⌈īpušū́⌉ma (9) [ep]erī ša Raqqat Katuna issuḫū́ma [ana Ak]k[ade išlulū́]ma (10) [(ina) pā]n Akkade āla īpušu B[ābi]l šumšu imbû (11) [nišī ša ušaglûma ina libb]i ušēšibu (7) – If the liver on its right and left side is puffed up like a (leavened) bread, (if it) is p[ierce]d by a hole, and the finger lies on top of it:1719 (8) This is an omen of Sargon (of Akkade) who by this omen ⌈exercised⌉ dominio[n over Ba]bylon, (9) who tore out the [so]il at (a place called) “Meadow of (the goddess) Katuna” (at Babylon), and [took it as spoils to Ak]k[ade,] (10) [and] who built (from it?) [in fron]t of Akkade a(nother) town, (also) calling it ‘B[abylo]n’, (11) [and] who settled [with]in (it) [the people he had deported (from Babylon).]

1718 Koch 2005, pp. 231–232; Hunger 1968, no. 325. 1719 I.e. either on the liver (*elīša), or on the hole (*elīšu). In the first millennium, either

reading can be expressed by the orthography used in the text.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

460

–

be bà 15-šá 150-šá gin7 ninda ug-da-bir-ma bùru n[aq-ba-t]u u šu-si ugu-šá ni-lat (8) bà-ut lugal-gi-na šá ina uzu an-ni-i kiš-šu-[ut ká]-diĝir-raki ⌈i-pú-šum⌉-ma (9) [saḫ]arḫi-a ša sal-la ‹d›ká-tùn-na is-su-ḫu-ma [ana a]-⌈kà⌉-[dèki iš-lu-lu]-ma (10) [(ina) ig]i a-kà-dèki eri i-pu-šu k[á-diĝir-r]aki mu-⌈šú im-bu-ú⌉ (11) [ùĝmeš šá ú-šá-ag-lu-ú-ma ina šà-b]i ú-še-ši-bu Com: The same story is told in Source 44, and in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 60. On the role of Babylon as the centre of the world see pp. 105f. On the motif complex “taking the earth of a conquered city hostage” and “building a (rivalling) counterpart (gabarû/tamšīlu) elsewhere” see the discussion on p. 154. On the concept of urbicide (“city-killing”) see the discussion on pp. 70f. 7: The root *gabāru proposes itself by the assimilation of the infixed [ta], changed here into [da] or [ṭa]. Since the infix remains unchanged with [k], and since it does not change to [ṭa] with [q] in Babylonian, reading [da] and picking a root starting with [g] is the choice to make. The rather rarely attested genuine root *gabāru occurs in the D-stem and means “to overpower”, respectively “to vie with one another” (Dt).1720 This, however, cannot be meant here in comparison with “a (leavened) bread”, and so I understand the form as a variant of kabāru (“to become fat”) in *gabāru meaning in the Dt stem “to be puffed up”.1721 The imagery apparently compares the liver to the city of Babylon, with its eastern and western quarters lying as two large, fat, puffed up blocks on either side of the Euphrates, as it is best known from the Babylonian Map of the World (8th or 7th cent. BCE), and from the massive rebuilding of the city under the Late Babylonian kings in the 6th century (see figs. 4 and 5 on p. 105). After ug-da-bir-ma, earlier editors read ug[u …] = el[i …] “ove[r …]”.1722 But since a phrase like e[li x] ⌈x⌉ (u …) “o[ver x] ⌈x⌉ (and …)” appears to be far too short for a meaningful sentence, I propose to isolate the winkelhaken in front of the “ugu” as bùru = šīlu “hole”, turning the topic of the apodosis into a reference to Sargon taking earth from Babylon and making a hole there. This leaves us with the beginnig of a sign looking like ka. Reading n[aq-ba-t]u from naqābu “to pierce” (as in Hebr. and Aram. ‫נקב‬, Arab. ‫)ﻧﻗﺐ‬ matches the traces perfectly. In Akkadian, naqābu had apparently mostly been used in a more narrow sense as a technical term for the act of defloration, yet the basic meaning had nevertheless been preserved, as can be seen from the lexical equation bùru = naqābu (CAD N/I, p. 328, lex.), which in turn makes it a synonym of palāšu (= bùru) “to pierce”, which is used more often as a technical term in liver omens. (7)

1720 CAD G, p. 118, s.v. gubburu. 1721 Similar to kabāru Ntn “to be constantly puffed up” (CAD K p. 5, s.v. kabāru 3). 1722 Nougayrol 1945, p. 20, no. 73; Starr 1986, col. 633; Koch 2005, p. 226.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

8:

9:

10:

461

The imagery apparently plays on qāta wabālu “laying one’s hand” (= the finger = ubānu)1723 on Babylon, the element which is lying like a massive block on either side (l. 7), i.e. right and left of the Euphrates. The catchphrase qāta ana Bābil ana lemutti wabālu “to lay one’s hand on Babylon with evil intent” describes Utu-ḫeĝal’s sacrilege in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 69) and the crimes of Tukultī-Ninurta I in Chronicle P (Source 71, B, IV:9–10), see p. 213 above with note 996. On the implications of the phrase “by this omen” (ina šīri annî) see the discussion on p. 91 above. Koch 2005, p. 227 reads ⌈i-lik⌉-šum-ma “to whom (dominion over Babylon) came”. Yet, alāku “to go/to come” is strange in this phrase, and *i-lik for illik instead of *il-lik is even more so. Anyway, the correct form would have been *illiku- as all the other subordinated verbal forms in this paragraph. When combined with a dative (“to whom”), the form should have been *illikaššumma. Furthermore, the proper expressions for “to exercise dominion” are kiššūta epēšu and kiššūta leqû (lit.: “to take dominion”). The phrase is sometimes also construed with ṣabatu “to seize” and even with bêlu “to rule”, probably mixing kiššūtu “dominion” with kiššatu “totality” (CAD K, p. 462, s.v. kiššūtu 1b). The preterite of epēšu fits the traces of the signs very well: *i-pú-šu(2). The orthography using the sign -šum- instead of -šu(2)- in the syllable [šū́m-] ≈ [šumm-] is quite common in the late first millennium (Schaudig 2001, p. 136, § III.4.5.a). Raqqat Katuna “Meadow of Katuna”: This story is probably an etiology, locating the place where Sargon is said to have taken the soil from at a low-lying “marshy meadow” (raqqatu)1724 on the riverbank in or near Babylon. For place names of his kind in the vicinity of Babylon see e.g.:1725 – Raqqatu-ša-kišād-Puratti “Meadow-on-the-Euphrates” – Raqqatu-ša-šarri “the-King’s-Meadow” The term ká-tùn-na certainly means the goddess dka(2)-tùn-na, a “daughter of Esaĝil” and the hairdresser of Zarpānītu.1726 At first sight, the peculiar orthography without divine determinative and with ká “gate” invites to understand the term also as the name of some city gate. However, a gate by that name is not known from Babylon, and the divine name is spelled with ká elsewhere, too. At the beginning of the line, [(ina) pā]n “[in fron]t of” sounds a little bit strange. The other texts use itê and miḫret.1727 So read perhaps [u]š (= [it]ê)

1723 Cf. Jeyes 1989, p. 70 for the meaning of the finger of the liver which appears to have

1724 1725 1726 1727

“symbolized the foreign and hostile”. In addition, it appears that the apodoses of finger-omens quite often deal with a negative hand-symbolism such as “seizing (by force)” or “exerting (negative) influence”. Read sal-la = raqqatu, a synonym of ušallu (= ú-sal). Zadok 1985 (RGTC 8), p. 259. Lambert 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 488; Litke 1998, p. 98, An = Anum II:261; Litke’s transliteration with TUN is a mistake for tùn. See Source 44, and the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) l. 60.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

462

11:

Edition of the Sources

or [gaba-r]i (= [miḫr]et). One may also think of [ig]i = [maḫ]ar or of an abbreviation for *igi-et = miḫret. Restoring a verbal form of galû Š “to lead away/to deport” suits the late appearance of the omen well, since it is a loan-word from West-Semitic, matching naqābu in line 7. Or else, the scribe may have used forms of šalālu or abāku of the same meaning.

Source 46: Sennacherib and the Soil of Babylon Obj:

Excerpt from the bīt-akīti-inscription of Sennacherib. Text: Schroeder, KAH II, no. 122, (rev.) 44b–47. Prov: Aššur. Date: Neo-Assyrian period: Sennacherib (705–681 BCE), after 689 BCE. Lit: Luckenbill 1924, p. 138, ll. 44b–47. – Galter 1984, p. 169. – Frahm 1997, pp. 173–174, no. T 139. – Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2, p. 248, no. 168, ll. 44b–47. Cont: Sennacherib takes the soil of Babylon captive after the destruction of the city and stores it in the akītu temple of Aššur in the city of Aššur: Imitatio Sargonis? (44b) (…) ana nuḫḫi libbi (45) Aššur bēlīya tanitti dannūtīšu nišū ana dalāli (46) ana – tāmarti nišī aḫrâti eperī Bābil (47) assuḫamma ina bīt akīti šuʾāti karê tillī ugarrin (44b) – (…) In order to quiet the heart of (45) Aššur my lord, and so that the people may sing the praise of his might, (46) and future people may see (and learn), (47) I tore out (46) the soil of Babylon (47) and piled it up in mounds and heaps inside that akītu house. (44b) (…) a-na nu-uḫ-ḫi šà-bi (45) an-šár en-ia ta-nit-ti dan-nu-ti-šú ùĝmeš a-na da– la-li (46) a-na ta-mar-ti ùĝmeš aḫ-ra-a-ti saḫarḫi-a tin-tirki (47) as-su-ḫa-am-ma ina é a-ki-ti šú-a-ti ka-re-e du6 ú-gar-ri-in Com: After Sennacherib had destroyed Babylon, he dealt with the soil of the city magically in two ways. The one was filling the soil of the city into the Euphrates and have it carry the soil of the evil city off towards the lower sea (bītakīti-inscription ll. 38–40). This is a well-known magical or symbolic way of removing an evil item for good, never to return or to be found again.1728 The other one was removing soil and storing it in the akītu house as a trophy, and also as some kind of magical foundation for the temple (see the excerpt above). Sennacherib’s actions were perhaps an imitation of the legendary (mis)deeds attributed to Sargon of Akkade, cf. Source 44 (Sargon) and Source 45 (Sargon). The 1728 See Maul 1994, pp. 85–92 on the magical practice of sending off evil into or by a river,

sometimes per boat to the sea. Aššurbanipal employed a variant of this magical procedure when he fed the corpses of the people he killed on the occasion of the funeral offerings for Sennacherib to the animals (of the steppe), the birds of the air and the fish of the water (Streck 1916/II, p. 38, Annals IV:74–76). On the idea of animals taking the evil into their cosmic regions (steppe, air, and water) with them, see Maul 1994, pp. 90–91. In doing so, Aššurbanipal combined his revenge with a magical removal of the evil that had led to the murder of Sennacherib.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

463

Assyrian kings Shalmaneser I (Source 31) and Aššurbanipal (Source 47) took similar measures against other cities. On the role of Babylon see the discussion here on pp. 105f. On the motif complex “taking the earth of a conquered city hostage” and “building a (rivalling) counterpart (gabarû/tamšīlu) elsewhere” see the discussion on pp. 154f. On the concept of urbicide (“city-killing”) see the discussion on pp. 70f. Source 47: Aššurbanipal and the Soil of Elamite Cities Obj:

Excerpt from an inscription of the Neo-Assyrian king Aššurbanipal. Text: V R 6, VI:96–98; with minor orthographic variants from other manuscripts, ignored here. Prov: Nineveh. Date: Neo-Assyrian period: Aššurbanipal (669–631/627 BCE), after 646 BCE. Lit: Streck 1905 (on the custom of gathering soil). – Streck 1916/II, p. 56, VI:96–98. – Borger 1996, p. 56. Cont: Aššurbanipal takes the soil of Elamite cities captive after destruction. (VI 96) eperī āl Šūšan āl Madakti āl Ḫaltemaš – (97) u sitti māḫāzēšunu (98) ēsipa alqâ ana māt Aššur – I gathered up the dust of the cities Susa, Madaktu, Haltemaš, and the rest of their cities, and took it to Assyria. (VI 96) saḫarḫi-a eri šu-šá-an eri ma-dak-tú eri ḫal-te-ma-áš – (97) ù si-it-ti ma-ḫa-ze-e-šú-nu (98) e-si-pa al-qa-a ana kur an-šárki Com: On the custom of gathering the soil of a city and taking it as spoil, perhaps in imitation of a deed of Sargon of Akkade, see the discussion on p. 154 above. In Aššurbanipal’s report, this is just one among many highly meaningful actions within a comprehensive framework of utter destruction. Aššurbanipal devastated Elam on a large scale, in particular the royal cities.1729 He plundered and destroyed the Elamite temples and their sacred groves. He also desecrated the graves of the Elamite kings and abducted their bones to Assyria. Having devastated the districts of Elam, he “scattered salt and cress over them”,1730 very much like Shalmaneser I after the destruction of Arinnu in Muṣri (Source 31). Sennacherib, Aššurbanipal’s grandfather, took similar measures when he destroyed Babylon (Source 46). On the motif complex “taking the earth of a conquered city hostage” and “building a (rivalling) counterpart (gabarû/tamšīlu) elsewhere” see the discussion on pp. 154f. On the concept of urbicide (“city-killing”) see the discussion on pp. 70f.

1729 See the lengthy description in his “Annals”: Streck 1916/II, pp. 46–62, V:63–VII:81. It

was the 2nd campaign against Ḫumban-ḫaldaš III in 647/6 BCE; recent overview by J. Ruby in PNA 1/I, pp. 166–167, s.v. Aššūr-bāni-apli, II, 3d, 5’. 1730 After Streck 1916/II, p. 56, VI:79–80: ṭābta saḫlê usappiḫa ṣēruššun.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

464

Edition of the Sources

Source 48: Chronicle of Early Kings: The Sins of Šulgi Obj:

Excerpt from the Chronicle of Early Kings. Text: King 1907/II, p. 117, rev. 5–7. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant tablet (BM 26472) is probably from Borsippa (Waerzeggers 2012, p. 292). Date: First millennium: Neo- or Late Babylonian. Lit: King 1907/II, p. 11. – Grayson 1975a, p. 154, chronicle 20, A:28–30. – Glassner 1993a, p. 219. – Glassner 2005a, pp. 270–271. Cont: Šulgi commits sacrileges against Esaĝil, see the discussion on p. 124 above. See also the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 71, and the chronicle from Uruk (Source 49), obv. 18–20. On Šulgi see chapter 7.3, king no. 11 (ll. 70–71, 75 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). – (rev. 5) Šulgi mār Ur-Namma Eridu ša kišād tâmti rabîš iznu[n] (6) lemutta išteʾʾēma makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil (7) ina šillati uštēṣi Bēl ikkelmēšū́ma pagaršu ušākil nēpeštu igmuršu – (rev. 5) Šulgi, the son of Ur-Namma, provide[d] greatly for Eridu, which is on the shore of the sea. (6–7a) (But as to Babylon, the “new Eridu”) he strove for evil, and so he brought out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty.1731 (7b) Bēl frowned at him, and he caused his body to be consumed (by leprosy), (and unsuccessful) treatment brought him to an end. – (rev. 5) I.dšul-gi dumu Iur-dnamma nunki šá gú tam-tì ra-biš iz-nu[n] (6) munus ḫul iš-te-ʾe-e-ma níĝ-ga é-saĝ-íl u tin-tirki (7) ina šil-lat è d+en igi-⌈dúl⌉-šú-ma adda-šú u-šá-kil dù-tú til-šú Com: Šulgi provides “greatly” (rabîš) – this probably means “excessively” here – for the ancient and original city of Eridu, but he defiles Babylon, which had become the “new Eridu” in the Neo-Babylonian period.1732 Rev. 6: The phrases lemutta šiteʾʾû / epēšu “to seek evil” or “to do evil” are less characteristic variants of the catchphrase lemutta ana Bābil kapādu “to plot evil against Babylon” (see p. 213 above). Rev. 7: The text apparently plays on the two meanings of the homophonous words šillatu (I) “blasphemy” and šillatu (II < *šallatu) “booty”. The sound change šallatu > šillatu is typical of Neo- and Late Babylonian Akkadian. This can probably be taken as a hint that this tradition about Šulgi had been formed only quite late. – ina šillati (I) “as/by blasphemy” – ina šillati (II < *šallatu) “as/among the booty”

1731 Or “… as (a result of) blasphemy”, see the commentary on rev. 7. 1732 See George 1992, pp. 38, 251–253, on Tintir I:21: eri-du10ki = ki-min (= ba-bi-lu) eri ṭa-a-bi

“Eridu = Babylon, the Sweet-City”; see also Source 35, l. 20 and Source 57, l. 4.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

465

On the meaning of the catchphrase makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati šūṣû “to bring out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty” see the discussion of sacrilege B on p. 124. I transcribe adda-šú with pagaršu “his (then still living) body” rather than with šalamtašu “his corpse”, because I understand this line as a variant of the report about Šulgi being clad in leprosy as his punishment (cf. Source 49, obv. 18–20). Although the spelling dù-tú is epigraphically clear and rather simple, the word has not been read and translated so far. In the given context it may be either interpreted as nēpeštu “performance (of extispicy, or of a medical or magical operation)”, or as epištu “act (of evil magic)”. In fact, either term basically means “performance”. They simply mean an “act” (*epēšu) being “performed” (*epēšu) with a certain aim, positive or negative. The orthography of the term, i.e. dù-tú, speaks in favour of nēpeštu, which is regularly written *dù-(eš)-ti/(tú, etc).1733 Apart from that, *nēpeštu “(magical or medical) treatment” makes good sense here, too, since the chronicle reports that Šulgi had been suffering from a disease imposed on him by Marduk as a penance for a sacrilege he committed. In like manner, the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 71) and the religious chronicle from Uruk dealing with Šulgi (Source 49, obv. 18–20) report various bits of a tradition that had it that Šulgi had polluted the purification rites of Marduk, and that he had been consequently punished by Marduk with leprosy. So, an unsuccessful magical and medical treatment (nēpeštu) of Šulgi’s illness is but a logical ending of the wicked king’s life.1734 Only in order to be complete in considering possible readings, I note that one might be tempted to read dù-tú as ēpištu “sorceress”. For this term however, we should expect a clear syllabic writing (*e-piš-tú), or something like munusdù-tú. When looking for further alternatives, one might think of reading ṣal!-tú = ṣaltu “quarrel”, or ni!-tú = nītu (or nīṭu), a term for some disease, perhaps “bloody excrement”.1735 Reading bānītu “creatrix” is no option, since one expects the term to be used in combination with ummu “mother” and to bear a suffix: *ummu bānīssu “the mother who begot him”. Furthermore, mothers killing their wicked sons – though an interesting idea – is not a topos in the ancient Near East. And after all, since even the first millennium still remembered that Šulgi had died after ruling for 48 years (Source 49, rev. 3’) it would have been quite difficult for his frail mother to kill him, even in historical fiction.

1733 See CAD N/II, pp. 166–167, s.v. nēpeštu 1–2. 1734 On the general subject of “rituals going wrong”, in the ancient Near East and beyond,

see Hüsken 2007; Ambos 2007, pp. 28–30 on “the gods refusing communication”.

1735 CAD N/II, p. 302, s.v. nīṭu (nītu): úš-šè-da = ni-i-tu in a list of diseases, SB recension; CT

19, pl. 45, K 264, obv. 19’ = MSL IX, p. 96, l. 161.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

466

Source 49: Chronicle from Uruk: The Sins of Šulgi Obj: Prov: Date:

Religious chronicle dealing with Šulgi. Uruk. Copy of an older original; copy dated to the Seleucid era: [Uruk,] Ab 21, 61st year, reign of Antiochos (II) = August 15, 251 BCE. Lit: Hunger 1976, pp. 19–20, 123, no. 2 (W 22289); collated from the photographs: no. 13017, 13018; courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, Berlin. – Wilcke 1982, cols. 143–144 on text no. 2. – Beaulieu 1993a, p. 50. – Jonker 1995, pp. 88–89. – Cavigneaux 2005. – Glassner 1993a, pp. 229–230, no. 47. – Glassner 2005a, pp. 288–292, no. 48. – Lämmerhirt 2010, pp. 282–283. Cont: Sacrileges committed by Šulgi against Babylon and Uruk; cf. also the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), l. 71, and the excerpt from the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 48). On these traditions about Šulgi see the discussion in chapter 7.3, king no. 11 (ll. 70–71, 75 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). Invocation (1) [ina amāt Anu u Antu mi]mma eppuš(u) ina qātīya lišlim lalâšu lušbi Obv. – [By the command of Anu and Antu, w]hatever I do, may it prosper in my hands (and) may I enjoy it. – [ina enim d60 u an-tu4 mi]m-ma ep-pu-uš ina šumin-ia liš-lim la-la-a-šú lu-uš-bu Ur-Namma (2) [ina Uri] Ur-Namma šarru(mma) 18 šanāti īpuš – [At Ur,] Ur-Namma (became) king and exercised (kingship) for 18 years. – [ina úrik]i Iur-dnamma lugal mu 18 in-a5 Šulgi (3) [Š]ulgi šar Uri apil Ur-Namma (4) [gām]erūt mātāti kalâšina īpuš – [Š]ulgi king of Ur, firstborn son of Ur-Namma, exercised the [sup]remacy over all the lands. – [I.dš]ul-gi lugal úriki a Iur-dnamma [ga-m]e-ru-tu kur-kur ka-la-ši-na i-pu-uš [(…)](-)Bangar u Rabsisi šarrānī ša māt Subartu ibēl – He dominated [(…)](-)Bangar and Rabsisi the kings of the land of Subartu. – [I(…)](-)ban-ga-ár ù Irab-si-si lugalmeš šá kur su-bir4ki i-be-el (5)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

[ilān]ī māt nukurti išlul – He took as booty [the god]s of the enemy land(s). – [diĝirm]eš kur nu-kúr-ti iš-lu-lu (6)

[makkū]r Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati uštēṣi – He brought out the [propert]y of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty.1736 – [níĝ-g]a é-saĝ-íl u tin-tirki ina šil-lat uš-te-ṣi (7)

[Eĝ]išnugal bīt Sîn ša qereb Uri īpušma ušakli[l] [dū]r Uri īpušma išid Uri ukī[n] – He built and comple[ted Eĝ]išnugal, the temple of Sîn at Ur. He built the [wa]ll of Ur and made the foundation of Ur fir[m]. – [é-ĝ]iš-nu11-gal é d30 šá qé-reb úriki dù-uš-ma ú-šak-li[l] [bà]d úriki dù-uš-ma suḫuš úriki ú-ki[n] (8) (9)

Šulgi mār mārti ša Utu-ḫeĝal šar Uruk [u⌉ Lu-Nanna iginutukû ummânu[š] – Šulgi (who was) the son of the daughter of Utu-ḫeĝal king of Uruk, [an]d blind Lu-Nanna, [his] scholar, – [I.]⌈d⌉šul-gi dumu dumu-munus šá I.dutu-ḫé-en-ĝál lugal unugk[i] [ù⌉ Ilú-dnanna igimin-nu-tuku lúum-man-nu-[šú] (10) (11)

[le]muttu ina libbīšunu ibbašī[ma] – got [e]vil intentions in their hearts, [and so] – [ḫ]ul-tì ina šà-bi-šú-nu ib-ba-ši-[ma] (12)

[pa]raṣ Anūti uṣurāti ša Uruk [n]iṣirti ummânī ša lā simāt unakk[ir(ma)] – (Šulgi) altered the [ri]tes of the office of Anu, the ordinances of Uruk, the [s]ecret of the scholars in an unbefitting way, [and] – [ĝar]za d60-ú-tu ĝiš-ḫur*meš šá unug[ki] [n]i-ṣir-ti lúum-man-nu šá la si-mat u-nak-k[ir-(ma)] (13) (14)

[pa]lāḫ Sîn bēl Uri išṭur[ma] – he wrote (instead the order) to [re]vere Sîn the lord of Ur. – [pa]-laḫ d30 be-lu úri*ki iš-ṭur-[ma] (15)

(16) (17)

[ina p]alêšu narâ surrāti ṭuppi šillāti [ša šul]uḫḫī ilūti išṭurma īzib

1736 Or “… as (a result of) blasphemy”, see the commentary on Source 48, rev. 7.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

467

Edition of the Sources

468

– [During] his [r]eign he wrote and left (to posterity) a stele (full) of lies, and a tablet of blasphemy [dealing with] the divine rites of [puri]fication. – [ina b]ala-e-šú na4-rú-a sur-ra-at dub-pi šil-latmeš [šá šu-l]uḫ-ḫa diĝir-ra iš-ṭur-ma i-zib [An]u šarru ša šīmātūšu rabbâ ikkelmēšū́ma – [An]u, the king whose lots are great, frowned at him and – [d6]0 lugal šá ši-ma-tu-šú rab-ba-aʾ ik-kel-me-šú-ma (18)

[saḫaršupp]â šēressu rabīta [ša Šulg]i zumuršu ulabbiš – clad the body of [Šulg]i in [lepros]y, his (: the god’s) great punishment. – [saḫar-šub-ba]-a še-ret-su ra-bi-tu4 [šá I.dšul-g]i zu-mur*-šú ú-lab-biš (19) (20)

Rev.

(21)

[x x x x] ⌈x x x x x x x x x x⌉ [x x]

(1’)

[x x x x] ⌈x⌉ [x x x x x x x x x x x]

[. . . . .]. . (šanîš): amūt Egi-[batila ša . . .] lā īšû – [. . . . .]. .; (variant): (it is an) omen concerning Egi-[batila who] had no [. . .] – [x x x m]eš 𒑲 bà-ut Ie4-gi7-[ba-ti-la šá x x] nu tuku-ú (2’)

[4]⌈8⌉ šanāti [Šulgi šarrūt]a īpuš – For [4]⌈8⌉ years [Šulgi] exercised [kingshi]p. – [4]⌈8⌉ mu-an-na[meš I.dšul-gi lugal-t]ú i-pu-uš (3’)

Amar-Sîn [Amar]-Suʾena 9 šanāti [š]arrūta īpu[š] – [Amar]-Suʾena exercis[ed k]ingship for 9 years. – [Iamar]-d+en.zu-na mu 10 ⌈lá 1⌉ [l]ugal-ú-tú i-pu-[uš] Colophon (5’) [kīma] labīrīšu šaṭirma bari u uppuš g[abari lē]ʾi makkūr [Anu u Antu] – [According] to its original written, checked, and comleted. C[opy of a wooden] tablet, property of [Anu and Antu]. – [gin7] sumun-šú sar-ma ba-rù ù up-puš4 g[aba-ri ĝišd]a níĝ-ga ⌈d⌉[60 u an-tu4] (4’)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

469

[ṭuppi] Anu-aḫa-ušabši apli ša Kidin-Anu līp-l[īp Ekur-zākir] mašmaš [Anu u Antu] – [Tablet of] Anu-aḫa-ušabši, firstborn son of Kidin-Anu, off[spring of Ekur-zākir], exorcist of [Anu and Antu], – [dub] ⌈I⌉d60-šeš-ĝál-ši a šá Iki-din-d60 lú šà-bal-b[al Ié-kur-za-kir] ⌈lúmaš-maš⌉ [d60 u an-tu4] (6’)

[aḫ]i-rabî ša Bīt-rēš Urukû qāt [Anu]-balāssu-[iqbi mārīšu] – [hi]gh priest of the Bīt-rēš, the Urukean. Handwriting of [Anu]-balāssu-[iqbi, his son]. – [lúše]š-gal-i šá é-re-eš unugki-ú qa-át [I.d60]-tin-su-[e dumu-šú] (7’)

[ana] aḫāzīšu arāk ūmīšu balāṭ napš[ātīšu] [u kunn-išd]īšu [išṭurma] – [He wrote it (as a practice) for] his learning, so that his days may be long, for [his] well-being, [and so that] his [statu]s [may be made stable, and] – [ana] ⌈a⌉-ḫa-a-zi-šú gíd-da u4meš-šú tin zim[eš-šú] [u gin suḫu]š*m[eš*]-⌈šú*⌉1737 [sar-ma] (8’)

[ina Uruk] u Bīt-rēš bīt bēlūtīšu ukīn – he placed it [at Uruk] and at the Bīt-rēš, the temple of his (: Anu’s) supremacy. – [ina unug]ki u é-re-eš é en-ú-ti-šú ú-⌈kin⌉ (9’)

[Uruk] (araḫ) Ab 21. ūmu 61. šattu, Antiʾīkusu šar mātāti – [Uruk,] (month) Ab, 21st day, 61st year (of the Seleucid era), (reign of) Antiochos (II), king of (all) the lands. – [unugki] ⌈iti⌉ne u4-21-kam mu-60+šu–1-kam Ian-ti-ʾi-ku-su lugal kur-kur (10’)

Com: When the tablet was still complete, it dealt with the deeds of Šulgi only, inserted into two short notes on the reigns of his father and predecessor UrNamma (obv. 2), and of Amar-Sîn, his son und successor (rev. 4’). The text seems to be an elaborated version of the Sumerian King List, extended with pieces of later and partly legendary information. Cavigneaux (2005, pp. 70–72) offers the certainly correct idea that the figure of Šulgi may also have served here as a foil in order to discuss problematic contemporary kings like Nabopolassar or Nabonidus without giving their names.1738 However, understanding “Šulgi” in this text as a mere cover-name goes too far. That the Babylonians nevertheless meant the historical king Šulgi in the first place is apparent from the fact that the report on him is framed by short remarks on his predecessor Ur-Namma (obv. 2) and on 1737 There are clear traces of the deeply cut wedges in the break. 1738 See also Beaulieu 2007, pp. 138–139; Waerzeggers 2017, pp. 73–75.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

470

Edition of the Sources

Amar-Sîn, his successor (rev. 4’), even giving their correct numbers of ruling years. The text also refers to the historical figures of Utu-ḫeĝal and Lu-Nanna (obv. 10– 11). Furthermore, the report conforms to the corresponding passages of the Chronicle of Early Kings (Source 48) and of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 71). Obv. 2: In introducing Ur-Namma as the founder of the new Dynasty of Ur, the text employs the same formula as the Sumerian King List: – *úriki-ma ur-dnamma lugal-àm mu 18 ì-a5 / in-a51739 “At Ur, Ur-Namma became king and ruled for 18 years.” One is tempted to restore the beginning of the line as [úriki-m]a instead of [ina úrik]i and to read the whole line in Sumerian: [Urim]a Ur-Namma lugalam mu 18 inak. However, the three long, extended verticals which are clearly visible in the break at the beginning of the line are found much more often with the sign ki than with -ma. Nevertheless, the chronicle leaves the impression of being a late edition of excerpts of the Sumerian King List, elaborated by orally transmitted anecdotes or legends. 3–4: Lines 3–4 and 6–7 can be restored from a Late Babylonian school text, which quotes the same pieces of information virtually verbally. There, only Šulgi’s title “king of Ur” is left out in the first line of the quote: (rev. 23) [I]dšul-gi a Iur-dnamma ga-mi-ru-ut kur-kur1740 (24) ka-la-ši-na i-pu-uš (25) diĝir-diĝir kur nu-kúr-ti iš-lul (26) níĝ-ga é-saĝ-íl u tin-⌈tir⌉ki ina šil-lat è 5: Another and more elaborate version of the story of Šulgi, Bangar and Rabsisi is probably told in the following apodose of a historical omen:1741 – (14) […](-)Bangar u Rabsisi šarrānī ša m[āt Subartu] (15) ́ aḫu aḫāšu idūk [… uštaṣbi]ssunūtīma – […](-)Bangar and Rabsisi the kings of the l[and Subartu,] [“… Šulgi? cause]d them [to quarrel with each other] and they killed one another (lit.: brother killed his brother).” 1739 Reconstructed Old Babylonian version, following Jacobsen 1939, p. 122, VIII:9–10; =

online edition: ETCSL, text 2.1.1, ll. 341–342. For individual texts see e.g. manuscript P5 (= Poebel, PBS 5, no. 5, rev. IV:1): úriki-ma ur-dnamma-ke4 lugal-àm mu 18 in-⌈a5]. The older Ur III text used a slightly varying phrase: úriki-ma / ur-dnamma-ke4 / mu 20 lá 2 ì-na (Steinkeller 2003, pp. 273–274, ll. VI:31’–33’). 1740 Leichty & Walker 2004, pp. 203–204, BM 22115, rev. 23–26. See also Source 48. 1741 CT 51, no. 152, rev. 14–15, middle Assyrian (Nougayrol 1973); Hunger 1976, p. 20. There are two more fragmentary attestations of probably the same episode. The texts belong (with CT 51, no. 152) to the same group of the omens of Source 29 and Source 30. They have been discussed by De Zorzi 2016, pp. 130, 134–138. The one gives the additional information that they were “kings of Subartu and G[utium]”: Gurney, OECT 11, no. 79 (photo: CDLI no. P348953), (rev.) 99: [...] lugalmeš šá kur su-bir4ki u g[u-ti-um ...]; the addition u g[u-ti-um ...] is now missing from the text in the photograph. The other one is K 9589 (unpublished, photo: CDLI no. P398208), rev. 8–9: [… ba-ĝa]r u rab-si-si / [20meš ́ šá kur su-bir4ki (u gu-ti-um?) … uštaṣbissunūtī-m]a šeš šeš-šú gaz-k[u].

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

471

–

[…](-)ba-ĝar ù! rab-si-si 20meš šá k[ur su-bir4ki] [… uš-taṣ-bi]t-su-nu-ti-ma šeš šeš-šú gaz[(-uk)] This story has been recently discussed by De Zorzi (2016, pp. 134–138). She seeks to combine the tradition with another historical omen dealing with “Marran and Ḫadiruš, kings of Subartu and Gutium” who laid siege to Nippur and who killed one another in a panic, certainly inflicted on them by Enlil. De Zorzi reconstructs the Bangar-Rabsisi omen quoted above (CT 51, no. 152, rev. 14–15) differently, restoring a panic – parallel to the ́ Marran-Ḫadiruš omen – which fell ([šu]b-su-nu-ti-ma = [imqu]ssunūtīma, rev. 15) upon Bangar and Rabsisi. However, I am sorry to say I cannot follow her in this point. Apart from the fact that the Marran-Ḫadiruš omen deals with a different personage and a different setting, the storyline reconstructed by De Zorzi would no longer deal with Šulgi’s (mis)deeds – which, however, are the topic of this text – but with Bangar’s and Rabsisi’s; see also the commentary on obv. 6–7 below. Following Cavingeaux (2005, p. 64, note 8), De Zorzi (2016, p. 136) reconstructs line 6 as [ištēn]iš ([iš-te-n]iš) māt nukurti išlulū “[togeth]er they (i.e. Šulgi, Bangar and Rabsisi) pillaged the enemy country”. This reconstruction would justify an active role of Bangar and Rabsisi in a chronicle dealing with Šulgi. However, the copy and collation from the photograph show that the two winkelhaken discernible in the break do certainly not belong to -niš,1742 but display the typical sloping end of the late Babylonian sign meš. So the choice to make is reading [diĝirm]eš, parallel to diĝir-diĝir in the excerpt quoted above in the commentary on obv. 3–4. On iš-lu-lu = išlul see the commentary below on obv. 6–7. So, as in the excerpt, it is rather certainly only Šulgi acting alone and not three kings “together” (*ištēniš). Since in the chronicle under discussion and, partly restored, in the omen from CT 51, no. 152, rev. 14–15 quoted above, Bangar and Rabsisi are jointly called “kings of the land of Subartu”,1743 they appear to have been envisaged as brothers. So the note that they killed “one another” (aḫu aḫāšu) can be understood more literally as “one brother killed the other”. For šutaṣbutu (ṣabātu Št lex.) “to cause (two people) to quarrel” (causative to ṣabātu Gt) see CAD Ṣ p. 40, s.v. ṣabātu 12b. For the combination with aḫum aḫam “brother against brother/against one another” see ibidem p. 34, s.v. ṣabātu 9, a) 1’: atta u nakirka taṣṣabbatāma (ṣabātu Gt, pres.) aḫum aḫam ušamqat “you and your enemy will get into a fight, and one will destroy the other” (YOS 10, no. 50:8; Old Babylonian omen). Superficially, the name *(…-)Bangar ([I(…)](-)ban-ga-ár / […](-)ba-ĝar) looks like the reflection of a Sumerian name of the type /DN-ba-an-√/, which

1742 Compare the numeral 20 (= niš) in the colophon: u4-21-kam (rev. 9’). 1743 In another omen they are called “kings of Subartu and G[utium]”, see note 1741. This

could mean two kings ruling two different realms, but note that they are not called “PN1 king of Subartu and PN2 king of G[utium]”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

472

6–7:

Edition of the Sources

was quite common in the Neo-Sumerian onomasticon.1744 However, since there are no examples with the transitive root ĝar “to establish”, I suppose that the name is foreign. Hallo proposes to equate this figure with a ruler of Simurrum by the name Tabban-Daraḫ, known from Old Babylonian omens and appearing in documents from Puzriš-Dagān dated to the reign of Šulgi.1745 To make the names meet, he reads the present entry (obv. 5) as “[Tab-b]an-garaš”.1746 This is epigraphically unlikely and on the whole not even close to *-Daraḫ. With the second figure, (I)rab-si-si, Hallo is a little bit more successful. He refers to another text from PuzrišDagān that lists cattle delivered by two “men from Kimaš” who appear to be *Ḫun(ḫ)ili1747 the ruler of Kimaš and probably his son, ra-ši-ŠI.1748 So here is after all a prince from a region north of Babylonia whose name bears some resemblance to that of Rabsisi prince of Subartu, at least on the graphic level. It is not excluded however, that ra-ši-ŠI is to be read as the Akkadian name ra-ši-lim = *Rāši-ilim “Having-a-(guarding)-god”.1749 And since the text from Puzriš-Dagān is dated to the fifth year of AmarSîn, this Ra-ši-ŠI clearly outlived Šulgi, which is at odds with the legend under discussion. Last but not least, Hallo unconvincingly traces Rabsisi in a broken part of the Šulgi Prophecy.1750 These lines are quoted nearly verbally in a Late Babylonian school text, see the commentary above on obv. 3–4. Since this text deals with Šulgi alone and obviously tells the same story with more “properly” spelled verbal forms, the comments by Cavigneaux (2005, p. 64) are outdated. He wondered whether Bangar and Rabsisi might be the subjects of line 6. Since at this late period forms like i-be-el (l. 5) can also stand for the apocopated plural (*ibēlū) with the ending left unpronounced as in (later) Aramaic, and since forms like iš-lu-lu (l. 6) can, of course, stand for the singular *išlul, the question who is acting in these lines cannot be answered by the grammar. The paragraph could equally be read with the Subarean kings acting: “[(…)](-)Bangar and Rabsisi, the kings who ruled (*ibēlū) Subartu and took as booty (*išlulū) [the god]s of the enemy land(s).” In this case, however, the chronicle would not deal with the (mis)deeds of Šulgi, but with theirs. So, even without the excerpt quoted above in the commentary on obv. 3–4, it is quite clear that it is Šulgi acting, as in the rest of the chronicle. Furthermore, the use of the term māt nukurti (“enemy land”) suggests that the story is told from an

1744 See Limet 1968, pp. 84–85 for names with intrasitive roots like ba-an-zi(-g) “(DN) has

risen”, and ba-an-ša6 “(DN) has ben gracious towards him/her”.

1745 Hallo 1978, pp. 75–76; Goetze 1947, pp. 259–260, nos. 25–27; see also Vacín 2011, pp.

171–172; Molina 2011–2013 (RlA 13), p. 452.

1746 Obviously with -ga-ár = -ga-kaskal! = -ga-raš, which is difficult, to say the least. 1747 Edzard & Röllig 1976–1980 (RlA 5), p. 593; see also Frayne, RIME 3/2, p. 456. 1748 ḫu-un-ḫi-li /…/ ra-ši-ŠI / lú ki-maški-me “PN1 and PN2, they are men from Kimaš”

(Boson 1936, no. 140, obv. 2, 4–5).

1749 On the name see Stamm 1939, p. 252. 1750 Hallo 1978, pp. 75–76 with note 60 (copy of the traces).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

10:

11:

473

indigenous point of yiew, i.e. dealing with Babylonian (or Sumerian) deeds directed against “the others”, and not with quarrels among foreigners. Lines obv. 6–7 underline the “godless” character of Šulgi. He not only plundered foreign gods, but also laid his hands on Babylonian sanctuaries, even on Esaĝil. On the meaning of the catchphrase makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati šūṣû “to bring out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty” see the discussion of sacrilege B on p. 124 above. On the relationship of šillatu I/II and šallatu, perhaps playing on the meanings “blasphemy” and “booty”, see the commentary on Source 48, rev. 7. “Šulgi, the son of a daughter of Utu-ḫeĝal king of Uruk”: This tradition – which is not corroborated by contemporary data from the Ur III-period – may be a late reminiscence that the dynasties of Uruk and Ur were related to each other. As Wilcke has shown, Utu-ḫeĝal and Ur-Namma were probably brothers, according to a fragmented, but very plausibly reconstructed votive inscription from Ur.1751 Given this information and combining it with the tradition from the chronicle, Ur-Namma would have married his niece.1752 This seems to be a conjuncion a little bit too close, and since the chronicle in turn is silent about Ur-Namma and Utuḫeĝal being brothers, the statement is probably just a late variation on the tradition that the dynasties of Ur III and Uruk V were related to one another. For the chronicler, it was probably only important that Šulgi was akin to Utu-ḫeĝal of Uruk, the city of Anu, and that he nevertheless tampered with Anu’s cult impiously.1753 The historical mother of Šulgi was the wife of Ur-Namma, by the name Watartum. As suggested by her devotion towards the goddess Ĝeštin-anna, she may well have come from the ruling families of Lagaš, and not from the Urukean branch of the dynasty, which also makes much more sense politically.1754 The scholar Lu-Nanna was quite famous in the first millennium. It is certainly him who is referred to in the series Bīt mēseri in the list of the “seven sages”: “The fourth (brilliant apkallu is) Lu-Nanna, (yet only) twothirds apkallu, who caused the ušumgallu-dragon to leave E-nin-kar-nunna (var. E-nin-kiʾaĝ-nunna), the temple of Ištar of Šulgi.”1755 Here, too, the eminent scholar Lu-Nanna is apparently remembered for a professional blunder or a sacrilege.1756 Lu-Nanna bears the title apkallu “sage” also in

1751 See Wilcke 1974, pp. 180, 192–193 with note 67 on Gadd & Legrain, UET 1, no. 30 (=

1752 1753 1754 1755 1756

Frayne, RIME 2, pp. 295–296, no. 2001): Votive inscription dedicated to [Ning]al for the sake of Utu-ḫeĝal, by Ur-[Namma], gover[nor] of Ur, [his] br[other] (š[eš-a-né]). See also Sallaberger 1999, p. 132, with note 38. Wilcke 1982, cols. 143–144 on text no. 2; idem 1989, pp. 563–564. As pointed out by Wilcke 1982, col. 144; idem 1988a, p. 129. Weiershäuser 2008, pp. 25–28; eadem 2012. Reiner 1961, pp. 3, 5 ll. 24’–27’, pp. 7, 11; Lambert 1957, p. 7; Borger 1974, p. 192; Wilcke 1988a, pp. 129–130; see also Lenzi 2008a, pp. 110–111, 116. Rather thus, than a “miracle” (Wilcke 1988a, p. 129). The lists mentions also some of his apkallu-colleagues for their sins.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

474

12:

13:

14:

17:

Edition of the Sources

the colophon of a medical text: “a secret of Lu-Nanna, sage of Ur”.1757 Certainly the same Lu-Nanna is also mentioned as the author of the Series Etana in the Catalogue of Texts and Authors from the first millennium.1758 As Haul points out, a certain “Lu-Nanna, scholar and son of the king” mentioned in a document from Ĝirsu dated probably to the early reign of Ibbi-Sîn deserves attention, even though the name Lu-Nanna appears to have been quite common during the Third Dynasty of Ur.1759 Despite Haul’s reservations, I think it is quite probable that the famous scholar LuNanna was no one else but the well-known son of Šulgi.1760 Following Borger (AfO 23, 1970, p. 10) and Wilcke (1982, col. 143) I suppose that the Akkadian equivalent of the Sumerian term igi-nu-tuku “havingno-eye(s)” was a loanword in *iginutukû (not in the dictionaries, but see the similar munutukû “having-no-name > -no-heir” (CAD M/II, p. 208). Haul (2000, p. 37, note 123) interprets the remark on Lu-Nanna’s blindness as a depreciatory assessment of his scholarship by the clergy of Uruk. There is probably no room to restore a phrase like [e-peš ḫ]ul-tì “doing evil” at the beginning of the line. Reading [munusḫ]ul-tì probably is no option either, since lemuttu normally is written with one feminine marker only, i.e. either munusḫul or ḫul-tì. The family of Kidin-Anu1761 obviously was very much involved in the “proper” conservation and restoration of the rites of Anu at Uruk. The colophon of another tablet dealing with the performance of the daily cult of Anu gives the information that these texts had been taken as spoil from Uruk by Nabopolassar and given away to Elam.1762 Later, they had been identified in Elam by the very Kidin-Anu and had been restored to Uruk. Here, the phrase ša lā simāt (status absolutus plural) “not being befitting” cannot be an attribute to the rites, since the original rites were, of course, “befitting”. It has to be understood as an adverbial phrase illustrating the result of Šulgi’s improper action (unakkir “he altered”). The term šu-luḫ-ḫa diĝir-ra = šuluḫḫū ilūti “the divine purification rites” also appears in the colophon of a tablet giving the regulations for the performance of the daily cult of Anu and other gods in the temples at

Lambert 1957, p. 7; K 8080: ni-ṣir-ti lú-dnanna abgal úriki. Lambert 1962, p. 66, no. VI, l. 11; Haul 2000, pp. 37–38. Haul 2000, pp. 37–38 with note 124: lú-dnanna um-mi-a dumu lugal. Frayne, RIME 3/2, pp. xxxviii, 168. The present tablet had been written by his grandson, see rev. 6’. On the family of Kidin-Anu see recently Boiy 2010. 1762 Colophon of a tablet giving regulations for the performance of the daily cult of Anu and other gods in the temples at Uruk. The tablet had been copied by a certain Šamašēṭir from a wooden tablet written by Kidin-Anu during the coregency of the kings Seleucos (I) and Antiochos (I), i.e. in 294–281 BCE. At that time, Kidin-Anu had been copying texts in Elam which had been carried off from Uruk by Nabopolassar 300 years earlier; see Thureau-Dangin 1921, pp. 65, 79–80, 86, AO 6451, rev. 43–50, = TCL 6, no. 38; Hunger 1968, p. 46, no. 107; Beaulieu 1993a, pp. 47–49; Linssen 2004, pp. 175– 176, 179; Waerzeggers 2010, pp. 115–118. 1757 1758 1759 1760 1761

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

475

Uruk, written by Kidin-Anu, the grandfather of the present scribe.1763 In the view of the Urukean scholars, that tablet obviously held the “proper” rites of Anu as opposed to those Šulgi had wrongfully introduced. 18: The divine name at the beginning of the line is nearly completely broken off. Wilcke (1982, col. 143) restored Anu ([d6]0). Indeed, there are traces of a final vertical wedge and the end of a horizontal passing through it, apparently the rest of the divine determinative ahead. Anu, consistently written d60 throughout this text, had, of course, every reason to punish Šulgi. The punishment imposed on Šulgi (ll. 19–20) is very probably saḫaršuppû “leprosy”, a disease very often inflicted by Sîn (see below). However, to make the name of Sîn match the traces we would have to restore [d+en.z]u, an orthography which is not used for Sîn in the text at hand. In lines obv. 8 and 15 his name is written d30. In Source 48, it is clearly Bēl-Marduk who frowns at Šulgi and punishes him, although that text does not mention leprosy verbatim. 19–20: The character of the disease which is to be restored in the break is indicated by the phrase zumuršu ulabbiš “he clad his body (in it)”, so saḫaršuppû “leprosy” is the choice to make.1764 Since the text also says that this disease is a šērtu rabītu “(a god’s) great punishment”, we may in line 18 think of Sîn as the deity who inflicted it: saḫaršuppû “leprosy” is the classic “great punishment” imposed by Sîn.1765 However, the traces of the divine name in line 18 rather read “Anu ([d6]0)”. The classic “great punishment” inflicted by Marduk (and Ea, sometimes also by Sîn) is aganutillû “dropsy” (CAD A/I, p. 144). Rev. 2’: Egi-batila (also shortened to “Egibi”) is probably the Sumerianized form of a name like *Sîn-(m)uballiṭ “Sîn has kept/keeps alive”.1766 It is quite a common Babylonian family name from the 8th century on in Babylon and in Uruk.1767 The family name goes back to probably more than one person, and it is neither clear to whom the line here refers, nor how that person was connected to Šulgi. 3’: The number of Šulgi’s regnal years may perhaps also read [4]⌈6⌉. This is the number given by some manuscripts of the Sumerian King List, see Jacobsen 1939, p. 122, VIII:12; online edition: ETCSL, text 2.1.1, line 344.

1763 See the preceding footnote; TCL 6, no. 38, rev. 44: šu-luḫ-ḫa diĝir-ra. 1764 For saḫaršuppû “clothing a body like a garment” see the numerous examples in CAD S,

pp. 36–37, s.v.

1765 See CAD S, pp. 36–37, s.v. saḫaršubbû (saḫaršuppû); CAD Š/II, p. 325, s.v. šērtu B, 2b, 1’. 1766 The term e4-gi7 means literally “noble seed” = mār rubê “princely son”. The compound

is also used as a term for “prince” alone: e4-gi7 (A-KU) with gloss e-gu = rubû “prince” (Frame, RIMB 2, p. 55, no. B.2.8.5, l. 6; CAD R, p. 396 s.v. rubû, lex.). In another orthography, the term appears as egi or égir (KU/ŠÈ) = rubû(/rubātu) “prince(ss)”. With a divine determinative, the term e4-gi7 can designate the god Sîn, “the princely son”: de4-gi7 = d30 dumu ru-[bé-e] (CT 25, pl. 49, rev. 6). 1767 F.E. Peiser, in: MVAG 1897, no. 4, p. 14; Lambert 1957, p. 4; Tallqvist 1914, pp. 57–58, equating the name with *Sîn-uballiṭ; Wunsch 2000/I, p. 1, note 3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

476

6’: 9’:

Edition of the Sources

In the colophon of BRM 4, no. 8, l. 36 (Hunger 1968, no. 87), Anu-aḫa-ušabši is simply called “son” (dumu = māru) of Kidin-Anu. In the colophon BRM 4, no. 7, ll. 46–47 (Hunger 1968, no. 87), Anu-balāssuiqbi uses the same phrase: ina unugki u é-re-eš / é en-ú-ti-šú ú-kin = ina Uruk u Bīt-rēš bīt bēlūtīšu ukīn. One is inclined to understand the unusual use of the conjunction u “and” which combines the city of Uruk and the Bīt-rēš as an explenation: “at Uruk, namely in the Bīt-rēš.” However, perhaps he indeed meant he placed one copy into the library of the Bīt-rēš and another one as a reserve into a municipal library or archive at Uruk.

Source 50: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 5) Obj:

Omens from the liver ([padānu] “path”) Text A: JCS 29, 1977, pp. 160, 166: Rm 2, 553, ll. 2’–3’. Text B: JCS 29, 1977, pp. 162, 166: D.T. 39, ll. 5’–6’. Text C: CT 20, pl. 26, K 2146+6270, obv. 1’–2’. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (C, probably also A and B). Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Starr 1977, pp. 160–162. – Koch-Westenholz 2000, p. 244, l. 137. Cont: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 5). On Amar-Sîn see chapter 7.3, king no. 12 (ll. 72–73 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). – [šumma . . . padānu . . .] amūt Amar-Suʾena šarri ša ina nikip al[pi mâtu] (indented) qabû]šumma ina nišik šēni imūtū́m[a] [ – [If . . . the path . . .,] (it is) an omen of king Amar-Suʾena, for whom (indented) it was ordained to die] from the goring of an o[x], [ and who (actually) died from the ‘bite’ of (his) sandal. (2’) [be . . . ĝíri . . . ] ⌈x⌉ bà-ut amar-d+en.zu-na lugal šá ina ni-kip g[u4 úš] A (3’) [ (indented) du11-ga]-šum-ma ina ni-šik kuše-sír úš-m[a!] (5’) [be . . . ĝíri . . . bà-ut a]mar-d+en.zu-na [lugal šá ina ni-kip gu4 úš] B (6’) [ (indented) du11-ga-šum-ma ina n]i-šik kuše-sír úš-[ma] (1’) [be . . . ĝíri . . . bà-ut amar-d+en.zu-na lugal šá ina ni-ki]p [gu4 úš] C (2’) [ (indented) du11-ga-šum-ma ina ni-šik] ⌈kuše-sír⌉ ⌈úš⌉-[ma] Com: Death of Amar-Sîn of Ur; for the Old Babylonian precursors see Source 28. With the element nikip alpi (“goring of an ox”) going first and nišik šēni (“bite of a sandal”) following, the omen adheres to the logic of the late narrative of the death of Amar-Sîn as told by the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 72–73), see the discussion on pp. 161f. In fact, the apodosis of the present omen and line 73 of the Esaĝil Chronicle appear to quote rather verbally the same tradition. Starr’s (1977, p. 160) reconstruction of manuscript A ignores the break on the left side which took away the beginnings of lines 2’ and 3’. So the signs -šum-ma in line 3’ belong to the phrase [qabû]šumma which corresponds to the phrases iqbīšumma and qabīšu[mma] in the same story told by the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 73). There is no second šumma introducing a variant apodosis. The comments by Hallo (1991, p. 159) on this omen are obsolete in this respect. The reconstruction by

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

477

Koch-Westenholz (2000, p. 244, l. 137 with note 640) conflates the omen with the precursors from Source 28. Source 51: Omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur (ASO 6) Obj:

Omens from the liver (ekal ubāni “palace of the finger”). Text A: AfO 26, 1978–1979, p. 46, K 3816+6777, obv. 3. Text B: JCS 68, 2016, p. 103, A 16949, obv. 3’. Prov: (Babylonia); text A is from Nineveh, text B perhaps also. Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Starr 1977, pp. 162–163. – Starr 1978–1979, pp. 47, 49, obv. 3. – Heeßel 2016. Cont: Omen of “Būr-Sîn” of Isin, respectively of “Amar-Sîn” of Ur (ASO 6). On Amar-Sîn see chapter 7.3, king no. 12 (ll. 72–73 of the Esaĝil Chronicle, Source 35). See on this omen the brief comment on p. 164 above. ́ deki amūt Būr-Sîn (A) / – šumma ina rēš ekal ubāni šīlu nadīma Amar-Suʾena (B) šarri ša ina ekallīšu qāt marušti ikšudū́šu – If there is a hole at the top of the ‘palace of the finger’ and it is raised, (it is) an omen of king Būr-Sîn (A) / Amar-Suʾena (B) whom a ‘hand of misfortune’ reached in his palace. A be ina saĝ é-gal šu-si bùru šub-di-ma de-ki bà-ut bur-d30 lugal šá ina é-gal-šú šu níĝ-⌈gig⌉ kur-du-šú B [be ina saĝ é-gal šu-si bùru šub-di-ma d]e-ki bà-ut amar-d+en(!).zu-na lugal ⌈šá⌉ ina é-gal-šú šu níĝ-g[ig kur-du-šú] Com: Although the topic of the protasis is the “hole” (šīlu), as in the Old Babylonian omens of Source 28, the apodosis does not present the classic tradition on Amar-Sîn of Ur. Furthermore, manuscript A combines this omen with the name of the Old Babylonian king Būr-Sîn (of Isin). Either name means “Bull-Calf-of-Sîn”. However, it is not possible to write the name Amar-Sîn (or more properly AmarSuʾena) with the sign bur-. But it is possible, even if so far unattested,1768 to write the name Būr-Sîn with the sign amar = būru. So the – faulty – transformation of this omen probably was as follows: Būr-Sîn > (*AMAR-den.zu) > Amar-den.zu-na. I suppose that this omen was originally an omen of Būr-Sîn of Isin which only secondarily was transformed into an omen of Amar-Sîn of Ur by a misspelling. Heeßel (2016, pp. 100–101), on the contrary, consideres bur-d30 to be an “Akkadianized” form of Amar-Sîn. However, “Akkadianizing” Amar-Sîn as Būr-Sîn means in fact messing up the scribal lore since all the information that sticks to the particular royal name is lost. This kind of cryptography works only if the alias does not exist in reality, as in the case of IBBI-AŠIM-BABBAR = Ibbi-Sîn (Source 36, l. 1).

1768 Exactly because it would cause confusion with the name of Amar-Sîn; see Starr 1977,

pp. 162–163.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

478

Edition of the Sources

Source 52: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 15) Obj:

Omen from the liver; multābiltu tablet 14 and commentary 4. A: CT 30, pl. 9, K 3843+4105, obv. 7’; multābiltu commentary. B: TCL 6, no. 1, obv. 35; multābiltu tablet 14. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (A) and Uruk (B). Date: First millennium: 7th cent. BCE (A); Seleucid Era (B: 91 SE = 221 BCE). Lit: Weidner 1928–1929, p. 236: B. – Oppenheim 1936, p. 222. – Nougayrol 1945, p. 15, no. 52. – Koch 2005, pp. 195–196, l. 38 (text B); p. 256, l. 23 (text A). Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 15), dealing with the bāb ekalli (gate-of-the-palace) opening to the “four winds”, see chapter 6.2. – šumma (šalšu) amūtu ana šārī erbetti bāb ekalli puttât – If (– thirdly –) the gate-of-the-palace of the liver is wide open towards the four winds, A [be š]al-šú bà ana im-límmu-ba me-ni badme[š*(-at)] B be bà ana im-límmu-ba me-ni pu-ut-ta-ti – amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫluqti – (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning disaster. I i-bí-d30 šá níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma A bà-ut šá níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma] B bà-ut i-bí-d3[0 Com: On the meaning of the imagery of the gate-of-the-palace opening wide towards the four winds see chapter 6.2. The translation offered above paraphrases the Akkadian in order to make the omen readily understandable. Since bāb ekalli is masculine, and the feminine stative puttât relates to the feminine noun amūtu as its subject, the bāb ekalli is either an accusative of respect or the direct object of the active stative puttât. So, a literal translation would render the omen either as “if the liver is wide open towards the four winds as to the gate-of-the-palace”, or perhaps rather as “if the liver opens the gate-of-the-palace wide towards the four winds”. The spelling badme[š(-at)] in text A has been collated. Here, the plural determinative meš is obviously a marker of intensivity or plurality of action, which can be expressed by the Gtn – or even more so – by the D stem.1769 The orthography √meš equals √-√, an illustrating spelling habit, which ultimately goes back to Sumerian. A very similar case in the present corpus is tagmeš-at = lupputat “it is completely anomalous” (Source 60). The addition šalšu “thirdly” is found only the commentary from Nineveh. For an Old Babylonian precursor, dealing with a multiple bāb ekalli, see Source 22. And “fourthly”, text A adds a variation with the element “four”:

1769 Kouwenberg 1997, pp. 168–175, chapter 6.7; see also ibidem pp. 178–179, chapter 6.8.2:

“The ‘intensive’ function of the D-Stem”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

479

– šumma rebû bāb ekalli erbet [mātu] ana pî ištēn [ul uššab]1770 “If – fourthly – the gate-of-the-palace is fourfold, [the land will not abide] by one (single) order.” Source 53: Omen dealing with the Element “Four” Obj:

B (28a)

Omen from the liver; multābiltu tablet 14. A: TCL 6, no. 1, obv. 25. B: Heeßel 2008 (RA 102), p. 144, BM 79-7-8, 90; obv. 28. (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (B) and Uruk (A). First millennium: 7th cent. BCE (B); Seleucid Era (A: 91 SE = 221 BCE). Oppenheim 1936, p. 222. Koch 2005, p. 194, l. 28 (A 25). Heeßel 2008, pp. 132, 134, obv. 28. Omen dealing with the element “four”, see chapter 6.2. šumma ina amūti erbe manzāz(ān)ū erbe padānū erbe danānū erbe šulmū erbetta marrātu erbetta ubānātu šaknū If in the liver there are four stations, four paths, four strengths, four well-beings, four gall bladders, and four fingers, be ina bà 4 na 4 ĝíri 4 kalag 4 silim 4-ta zímeš 4-ta šu-simeš ĝarmeš [be ina bà 4 na 4 ĝíri 4 kalag 4 silim 4-ta zímeš 4-t]a šu-simeš ĝarmeš

– –

ilānū (ina) māt Elamti the gods will dwell (in) the land of Elam.

Prov: Date: Lit: – – Cont: – – A (25a)

uššabū

or: –

ilānū māti (ina) Elamti uššabū the gods of the land will dwell (in) Elam. A (25b) diĝirmeš kur elam-maki tušmeš meš ki B (28b) diĝir kur elam-m[a tušmeš] Com: The apodosis predicts that the gods of Babylonia1771 will leave their temples and will dwell in Elam instead, as they did after the destruction of Sumer and Ur that terminated the Third Dynasty of Ur under Ibbi-Sîn in the late third millennium, and after the devastation of Babylonia by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II under Enlil-nādin-aḫi (see chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3) in the late second millennium.1772 However, neither king is mentioned by name here. A variation on this theme, focusing on the “four winds” is expressed in the omen of Source 52, dealing with the bāb ekalli (“gate-of-the-palace”) of the liver being wide open (petû D) towards the four winds.

1770 After Koch 2005, p. 256, l. 24: be 4-ú me-ni 4 [kur] ana ka 1-en [nu tuš-ab]. 1771 Even though the term māt Akkadî “Babylonia” is not used verbally here, it is clear that

this Babylonian omen deals with native, Babylonian gods.

1772 See the discussion of abduction no. 3 in chapter 4.2, as well as Source 32, Source 33,

Source 34 (D), Source 58, and Source 72 (C).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

480

In the apodosis, there are two slightly different readings possible, depending on where to insert the preposition ina into the cluster of logograms, which is necessary to understand the sentence. In the previous two lines, cases of two and three elements each are dealt with, leading to favourable apodoses: military success and longevity of the king and his reign. The orthography and the distribution of the numbers (4 = erbe with masculine nouns, 4-ta = erbetta with feminine nouns) is a clear example of the fading gender polarity in numbers in late Akkadian (Streck 1995, pp. 26–35). Source 54: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 16) Obj: – –

– Prov: Date: Lit:

– – – –

Celestial omen from Enūma Anu Enlil and Mul-Apin. EAE tablet 55: A: Virolleaud, ACh, Ištar no. 21 (EAE tablet 55): 12–13. B: Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 19 (mukallimtu EAE): 4–5. Mul-Apin (the sigla used by Hunger & Pingree 1989 given in brackets): C: Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 14, BM 42277, rev. IV:3’–7’ (D). D: Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 21, Rm 2, 174+, rev. VI:10’–15’ (FF). = Virolleaud, ACh, Suppl. II, p. 95, Ištar no. 67, rev. 10’–15’. E: Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 23, VAT 9412, rev. IV:5–8 (HH). F: Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 27, SU 52/72+, rev. IV:28–31 (KK). G: Gurney & Hulin, STT 2, no. 357 (RR). Excerpt (ll. 1–3): H: Thompson, RMA II, p. 83, no. 237a (transliteration only). Hunger 1992, p. 298, no. 546 (transliteration only). (Babylonia); the extant manuscripts come from Nineveh (A–B, F), Aššur (E) and Ḫuzirīna (Sultantepe, F–G); manuscript C is written in NeoBabylonian characters and may come directly from Babylonia. First millennium. Boissier 1906, p. 64: on Rm. 2, 174 = manuscript D; on K 6102, obv. 7–8 (Craig, AAT, pl. 80), on K 2990, obv. 8–10 (Craig, AAT, pl. 81) and on K 2314, obv. 8–9 (Craig, AAT, pl. 82). The three latter manuscripts have been used in Virolleaud’s composite text of manuscript A. After Boissier, several scholars have briefly referred to this omen in the early 20th century, see the overview on pp. 5f. above. Weidner 1928–1929, p. 236: A. Hunger & Pingree 1989, pp. 120–121, 136, tablet II, IV: 5–8. Hunger 1992, p. 298, no. 546. Koch 2008.1773

1773 Johannes Koch tries to demonstrate that the downfall of the Third Dynasty of Ur is to

be dated to 2053 BCE, not to 2004 BCE, basing his argument on this omen. Although I cannot judge conclusions drawn from astronomy, I am highly sceptical about the usefulness of rather coarse ‘data’ like those given in the present omen.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

481

Cont:

Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 16).

1 –

šumma Nīru ina aṣîšu ana ereb Šamši pānūšu šaknū If the yoke-star when rising is directed towards the west (and) mul diš šudun ina è-šú ana dutu-šú-a igi-šú ĝar-nu mul [diš šudun ina è-šú ana dutu-šú-a igim]eš-šú ĝar-nu mu l d [diš ] šudun ina è- šú [ana utu-ku4-ku4] igi-šú ĝar-nu mul5 diš šudun ina è-šú ana dutu-ku4-ku4 igi-šú ĝar-nu m ul [diš ] šudun ina è-šú ana dutu-ku4-ku4 igi-šú ĝar-nu mul diš š[udu]n ina è -[šú] ana dutu-ku4-ku4 igi-šú ĝar-nu mul [diš šudun ina è-šú ana dutu-ku4-k]u4 igi-šú ĝar-nu mul [diš ]šudun ina è-šú ana dutu-ku4-ku4 igi-šú ĝar-nu

A

12a

B

4a

C IV 3’a D VI 10’ E IV 5a F IV 28’a G

1’

H rev. 6’a

2 – A

12b

B

4b

C IV 3’b D VI 11’ E IV 5b F IV 28’b G

2’a

H rev. 6’b

3 – A

13a

B

4c

C IV 4’b D VI 12’ E IV 6b F IV 29’ G

2’b

H rev. 7’b

pān šamê ippalisma šāru mimma lā izīq(a) looks towards the sky, and there is not the slightest wind blowing: ‹igi› an-e [igi-bar-ma] im mim-ma la i-zi-qa igi an-e igi-bar-ma im mim-ma la i-zi-qa [igi an-e] (4’a) [i]gi-bar-ma im mim-ma la i-zi-qa igi an-e igi-bar-ma im mim-ma la ri-qa (6a) igi an-e igi-bar-ma im mim-ma la i-zi-iq igi an -[e igi-bar]- ma [im mim-ma la i-zi-iq] [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] igi [an-e] (7’a) [igi-bar-ma i]m mim-ma la i-zi-qa ḫušaḫḫu iššakkan (/ ibbašš[i]) there will be a famine; su-gu7 ĝar-an su-g[u7 ĝar-an] su-gu7 ĝar- an su-gu7 ĝar-an su-gu7 ĝar su-gu7 ĝar-an [su-gu7] ĝar s[u-g]u7 ĝál-š[i

(5a) (5’a)

(30’a)

palû šaḫluqti / palû šaḫluqtu(mma) the reign (will end in) disaster. bala nam-gilim-ma [bala nam-gilim-ma] bala nam-gilim-ma bala nam-gilim-ma bala nam-gilim-ma bala na[m-gil]im- ma bala nam-gili[m-ma] bala nam-gilim-ma]

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

482

4 – var.: – A

13b

B

5b

C IV 5’b D VI 13’ E IV 7a F IV 30’b G

3’a

5 – A

13c

B

5c

C IV 6’ D VI 14’ E IV 7b F IV 30’c G

3’b

6 B: – C(–D): – E: – G: – B

5d

C IV 7’ D VI 15’ E IV 8b F IV 31’ G

4’

amūt (It is) an omen of ša (This is) with regard to bà-ut [šá šá šá šà-múd ⌈šà⌉ [šá

Ibbi-Sîn Ibbi-Sîn Ibbi-Sîn Ibbi-Sîn i-bí-d30 i-bí-d30 i-bí-d30 i-bí-d30 i-bí-d30 ⌈i-bí⌉-d30 i-bí-d30

(ša) kamûssu ana Anšan (who) went to Anšan as a captive, lá-su [ana an-ša4-anki [ka-m]u-us-su ana an-ša4-an‹ki› šá ka-mu-us-su a-na an-ša-anki [(šá)] ka-mu-us-su ana an-ša4-anki (8a) ka-mu-us-su [x] ⌈x x⌉ {ùĝmeš} ‹an›-šá-anki ka-mu-su ‹ana an›-ša4-‹anki› ka-mu-us-s[u a-na an-ša-anki

(šar Uri) (king of Ur) šar Uri king of Ur lugal úriki] lugal úr[i]ki lugal úriki lugal úri⌈ki⌉ [lugal] ú[r]iki lugal úrik]i illiku ĝen-ku]1774 ĝen-ku ĝen-⌈ku⌉ ĝen-ku ĝen ĝen ĝen-ku]

(This part of the apodosis is highly diverse and probably even garbled:) ibakkû (šanîš): ibluṭ(u) ūma īmuru while he was weeping; (variant): (who) stayed alive and saw the light. ṣābūšu arkīšu ibakkû (šanîš): imaqqutū while his troops wept after him; (variant): while they fell. ‹nišūšu arkīšu› ibakkû (šanîš): imaqqutū while ‹his people› wept ‹after him›; (variant): while they fell. [ṣābūšu arkīšu ibak]kû u imeqqu[tū] while [his troops we]pt [after him] and fel[l]. i-bak-ku-ú 𒑲 ti-uṭ u4-mi igi-⌈ru⌉ érin-šú egir-šú i-bak-ku-ú ki-min i-ma-aq-qu-⌈tu⌉ [érin-šú egir-šú] i-bak-ku-ú ki-min i-ma-qu-tu ‹ùĝmeš-šú egir-šú› i-ba-ak-ku-u ki-min i-ma-qú-tu-ú [ . . . ] ĝen? ⌈i⌉-[ba-a]k-⌈ku⌉ 𒑲 ⌈i-ma-aq-qú-tu⌉ [érin-šú egir-šú i-bak]-ku-u u i!(ḫé)-mé-qu-[tu]

1774 In the composite text of manuscript A, the apodosis of the omen ends here. Two

broken remarks on the planet Jupiter (dsaĝ-me-ĝar = nēberu) and Mercury (dgu4-ud = šiḫṭu) follow (Virolleaud, ACh, Ištar no. 21: 14–15; Craig, AAT, pl. 82, K 2314, obv. 8–9).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

483

Com: The “yoke-star” (Nīru, l. 1) is a star or a constellation in the “path of Enlil”.1775 In astrological commentaries, the star is equated with Nēberu (= Jupiter) the star of Marduk.1776 So the star probably denotes Marduk also here. Leaving the land, he has set his face towards the west and the heavens. 2: The topic that there is “not the slightest wind blowing” stresses the idea that the god is leaving completely on his own, see also Source 57, Source 58 (l. 4) and the discussion on pp. 55ff. In the present omen, there is not even Adad taking any influence on the action by his winds, as opposed to the omen of Source 57 (l. 2) where he expresses his anger by thundering. The character of Adad as the “great cosmic mover” is also addressed in a Hittite hymn, probably translated from Akkadian, which describes Adad as the one who transfers the ominous information into the liver to be read by the diviner. That is why Adad is called “lord of extispicy” alongside Šamaš:1777 “It is up to you (Adad) to convey the ominous orders (“words”) of heaven and earth, the message which lies in the waters of Ea. (It is up to you) to examine the (ominously) favourable and unfavourable flesh (of the sacrificial animal).” 4: On the term šà-múd which is used in manuscript E to render amūt “liver omen of PN”, see the commentary on Source 18. In the present case, one is even tempted to read šà úš/mút Ibbi-Sîn = ša mūt Ibbi-Sîn and translate “concerning the death of Ibbi-Sîn”. Manuscript F cryptographically uses the Sumerian word šà (libbu) “heart” to write the pronoun ša. The surface of the text is damaged, but it does not appear to be šà-múd = amūtu as in manuscript E. The use of šà for ša(2) also occurs elsewhere in omen literature, see e.g.: šà šà-šà = ša libbīša “her fetus” (Labat 1951, pp. 200–202, pls. 52–53, ll. 1–26 and passim, tablet 35 of the diagnostic series Sakikkû). It is a common feature in the late Old Babylonian omen texts from Susa (Labat 1974, p. 6) and from the Sealand (George 2013, p. 137). 5–6: Manuscript E obviously mixed up parts of the phrase, placing ùĝmeš = nišū “people” too early in line 5. However, this scribal mistake presents us with the opportunity to restore *ùĝmeš-šú = nišūšu “his people” as a variant for érin-šú = ṣābūšu “his troops” in line 6. Certainly erroneously, manuscript F omits ana Anšan “to Anšan”. Since it also writes the highly unusual ĝen-ĝen for illik(u), we may speculate that the Vorlage the scribe copied was damaged, looking like: *[ana an]-ša4(= DU/ĝen)-[anki] ĝen-[(ku)]. So the scribe did probably not recognize the

1775 Cavigneaux & Krebernik 1998–2001b (RlA 9), p. 575; Brown 2000, p. 60, s.v. mulšudun. 1776 CAD N/II, p. 147, s.v. nēberu 3b; p. 264, s.v. nīru 6. On Nēberu see also p. 442 above with

note 1682.

1777 CTH 313 = KBo 3, no. 21, obv. II:6–10a; early New Hittite Empire, the Akkadian original

dates probably to the Old Babylonian period; Schwemer 2001, p. 222; Steinkeller 2005, p. 45; Maul 2013, pp. 48–49.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

484

6:

Edition of the Sources

archaizing spelling of Anšan,1778 and combined the two visible DU-signs into /ĝen-ĝen/. Verbally, the glossenkeil (𒑲) and the note ki-min (“ditto”) may have been rendered in Akkadian as šanîš “secondly”,1779 or also as ašar-šanî(mma) “otherwise”.1780 Manuscripts C, D and E show that the note ki-min does not indicate here the repetition of a phrase ahead, since they also spell the ibakkû-phrase syllabically. Instead, they indicate a variation within the apodosis of line 6. As manuscript G suggests, the glossenkeil (𒑲) and the note ki-min (“ditto”), which originally indicated a variant apodosis, may have been mistaken for the signs u or ù, writing the conjunctions u “and” or ū(-lū)“or”, giving an additional or contradictory information.1781 In the present corpus, the glossenkeil (𒑲) in one manuscript (D) corresponds to [ú⌉-lu = *ū-lū “or” in another manuscript (B) of Source 56, line 1d, see p. 489 with note 1791. Since only ū-lū “or” is unambigous, I think that the scribe of manuscript G of the omen under discussion understood the conjunction as u “and”. Please note that the catchy narrative arc about “Ibbi-Sîn who went to Anšan as a prisoner, who cried and fell”, which had been reconstructed here by Jeremias (1917, p. 75) and Weidner (1928–1929, p. 236), is in fact not preserved in this tradition. The combination of bakû “to cry” and maqātu “to fall” is part of a variant tradition that added Ibbi-Sîn’s weeping or falling troops and people (C, probably also E) to the scenery. So the verbal forms are plurals (*ibakkû, imaqqutū), not singulars in the subordinative (*ibakkû, imaqqutu). Manuscripts D, F and G are too broken to make a decision. The present tense in ibakkû and imaqqutū probably indicates that these actions are simultaneous to the main action in preterite (l. 5: *illik “he went”). The variation in the forms ibakkû and imaqqutū may be due to a damaged Vorlage at some point in the tradition. That text may have looked like *i-BA/MA-AK-KU-[…], so the verbal form could either be understood as i-ba-ak-ku-[ú] or as i-ma-aq-qú-[tu]. In manuscript G, the verbal form i!(ḫé)-mé-qu-[tu] is perhaps rather to be read i!+ma!+aq!-qu-[tu] as well. The phrase nūra amāru in manuscript B means “to see the light”, i.e. “to come free”. For more examples see CAD A/II, p. 21, s.v. amāru 5. The phrase occurs in manuscript B only and is not backed up by any other information about the fate of Ibbi-Sîn. The variation may have been triggered by the fate of Marduk-apla-iddina II, whom the scholars of Sargon II appear to have cast in the role of the “new Ibbi-Sîn”, see the

1778 Used here in line 5 in manuscripts B and D. 1779 CAD Š/I, p. 387, s.v. šanîš 2; Jeyes 1989, pp. 12, 45 on šanîs / šanû šumšu; Koch 2005, p.

614; see also George 2013, p. 150 on ki-min mu = šanû šumšu. On šanû šumšu see now also Winitzer 2017, pp. 48–80, chapter 2.1.3.4. 1780 Not in the dictionaries, but see the interchangeable spellings ki-min(-ma) / ki šá-nimma / a-šar šá-nim-ma in Köcher, BAM 4, p. XXXII, on no. 417. 1781 See already Hunger & Pingree 1989, p. 136. On ū(-lū) see now also Winitzer 2017, pp. 39–42.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

485

discussion on p. 46 above and in chapter 10.1. Because of this late and rather doubtful addition, Jeremias (1917, p. 75) and Weidner (1928–1929, p. 236) supposed that Ibbi-Sîn’s life was spared. This is of course possible (see the discussion on pp. 45f.), but it cannot be actually verified on the basis of this late supplement. Source 55: Omen: Devastation of Ur and of the Land Obj:

Celestial omens (lunar eclipses; from Enūma Anu Enlil, tablet 22). The sigla are those used by Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 251. A: K 270 + K 11308 + Sm 655; photo: CDLI no. P393816. Copies: Craig, AAT, pl. 22, K 270, III:29’–34’; Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 34:59–62; III R 61, III:19–22. D: K 2305+2320; photo: CDLI no. P394338. Virolleaud 1909 (Babyloniaca 3), p. 270; collations, no copy. G: K 8021 (unpublished), 6’–11’; photo: CDLI no. P397441. K: K 2228; photo: CDLI no. P238151; Neo-Babylonian script; used in Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 34–35. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (A, D, G, K); manuscript K hints at the Babylonian origin of the omen by its Neo-Babylonian script. Date: First millennium, 7th century BCE. The phraseology and the use of signs, however, indicate Old Babylonian and eastern (Elamite) roots of this group of omens.1782 Lit: Oppenheim 1936, p. 220. – Rochberg-Halton 1988, pp. 261–262, EAE 22, part I § XII:1–5. Cont: Lunar eclipses on Addār 14, 15, 16, 20, and 21. The topics of the apodoses comprise the devastation of the city of Ur and of the temple Eĝišnuĝal (Ekišnuĝal), the ruin of the land (Sumer) and the end of the royal dynasty (of Ur III). Without giving the name of Ibbi-Sîn, the omens are virtually identical with the topics of the Ibbi-Sîn tradition. See also Source 56 and the discussion on pp. 28f. above. 1a šumma ina 12. arḫi ina 14. ūmi (attalû Sîn ittaškan)1783 – If (an eclipse of the moon occurs) in the 12th month (: Addār) on the 14th day,

1782 Weidner 1923, p. 6; Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 251. The same phrase as the one from

line 3 of this source (mātu lā šulputtu uštalpat) is quoted from an unpublished Old Babylonian text in AHw III, p. 1269, s.v. šulputu(m) 2; CAD Š/III, p. 258, s.v. šulputu b. The logogram iššebu = 200 = šarru “king” is particularly frequent in Old Babylonian omens from Susa, see the commentary on line 1 of Source 36 on p. 411 above. Also the use of ta for ina points in this direction, see Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 253, note 1. 1783 The omens are laid out in tabular form. The full form of the protasis is written out only for the first month, including the phrase an-ta-lù d+en.zu ĝar = attalû Sîn ittaškan “an eclipse of the moon occurs”. This phrase has to be understood in each of the omens. I have filled it in from manuscript A after Craig, AAT, pl. 21, II:33’ = 46 in K 270 + after the photograph; Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 253.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

486 A III 29’a G 6’a K ov. 14’a

1b – A III 29’b G 6’b K ov. 14’b

1c – A III 30’ G 7’ K ov. 14’c

diš [diš diš

ta 12 iti ta 12 iti ta 12 i[ti

ta u4-14-kám ta u4-14-kám ta u4-14-kam

(an-ta-lù d+en.zu ĝar) (an-ta-lù d+en.zu ĝar)] (an-ta-lù d+en.zu ĝar)]

ubbuṭu ibbašši miqitti ummāni riḫiṣti there will be a famine, defeat of the troops, a devastation by Adad will occur, ub*-bu-ṭú ĝál šub érin ra-ti [ub-bu-ṭú ĝál šub-t]i ⌈érin⌉ ⌈ra⌉-ti [ub-bu-ṭ]ú ⌈ĝál⌉ ⌈šub⌉-tì érin ra-ti nišū šerrīšina ana kaspi the people will sell their infants for silver. ùĝmeš šèr-ri-ši-na ana kù-babbar [ùĝmeš šèr-ri-š]i-na ana kù-babbar ùĝmeš šèr-ri-ši-na ana kù-babbar

Adad

irraḫḫiṣ

iškur iškur d iškur

ra ra ra

d d

ipaššarā búrmeš búrmeš búrme

K ov. 15’a

šumma If diš [diš diš

(ina) 15. ūmi (on) the 15th day: (ta) u4-15-kám (ta) u4-15-kám (ta) u4-15-ka[m]

ḫalā‹q› ḫepi Urim Destruct‹ion of› (broken) Ur. zá‹ḫ› (ḪA-‹A›) ḫe-pí ù-ri-im záḫ] ù-ri-im z[áḫ ù]-ri-im 𒑳

3 –

šumma If

(ina) 16. ūmi (on) the 16th day:

A III 32’

diš [diš diš

(ta) (ta) (ta)

mātu lā šulputtu uštalpat The land that had not been defiled (ever before) will be defiled. kur la!(ad) ḫe-pí 1784 uš-tál-pat kur l]a ḫul-tu4 uš-tal-pat kur la ḫul-tu4 uš-tál-pat

K ov. 16’

šumma If diš [diš diš

(ina) 20. ūmi (on) the 20th day: (ta) u4-20-kám (ta) u4-20-kám (ta) u4-20-kam

šaḫluqti Eĝišnuĝal Devastation of Eĝišnuĝal. ša-aḫ-lu-uq-ti é-ĝiš-nu11-ĝál š]aḫ-lu-uq-tu4 é-ĝiš-nu11-ĝál š[a-aḫ-lu-uq-t]i é-ĝiš-nu11-ĝál

5

šumma

(ina)

–

If

(on) the 21st day:

palû šarri qati māt šarri arbūta illak The reign/dynasty of the king is over, the land of the king will become waste.

2 – A III 31’ G 8’

G 9’ K ov. 15’b

4 – A III 33’ G 10’

u4-16-kám u4-16-kám u4-16-kam

21. ūmi

1784 In Virolleaud’s idealizing copy the correct phrase kur la ḫul-tum had been restored

from manuscript K.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

bala 200 qá-ti kur 200 ár-bu-ta5 ĝen-ak* 1785 D ov. 1’ [diš (ta) u4-21-kám bala 200 qá-ti] [kur 200] ár-bu-[ta5 ĝen-ak] G 11’ [diš (ta) u4-21-kám bala 200 q]á-ti kur 200 ár-bu-tu ĝen-ak K ov. 17’ diš (ta) u4-21-kam bala ⌈200 til⌉ kur 200 ár-bu-ta5 ĝen-ak Com: In the Babylonian calendar, lunar eclipses are only possible between the 12th and the 16th day of a given month. The classic dates for lunar eclipses dealt with in Babylonian celestial divination are the 14th–16th and, strangely enough, the 20th–21st day; see Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 38; Hunger 1993–1997b (RlA 8), p. 359, § 3a and the other examples here in Source 56 and Source 59. 1b: In a phrase with bašû N “to come into existence”, I prefer to read the signs UB-bu-TU as ub-bu-ṭú for ubbuṭu “famine”, as does CAD U & W, pp. 13–14, s.v. ubbutu A. In a phrase with alāku “to go/to become”, I read ár-bu-tu for arbūtu “devastation” as in line 5 of the same omen. Since -ṭú is an uncommon spelling of the syllable [ṭu], there may well be a kind of pun between the two terms here. The unusual sequence ra-ti diškur ra is probably interpreted best as a figura etymologica with an inchoative N stem (riḫiṣti Adad irraḫḫiṣ), replacing the more common phrase riḫiṣti Adad ibbašši with an inchoative bašû N, see e.g.: ra-ti diškur ĝál-ši (CT 39, pl. 8, K 8406, obv. 9). 2: As shown by the mark ḫepi “broken”, the line was damaged in the Vorlage of manuscript A. This appears to have misled Rochberg-Halton (1988, p. 262) into reading the apodosis as: ḪA ḫe-pí ši-ip-ri-im with the translation: “messenger(?)”. Even if the purely syllabic orthography instead of the common spelling uri2/5ki may look strange, reading ù-ri-im “Ur” is certainly the better choice than ši-ip!-ri-im, both epigraphically and in meaning. In text K, the end of the apodosis is marked by a triple glossenkeil (𒑳). 3: The phrase mātu lā šulputtu uštalpat “the land that had not been defiled (ever before) will be defiled” occurs also in the omen of Source 56 (ll. 1d, D and 4). Since the lines above and below give the names of the Babylonian city of Ur and of its temple Eĝišnuĝal (similar in Source 56), the “land” probably means the land of Babylonia, rather than “any land”. Babylonia, however, had been devastated more than once. Even though the omen appears to take its similes from the historical past, its apodoses necessarily aim at future events. So I wonder whether this line can also be understood as “the land will be defiled as never before”. A similar contradictio in adiecto can be found in the phrase *mātu sapiḫtu sapāḫša qitrub (Source 59: 10) “the scattering of the land (to be) scattered is near”, which literally means “the scattering of the scattered land is near”. 5: On the orthography writing 200 (= iššebu) for šarru “king” see the commentary on line 1 of Source 36 on p. 411 above. A III 34’

diš

(ta)

u4-21-kám

487

1785 See the photograph; Craig erroneously copies -ú.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

488

Edition of the Sources

Source 56: Omen: Devastation of Ur and of the Land Obj:

Celestial omens (lunar eclipses); from Enūma Anu Enlil, tablet 21. The sigla are those used by Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 230. A: K 270 + K 11308 + Sm 655; photo: CDLI no. P393816. Copy: Craig, AAT, pl. 21, K 270, II:24’–31’. In order to facilitate reference to the copy, the line numbering follows Craig, AAT. Rochberg-Halton (1988, p. 248) counts the lines as II:34–41. According to the photograph however, it should rather be II:37–44, since the text has three more lines which are missing from the edition by Rochberg-Halton (1988, p. 245) between the lines numbered by her as A ii 13 and A ii 14. Other copies: Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 33:79–86; III R 60, II:81–88. B: K 8616; photo: CDLI no. P397701. Used in Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 33:79–86. D: K 10539; photo: CDLI no. P398741. Virolleaud, ACh, Suppl. II, p. 37, Sîn no. 22a+c, rev. 2’–10’. H: VAT 11249, ll. 1’–5’, unpublished, transliterated from the photograph, by courtesy of Stefan Maul (Heidelberg); transliterated also in the edition by Rochberg-Halton 1988, see below. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (A, B, D) and Aššur (H). Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Oppenheim 1936, p. 220. – Rochberg-Halton 1988, pp. 248–249, EAE 21, § XII:1–5. Cont: Lunar eclipses on Addār 14, 15, 16, 20, and 21. The eclipses announce the death of the “king of Babylonia” and the devastation of the land (of Babylonia) and of the city of Ur at the command of Sîn. See also Source 55 and the discussion on pp. 28f. Although the omen deals with motifs of the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster, it cannot be used to calculate its date by astronomy, see Hunger 2002, pp. 174–175 (pace Schaumberger 1950, pp. 50–53 and others, see Hunger 2002, p. 174, note 3). 1a šumma ina (araḫ) Addār (ina) 14. ūmi attalû ittaškan(ma) ina šūti ušarrīma ina iltāni izku – If an eclipse (of the moon) occurs in (the month) Addār, (on) the 14th day, and it begins in the south and clears in the north, A II 24’ diš ina itiše u4-14-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar-ma ina im-u18-lu sar-ma ina im-si-sá iz-ku iti B rv. 16’ [diš ina š]e u4-14-kam diĝir-gegge ĝar ina im-u18-[lu sar-ma ina im-si-sá iz-ku] iti D rv. 2’a [diš ina še u4-14-kam diĝir-gegge ĝar-ma] [ina im-u18-lu s]ar(!)-ma ina im-[I]I iz-ku 1b – A II 25’

ina barārīti ušarrīma ina šāt urri izku šūta ina qātīka (and furthermore,) it begins in the evening watch and clears in the morning watch, (1c) you bear (1b) in mind (lit.: “in your hand”) the south ina en-nun an-úsan sar-ma ina en-nun u4-zal-le iz-ku im-u18-lu ina šu-ka © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium B rv. 17’ D rv. 2’b

1c –

A II 26’ B rv. 18’ D rv. 3’b D rv. 4’

[ina en-nun an-úsan s]ar-ma [im-u18-lu ina šu-ka] ina e[n-nun an-úsan / (3’a) sar-ma im-1 ina šu-ka

489

ina en-nun u4-zal-le iz-[ku] ina en-nun u4-zal-le iz-ku]

tukāl naʾduršu tammarma ana šar kiššati purussû nadin šaḫluqti Uri and observe (the moon) darkening. The decision is given for the king of All,1786 (meaning) the devastation of Ur. tu-kal kan5-šú igi-ma ana lugal ki-šár-ra eš-bar sum-in níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma úri*ki 1787 [tu-kal kan5-šú igi-ma] [ana l]ugal ki-šár-ra eš-bar sum-[in níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma úriki] tu-[kal kan5-šú igi-ma] [ana lugal ki-šár-ra eš-bar na-d]in1788 ⌈ša⌉-aḫ-⌈lu-uq⌉-[ti úriki]

1d, D: [mātu lā šulputtu ušta]lpat1789 (šanîš): A, D: šuqqur dūrānīšu ibbašši šeʾu ina našpuki ḫarāb āli u namêšu – D: [The land that had not been defiled (ever before) will be de]filed; (variant): A, D: there will be a complete and utter destruction of its city walls, while barley is still being heaped up (to cope with a siege) the devastation of the city and its environs (will occur). A II 27’ šu-uq-qur bàdmeš-šú ĝál še ina dub ḫa-rab eri u na-me-e-šú1790 meš B rv. 19’ [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ] [ú⌉-lu bàd [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .]1791 D rv. 5’ [kur nu ḫul(-tú) uš-tá]l-pa-tu 𒑲 šu-uq-qur b[àd*meš-šú ĝál] / (6’) [še ina dub ḫa]-rab eri [u na-me-e-šú] 2 –

šumma (ina) 15. ūmi attalû ittaškan

ana šarri bārtu miqitti ummāni ina kakki ibbašši If an eclipse (of the moon) occurs (on) the 15th day: (There will be) a revolt against the king; a defeat of the troops in battle (lit.: “by the weapon”) will occur.

Or with a negative nuance “a despotic king”? See the discussion on pp. 44f. Craig’s copy erroneously leaves the sign unug in úri (= šeš-unug) out. Thus according to the photograph (CDLI no. P398741). For this phrase see line 4 in the present omen and Source 55, line 3. As it appears, manuscript D prematurely places the phrase here in line 1d, and repeats it in line 4. 1790 The copy III R 60, II:84 erroneously reads eri!(ba) u na-me!(ši)-e-šú. 1791 Manuscript B had another phrase, perhaps something like: [mātu lā šulputtu uštalpat] [ú⌉-lu bàdmeš [innaqqarū] “[the land that had not been defiled (ever before) will be defiled]; ⌈or:⌉ the walls [will be destroyed]”. The reading [ú⌉-lu is clear from the photograph, it is not [šu]-⌈uq⌉-qur. The conjunction ū-lū “or” equals the glossenkeil (𒑲 = ca. šanîš “variant”) in manuscript D, see also the comments on line 6 of Source 54. 1786 1787 1788 1789

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

490 A II 28’

diš u4-15* 1792-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar

B rv. 20’

[diš u4-15]-kám diĝir-gegge ĝa[r

D rv. 7’

[diš u4-15-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar

H 1’

[diš u4]-⌈15⌉-[kam] ⌈diĝir-gegge ĝar⌉

3

šumma (ina) 16. ūmi attalû ittaškan

ana lugal ḫi-ĝar šub-tì érin-ni ina ĝištukul ĝál ana lugal ḫi-ĝar] [šub-tì érin-ni ina ĝištukul ĝál] ana lugal ḫi-ĝar] [šu]b*-⌈ti*⌉ érin ina ĝ[iš*tukul ĝál] ⌈ana lugal⌉ ḫi-ĝar [šub-tì érin ina ĝištukul ĝál]

H 3’

tassuḫtu ina māti ibbašši šarru tillātūšu ibbalakkitāšu If an eclipse (of the moon) occurs (on) the 16th day: There will be decrease (of cattle) in the land; the king’s auxiliary troops will revolt against him. diš u4-16-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar ta-as-su-uḫ-tu4* 1793 ina kur ĝál-ši lugal illatmeš-šú balameš-šú [diš u4-16-kám] ⌈diĝir-gegge⌉ [ĝar ta-as-su-uḫ-tu4 ina kur ĝál] [lugal illatmeš-šú balameš-šú] [diš u4-16-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar ta-as-su-u]ḫ-tu ina kur ĝál lugal illatmeš-šú b[alameš-šú] ⌈diš u4⌉-16-kam diĝir-gegge ĝar ta-as*-s[u-uḫ-tu ina kur ĝál-ši] lugal illatmeš-šú [balameš-šú]

4

šumma (ina) 20. ūmi attalû ittaškan

–

A II 29’ B rv. 21’ D rv. 8’ H 2’

–

A II 30’ D rv. 9’ H 4’

5 – A II 31’ D rv. 10’ H 5’

šar māt Akkadî imât mātu lā šulputtu uštalpat If an eclipse (of the moon) occurs (on) the 20th day: The king of the land of Akkad (: Babylonia) will die; the land that had not been defiled (ever before) will be defiled. diš u4-20-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar lugal uriki úš kur la ḫul-tu4* uš-tál-pat [diš u4-20-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar] 20 uriki úš kur nu ḫ[ul-tu4 uš-tál-pat] diš u4-20-kam diĝir-gegge ĝar lugal uriki úš k[ur nu ḫul(-tú) uš-tál-pat] šumma (ina) 21. ūmi attalû ittaškan šaḫluqti Uri ina pī Sîn If an eclipse (of the moon) occurs (on) the 21st day: Devastation of Ur at the command of Sîn. diš u4-21-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma úriki ina ka d30 [diš u4-21-kám diĝir-gegge] ĝar níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma ú[riki ina ka d30] ⌈diš⌉ u4-21-kam diĝir-gegge ĝar níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma ú[riki ina ka d30]

1792 Copied erroneously as “14” by Craig. 1793 Thus with the photograph (CDLI no. P393816) and III R 60, II:84. Both Virolleaud’s and

Craig’s copies erroneously render ta-su-uḫ-tu4.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

491

Com: In the Babylonian calendar, lunar eclipses are only possible between the 12th and the 16th day of a given month. The classic dates for lunar eclipses dealt with in Babylonian celestial divination are the 14th–16th and, strangely enough, the 20th–21st day; see see Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 38; Hunger 1993–1997b (RlA 8), p. 359, § 3a and the other examples here in Source 55 and Source 59. 1a: I read the signs AN.MI denoting an eclipse (attalû) as diĝir-gegge, originally meaning “dark(ened) god”.1794 The signs render the Akkadian loanword attalû “eclipse”, derived in turn from the Sumerian an-ta-lù “darkened, clouded from above”. 1d: The first part with the “defilement of the land” occurs only in manuscript D. In the same manuscript, the other apodoses are added as “variants” (= ca. šanîš), marked by a glossenkeil (𒑲). On the peculiar phrase mātu lā šulputtu uštalpat “the land that had not been defiled (ever before) will be defiled”, which occurs also here in line 4, see the commentary on Source 55, line 3. In šuqquru, I understand naqāru Š not as a causative (“to cause to wreck”, thus AHw II, p. 743, s.v. naqāru(m) Š; CAD N/I, p. 332, s.v. naqāru 5: “there will be an order to demolish its walls”) but as an elative “to wreck completely”. For the often overlooked elative meaning of the Š-stem see e.g. Schaudig 2001, p. 207, § IV.4.d. There is no secondary subject (in fact, not even a primary one) in this sentence and I cannot see whom one might “have demolish” the walls. 3: According to its pairing with tālittu “offspring” and būlu “cattle”, tassuḫtu (from nasāḫu “to remove”) is a technical term for the “removal, diminution or decrease” of cattle, a term which is also found in parallelism with nušurrû šeʾi “diminution” or “shortage of grain”.1795 The same string of thoughts (diminution > revolt = nabalkutu) is found in an Old Babylonian liver model from Mari dealing with Ibbi-Sîn (Source 12). There, the term ṣuḫurrāʾum “diminution” is used. Both omens deal with the idea of hardship and famine leading to instability and revolt, which was the situation in the closing days of Ibbi-Sîn’s rule. 4: The spelling lugal uriki instead of the complete lugal kur uriki for šar māt Akkadî “king of the land of Akkad”, which occurs also in the omen of Source 60, appears to be an orthographical abbreviation which is found mainly in texts like omens and chronicles, largely written in logograms, see the examples in Zadok 1985 (RGTC 8), p. 225. In the term māt Akkadî, mātu is an integral part of the construction, meaning verbally “the land (belonging to the city) of Akkade” (Borger in ZA 62, 1972, p. 136). It is not a dispensable, explicative nomen regens as in (māt) Elamtu(/-i) “(the land of) Elam”. Our modern translation as “land of Akkad” instead of “… Akkade” is only a matter of convention, rooted in the biblical rendering of the city of Akkade as ‫אכד‬. The term māt Akkadî is still fully rendered in 1794 On gegge(-g) “black/dark”, formerly read gi6-g/gíg, see note 1091 on p. 231. 1795 See CAD T, p. 283, s.v. tassuḫtu; here, “transfer” is certainly to weak. The meaning is:

The cattle at hand is spent or lost to the enemy and no fresh cattle comes in.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

492

Edition of the Sources

cotemporary Aramaic as ‫ מת אכדה‬and ‫מתכדי‬.1796 It is reasonably clear that the actual pronunciation of the term was not abbreviated by the word mātu in the first millennium. In this particular case, the abbreviated orthography lugal uriki instead of lugal kur uriki probably has a “cabbalistic” meaning. This omen combines the death of the king and the devastation of the land with the destruction of Ur at the command of Sîn. By and large, its apodosis is virtually identical with that of Source 55. Obviously, it deals with the historical tradition on the destruction of Ur (and the temple Eĝišnuĝal, Source 55) under Ibbi-Sîn. However, it does not give the royal name, but replaces it with the more general terms “king of Babylonia” (šar māt Akkadî, l. 4) and “king of All” (šar kiššati, l. 1c).1797 The omen deduces the principal process from the historical events and lays it down in an abstract form. In doing so, it is rather close to the omen from Source 60. In this process, the homophony of uri2/5 and uri(1) in the titles probably came in handy. On the logographical level and disregarding our modern index numbers, either title would have been pronounced as lugal uri: “the king of Ur” – lugal uri2/5ki “the king of the land of Akkad” – lugal uriki Here, replacing lugal uri2/5ki with the homophonous lugal uriki makes sense in the process of typification which turns the singular event of the fall of Ur under Ibbi-Sîn into a repeatable catastrophe that would threaten Babylonia. A very similar case of mixing up the two titles because of their homophony occurs already in a late Old Babylonian copy of the “Cadastre of Ur-Namma”. There, the element uriki in the term ki-en-gi ki-uriki “Sumer and Akkad” is erroneously written with the name of the city of Ur (úriki): – nita kalag-ga lugal úriki-ma lugal ki-en-gi ki-úriki 1798 “Strong man, king of Ur, king of Sumer and Akkad! (‘Ur’).” Source 57: Omen: The Wrath of Marduk Obj:

Celestial omen; from Enūma Anu Enlil. A: Virolleaud, ACh, Adad no. 17:17–18. B: Virolleaud, ACh, Suppl. II, p. 99, Ištar no. 70:24–25. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant tablets are from Nineveh. Date: First millennium, 7th century BCE. Lit: Oppenheim 1936, p. 221 with note 1. Cont: The star of Marduk departing in the skies accompanied by thunder in Tašrīt at the time of the “clothing ceremony” just ahead of the akītu procession1799

1796 Hug 1993, p. 15, decree law (AbgB) l. 2; p. 20, Aššur letter (AssB) l. 2. 1797 On the meaning of the title šar kiššati “king of All”, or, with a negative nuance,

“despotic king”, see the discussion on pp. 44f. above.

1798 After Steinkeller 2011, p. 26, no. 20, I:6–7. 1799 On the terrestrial “processional omens” from Šumma ālu see Sallaberger 2000.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

493

announces that the god will abandon his shrine when going out. Consequently, the city of Babylon (ll. 4–5) will be destroyed. 1 šumma ina (araḫ) Tašrīt (ina) 7. ūmi ultu qablīti – If in (the month) Tašrīt (on) the seventh day after the middle watch A 17a diš ina itidu6 u4-7-kám ta múru B 24a diš ina itidu6 ‹u4-7-kám› ul-tu múru 2 – A

17b

B

24b

3 – A

17c

B

24c

4 – A

18b

B

25b

Bēl/Marduk issuḫma (issīma/irēqma/ibēšma) Adad rigimšu iddi (the star of) Bēl/Marduk departs (/ regresses) and Adad thunders, d+ d en PAD-ra-ma iškur gù-šú šub d d amar-utu PAD-r[á-ma iškur gù-šú šub] ēnētu ana ḫāʾirīšina iḫaṭṭâ the high priestesses will sin against their (divine) husbands, (A 18a) nin-diĝir-rameš ana ḫa-i-ri-ši-na! i-ḫaṭ-ṭa-a meš (B 25a) [nin-diĝir-ra ana ḫa-i-ri-ši-na] i-ḫa-aṭ-ṭa-a parakkū Eridu (= Bābil) the lofty shrines of Eridu (= Babylon) will lower, bárameš eri-du10 bárameš eri-du10

šaqûtu išappilū šá-qu-tu i-šap-pi-lu šá-q[u-tu i-šap-pi-lu]

5 –

dūr māḫāzi ūtabbat the wall of the (holy) city will be destroyed. A 18c bàd ma-ḫa-zi ú-tab-bat B 25c [bàd ma-ḫa-zi ú-tab-bat] Com: In line 2, I understand PAD-ra(2) as an equivalent to nasāḫu “to remove”,1800 with its reflexive or intransitive meaning “to displace oneself / to depart”.1801 It is probably the same as or related to bad-rá1802 = rêqu/nesû/bêšu “to depart”, astronomically “to regress”.1803 The wording stresses the concept of the god going of his own accord, see also Source 54, Source 58 (l. 4) and the discussion on pp. 55ff. The movement observed is probably that of Nēberu, the star of Marduk-Bēl,1804 in the skies at night. The star of Marduk withdrawing is taken as a sign indicating 1800 Root [bu-ř], see PSD B, pp. 162ff. s.v. bu, bux(PAD), …; Deimel, ŠL II/3, p. 920, no. 469:17. 1801 See CAD N/II, p.10, s.v. nasāḫu 7c in an astronomical context; AHw II, p. 751, s.v.

nasāḫu(m) I, G 23.

1802 (Variant) root [ba-ř], see PSD B, pp. 31–33, s.v. “bad A”. 1803 CAD R, p. 267, s.v. rêqu 1 b) said of gods, e) said of stars. – CAD N/II, p. 188, s.v. nesû (v.)

1f; p. 185 nesû (adj.) 1b, 3’. – CAD B, p. 214, s.v. bêšu a).

1804 On Nēberu and other celestial manifestations of Marduk, such as the “Marduk-star”,

sometimes Mercury, sometimes Jupiter, see Cavigneaux & Krebernik 1998–2001a (RlA 9), pp. 191–192; Brown 2000, pp. 57–58; Rochberg 2007. See also Source 54, l. 1, dealing with the “yoke-star” (Nīru), which is also equated with Nēberu.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

494

that Marduk is leaving his seat in Esaĝil and going away. The evil portent is emphasized by the storm god Adad thundering in divine wrath.1805 At Babylon, and also at Uruk and Dēr, a second akītu festival was held in the month of Tašrīt, matching the better known one held in Nissān. On the seventh day of Nissān and of Tašrīt the gods got dressed ceremonially to go out in procession to the akītu house on the following day.1806 So when on the seventh of Tašrīt the star of Marduk would withdraw and Adad would thunder wrathfully, this was to be taken as a sign that Marduk’s going out on the following day would not augur joy and triumph but leaving his city in wrath. The time of the event given as ultu qablīti “after the middle watch (of the night)” has certainly a meaning too. There may be a connection between qablu (A) “middle” (sum.: múru) and qablu (B) “battle” (sum.: šen). The latter was often written with the sign múru too, instead of šen, so the phrase could be read as Marduk leaving ultu qabli “after battle”. 3–4: In the apodosis, the priestesses sinning against their divine husbands are rather the cause of divine wrath, not its outcome, see the discussion here on pp. 137f. On the ēnētu priestesses as “bridgeheads” of – possibly harmful – royal power, inserted into the temples, see also the comment on p. 228 above. The decay of the abandoned shrines and the destruction of the city walls are, however, clear results of Marduk’s departure. 4: Eridu, the city of Marduk’s father Enki-Ea, is a well-known ceremonial name of Babylon in the first millennium, especially when written eri-du10 “Sweet-City” as above,1807 instead of nunki. Babylon, not Eridu proper, is also the perfect match for Marduk-Bēl in the protasis. The opposition of “lofty” and “low” (šaqû – šaplu) is the very topic of the omen series Šumma ālu: “If a city (proudly) raises its head into the midst of the sky, that city will be cast down” (šumma ālu rēssu ana libbi šamê i(n)našši ālu šū innaddi, tablet 1:15; Freedman 1998, p. 26). Source 58: Omen: Devastation of Babylonia Obj:

Prov: Date: Lit: – –

Celestial omen; from Enūma Anu Enlil. A: Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 4:21–22. B: Virolleaud, ACh, Suppl. II, p. 28, no. 18: obv. 18–19. C: LBAT, no. 1526 rev. 1–3. (Babylonia); texts from Nineveh (A–B) and probably from Babylon (C). First Millennium: 7th century BCE (A–B); Seleucid period (C). Oppenheim 1936, p. 221. Roberts 1977, p. 187. Casaburi 2000, p. 89.

1805 For Adad smiting the ziqqurrat of Babylon see the Religious Chronicle (Source 37), III:19’

and the discussion in chapter 8.1.

1806 Pongratz-Leisten 1998–2001 (RlA 9), pp. 295–296, §§ 2.2.1a-b; Linssen 2004, p. 79; Zgoll

2006, pp. 29–30.

1807 See George 1992, pp. 38, 251–253, on Tintir I:21: eri-du10ki = ki-min (= ba-bi-lu) eri ṭa-a-bi

“Eridu = Babylon, the Sweet-City”; see also Source 35, l. 20 and Source 48.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

495

– Adalı 2009, pp. 87–88, 255–256, appendix 1 no. 31–32; idem 2011, p. 167. Cont: Devastation of Babylonia (by Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II), see chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3, as well as Source 32, Source 33, Source 34 (D), Source 53 and Source 72 (C). 1 šumma (ina) 20. ūmi Sîn u Šamaš itti aḫāmiš innamrū th – If on the 20 day the moon and the sun meet each other, A 21a diš u4-20-kám ki-min (= 30 u 20 ki a-ḫa-míš igimeš) B 18a diš u4-20-kám 30 u 20 ki aḫa-míš igimeš C 1a diš u4-20-kam 30 u 20 ki a-ḫa-míš igimeš 2 – A 21b B 18b C 1b

3 – A 21c B 18c C 2a

4 – A 22a B 19a C 2b

5 – A 22b B 19b C 3a

6 – A 22c B 19c C 3a

Ummān-Manda The Ummān-Manda érin-man-da érin-man-da érin-man-da

itebbīma will rise and zi-ma zi-ma zi-ma

māta ibêl rule the land, kur en-el kur en-el kur ⌈i⌉-[be-el]

parakkū ilānī (rabûti) innassaḫū(ma) the shrines of the (great) gods will be uprooted, bárameš diĝirmeš galmeš zimeš meš meš meš b[ára diĝir gal zimeš] meš meš bára diĝir zimeš-ma Bēl ana māt Elamti alakta / alaktuš iqabbi Bēl (himself) will order (his) going to the land of Elam. d+ en ana kur elam-maki ĝen du11-ga d+ en ana kur elam-maki a-rá du11-bi d+ en ana kur elam-maki ĝen-⌈tuš⌉ ⌈du11⌉-⌈bi] ina šelāšā šanāti tuktû uttarrū (But) after thirty years vengeance will be exacted ina 30 mumeš tuk-tu-ú ut-tar-ru ina 30 mumeš tuk-⌈tu-ú⌉ [ut-tar-ru] ina 30 mumeš tuk-tu-ú ut-tar-ru ilānū (rabûtu) ašruššunu / ana ašrīšunu iturrū (and) the (great) gods will return to their (proper) places. diĝirmeš galmeš ki-šú-nu i-tur-ru [diĝirmeš (galmeš) ki-šú-nu gurmeš] meš diĝir ana ki-šú-nu gurmeš

Com: This omen probably deals with the devastation of Babylonia by ŠutrukNaḫḫunte I and Kutir-Naḫḫunte II in the 12th century BCE (see chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3). The omen does not give the names of the Elamite rulers, nor does it name Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE) who actually took vengeance a © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

496

Edition of the Sources

generation later (see line 5). However, the important terms and topics which allow to attribute this omen to the event are “Marduk-Bēl and the gods of Babylonia going to Elam and returning from there (ll. 4, 6)”, and furthermore the “UmmānManda (l. 2)”, also mentioned as Babylonia’s enemies joining Kutir-Naḫḫunte in one of the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72; see p. 533 below with note 1913). 2–3: As becomes apparent from the verbal forms, the Ummān-Manda are construed here as a singular, which is a common feature in the typification of enemies, see p. 243 above. They are the logical but not the grammatical subject of the action of line 3. 5: The round number of thirty years for the exile of the Babylonian gods looks like an ideal number, perhaps meaning “one generation” (cf. p. 192). On the other hand, it also matches the period of time from the abduction of the statue of Marduk in ca. 1155 BCE to the beginning of the rule of Nebuchadnezzar I in ca. 1125 BCE as a new Heilszeit. According to Jonathan Taylor (paper read at the 65th RAI, 2019), a recently discovered kudurru of Nebuchadnezzar gives the matching number of 33 years for the wrath of “Enlil” to relent. Nebuchadnezzar’s victorious raid on Elam and the restoration of the statue of Marduk to Babylon cannot yet be firmly dated. Brinkman (1968, p. 105 with note 569) estimated that Nebuchadnezzar conceived the plan for retrieving the statue of Marduk early in his reign. Source 59: Omen: Disaster for the King of Babylonia Obj:

Celestial omen (lunar eclipse), from Enūma Anu Enlil, tablet 20. A: Virolleaud, ACh, Suppl. I, p. 27, no. 27:6’–15’ + Virolleaud, ACh, Suppl. I, p. 27, no. 28:20’–29’, = the beginnings of the lines of no. 27:6’–15’. (= Rochberg-Halton 1988, text C) B: AfO 17, 1954–1956, pl. 1: VAT 9419+11310, I:6’–17’. (= Rochberg-Halton 1988, text Q) C: AfO 17, 1954–1956, pl. 2: Uruk 159, 1’–2’. (= Rochberg-Halton 1988, text R) Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (A), Aššur (B) and Uruk (C). Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE (A–B), Neo/Late Babylonian period (C). Lit: Rochberg-Halton 1988, pp. 210–212, EAE 20, § XI, recension A. Cont: Lunar eclipse on the 14th of Šabāṭ, announcing the destruction of Babylon, devastation of the land and death of the king. See also Source 55, Source 56 and the discussion on p. 29 above. 1 – A 6’a B I 6’a

2 –

šumma ina (araḫ) Šabāṭ (ina) 14. ūmi attalû ittaškanma If in (the month) Šabāṭ (on) the 14th day an eclipse (of the moon) occurs diš ina itizíz u4-14-kám diĝir-gegge ĝar-ma [diš] ina itizíz u4-14-kam diĝir-gegge ĝar-ma ilu ina naʾdurīšu idi šūti elî[š] (inn)adirma idi šadî šapliš izku and the god, while darkening, becomes dark on the southern side abov[e] and clears on the eastern side below © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

diĝir ina kan5-šú á im-1 an-t[a diĝir {šá} ina kan5-šú [á im-1 an-ta]

A 6’b B I 6’b

3 –

(7’a)

497

kan5-ma á im-kur-ra ki-ta iz-ku] kan5-ma á im-kur-ra ki-ta iz-ku

iltānu šāt urri ušarrīma itti Šamaš innamir while there is the north wind (blowing and the moon) begins the morning watch and meets the sun im-si-sá en-nun u4-zal-le sar-ma ki dutu igi-ir (8’a) im-si-s[á en-nun u4-zal-le] sar-ma ki dutu ‹igi-ir›

A 7’a B I 7’b

4 –

qarnāšu šamê nakpā šurinna kalâšu ul iktumma itbal with his horns butting the sky, yet he does not conceal his emblem completely, and disappears; simeš-[šú an-e nak-pa] (8’a) šu-nir kala-šú nu dul-ma it-bal simeš-šú an-e nak-pa šu-[nir kala-šú nu1808 ] (9’a) dul-ma it-bal

A 7’b B I 8’b

5 –

ina 28. ūmi tammarma attalû qitrub/qurr[ub] ušarrīma sāmma You observe (it) on the 28th day, and the eclipse draws near, begins, and becomes red, ina u4-28-kam i[gi(!)-ma] (9’a) diĝir-gegge qit-ru-ub sar-ma sa5-ma ina u4-28-kám igi-ma diĝir-gegge qur-r[u-ub sar-ma sa5-ma]

A 8’b B I 9’b

6 – A 9’b B I 10’a

7 – A 10’b B I 10’b

8 –

attalâ ukallamka ilu ša ina naʾdurīšu innamrū́ma itbalu it (the šurinnu-emblem?) will show you the eclipse. The god who stayed visible in his darkening and who disappeared (only at last), diĝir-[gegge ú-kal-lam-ka] (10’a) diĝir ša!?(im) ina kan5-šú igi-ma tùm diĝir-gegge ú-kal-lam-ka diĝir šá ina kan5-šú igi-ma t[ùm] naʾduršu tammarma iltāna ina qātīka tukāl you observe his darkening and bear in mind (lit.: “in your hand”) the north (wind). kan5-šú igi-ma im-s[i-sá ina šu-ka tu-kal] [kan5-šú igi-ma] (11’a) im-si-sá ina šu-ka tu-kal

B I 11’b

ina libbi (āl) Bābil purussû nadin The decision is given with respect to (the city of) Babylon. ina šà eri ká-diĝir-raki eš-bar sum-in ina šà {ana} ká-diĝir-r[aki eš-bar sum-in]

9 –

Bābil ḫalāqšu ([qitrub] /) qurrub The destruction of Babylon is near.

A 11’a

1808 It is strange not to find the negation directly in front of its verb at the beginning of

the following line. Did the scribe mistake -šú nu for -šú-nu?

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

498 A 11’b B I 12’a

10 – A 12’a B I 12’b

11 – A 12’b B I 13’a

12 – A 13’a B I 13’b

13 – A 13’b B I 14’b

14 – A 13’c B I 14’b

15 – A 14’b B I 15’b C 1’

16 – A 14’c B I 16’a

ká-diĝir-ra[ki ká-diĝir-raki

záḫ-šú záḫ-šú

qit-ru-ub] qur-ru-ub

mātu sapiḫtu sapāḫ‹ša› qitrub (/ [qurrub]) The scattering of the land (to be) scattered is near. kur bir-tu4 bir-aḫ-‹šá› qit-ru-ub kur bir!(ḫi)-tu4 bir-[aḫ-šá qur-ru-ub] Enlil māta kalâša īrur ittazar Enlil(-Marduk) has cursed and condemned the entire land. d+ en-líl kur dù-a-bi-š[á i-ru-ur it-ta-za-ar] d+ en-líl kur kala-šá i-ru-ur it-ta-za-ar šarru ša annâ iqbûšu The king, to whom he (once) said “yes” (, he has rejected by now), lugal šá an-na-a iq-bu-šú (14’a) l[ugal šá an-na-a] iq-bu-šú nišūšu issappaḫā palûšu gamir (and so) his people will be scattered, his reign is at an end. ùĝmeš-šú birmeš bala-šú [til] meš ùĝ -šú birmeš bala-šú til ina p[î ilān]ī ḫalāqšu qitrub/qurrub By the comm[and of the god]s his downfall is near. (14’a) [ina ka diĝirmeš záḫ-šú] qit-ru-ub m eš (15’a) ina k[a diĝir ] ⌈záḫ-šú⌉ qur-ru-ub palâ (āl) Bābil Uri iṭṭir/ikkim Ur will take away the rule of (the city of) Babylon. bala eri ká-diĝir-raki úriki kar-⌈ir⌉1809 ki ki bala ká-diĝir-ra úri [i]k-ki-im […] bala! eki ⌈úri⌉ki ik-⌈kim⌉ kiššūt Bābil Uri ileqqe Ur will take the supremacy of (/ dominion over) Babylon. [šú-ut ká-diĝir-raki úriki ti-qé] ki šú-ut ká-diĝir-ra úriki ti-qé

1809 The transliteration of kar-⌈ir⌉ follows Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 211; according to the

copy, the last sign (ir) is broken off.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

17 – A 15’ B I 16’b C 2’

499

ilu ša ina naʾdurīšu mūšu *issuḫu kīʾam ([it]tašu u) purussûšu Thus is the ([si]gn and) decision of the god during whose eclipse the night ended. diĝir ‹šá› ina kan5-šú ĝi6 is-suḫ [ki-a-am eš-bar-šú] (17’) diĝir šá ina kan5-šú ĝi6 is-suḫ ki-a-am eš-bar-šú [diĝir šá ina kan5-šú ĝi6 is-suḫ ki-a-am ĝiš]kim-šú u eš-bar-šú

Com: The protasis consists of a complicated chain with several different celestial phenomena occurring during a lunar eclipse on the 14th of Šabāṭ. Apart from the present oracle concerning Babylon, there are also oracles dealing with lunar eclipses occurring on the 14th of different months concerning: – Ur (Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 187 § II, p. 189 § III, p. 193 § IV) – Ešnunna (ibidem p. 196 § V) – Babylonia (= māt Akkadî, ibidem p. 201 § VI) – Mutabal (ibidem p. 203 § VII; predicting also the fall of Babylon) – Eridu (= nunki, ibidem p. 205 § VIII) – Dēr (ibidem p. 208 § IX) – Subartu (ibidem p. 209 § X) – Amurru (ibidem p. 212 § XII). In the Babylonian calendar, lunar eclipses are only possible between the 12th and the 16th day of a given month. The classic dates for lunar eclipses dealt with in Babylonian celestial divination are the 14th–16th and, strangely enough, the 20th– 21st day; see see Rochberg-Halton 1988, p. 38; Hunger 1993–1997b (RlA 8), p. 359, § 3a and the other examples here in Source 55 and Source 56. 1: I read the signs AN.MI denoting an eclipse (attalû) as diĝir-gegge, originally meaning “dark(ened) god”.1810 The signs render the Akkadian loanword attalû “eclipse”, derived in turn from Sumerian an-ta-lù “darkened, clouded from above”. 10: The peculiar phrase *mātu sapiḫtu sapāḫša qitrub, literally “the scattering of the scattered land is near”, is quite certainly a contradictio in adiecto, meaning “the scattering of the land (which is to be) scattered is near”. 12–13: The omen is particularly interesting because of the notion that Enlil(Marduk) would turn against a king whom he originally had favoured, certainly because this king had sinned against the god in the meantime. This is highly reminiscent of the treatment of the reign of Sargon of Akkade by the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 60–61), see the commentary on l. 61 there and the discussion on p. 153. 16: For the idea of exercising “dominion over Babylon” (kiššūt Bābil) see also Source 45, line 8. 17: In the idealized verbal form issuḫu, I have restored the subordinative ending that is to be expected after the relative pronoun ša in the same line. However, the ending is not visible in the orthography is-suḫ, unless we decide to transliterate is-suḫux.

1810 On gegge(-g) “black/dark”, formerly read gi6-g/gíg, see note 1091 on p. 231.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

500

Edition of the Sources

Source 60: Omen: Disaster for the King of Babylonia Obj:

Omen from the liver; multābiltu tablet 14. A: TCL 6, no. 1, rev. 18. B: Koch 2005, pl. 6, 81–2–4, 249, rev. 13. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Uruk (A) and probably from Nineveh (B). Date: First millennium: 7th cent. (B); Seleucid Era (A: 91 SE = 221 BCE). Lit: Nougayrol 1945, pp. 14–15, no. 51. – Koch 2005, p. 203, l. 87. Cont: Omen announcing disaster (šaḫluqtu) for the king of Babylonia. ́ a lupputat – šumma amūtu kalûšām amūt šar māt Akkadî ša šaḫluqti – If the liver is completely anomalous, (it is) an omen pertaining to the king of the land of Akkad (: Babylonia), meaning disaster. A be bà ka-lu-šá-ma tagmeš-at bà-ut lugal uriki šá níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma meš B [be bà ka-lu-šá-ma tag -at bà-ut lugal uriki šá níĝ-ḫa-lam]-ma Com: The idea of an omen being completely anomalous, announcing complete disaster, is reminiscent of the omen from an anomaly in Source 24. As opposed to the latter omen, which gives no information at all, the present omen gives too much information: everything is wrong, the liver as a whole is anomalous. This, however, leads to the same result as in Source 24: The communication between gods and men is not only in disorder, but has virtually broken down. The plural determinative meš in tagmeš-at is obviously a marker of intensivity or plurality of action, which can be expressed by the Gtn – or even more so – by the D stem.1811 The orthography √meš equals √-√, an iconic or illustrating spelling habit, which ultimately goes back to Sumerian. A very similar case in the present corpus is badme[š(-at)] ∥ pu-ut-ta-ti = puttât “it is wide open” (Source 52). The prase amūt Kingxy ša šaḫluqti “omen of Kingxy, meaning disaster” is typical of the omens on Ibbi-Sîn. Here, the royal name apparently has been replaced by the term “king of Babylonia”, as in the omen of Source 56 (line 4). The replacement of “Ibbi-Sîn” with “king of Babylonia” is probably enhanced by the orthographical abbreviation lugal uriki instead of lugal kur uriki, which leads to the homophony of lugal uriki (“king of Babylonia”) and lugal uri2/5ki (“king of Ur”), see also the commentary on line 4 of Source 56. Nougayrol (1945, p. 15, no. 51) even translated straightforwardly – but inaccurately – “roi d’Ur”, although the city of Ur is always written with the signs uri2/5ki, never with uriki. He appears to have had the right inkling, though. Source 61: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 17) Obj:

Prov:

Omen from the liver; multābiltu commentary 4. A: Nougayrol 1969 (Iraq 31), p. 59, AO 7756, obv. 3’. B: Koch 2005, pl. 15, K 3829, obv. II:8’. C: CT 30, pl. 9, K 3843+4105, obv. 20’–21’. (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (B–C, probably also A).

1811 See Kouwenberg 1997, pp. 168–175, chapter 6.7; pp. 178–179, chapter 6.8.2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

501

Date: Lit: – – – Cont: –

First millennium, 7th cent. BCE. Weidner 1928–1929, p. 237: E. Nougayrol 1945, p. 17, no. 65. Nougayrol 1969, pp. 59–60, obv. 3’. Koch 2005, p. 258, l. 34. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 17). šumma šanû (šumšu) amūtu kīma imšukkimma piṭrī saḫratma marta u ubāna lā [īši] amūt Ibbi-[Sîn (…)] – If – secondly – the liver is like a domed lid, is encircled by splits and does not [have] a gall bladder and no finger, (it is) an omen of Ibbi-[Sîn (…)]. A be mìn-ú mu-ni min-ma du8meš saḫ-rat-ma (= bà gin7 im-šu-uk-ki-ma) zí u šu-si [nu tuku bà-ut i-bí-d30 (…)] B be mìn-ú bà gin7 im-šuk-ki-m[a du8meš saḫ-rat-ma] d [zí u šu-si nu tuku bà-ut i-bí- 30 (…)] C be mìn-ú bà gin7 im-šuk-ki-ma du8meš saḫ-rat-ma d zí u šu-si ⌈nu⌉ [tuku] / bà-ut i-bí-[ 30 (…)] Com: The clearest element which hints at Ibbi-Sîn is the gall bladder missing. At Old Babylonian Mari, as well as at Susa and Boğazköy, the gall bladder (martu) was explicitly called rēʾûm “shepherd”, see the literature in note 1362 on p. 290. It denoted the native king. So the gall bladder missing hints at the abduction of king Ibbi-Sîn to enemy country. The same imagery is employed in the omens of Source 13, Source 14 and Source 15; see also Source 11 with a similar omen denoting the “disaster of Akkade”. My translation of imšukku with “domed lid” follows Koch (2005, p. 258, l. 34). See also the discussion in CAD I–J p. 139, s.v. imšukku where it is understood as some kind of casing or cover, but set apart from imgurru, the clay envelope of a tablet. Source 62: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 18) Obj:

Omen from the liver (padānu “path”). Text: CT 20, pl. 13, K 6271, rev. 12’ (+ indented line). Prov: (Babylonia); the extant text is from Nineveh. Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Weidner 1928–1929, p. 237: D. – Nougayrol 1945, pp. 9–10, no. 22. – Koch-Westenholz 2000, p. 211, rev. 12’–13’. Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 18). – šumma padānu šeššetma iria šaknū šaḫluqtu amūt Ibbi-Sîn šar Uri – If the path is (present) sixfold and they are lying side by side, (it means) disaster, (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sîn, king of Ur. – be ĝíri 6-ma i-ri-a ĝarmeš níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma bà-ut i-bí-d30 / ⌈lugal úri⌉ki Com: For a discussion of other omens dealing with the numbers six and seven (see the omen discussed in the commentary below) in the sense of “many” or “totality” see Winitzer 2017, pp. 431–438, chapter 5.4.1.3.2: “Five and Beyond”. See © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

502

Edition of the Sources

also the Ibbi-Sîn omen no. 11 in the Book of Prodigies (Source 36, l. 8, commentary on pp. 417f.), which deals with a date palm with six tops. Apart from the numerical element which can trigger the notion of “final and total disaster” here, there appears to be also an illustrative element. The path being sixfold evokes the image of the Ummān-Manda invading Babylonia. In the Middle-Babylonian recension of the Cuthean Legend, the number of their kings is given as six.1812 In the recension from the first millennium, their number is given as seven.1813 The information that the paths are lying side by side (*aḫu), running parallel to one another, evokes the image of the kings of the Ummān-Manda being “united in brotherhood” (atḫû), known from the Cuthean Legend.1814 The omen quoted above is augmented by another omen from the first millennium which deduces the attack of the Ummān-Manda and the devastation of the land from a “sevenfold path (of the liver)”. It can be restored from the same tablet (A) from Nineveh which also contains the Ibbi-Sîn omen under discussion, and from another tablet (B) from Aššur, which apparently did not contain the Ibbi-Sîn omen. At the end of either tablet, after the section dealing with the path being sixfold, either text adds a single line which has the signs *-da ú-lu in common. In the break at the end of the line in manuscript A, there is room for two or three signs, so kur = mātu and and ĝál(-ši) = ibbašši present themselves.1815 I propose to restore the omen as follows: – šum[ma pa]dānu sebet tibût Ummān-Manda ū-lū šaḫluqti [māti ibbašši]1816 – “I[f the p]ath is (present) sevenfold, attack of the Ummān-Manda; or: the devastation of [the land will occur].” A [be ĝíri 7 zi-ut érin-man-d]a ú-lu níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma [kur ĝál(-ši)] B b[e ĝ]íri 7 zi-ut érin-man-da ú-l[u níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma kur ĝál(-ši)] The omen discussed here as Source 62 appears to associate or to group the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster with an attack of the Ummān-Manda. The historical enemies of Ibbi-Sîn were Anšan, Elam and Šimaški.1817 Šimaški very quickly vanished from the memories of the event. The later traditions from the first millennium BCE attribute the historical and possible future devastations of Babylonia to Anšan, Elam, the Gutians and the Ummān-Manda. In this scheme, the fall of the empire of Akkade, the fall of Ur and the fall of the Kassite empire blend into one another. Historical adversaries and semi-demonic enemies merge into a “beast from the east”, see chapter 11.4, B–C.

Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 286, side B:7’. Goodnick Westenholz 1997a, p. 310, lines 37, 40–46. See the commentary on omen no. 11 in line 8 of the Book of Prodigies (Source 36). For šaḫluqti māti see e.g.: ša-aḫ-lu-uq-ti kalam (YOS 10, no. 47, rev. 63, see p. 302 below with note 1385), and more examples in CAD Š/I, p. 99, s.v. šaḫluqtu 1b. 1816 A: CT 20, pl. 13, K 6271, rev. 18’; Koch-Westenholz 2000, p. 212, rev. 18’. – B: Heeßel 2012, pp. 100, 103, 394, no. 19, rev. 55. 1817 See chapters 2.4 and 10.4, A. 1812 1813 1814 1815

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

503

Source 63: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 19) Obj:

Prov: Date: Lit: – – – – Cont: – –

A D E F G H

Omen from the liver; multābiltu commentary 4. A: Nougayrol 1969 (Iraq 31), p. 60, AO 7756, rev. 7. D: CT 30, pl. 37, K 12726, l. 6’. E: CT 28, pl. 49, K 6231, obv. 1’ (+ indented line). F: CT 30, pl. 19, no. 83–1–18, 458, rev. III:5’ (“6’” + indented line). G: K 2189, III:1’; photo: CDLI no. P394248. H: Heeßel 2008 (RA 102), p. 145, K 11141, rev. 3’. (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (D–H, probably also A). First millennium: 7th century BCE. Weidner 1928–1929, p. 237: C. Nougayrol 1945, pp. 22–23, no. 84. Nougayrol 1969, pp. 60–61, rev. 7. Koch 2005, p. 260, l. 47. Heeßel 2008, pp. 137–138, rev. 3’. Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 19). šumma rebû (šumšu) martu eli marti ubānu eli ubāni amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša (māt) Elamtu(/-i) ušalpitu(-šu) If – fourthly – there is a gall bladder over the gall bladder, (and) a finger over the finger, (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sîn, whom (the land of) Elam annihilated. be 4-ú mu-šú z[í ug]u z[í š]u-si ugu šu-si [be 4-ú (mu-šú) z]í ugu z[í š]u-si ugu šu-si be ⌈4-ú⌉ ⌈zí⌉ [ugu zí šu-si ugu šu-si] be 4-ú zí ugu zí šu-s[i ug]u šu-si {min} [be 4-ú (mu-šú) zí ugu zí šu-si ugu šu-si] [be 4-ú (mu-šú) zí ugu zí šu-si ugu šu-si]

bà-ut Ii-[bí-d30] [šá (kur) elam-maki ú-šal-pi-tu] I d D bà-u[t i-bí- 30] [šá (kur) elam-maki ú-šal-pi-tu] E [bà-ut Ii-bí-d30] šá kur elam-mak[i ú-šal-pi-tu] F bà-ut Ii-[bí-d3]0 [šá (kur) ela]m-maki ú-šal-⌈pi-tu⌉ I d G [bà-ut i-b]í- 30 šá elam-maki ú-šal-pi-tu I d H [bà-ut i-bí- 30 šá (kur) elam-maki ú-šal]-pi-tú-šú Com: The translation of the apodosis (“whom the land of Elam annihilated”) should be certainly as presented above. Koch (2005, p. 260 with note 365) however, in taking Ibbi-Sîn erroneously as the subject of the phrase, translates “omen of Ibbi-Sîn, who overthrew Elam”, and she comments “not strictly in accordance with the known historical facts, dafür grammatisch einwandfrei” (“grammatically flawless”). This is, of course, completely contradictory to the history and the omen tradition on Ibbi-Sîn. Furthermore, in the relative clause ša māt Elamti ušalpitu, Elam can very well be the subject of the phrase. It is certainly clearer to use an accusative suffix and say ša … ušalpitū́šu as text H actually does – a manuscript which was not known to Koch in 2005 – but not strictly necessary. A

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

504

Edition of the Sources

The verb šulputu (“to ruin/to wreck/to desecrate”) is quite a strong term. With personal objects it is almost never used, see the examples collected in CAD L, pp. 92–93, s.v. lapātu 5b-c. Apart from Ibbi-Sîn in the omen under discussion, the few exceptions comprise the sacrilegious slaying of Ḫumbaba in the Standard Babylonian edition of the Epic of Gilgameš (tablet VIII:54; George 2003/I, p. 654) and the likewise sacrilegious wrecking of the good people of Babylon by Enmerkar and Narām-Sîn in the Esaĝil-Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 42, 62). So, translating šulputu here with “to defeat” or “to overthrow” – as does CAD (L, p. 92, s.v. lapātu 5b) – is far too mild. The focus is on actual ruin and annihilation. The same apodosis is possibly to be restored in Source 64. In the line directly following on the omen under discussion, there is a very similar omen with a more abstract apodosis: – šumma ḫamšu šumšu martu eli marti ubānu eli ubāni amūtu eli amūti kussû kussâ idarris1818 – “If – fifthly – there is a gall bladder over the gall bladder, (and) a finger over the finger, (and) a liver over the liver, one throne will overthrow the other.” Obviously, the idea of these omens is that corresponding elements subdue and supersede one another competingly, cf. the omen of Source 16. The chain of association would run towards “complete annihilation or replacement of one rule by the other”. Source 64: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 20) Obj:

Omen from Enūma Anu Enlil, Astronomy. Text: Virolleaud 1909 (Babyloniaca 3), p. 276, Sm 1224, l. 5’. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant manuscript is probably from Nineveh. Date: First millennium, 7th century BCE. Lit: Virolleaud 1909, pp. 272–273. – Weidner 1928–1929, p. 237, briefly in commentary on C. Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 20). – [šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu pur]rur amūt Ibbi-Sîn ša māt [Elamti ušalpitu(šu)] (or:) ša mās[su ibbalkitū́šu] – [If the moon is dif]fuse [when appearing,] (it is) an omen of Ibbi-Sîn whom the land [of Elam annihilated]. (or:) [against] whom [his (own)] land [revolted]. – [diš 30 ina igi-lá-šú pur]-ru-úr bà-ut i-bí-d30 šá kur [elam-maki ú-šal-pi-tu(-šú) / ḫul(-šú)] (or:) šá kur [-su ib-bal-ki-tu-šú / bala-šú] Com: The restoration of the protasis is based upon the two following omens using purrur in the stative “(the moon) is diffuse” (CAD P , p. 163, s.v. parāru 2f):

1818 After Koch 2005, pp. 260–261, l. 48.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

505

A: šumma Sîn ina tāmartīšu purrur mātu lumun libbi [immar . . . . .] – “If the moon is diffuse when appearing, (this means:) the land will [experience] grief [. . . . .]” – diš 30 ina igi-lá-šú pur-ru-ur kur šà-ḫul [igi . . . . .] (Virolleaud, ACh, Sîn no. 5, l. 7) B: diš 30 min-ma1819 pur-ru-ur u im ⌈x⌉ [ . . . . .] (Virolleaud, ACh, Suppl., p. 13, no. 12, l. 24) The moon being “diffuse”, “scattered” or “disintigrated” (purrur) apparently is the trigger to associate the “scattering” of the moon-god’s city Ur in the Ibbi-Sîn Disaster as the apodosis. The apodoses are restored from Source 63 (šulputu “to annihilate”), respectively from Source 12 and Source 13 (nabalkutu “to revolt”). Instead of Elam, Anšan might be the name of Ibbi-Sîn’s enemy, as it apparently is in Source 65. Source 65: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 21) Obj:

Omen from the liver; multābiltu tablet 3 (cf. Koch 2005, pp. 138–142). Text: Heeßel 2008 (RA 102), p. 141, K 3870+3976, obv. 35’–36’. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant text is from Nineveh. Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Nougayrol 1969, p. 63, note 13. – Heeßel 2008, pp. 121, 123, obv. 35’–36’. Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 21). – [šumma têrta teppušma ina šalimti] ⌈sebe⌉ pitrušātu šaknā ul [šalmat] [ina lā šalimti šalmat – amūt] Ibbi-Sîn ša māt A[nšan ušalpitū́šu] – [If you perform an extispicy, and in a favourable one] there are ⌈seven⌉ ambiguous signs, [it is] not [favourable]; [in an unfavourable one it is favourable – (it is) an omen of] Ibbi-Sîn, whom the land of A[nšan annihilated]. – (35’) [be uzuur5-úš dù-ma ina silim-ti] ⌈7⌉ du8-ušmeš-te ĝar-na nu [silim-át] (36’) [ina nu silim-ti silim-át bà-ut] Ii-bí-d30 šá kur a[n-ša4-anki ḫul-šú] Com: Nougayrol (1969, p. 63, note 13) proposed to read the latter half as: šá KUR N[IM(?).MAKI …], i.e. “whom the land E[lam annihilated]”, following the phrase of Source 63. This proposal was correctly refuted by Heeßel (2008, p. 125) who, however, did not propose another reading. At first sight, one is tempted to read šá kur-s[u bala-šú] = ša māss[u ibbalkitū́šu] “[against] whom h[is (own)] land [revolted]”, based on the phrases used in Source 12 and Source 13, cf. also Source 64. But the sign in the break is rather a[n-] than -s[u], and so I propose that here Anšan has replaced Elam in the phrase known from Source 63. The explanation given in these lines forms the last entry in a paragraph dealing with up to seven “ambiguous signs” (pitruštu, see p. 269 with note 1282) found in 1819 It is unclear what the note min-ma “ditto” is referring to. The lines above are broken,

and the phrase ina igi-šú (= ina tāmartīšu “when appearing”) occurs in the text only below, in line 26.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

506

Edition of the Sources

the extispicy. It is interesting to see that the tradition of the first millennium connects the highest degree of ambiguity with Ibbi-Sîn. It seems to match the older tradition that had it that Ibbi-Sîn was mistaken in interpreting the omens sent to him by Enlil, see Source 3 and the discussion on pp. 86ff. The numerical element “seven” occurs also in the Ibbi-Sîn omen (ISO 22) of Source 66. Source 66: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 22) Obj:

Omen from the intestinal convolutions; 2nd tablet of the chapter šumma tīrānū. Text: K 3670 + K 6204 + K 8343 + K 11281 + K 12387 + K 12874, rev. 4; unpublished, photo: CDLI no. P395160. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant text is from Nineveh. Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Boissier 1905, p. 93 (“oracle de Ine Sin”). – Nougayrol 1945, p. 8, no. 15. Cont: Omen of Ibbi-Sîn (ISO 22). – šumma tīrānū sebet amūt Ibbi-[Sîn . . . . . . . .] – If there are seven intestinal convolutions, (it is) an omen of Ibbi-[Sîn . . .] – be šà-niĝin 7 bà-ut i-bí-⌈d⌉[30 . . . . . . .] Com: This is the only Ibbi-Sîn omen extant up to now dealing with the intestinal convolutions (tīrānū). The numerical element “seven” occurs also in the Ibbi-Sîn omen (ISO 21) of Source 65. Source 67: Omen of [Ibbi-Sîn] (ISO 23) Obj:

Omen from the lung (ḫašû). Text: De Zorzi 2016 (JCS 68), p. 140, BM 61665 (+) 93054, rev. 3; older copy of BM 61665 by Starr 1986, col. 640. Prov: (Babylonia), the extant text is from Sippar (CBT VII, p. 45). Date: Late Babylonian period. Lit: Starr 1986, cols. 640–642, rev. 3. – De Zorzi 2016, pp. 132, 139–140, rev. 3. Cont: Omen of [Ibbi-Sîn] (ISO 23). For the Old Babylonian precursor see Source 21. See also Source 20 for a very similar Ibbi-Sîn omen dealing with the “view” (naplastum). – šumma ḫašû kīma kīsi urrur a[mūt Ibbi-Sîn ša šaḫ]luqt[i] – If the lung is deeply grooved like a (leather) bag, (it is) an o[men of Ibbi-Sîn, meaning dis]aste[r]. – be mur gin7 ki-si ur-ru-ur b[à-ut i-bí-d30 šá níĝ-ḫ]a-lam-m[a] Com: The name of Ibbi-Sîn is broken, but the comment [ša šaḫ]luqt[i] “[meaning dis]aste[r]” makes it clear that this is one of the omens pertaining to this king. According to its apodosis, the omen is a late version of the Ibbi-Sîn omen from Source 21. In the Old Babylonian forerunner from Source 21, the lung (ḫašû) is construed as a feminine noun. But here, as in the Old Babylonian text YOS 10, no. 7 (ll. 6, 29: ⌈ša⌉© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

507

lim), it is construed as a masculine noun. Furthermore, the form urrur shows a variation of the root (ḫ)arāru without the initial consonant. This variation occurs already in the Old Babylonian texts of YOS 10, see CAD Ḫ p. 91, s.v. ḫarāru A, 2b) ḫurrur “to have folds/grooves” with *ḫurrur besides *urrur. For the idea šumma xy kīma kīsi (ḫ)urrur(at) “if element xy is deeply grooved like a (leather) bag” see also Source 20 and Source 21. See the commentary of Source 20 on this imagery of impoverishment. De Zorzi (2016, p. 143, commentary on rev. 3) refers to the same protasis in Šumma ḫašû tablet 1, 20’. Source 68: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 3) Obj:

Omen from an anomaly of a sheep1820 (Šumma izbu 5:125). A: CT 27, pl. 22, rev. 21. B: CT 51, pl. 40, no. 118, l. 8’. C: Leichty 2005 (CTMMA 2), pl. 57, no. 41, obv. 7’. Prov: (Babylonia); manuscripts from Nineveh (A) and Babylon? (B–C). Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE (A); Neo- or Late Babylonian (B–C); Late Babylonian (C). Lit: Weidner 1928–1929, p. 238, A. – Leichty 1970, p. 83, Šumma izbu V:105. – Leichty 2005, p. 191, no. 41, obv. 7’. – Michalowski 2011, p. 214. – De Zorzi 2014, pp. 126, 487, Šumma izbu 5:125. Cont: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 3). – šumma laḫru alpa ūlidma šitta zibbātūšu amūt Išbi-Erra ša māḫira lā īšû – If a ewe gives birth to a bull and it has two tails, (it is) an omen of Išbi-Erra who had no rival. A be u8 gu4 ù-tu-ma 2 kunmeš-šú bà-ut iš-bi-dèr-ra šá gaba-ri nu tuku-⌈ú] B [be u8] gu4 ⌈ù⌉-[t]u-ma 2 kunmeš-šú bà-ut iš:bi-dèr-ra [šá gaba-ri nu tuku-ú] C [be] ⌈u8⌉ g[u4] ⌈ù-tu-ma⌉ [2] ⌈kun⌉meš-šú bà-ut iš-bi-dè[r-ra šá g]aba-⌈ri⌉ n[u tuku-ú] Com: The basic idea appears to be “to have a rival”, although the fully formulated apodosis states the opposite: “to have no rival”, i.e. “to have an opponent but he is no match”. The imagery of the omen probably understands the “bull” as a “powerful kingdom”, and its two tails as “rivals”, hinting at the rivalry between Ibbi-Sîn and Išbi-Erra for kingship, a situation from which Išbi-Erra emerged as a winner. At the end of the line, the copy of text A shows the two front verticals of -⌈ú]. Leichty (1970, p. 83, Šumma izbu V:105), however, transliterated TUK-⌈ši⌉ (!). According to De Zorzi (2014, p. 502 on line 125), the tablet is broken after tuku today. 1820 Here, the “ewe” (laḫru) is explicitly mentioned, but see fundamentally on this matter

Leichty 1970, p. 3; George 2013, pp. 49–50.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

508

Edition of the Sources

Source 69: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 4) Obj:

Omen from the [intestinal convolutions]; multābiltu commentary 4. Text: CT 30, pl. 10, K 3843+4105, rev. 4’. Prov: (Babylonia); the extant text is from Nineveh. Date: First millennium: 7th century BCE. Lit: Weidner 1928–1929, p. 238, B. – Nougayrol 1945, p. 25, no. 103. – Koch 2005, p. 265, l. 83 (C r4’). – Michalowski 2011, p. 214 with note 79. Cont: Omen of Išbi-Erra of Isin (IEO 4). – [šumma tīrānū . . . . . .]. . amūt Išbi-Err[a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] – [If the intestinal convolutions . . . . .]. . (it is) an omen of Išbi-Err[a . . . . .] – [be šà-niĝin . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ bà-ut iš!-bi-er-r[a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] Com: Nothing can be deduced from this omen but that Išbi-Erra of Isin was still remembered in the first millennium. Interestingly, his name is written purely syllabographically, instead of with the classic spelling *iš-bi-(d)èr-ra. Source 70: Letter of Samsu-iluna: The Sins of the Priests of Babylonia Obj:

Excerpt from a probably fictional letter of king Samsu-iluna (ca. 1749– 1712 BCE) to Enlil-nādin-šumi, his official. Text 1: Iraq 56, 1994, p. 136, fig. 1. Text 2: Gurney, UET 7, no. 155, rev. V:8–17. Prov: Originally from Babylon, manuscripts from Sippar (1) and Ur (2). Date: The extant manuscripts date to the Late Babylonian period. Because of the text’s religious-political attitude and because of a particular phrase, AlRawi & George (1994, p. 137) suppose that the composition originated during Marduk’s struggle for supremacy in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (ca. 1125–1104 BCE). Lit: Al-Rawi & George 1994, pp. 135–139. – Beaulieu 2009. – Scurlock 2012, pp. 373–374. Cont: Sins committed by the priests of Babylonia against Marduk, king of the gods (text 1, obv. 12–14, skipped here); see p. 117 above with note 544. A. A1 – 1 ov. 7 2 V:8b

The Accusation against the Priests of Babylonia ašmēma: ēribūt-bīti kinaltu nêšakkū pašīšū1821 I have heard (the reports): The temple enterers, the collegium, nêšakku-priests, pašīšu-priests lú áš-me-e-ma lúku4-é! ki-na-al-tu lú!nu-èš pa-ši-š[i!(meš)] lú (9) lú lú (10a) lú áš-me-e-ma [ k]u4-é pa-ši-šú e-dam-mu-ú né-šak-ku

1821 Manuscript 2 has another range: [ē]ribūt-bīti pašīšū edammû nêšakkū “The temple

[o]fficials, the pašīšu-, edammû- and nêšakku-priests.”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

A2 – 1 ov. 8 2 V:10b

A3 – 1 ov. 9a 2 V:12b

A4 – 1 ov. 9b 2 V:14

A5 – 1 ov. 10b 2 V:15b

A6 – 1 ov. 11b 2 V:17b

A7 – 1 ov. 11b 2:

B. B1 – 1 rv. 4’

B2 – 2 rv. 5’a

u diĝirgubbû ša māḫāzī māt Akkadî mala bašû and diĝirgubbû-priests of the cult-centres of the land of Akkad, as many as there are, ù lúdiĝir-gub-bameš šá ma-ḫa-zu kur uriki ma-la ⌈ĝál⌉-[ú] u diĝir-gub-bameš (11) [šá ma-ḫ]a-zi kur a[k-k]a-di-i (12a) [m]a-l[a ba-š]u-⌈ú⌉ ṣarrāti ītaḫḫazū have taken to falsehood, ṣar-ra-a-tu4 i!-ta!-ḫaz (13) [ṣa]r-⌈ra-a-ta⌉ i-taḫ-ḫa-za

anzilla iktabsū committed abominations, an-zil!-lu4 ik-tab-su a[n-zil-l]u4 ik-tab-su

dāma iltaptū lā šalmāti ītammû they have spilled (lit.: “touched”) blood, they have spoken untruths. da-me il-⌈tap-tu⌉ (10a) la šal-ma-a-tu4 i!-ta!-mu-ú (15a) da-mu ⌈il⌉-tap-t[u] [l]a šal-ma-tú i-ta-mu-ú (ina) šaplānu ilīšunu uḫannapū uša(*ḫ)napū Deep down (in their hearts) they profane and desecrate their gods, (11a) šap-la-nu diĝirmeš-šú-nu ú-ḫa-an-na+pu ú-šá-an-na!-pu (16) meš ? (17a) ina ša[p-l]a-nu diĝir -šú-nu ú-ḫan(kan)-n[a-p]í ú-šá-an-na-pí iṣabburū isurrū (r[aggiš]) they prattle (idle things) and whirl about ([with] e[vil intent]). i-ṣab-bu-ru i-sur!-ru (18) i-s[ur-ru] u i-ṣab-bu-ru ⌈ra?⌉-a[g-giš] amât ilūšunu lā iqbû ana muḫḫi ilīšunu šaknū Things their gods did not command they establish for their gods. a-mat diĝirmeš-šú-nu la iq-bu-ú (12a) a-na ugu diĝirmeš-šú-nu šak-nu (This phrase is missing from text 2) The Punishment inanna: ina maḫar ilūtīka rabīti aššu marušti u anzilli ša il[ānī] Now then, in the presence of your great godhead, on account of the wickedness and abominations against the go[ds], ina-an-na ina ma!-ḫar ⌈diĝir-ti⌉-ka gal!-tú áš-šú ma-ru-uš-tú u an-zil-lu4 šá di[ĝirmeš] atta ubbissunūti smash them, at-ta ub-bit-su-nu!-tú

qummīšunūti burn them, qu-mi-šú-nu-ti

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

509

510

B3 – 1 rv. 5’b

B4 – 1 rv. 6’b

B5 – 1 rv. 7’b

B6 – 1 rv. 8’a

B7 – 1 rv. 8’b

Edition of the Sources

qullīšunūti šumqissu [nūti] ana kīr paḫāri roast them, cast [them] into the potter’s kiln, qu-liš-šú-nu-ti šu!-um+qí-it-s[u-nu-tú] (6’a) a-na ki-ri lúbáḫar! (dug!-silà!-bur!) šuqtir quturšunu ina išāt ašāgi ezzeti šukun maqlâšun let their smoke billow, and bring about their (ritual) burning with the fierce flame of the boxthorn! šuq-tir qu-tur-šú-un ina i-šat a-šá-gu ez-ze-tú (7’a) šu-kun ma-aq-la-šu-un u pašīšū māt Akkadî mala bašû Now, the pašīšu-priests of the land of Akkad, as many as there are, ù! lúpa-ši-ši kur uriki ma-la ba-šu!-ú līmurūma likkudū lišḫuṭū they may see and may become extremely afraid! li-mu-ru-ma lik-ku-du liš-ḫu-ṭu yāši Samsu-iluna šarru dannu migir Ani u Enlil liqbûni To me, Samsu-iluna, the strong king, favourite of Anu and Enlil, they may answer! ia-a-ši(!) Isa-am-su!?-i-lu-na (9) lugal dan-nu mi-gir da-ni7 u d+en-líl liq-bu-ni

Com: Francis Joannès collected and discussed material which shows that in Babylonia burning was particularly used to punish offences committed against gods and temples.1822 Apart from the element of complete annihilation, burning also comprised the element of purification, and in a way it illustrated the destructive contact with the gods’ “burning radiance”, melemmū, lit. “scorching powers”. The counterpart to the stake in medieval Europe was the red-hot fired kiln in Mesopotamia. To us, this punishment is known best from the story of the three men in the “fiery furnace” (‫נוּרא‬ ָ ‫ )אַ תּוּן‬from Dan 3:19–23, who were sentenced to being burnt for their neglect of the cult of Bēl and of the image Nebuchadnezzar had made.1823 The Aramaic attūnā (‫ )אַ תּוּנָא‬is a loanword from Akkadian utūnu (Late Babylonian also atūnu), the very “kiln” which was also used to burn humans according to Babylonian documents (see also on B 3 below). 1822 See Joannès 2000 on a Late Babylonian (Seleucid) chronicle and diaries from the same

period dealing with thieves burnt for stealing temple treasures; ibidem pp. 206–211: “Bûchers et sacrilèges”: burning as punishment for sacrilege from all over the ancient Near East. See on the same topic Beaulieu 2009. We may add now to the texts discussed by Joannès the Gold Theft Chronicle (BM 32510) from the Seleucid period, published by B. van der Spek and I. Finkel on the internet at www.livius.org. For the burning of the persons who had embezzled or stolen gold belonging to the temple see rev. 6: ina išāti qalû “(the thieves) were burnt with fire”. 1823 Discussed in detail by Beaulieu 2009. Holm 2008 puts emphasis on Egyptian models.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

A 5:

A 6: B 1:

B 3:

B 4:

B 6:

511

Al-Rawi & George (1994, p. 139, on obv. 10–11), following an interpretation suggested to them by W.G. Lambert, are certainly right in deriving these forms from *ḫanāpu “to commit sacrilege”, a loan-word from West Semitic *ḥnp/f “to be ungodly/irreligious”. Text 2 switches the verbs and adds the adverb r[aggiš]. Even though one might have expected to see the king instructing one of his officials in the following lines, the king clearly addresses a god, certainly Marduk, who had been mentioned some lines earlier (Al-Rawi & George 1994, p. 138, line 12, skipped in this excerpt). The traces in the middle of the line in the copy in Iraq 56, 1994, p. 136 look like: e ra ID-s[u-nu-tú], which does not make any apparent sense. These traces must pertain to the following *ana kīri “(in)to the kiln”. One expects something like “cast/send them down (into the kiln)!”, in Akkadian: *idīšunūti, *šumqit-sunūti, or *šūrid-sunūti. Instead of kīr paḫāri “the potter’s kiln”, Al-Rawi & George (1994, p. 138, on rev. 6’) read ki-ri lúmuḫaldim x x “the cook’s oven …”. I propose to read the profession written with those three signs as lúdug!-silà!-bur! = lúbáḫar = paḫāru “the potter”. It is the large and red-hot potter’s kiln which we expect to see in use here, and not a cook’s oven. The tragic story reported in BIN 7, no. 10 shows that a boy could be killed by being thrown into a “(cooking) oven” (tinūru). However, the following execution of grown ups, no less horrible, was carried out with a kiln (utūnu). The difference was certainly in the size of the oven and in the temperature produced. So, when the burning of the wicked priests of Babylonia is called for, we do not expect to see the “cook’s oven” to be employed. The use of the word kīru points into the same direction: Like utūnu the “potter’s kiln”, it is not a “cooking oven”, but a “kiln”, used to burn lime, to boil bitumen or to fire bricks (CAD K, pp. 415–416, s.v. kīru). The term maqlû “burning” is attested best as the name of the incantation series dealing with the ritual burning of sorcerers, undoing their wicked acts (CAD M/I, p. 252, s.v. maqlû 2b; Abusch 2016). Apart from the notion of pain and complete physical annihilation, the term certainly also conveys the idea of “purification”. lik-ku-du: Al-Rawi & George (1994, p. 138, rev. 8’) read lil!(lik)-ma-du (“may they learn!”) instead. However, the emendation is not necessary, since the word pair nakādu – šaḫāt/ṭu “to become extremely distressed” is amply documented as a reaction to divine will.1824

1824 See e.g. CAD N/I, p. 154, s.v. nakādu 2b (Esarhaddon); Schaudig 2001, p. 422, no. 2.12 1 II

52–53: akkud ašḫut/ṭ nakutta aršēma “I became extremely distressed and worried” (Nabonidus).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

512

Source 71: Chronicle P: Crimes & Punishment of Tukultī-Ninurta I Obj: Prov: Date:

Lit: – – – – – – – – Cont: A. –

–

Excerpts from Chronicle P 1825 (BM 92701). Text: King 1904, p. 157, IV:1–13. Originally from Babylon; the extant text is from Sippar (CBT VI, p. 176). The extant tablet dates to the Neo- or Late Babylonian period. This excerpt from Chronicle P under discussion appears to have been composed or at least redacted after the murder of Sennacherib in 681 BCE, since the crimes and the fate ascribed to Tukultī-Ninurta appear to have been modelled upon the crimes and the fate of Sennacherib, see in more detail the discussion on pp. 525ff. below in the commentary on Source 72. King 1904, pp. 96–101. Weidner 1959, pp. 41–42, no. 37. Röllig 1967. Grayson 1975a, pp. 175–176, chronicle 22, IV:1–13. Mayer 1988. Glassner 1993a, p. 225. Glassner 2005a, pp. 280–281. Yamada 2003b, pp. 159–164. Jakob 2013, pp. 509–510. Crimes and punishment of Tukultī-Ninurta I (ca. 1243–1207 BCE). (Mis)deeds and Crimes (IV:1) [ana tarṣi Kaštiliyaš Tukultī-Ninurta šar māt Aššur a]bikti Kaštil[iyaš iškunma] (2) [. . . . . . . . . . . .]. . semer parzilli iddīm[a] ana [mātīšu ībukšu] (3) [ana tarṣi Adad-šuma-iddina Tukul]tī-Ninurta ana Bābil i[t]ūramma (4) [...] ⌈...⌉ [... u]qarrib dūr Bābil iqqur mārī Bābil ina kakki (5) [ušamq]it makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati uštēṣi bēla *rabâ Marduk (6) [ina šu]btīšu idkēma ana māt Aššur ušaṣbit ḫarrāna šaknūtīšu (7) ina māt Karanduniyaš iškun sebe šanāti TukultīNinurta Karanduniyaš (8) umaʾʾir arka rabûtu ša māt Akkadî ša māt Karanduniyaš ibbalkitūma (9a) Adad-šuma-uṣur ina kussî abīšu ušēšibū (IV:1) [In the time of Kaštiliyaš, Tukultī-Ninurta king of Assyria inflicted a d]efeat on Kaštil[iyaš.] (2) [. . . . . . . . . . . .]. . He (Tukultī-Ninurta) put manacle(s) of iron on (him) [and led him away] to [his land]. (3) [In the time of Adad-šuma-iddina, Tukul]tī-Ninurta re[t]urned to Babylon and (4) [he] brought near [his . . .] . . . He destroyed the wall of Babylon. (5) He [pu]t (4) the citizens of Babylon to the sword. (5) He brought out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty.1826 (6) He removed (5) the great lord Marduk [from his dwe]lling and had him take the road to Assyria. (7) He installed (6) his governors (7) in the land of Karanduniyaš (= Babylonia). For seven years Tukultī-Ninurta (8) was in command of (7) Babylonia. (8) Afterwards, the (native,) Babylonian magnates of the land

1825 Dubbed so after T.G. Pinches, its first editor, not after “propaganda”, as one might be

tempted to assume because of its strong bias.

1826 Or “… as (a result of) blasphemy”, see the commentary on Source 48, rev. 7.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

513

of Karanduniyaš revolted and (9a) installed Adad-šuma-uṣur on the throne of his father (Kaštiliyaš). (IV:1) [ana tar-ṣi Ikaš-til-ía-àš Itukul-ti-dmaš lugal kur aš-šurki] [a⌉-⌈bi-ik-ti⌉ ⌈Ikaš– til⌉-[ía-àš iš-kun-ma] (2) [. . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x⌉ ḫar an-bar id-di-m[a] ⌈ana⌉ [kur-šú i-bu-uk-šú] (3) [ana tar-ṣi I.diškur-mu-sum-na Itukul]-⌈ti⌉-dmaš a-na tin-tirki i-[t]u-ra-amma (4) [x x] ⌈x x⌉ [x ú]-qar-ri-bu bàd tin-tirki iq-⌈qur⌉ dumu tin-tirki ina ĝiš tukul (5) [ú-šam-q]it níĝ-ga é-saĝ-gíl u tin-tirki ina šil-lat uš-te-ṣi d+en gal-ú d amar-utu (6) [ina šu]b-ti-šú id-ke-e-ma a-na kur aš-šurki ú-šá!(za)-aṣ-bit ḫar-raan lúšak-nu-ti-šú (7) ina kur kar-an-dun-ía-àš iš-kun 7 mumeš Itukul-ti-dmaš karan-dun-ía-àš (8) ú-ma-ʾi-ir egir lúgalmeš šá kur uriki šá kur kar-an-dun-ía-àš balameš-ma (9a) I.diškur-mu-ùru ina gu-za ad-šú ú-še-ši-bu B. Punishment (IV:9b) – Tukultī-Ninurta ša ana Bābil ana lemutti (10) [qāt]ī ūbilu Aššur-nāṣir-apli mārušu u rabûtu ša māt Aššur ibbalkitūšū́ma (11) [ina] kussîšu idkûšū́ma ina āl Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta ina bīti īsirūšū́ma ina kakki idūkūšu (12) [7]6 šanāti adi (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur Bēl ina māt Aššur ašib ana tarṣi (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur Bēl ana (13) [Bāb]il ittalka (IV:9b) – Tukultī-Ninurta who (10) had laid (his) [hand]s (9) on Babylon with evil intent, (10) his son Aššur-nāṣir-apli1827 and the magnates of Assyria revolted against him, (11) they removed him [from] his throne, they shut him up in the city Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta in a room and killed him with the weapon. (12) For [7]6 years, until (the reign of Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur, Bēl stayed in Assyria. In the time of (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur, Bēl (13) came (back) to [Bab]ylon. (IV:9b) I tukul-ti-dmaš šá ana tin-tirki ana ḫul-tú (10) [šu]min ú-bil-lu Ian-šár-na-ṣir– a dumu-šú u lúgalmeš šá kur aš-šurki balameš-šu-ma (11) [ina ĝiš]gu-za-šú id-ku-šuma ina eri kar-tukul-ti-dmaš ina é i-si-ru-šu-ma ina ĝištukul gazmeš-šú (12) [60+10]+6 mumeš a-di Itukul-ti-an-šár d+en ina kur aš-šurki a-šib ana tar-ṣi I tukul-ti-an-šár d+en a-na (13) [tin-t]irki it-tal-kam (rasura) Com: Very much like one of the Chedorlaomer Texts (Source 72, A), but in much more detail, Chronicle P describes the crimes and the infamous death of TukultīNinurta I (ca. 1243–1207 BCE). This chronicle, too, dates probably to the Neo- or even Late Babylonian period, although it deals with events from the late second millennium. My restoration of line IV 1 follows King (1904, pp. 96–97, copy on p. 157) and Weidner (1959, p. 41); see likewise also Yamada 2003b, pp. 159, 173 with note 21. The phrase restored at the beginning of IV 3 follows Yamada (2003b, p. 161) and Jakob (2013, p. 514). The main topic of the text are incidents that happened during the reigns of individual Babylonian kings, so the phrase “in the time of kingxy” is a logical restoration. The same phrase had already earlier been restored in the following entries dealing with Enlil-nādin-šumi (IV 14) and Adad-šuma-iddina (IV 17), see Grayson 1975a, pp. 176–177. The same structuring element is also used 1827 Probably an error for *Aššur-nādin-apli, see the commentary on p. 520 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

514

Edition of the Sources

passim in the Synchronistic History (Grayson 1975a, Chronicle 21). Since the text has an endemic point of view, it is only the foreign enemy kings who are identified as “Assyrians” or “Elamites”. The title “king (of Babylonia)” occurres only rarely (I 2’; IV 14, 16). So the restoration proposed above for lines IV 1 and 3 is in fact the least one can do. The following considerations seek to understand the narrative of Marduk’s abduction to Assyria and his return to Babylon as it is presented by Chronicle P. In particular, I want to justify the restoration of “[7]6 years” for Marduk’s exile in line IV:12, at least within the framework of this narrative (see p. 515). In connection with the narrative of Chronicle P we shall briefly discuss the narratives of Babylonian and Assyrian kingship for this period as they are told by the Babylonian and the Assyrian king lists. In many points, these narratives are contradictory to one another. The Assyrian King Lists differ in the number of regnal years of the Assyrian kings (see p. 515). The Babylonian King List ignores the rule of Tukultī-Ninurta (see p. 516). The reader is advised not to expect a reliable reconstruction of the absolute chronology of the late second millennium.1828 I follow the reconstruction of Tukultī-Ninurta’s rule over Babylon that has been recently proposed by Yamada 2003b.1829 According to Chronicle P, it was during Tukultī-Ninurta’s return (IV:3), i.e. during his second campaign against Babylon, that a statue of Marduk was abducted. The Babylonian King List does not acknowledge Tukultī-Ninurta as a proper king of Babylon, but we have to take his 7-year rule or dominance into consideration. I reconstruct the order of events told by Chronicle P as follows: a) [Tukultī-Ninurta] takes Kaštil[iyaš] captive. b) Tukultī-Ninurta returns to Babylon and [removes Adad-šuma-iddina]; he devastates Babylon and leads away (a statue of) Marduk; subsequently, he is in command of Babylonia for 7 years. c) Babylonia revolts and puts Adad-šuma-uṣur on the throne. d) Tukultī-Ninurta is killed by his son. e) (The statue of) Marduk returns in the time of (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur. Recently, Stefan Jakob has offered a convincing reconstruction of the events of this period.1830 According to him, the first campaign of Tukultī-Ninurta against Babylon took place in the eponymy of Etel-pī-Aššur, that is his 13th regnal year. Starting from the capture of Kaštiliyaš in the year Tukultī-Ninurta 13 and adding the reigns of the Babylonian kings Enlil-nādin-šumi, Kadašman-Ḫarbe II and Adadšuma-iddina, we arrive at Tukultī-Ninurta 22 as the date of his second campaign and the end of Adad-šuma-iddina’s reign. 1828 Given the numerous problems surrounding the chronology of the late second

millennium BCE, I think it is unwise to offer dates which even include individual days, adjusted to the Julian calendar; pace Bloch 2010 and 2012. See also notes 1837 and 1838 on p. 515 below. 1829 For another approach of the chronology of the late second millennium, which, however, works with to many variables, see Janssen 2012. 1830 Jakob 2013, esp. pp. 515–516; idem 2017, p. 97. On the eponymy of Etel-pī-Aššur = Tukultī-Ninurta 13 see also Freydank 2016, p. 9.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

515

The ruler Tukulti-Aššur (IV:12) who is said to have returned Marduk to Babylon is certainly the Assyrian king Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur.1831 He had been ruling only less than a year after the death of his father Aššur-dān I. According to manuscripts B–D of the Assyrian King List (AKL),1832 63 years had gone by between the end of the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta and the shortlived rule of Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur: AKL B–C/D AKL A Assyrian Kings Aššur-nādin-apli Aššur-nārārī III Enlil-kudurrī-uṣur Ninurta-apil-Ekur Aššur-dān I sum:

3 6 5 3 46 63

4 6 5 13 [10+]26 [10+]54

Manuscript A of the Assyrian King List attributes to Ninurta-apil-Ekur a reign of 13 years, i.e. 10 more years than manuscripts B–C do. A reign of 13 years for Ninurtaapil-Ekur matches the recently established number of a dozen eponyms acting during his reign.1833 In turn, the 46 regnal years attributed by manuscripts B–C to Aššur-dān I are probably to be lowered to 36 years.1834 So the overall number of 63 (or 64) years stays the same. The number of 63 years given, Tukultī-Ninurta’s second campaign in his 22nd regnal year would have occurred 79 years before Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur. This would mean 78 full years for Marduk’s stay at Aššur. In the late second millennium, before the adjustment of the Assyrian lunar calendar without intercalary months to the Babylonian lunisolar calendar in the 8th year of Aššur-bēl-kala (1073–1056 BCE),1835 these 78 Assyrian years corresponded to 76 Babylonian years. Given the number of 78 years, the lead of the Assyrian year would have amounted to 2⅓ years. Since Chronicle P is a Babylonian text, the restoration of “[7]6 years” for Marduk’s stay in line IV:12 would perfectly match the information that the god returned “in the time of (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur”. The number 76 also matches the short break at the beginning of the line: [𒐕𒌋]𒐋 = [60+10]+6.1836 The absolute chronology of this period is a problem that cannot be solved for the time being. Matters become even more complicated when we have to consider the deviations caused by the Assyrian lunar calendar.1837 The conventional dates given 1831 Tadmor 1958, pp. 136, 140–141; Weidner 1959, p. 42, note on l. 12. – Pace Astour (1996,

1832 1833 1834 1835

1836 1837

pp. 48–49), Adad-šuma-uṣur did not conquer the city of Aššur according to line 8 of Chronicle 25, but Babylon (Walker 1982, pp. 400–401; Yamada 2003b, pp. 156–157). Astour’s dating of Marduk’s return to the reign of Ninurta-apil-Ekur is untenable. Grayson 1980–1983 (RlA 6), pp. 110–111, §§ 46–51. Llop 2008, pp. 21–22; Freydank 2011, pp. 437–438; idem 2016, p. 31. Boese & Wilhelm 1979; Freydank 2011, p. 437; idem 2016, p. 33. Jeffers 2013, pp. 174–185, esp. 175, 185; idem 2017, pp. 187–188. On the character of the Middle Assyrian calendar as a lunar one see also Brinkman 1968, p. 386; Freydank 1991, pp. 16–17; Cole 1998, p. 50; Bloch 2012. See e.g. Tadmor 1958, pp. 136, 140–141; Weidner 1959, p. 42, note on l. 12 for other reconstructions which I, however, will not repeat here. Bloch’s (2012, pp. 43–48) list of the reigns of Middle Assyrian kings, adjusted to the lunar calendar, is problematic since it contains the 13 years’ rule of Ninurta-apil-Ekur

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

516

Edition of the Sources

for the reign of Tukultī-Ninurta I are ca. 1243–1207, respectively ca. 1233–1197 BCE.1838 If we stick to them, we arrive at the following chart of the events with conventional dates: Tukultī-Ninurta 1 ca. 1243 (/ 1233) Tukultī-Ninurta 13 ca. 1231 (/ 1221) Capture of Kaštiliyaš Tukultī-Ninurta 22 ca. 1222 (/ 1212) Abduction of Marduk Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur ca. 1143 (/ 1133) Return of Marduk Remarkably, Chronicle P, though obviously a Babylonian text, does not specify the Babylonian king during whose reign Marduk returned. Instead, it names the rather insignificant Assyrian ruler Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur who had only been in power for a year – or even less – before he was chased away to Babylonia by his brother Mutakkil-Nusku. Either during his short rule or on the occasion of his flight to Babylonia he appears to have returned the statue of Marduk, if we may believe Chronicle P.1839 Merely by chronological considerations on the basis of the Babylonian King List (see the table below), the unnamed Babylonian king who received the statue of Marduk again would have been Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu who established the Second Dynasty of Isin as a regional power in the south of Babylonia at the time of the collapse of the Kassite Dynasty.1840 Conventionally, the reign of Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu of Isin is dated to ca. 1157–1140 BCE. This is a little bit at odds with the other conventional dates scheduled for his predecessors, the last kings of the Kassite Dynasty, Zababa-šuma-iddina (ca. 1158 BCE) and Enlilnādin-aḫi (ca. 1157–1155 BCE). Correspondingly, Kutir-Naḫḫunte’s raid into Babylonia that ended the reign of Enlil-nādin-aḫi is usually dated to ca. 1155 BCE. In addition, Brinkman (1968, pp. 78–83) reckons with a short interregnum after the end of Enlil-nādin-aḫi’s reign. However, I stick to the conventional dates since the relative chronology of the abductions of Marduk by the Assyrians and by the Elamites is not disturbed by dating Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu – who is interpolated here anyway – two or three years later or earlier. The Babylonian King List does not acknowledge Tukultī-Ninurta’s rule over Babylon as a proper term of kingship. Neither, however, does it mark it as a period when “there was no king in the land”. If we include Tukultī-Ninurta’s term – which Chronicle P expressively mentions – and count down from Tukultī-Ninurta’s second campaign which marks the end of Adad-šuma-iddina’s rule, we arrive at 69 years from AKL A and the 46 years’ rule of Aššur-dān from AKL B–C/D (see p. 515 above) side by side. Bloch counts Tukultī-Ninurta 1 = 1241 BCE; T-N 13 = 1229; T-N 22 = 1220 and Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur = 1133 BCE, that makes a difference of 87 years between TukultīNinurta 22 and Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur. 1838 Jeffers (2017, p. 189) now dates Tukultī-Ninurta I absolutely to 1240–1205 BCE, and Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur to 1132 BCE. However, since I still doubt the validity of absolute dates prior to the 9th century BCE and since it is the relative chronology of the events that matters here (see also immediately below on the beginning of the First Dynasty of Isin), I shall stick to the conventioanl dates. 1839 See similarly Brinkman 1968, p. 91; Grayson 1998–2001 (RlA 9), p. 527. 1840 On Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu see Brinkman 1968, pp. 40, 93, 323–324; Brinkman 1987–1990 (RlA 7), pp. 376–377.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

517

for the end of Enlil-nādin-aḫi’s reign. Ignoring Tukultī-Ninurta’s term, we arrive at 62 years. This means that according to the narratives of Chronicle P and the Babylonian King List, the statue of Marduk would have been presented by Ninurtatukulti-Aššur after 76 (lunisolar Babylonian) years to Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu, either during the latter’s 8th year or during his 15th year. Sticking to the conventional dating of ca. 1157–1140 BCE for the reign of Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu, one arrives at ca. 1150, respectively ca. 1143 for his 8th and for his 15th regnal year. Putting him after the fall of Enlil-nādin-aḫi in ca. 1155, one arrives at ca. 1147, respectively at ca. 1140. So the estimated date for the short rule of Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur (ca. 1143 BCE) matches these dates. By this time, however, the Elamites had apparently already abducted another statue of Marduk from Babylon when they had taken the city and removed the last Kassite king Enlil-nādin-aḫi, roughly a decade earlier. By the end of his reign of 18 years, Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu had gained full control also of northern Babylonia and Babylon again.1841 Then, it appears, at least one of the abducted statues of Marduk was back at Babylon. It can be demonstrated at least for the Neo-Babylonian period that there was a whole set of major statues of Marduk at Babylon, not just one (see p. 521). So the chronological overlap of the abductions in the two narratives is no hard proof that the stories are historically wrong. Nevertheless, doubts remain. Since Chronicle P does not distinguish “Marduk” from “a statue of Marduk”, since it does not specify the Babylonian king during whose reign “Marduk” returned, and since the overall time-frame is so narrow, it cannot be excluded that the chronicle actually wanted to explain that “Marduk” was back at Babylon just in time to leave again for Elam during the fall of the Kassite Dynasty, even if the scheduled time-frame is a little bit wrong. The part of Chronicle P under discussion deals en bloc with the Tukultī-Ninurta complex only. The part below that certainly dealt with the raid of Kutir-Naḫḫunte is broken. It would be highly interesting to see which tale the Babylonians told there. Combining the narratives of the Assyrian King List, the Babylonian King List and Chronicle P, we arrive at the following reconstruction: Babylonian Kings Assyrian Kings Tukultī-Ninurta (37 years) T-N 13, 1st campaign:

T-N 22, 2nd campaign: T-N 23–29

Death of Tukultī-Ninurta (ca. Aššur-dān I)

Kaštiliyaš (8 years) Capture of Kaštiliyaš Enlil-nādin-šumi (1½) Kadašman-Ḫarbe II (1½) Adad-šuma-iddina (6) Abduction of Marduk to Assyria Rule of Tukultī-Ninurta (7) (parallel to Adad-šuma-uṣur?) Adad-šuma-uṣur (30) (ca. Adad-šuma-uṣur 8 or 15) Meli-Šipak (15)

1841 See Brinkman 1968, p. 93.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

518

Assyrian Kings

Babylonian Kings

(Aššur-dān I)

Marduk-apla-iddina I (13) Zababa-šuma-iddina (1) Enlil-nādin-aḫi (3) (Abduction of Marduk to Elam) Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu (18) Return of Marduk from Assyria (ca. Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu 8 or 15)

Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur

Adding to the chronological problems, the Synchronistic King List appears to pair – perhaps rather mechanically – Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur and Mutakkil-Nusku with Marduk-[kabit-aḫḫēšu] and with the latter’s son and succsessor [Itti-Mardukbalāṭu] respectively.1842 Since both Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur and Mutakkil-Nusku did only rule for less than a year, this would mean that Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu passed away during the struggle of these Assyrian princes for the throne. And, if taken seriously, it would also mean that Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur gave the statue of Marduk back in the 18th and last year of Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu, instead of during the latter king’s 8th or 15th year. As Llop correctly observed (in Llop & George 2001–2002, p. 12), it is strange that the statue of Marduk was not returned earlier, e.g. during the long reign of Kaštiliyaš’ powerful son Adad-šuma-uṣur who even appears to have supported Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur’s grandfather Ninurta-apil-Ekur against Enlil-kudurrī-uṣur in his bid for the Assyrian throne. It is possible that Marduk’s stay in Assyria and his return in the time of Ninurtatukulti-Aššur was also a topic of a (fictional) piece of royal correspondence.1843 The text has been reconstructed as a letter of a Babylonian king of the Second Dynasty of Isin addressed to Mutakkil-Nusku, the brother of Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur. In this letter, the name of Mutakkil-Nusku in fact does not occur. However, the addressee’s father is specified as Aššur-dān, and his brother Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur is referred to many times.1844 The name of the letter’s sender is not preserved. In the past, it has been surmised that the sender may have been Itti-Marduk-balāṭu, Ninurta-nādin-šumi or even Nebuchadnezzar I.1845 Considering the reconstruction offered above, I think that the sender was Itti-Marduk-balāṭu and that the royal “father” mentionend in the letter (ll. 46’, 53’) was Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu. However, the part of the letter that possibly dealt with Marduk’s abduction is very fragmentary. One line appears to have had it that someone “took the hand of the great Lord (Bēl) and [led? him] to the land [of …]”.1846 This may refer to the “journey” of Marduk to the land of Assyria under Tukultī-Ninurta I, since Marduk’s return would have rather been directed towards “the city [of Babylon]”. A few 1842 Text: Grayson 1980–1983 (RlA 6), p. 118, § 3.12, II:12–13; Brinkman (1968, pp. 41, 324) is 1843 1844 1845 1846

undecided about this point. Llop & George 2001–2002; Fuchs 2011, p. 257. Llop & George 2001–2002, pp. 9 and 10. See the brief survey by Llop & George 2001–2002, pp. 2 and 10 with note 56. [… šá/ul-tu š]u d+en gal-i iṣ-ba-tu-⌈ma⌉ a-na kur […]-NUN-ma […], after Llop & George 2001–2002, pp. 3, 23, Abschnitt b, B rev. 2.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

519

lines earlier, there are fragments of two phrases using the terms “Marduk”, respectively “the god” (ilu), in combination with the verb dekû “to make someone rise”.1847 This, too, might refer to “removing the god Marduk” from his seat at Babylon. However, in either case the verbal forms *idkâššu(mma) display the ventive suffix *-am+šu(m) which changes the literal meaning of dekû towards “to summon up (an enemy) against someone”.1848 For “removing Marduk” one rather expects something like Marduk *idkēma (ina šubat ilūtīšu).1849 In his own inscriptions, Tukultī-Ninurta is rather tight-lipped about his conquest of Babylon. He only reports that he took the Babylonian king Kaštiliyaš IV captive in battle and thus became king of Sumer and Akkad, respectively king of Sippar and Babylon.1850 Tukultī-Ninurta does not say anything at all about destroying Babylon or abducting Marduk, neither during his first campaign against Kaštiliyaš, nor during his second campaign against Babylon a decade later. Likewise, the Epic of Tukultī-Ninurta is fully committed to point out the sins and the punishment of the allegedly treacherous opponent Kaštiliyaš and does not report anything that could be interpreted as a sacrilege against Marduk and Babylon.1851 Apart from that, in the time of Tukultī-Ninurta the religious focus was still on Enlil and Nippur, and not yet on Marduk and Babylon.1852 Chronicle P gives clearly a biased acount and also describes the events in the stockphrases of its theological, Babylon-centered view of the world. This has prompted

1847 iq-bu-ú damar-[utu …]… ul id-kaš-šu “they said: ‘Marduk did not summon up against

1848 1849

1850

1851 1852

him [an enemy?]’”, after Llop & George 2001–2002, pp. 3, 23, Abschnitt b, B obv. 19’. – diĝir id-kaš-šum-ma a-na ma-ḫa-zi šá kur uri[ki …] “the god summoned up against him (an enemy?) and for the cities of Babylonia […]”, after Llop & George 2001–2002, pp. 3, 23, Abschnitt b, B obv. 27’. Cf.: ummān Qutî idkâššumma “(Marduk) summoned up against him the horde of the Gutians” (Source 35, l. 62, restored in l. 42). Cf.: bēla rabâ Marduk ina šubtīšu idkēma “he removed the great lord Marduk from his dwelling” (Source 71, A, IV:5–6; Tukultī-Ninurta I after Chronicle P); [Marduk bē]la rabâ iddeki ina šubat [ilūtīšu] “he removed [Marduk], the great [lo]rd, from [his divine] dwelling” (Source 33, obv. 10’; on Kutir-Naḫḫunte). Grayson, RIMA 1, pp. 244–245, no. A.0.78.5 (see also A.0.78.22), ll. 48–69; p. 247, A.0.78.6, ll. 21–24; pp. 272, A.0.78.23, ll. 56–68; p. 276, A.0.78.24, ll. 34–40; p. 277, A.0.78.25, rev. 1– 8. The evidence has been discussed by Mayer 1995, pp. 213–216; Yamada 2003b, pp. 168–172. Walker (1982, p. 400, l. 1) restored a reference to the conquest of [Bābil u Sip]par by Tukultī-Ninurta and his rule over Babylonia at the beginning of the Babylonian chronicle no. 25. Yamada (2003b, pp. 161–162) proposed to restore the very line with a report on the Babylonian king Adad-šuma-iddina ([I.diškur-mu-sum-n]a) being seized, instead of [Bābil u Sip]-par being taken by Tukultī-Ninurta. The epic was edited by Machinist 1978; see also the translation by Foster 2005, pp. 298–317. See the brief discussion of the text on pp. 73f. above. Mayer 1995, p. 218; Kravitz 2010, pp. 127–128. At the beginning of the Epic of TukultīNinurta (I:36’–39’), when the Babylonian gods leave their shrines, enraged at the sins of Kaštiliyaš the oath-transgressor, Enlil and his shrines at Nippur and at DūrKurigalzu are named first. Marduk and his cities [Babylon] and Kār-[…] are only second (Machinist 1978, p. 64, I:36’–39’; Foster 2005, pp. 300–301).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

520

Edition of the Sources

some scholars to question the historicity of the events alltogether.1853 While it is hard to believe that the accounts had completely been made up from nothing, we have to state that there is no other information extant about the sacrileges allegedly committed against Marduk and Babylon than the late and biased reports of Chronicle P and of the Chedorlaomer Text discussed in Source 72. In Chronicle P, the crimes of Tukultī-Ninurta consist of conquering Babylon, killing its inhabitants, plundering the city and the main temple Esaĝil, and of abducting a statue of the god Marduk. Among the key phrases that also appear in other texts dealing with sacrileges against Babylon, are: – makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati uštēṣi (Chronicle P, IV:5) “He brought out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty.” – *qātī ana Bābil ana lemutti ūbil (Chronicle P, IV:9–10) “He laid (his) hands on Babylon with evil intent.” On the meaning of the catchphrase makkūr Esaĝil u Bābil ina šillati šūṣû “to bring out the property of Esaĝil and Babylon as booty” see the discussion of sacrilege B on p. 124 above. On the relationship of šillatu I/II and šallatu, perhaps playing on the two meanings “blasphemy” and “booty”, see the commentary on Source 48, rev. 7. The catchphrase qāta ana Bābil ana lemutti wabālu “to lay one’s hand on Babylon with evil intent” is also used to describe Utu-ḫeĝal’s sacrilege the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 69), see p. 213 above with note 996. See also the commentary on line 7 of the Sargon omen of Source 45. In Chronicle P however, no mention is made of flooding Babylon, as in the Chedorlaomer Text discussed in Source 72, A. According to Chronicle P, Tukultī-Ninurta was killed by his own son as his punishment. The chronicle gives the son’s name as “Aššur-nāṣir-apli”, which is probably an error for “Aššur-nādin-apli”.1854 From Assyrian sources, there is evidence that Aššur-nādin-apli’s succession was irregular, which also gives way to assume that he killed his father in deposing him. The Assyrian King List notes that Tukultī-Ninurta’s son, “Aššur-nādin-apli” (texts A and B), respectively “Aššurnāṣir-apli” (C), “took the throne”, apparently during his father’s lifetime.1855 1853 See e.g. Mayer 1995, pp. 217–219; Yamada 2003b, p. 172 strongly disagrees with Mayer.

On the doubtful historical reliability of Chronicle P see also Röllig 1967 and the introduction by Grayson 1975a, pp. 56–59. 1854 Yamada 1998 and 2003a, p. 269; PNA 1/I, pp. 204–205, s.v. Aššūr-nāṣir-apli 1. There is no evidence for a son of Tukultī-Ninurta by the name Aššur-nāṣir-apli. The probably erronneous variant Aššur-nāṣir-apli instead of Aššur-nādin-apli is also found in manuscript C of the Assyrian King List. The mistake was probably caused by misinterpreted spellings of the name with the logogram pap, which was mainly used for naṣāru but could also write nadānu in the Middle Assyrian period (Pedersén 1999; see also Jakob 2003, p. 136, note 77). Yamada (2003a, pp. 267, 269, on no. 79) supposes that the mistake might have been triggered by the sequence Tukultī-Ninurta II – Aššurnāṣir-apli II. 1855 Grayson 1980–1983 (RlA 6), p. 110, § 47: kussâ lū iṣbat (A; B and C without lū). The King List does not say that he “made him rise from the throne” (*ušatbi, cf. ibidem p. 108, § 33), nor does it say that he killed him. The note da-a-ri (A, B) / a-da-ri (C) following Tukultī-Ninurta’s name in § 47 is still unclear, see CAD D, p. 107, s.v. dār “ever, continuously” a) 1’, with lit.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

521

Strangely enough, Aššur-nādin-apli, his father’s son, successor and potential murderer, names his father in his filiation.1856 So, while it is quite clear and welldocumented that Tukultī-Ninurta had ruled over Babylon, there are reasonable doubts as to whether he actually plundered Esaĝil, abducted the statue of Marduk, and whether he in fact destroyed Babylon and drowned its ruins, as Sennacherib did later. However, it is quite likely again that he was killed when his son took the throne by force. There are two possible explanations why his son or his officers might have rebelled against him. The one is the ancient Babylonian position arguing that is was a punishment for his sins against Babylon (see above). But this hardly was the actual reason for a revolt in Assyria. The other is the interpretation of modern scholars who look for an intra-Assyrian reason. In this respect, the fact that Tukultī-Ninurta took the god Aššur along from his main seat at the city of Aššur to the newly founded capital Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta is a good candidate for a sacrilege that might have stirred a rebellion against the king.1857 Bolstering this view, it is sometimes argued that the gods of Aššur returned from Kār-TukultīNinurta after the king’s death, and that the town was more or less abandoned. This assumption rests, however, only on archaeological evidence suggesting that the temples were in use only for a short time,1858 and on a single statement in a rubrum of a ritual, which is probably to be dated to the reign of Tiglath-pileser I (1114– 1076 BCE), stating: “What is listed in the tablet goes to the temples of the gods of Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta. The gods of Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta are lodging in the city of Aššur (ilānū ša Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta ina āl Libbi-Āli usbū [= √wšb]).”1859 Stricktly speaking, we do not know for sure whether this means that the gods were back to Aššur for good or staying there only for the time of the ritual. There is another point that might be seen as an objective against the report of a statue of Marduk being abducted by Tukultī-Ninurta. According to Chronicle P, the text under discussion, the statue of Marduk abducted by Tukultī-Ninurta stayed in Aššur until the time of Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur, i.e. ca. 1143 BCE. But already in ca. 1155 BCE, Kutir-Naḫḫunte is II reported to have abducted a statue of Marduk, too, to Elam.1860 This could be understood as evidence that Tukultī-Ninurta had not abducted Marduk from Babylon, since the statue had already gone.1861 However, as can be demonstrated at least for the Neo-Babylonian period, there were clearly a whole series of statues of Marduk in Babylon.1862 And even if we focus only on the more important ones, we can list at least two different statues of Marduk in the 1856 Grayson, RIMA 1, p. 301, no. A.0.79.1, l. 12 and p. 302, no. A.0.79.2, l. 2. See also Mayer 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862

1995, p. 220. See e.g. Eickhoff 1985, pp. 49–51 with earlier literature; Mayer 1995, p. 220. Eickhoff 1985, pp. 34–35. Müller 1937, pp. 5–6, 16, III:39–41. See Dalley 1997, addressing the question of the overlapping abductions. See e.g. Mayer 1995, p. 217–218. A Neo-Babylonian text lists seven – most important – statues of Marduk in Babylon. There are four in Esaĝil, one on the ziqqurrat, and two in temples of other deities, see George 1995, p. 174, text no. 7; Lambert 1997, pp. 75–77, BM 119282 ll. 1–8. See also Dalley 1997; Berlejung 2002, p. 217. There were certainly many more representations of Marduk all over the city.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

522

Edition of the Sources

Esaĝil-Etemenanki complex. The one is the main cult statue in his cella Etuša (“Sitting-Room”). This one certainly depicted him seated, as befits the pater familias of a divine household. This is the image described as ἄγαλμα in sitting posture by Herodotus. The other one must have been a statue that despicted him in standing or walking position. This one was used in processions, when the god had to be presented as moving and acting. This processional statue is certainly the one Herodotus – and after him, Ctesias – described as the ἀνδριάς statue.1863 So there are enough important statues of Marduk extant in Babylon to cover the abductions. And although the abduction by Tukultī-Ninurta is not proven in the strict sense, it is quite plausible and likely to have actually happened. The sack of Babylon by an Assyrian king, either Tukultī-Ninurta I or Sennacherib, is also announced in a Babylonian prophecy, see Grayson & Lambert 1964, pp. 9, 20 on III:2–25. Pace Grayson & Lambert 1964, p. 9, the archaic term Subartu used there does not exclude Sennacherib. The very term occurs also in the description of Sennacherib’s crimes and death by Nabonidus: lugal su-bir4ki = šar Subarti “(Sennacherib) king of Subartu (i.e. Assyria)”.1864 Source 72: Chedorlaomer Texts: Crimes & Punishment of Wicked Kings Obj:

Excerpts from one of the so-called Chedorlaomer Texts. Text: BM 35496 (formerly Sp. III, 2). A: obv. 9’–11’; copy: Pinches 1897, p. 82. B: obv. 13’–15’; copy: Pinches 1897, p. 82. C: rev. 1–3; copy: Pinches 1897, p. 83. The text has been collated from a photograph (London, BM). Prov: Probably produced by Babylonian scholars at the Assyrian court of Nineveh (see pp. 525f.). The extant manuscript is probably from Babylon. Date: The extant tablet dates to the Late Babylonian period. The composition probably dates to the early reign of Esarhaddon, after the murder of Sennacherib and before the restoration of Babylon had begun (see the discussion on pp. 525f. below). Lit: Pinches 1897, pp. 46–49 (edition), 72–75 (notes), 82–83 (copy). – King 1898, pp. L–LVI. – Jeremias 1917, pp. 80–84. – Astour 1966, pp. 81–94. – Brinkman 1968, p. 361 (sub b: bibliography). – Lambert 2004, p. 201. – Foster 2005, pp. 374–375. Cont: Contemplation on the destiny of three wicked kings, likening their crimes and their infamous deaths to one another, thus creating a mutual dependancy of sin and sanction in divine will, even if not expressed explicitly here. The pieces of “historical” information appear to have been arranged according to the model of Sennacherib (see the discussion on pp. 525ff. below). 1863 See in more detail pp. 209ff. above with fig. 14 on p. 211. 1864 Nabonidus, Babylon Stele I:35’ (Schaudig 2001, p. 516).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

523

A. –

Tukultī-Ninurta I […] (…) Tukultī-Ninurta aplu ša Arad-Etuša [šillat lā mi]nâti išlul mê eli Bābil u Esaĝil [ušardâ mā]rušu ina kakki qātīšu kī asli uṭabbiḫšu – […] (…) Tukultī-Ninurta the firstborn of Arad-Etuša carried off cou[ntless plunder and had] waters [flow] over Babylon and Esaĝil. (And so) his [so]n slaughtered him with his weapon like a sheep. obv. 9’ […] (…) Ibàd-maḫ-dmaš a šá Iìr-d é -tuš:a meš obv. 10’ [šil-lat la mi]-na-a- tú iš -lul a ugu eki u é-saĝ-gíl ĝiš min ! obv. 11’ [ú-šar-da-a du]mu-šú ina tukul šu -šú ki as-lu ú-ṭa-bi- iḫ -šú B. King XY (“Tudḫaliya” = Muršili I?) – […] (…) XY1 mār X[Y2] [šillat lā min]âti išlul mê eli Bābil u Esaĝil [ušardâ] mārušu ina kakki qātīšu muḫḫašu imḫaṣ – […] (…) XY1 the son of X[Y2] carried off cou[ntless plunder and had] waters [flow] over Babylon and Esaĝil. (And so) his son smashed his skull in with his weapon. obv. 13’ […] (…) ITU-UD-ḪUL-A dumu IGAZ-ZA?-[ ] x [ ] meš obv. 14’ [šil-lat la mi-na]- a-tú iš-lul a ugu eki u é-saĝ-gíl ĝiš min obv. 15’ [ú-šar-da-a] dumu-šú ina tukul šu -šú ugu-ḫa-šú im-ḫaṣ C. Kutir-Naḫḫunte II – [(Kudur-ḫuĝa) šar māt] Elam(m)at āla iḫ[p]ē šillāti rabbāti išlu[l] [abik]tuš abūbāniš iškun māḫāzī māt Akkadî gabbi parakkīšun[u] [ina išā]ti iqlu Kudur-ḫuĝa mārušu ina patar qablīšu libbašu ittak[ip] – [(Kudur-ḫuĝa) the king of the land of] Elam dem[oli]shed the city (Babylon) and carrie[d] off large amounts of plunder. He inflicted its (: Babylon’s) [defea]t (as devastating) as (by) a flood. The sanctuaries of all the cult centres of the land of Akkad he burnt [with fir]e. (And so,) as to Kudur-ḫuĝa, his son go[red] his heart with the dagger at his waist. rev. 1 [(Iku-dúr-ḫuĝ-ĝá) lugal kur] e-lam-mat eri iḫ-p[e]-e šil*-lat rab-ba-a-tu4 iš-lu[l] rev. 2 [a-bi-ik]-tuš a-bu-ba-niš iš-kun ma!-ḫa-zu kur uriki gab-bi bára-šú!-n[u] rev. 3 [ina iz]i iq-lu Iku-dúr-ḫuĝ-ĝá1865 dumu-šú ina ĝíri an-bar múru-šú šà-ba-šú it-ta-k[ip] Com: The so-called Chedorlaomer Texts are a group of Neo- or Late Babylonian texts that deal with the fall of the Kassite dynasty to the Elamites, and with KutirNaḫḫunte’s invasion and devastation of Babylonia. The tag Chedorlaomer is misleading. The texts were dubbed so, because at the end of the 19th century scholars supposed that they might have some bearing on Genesis 14, dealing with

1865 Not necessarily to be emended to Iku-dúr-‹náḫ›-ḫuĝ-ĝá, since Iku-dúr-ḫuĝ-ĝá, i.e. “Kudur-

the-hired-one” makes sense, too, see below with note 1920.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

524

Edition of the Sources

Chedorlaomer king of Elam. This assumption has widely been dropped by now.1866 The names of the kings are neither close enough to those from Genesis 14, although various scholars have made the most of the wide range of possible readings of cuneiform signs, nor are the plots of the Babylonian stories and that of Genesis 14 similar enough to each other. The Babylonian Chedorlaomer Texts, in particular text d (see below), deal with a holy city, Babylon, which is attacked by wicked kings. It is not obvious why a Jewish author in adopting the plot for the Hebrew Bible would have picked Sodom instead of Jerusalem, and why he would have taken over the garbled names of kings who did not mean anything to his Jewish audience, instead of exchanging them for figures like Sennacherib, Necho, or Nebuchadnezzar. The figure Kedōr-lāʿomer king of Elam from Genesis 14 does indeed recall an Elamite name like *Kudur/Kutir-Lāgamār/l, but there has no king been identified by that name, and there is no connection to the Babylonian texts discussed here. Furthermore, the Babylonian re-reading of the name Kutir-Naḫḫunte, which originally gave rise to the assumptions sketched above, is not to be read *Kudurlāḫamāl or the like, but is to be understood as *Kudur-nuḫuĝa/e, i.e. “hired” Kudur, see below in the commentary on part C. The so-called Chedorlaomer Texts comprise the following compositions: a) a letter to the Babylonians, allegedly written by an Elamite ruler, either ŠutrukNaḫḫunte I or Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, claiming the throne of Babylon,1867 b) the dismissive answer of the Babylonians,1868 c) a historical epic dealing with the invasion and devastation of Babylonia (Nippur, Babylon, Uruk and Borsippa) by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II,1869 d) a text giving examples of wicked kings who oppressed Babylon and met a bad end.1870 This is the text under discussion here. Since it incorporates KutirNaḫḫunte II into its list of bad kings from the past, its historical setting must be later than that of the correspondence (a-b). Probably, it is to be dated shortly after the murder of Sennacherib, see below on p. 525. In this last text (d), the author collects various examples from history of wicked kings who were killed by their sons. The reader is invited to learn from these 1866 Brinkman 1968, p. 19; Emerton 1971, pp. 38–46 (discussing Astour 1966, see below);

1867

1868

1869

1870

Lambert 1994b, p. 67, and 2004, p. 200. The assumption is maintained by Astour (1966, pp. 81–94 and 1992a, with earlier literature). VAT 17020 (BE 13384) = VS 24, no. 91, added to the original corpus by van Dijk 1986, pp. 161–162. On the question as to whom the letter is to be ascribed, see the summary by Potts 1999, p. 233. BM 35404, formerly Sp. II, 987; copy by Pinches 1897, pp. 84–85 (obv. only, transliteration of reverse on pp. 54–55); new copies of obv. 6, 19–20 by King 1898, p. LII; Jeremias 1917, pp. 92–95; Brinkman 1968, pp. 80–81; van Dijk 1986, p. 166; Foster 2005, pp. 370–371 (text a). BM 34062, formerly Sp. 158 + Sp. II, 962; copy by Pinches 1897, pp. 86–89; new copy of rev. 21 by King 1898, p. LII; Jeremias 1917, pp. 84–91; Stokholm 1968, pp. 8–18; Lambert 1994b; Foster 2005, pp. 371–374 (text b); Jursa 2017. BM 35496, formerly Sp. III, 2; copy by Pinches 1897, pp. 82–83; copies of obv. 9’, 13’, rev. 3 by King 1898, p. LI; Jeremias 1917, pp. 80–84; Foster 2005, pp. 374–375 (text c).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

525

examples that Marduk (rev. 5, 8) leaves no offence unpunished and that a sinner will not prevail:1871 – [ana lib]bīka liškun “(Marduk) may place (it) [into] your [hea]rt!” – [b]ēl ḫīṭi lā i[bâr] “[A s]inner will not [last.]” The crimes of the kings dealt with in the excerpts A (Tukultī-Ninurta I) and B (ITUUD-ḪUL-A) consist of plundering Babylon – which is obvious, although the city is not explicitly mentioned in the *šillata šalālu phrase – and of making waters flow over Babylon and Esaĝil. In either example, the phrases are the same: – [šillat lā mi]nâti išlul mê eli Bābil u Esaĝil [ušardâ] (A, B) Having waters flow over Babylon was a very particular sacrilege committed by Sennacherib against Babylon in 689 BCE, when he sacked the city and had the waters of the Euphrates run over it and its temples.1872 In either line (obv. 11’, 15’), the verbal form is broken. Here, with wicked human kings as subjects, I prefer the more technical phrase *ušardâ (redû Š, CAD R, pp. 243–244, s.v. redû A 14b) instead of the more elevated expression *ušbīʾ (bâʾu Š, CAD B, p. 182, s.v. bâʾu 3c), which is also attested in Esarhaddon’s flowery and euphemistic report on the drowning of Babylon, allegedly brought about by the god Marduk himself.1873 Interestingly, Sennacherib does not appear in this list. However, no other king was more infamous than him for drowning Babylon, and so the sins listed above appear to have been made up and modelled upon the example set by Sennacherib, as was the punishment, i.e. being killed by his own son.1874 In not mentioning Sennacherib after Kutir-Naḫḫunte, the author either kept to the historical setting of his text, which then would be after Kutir-Naḫḫunte, and before Sennacherib. Or, more likely, the topic of this treatise in fact was the very murder of Sennacherib, and his sins and his end were dealt with in the lost upper part of the obverse, and set into a somewhat pushed historical perspective. By the time of the composition of the text, Esaĝil appears to lie in ruins, since the author yearns to see the temple to be restored again.1875 So I think it makes good sense to date the text to the early reign of Esarhaddon, after Sennacherib had been killed, and before the restoration of Babylon had begun. If this is correct, the author of this text is probably to be 1871 Rev. 10: [… ana šà]-bi-ka liš-kun (…); and rev. 12: [… e]n ḫi-ṭu la i-[bar]. 1872 Galter 1984, pp. 164–170; Frahm 1997, p. 17. 1873 See Borger, Asarh., p. 14, Bab. A–G, episode 7, version a, l. 42 (Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 196,

no. 104, I:42–43; p. 203, no. 105, II:6–7; p. 236, no. 114, II:4–6; p. 245, no. 116, obv. 14’). See also the other example from Source 74, E 5 (Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 229, no. 113, l. 13). 1874 The similarities between the figures of Tukultī-Ninurta I and Sennacherib, as they have come down to us in the Babylonian narratives, have, of course, been noted earlier. Mayer (1995, pp. 217–220), for example, reckons that the character of TukultīNinurta in Chronicle P (Source 71) had been deliberately brought in line with the figure of Sennacherib. Frahm (1997, pp. 218–219) calls Tukultī-Ninurta a “historical prefiguration” of Sennacherib. – Von Soden (1971, pp. 257–258) takes the description of the chronicle as historical. Galter (1984, p. 170) apparently understands it as a literary topos, modelled on the example of Sennacherib. 1875 Esaĝil nebû ana ašrīšu litūr (rev. 9) “Bright Esaĝil may return to its place!”; Jeremias 1917, p. 82.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

526

Edition of the Sources

sought among the – possibly deported – Babylonian scholars at the Assyrian court of Nineveh who had been urging Esarhaddon to rebuild Babylon.1876 In examples A and B, the son kills his father with the “weapon of/at his hand” (kakki qātīšu). In example C, the son uses the “dagger of/at his waist” (patar qablīšu), a normal piece of male attire. In example A, we may suppose that the “weapon” was a sword, in B it may also have been a club. In either case, the suffix -šu referring to the son is to express that he killed his father personally, with his own hands. Matching the rather uniform sacrileges (in particular in A and B), the killings are also described very uniformly: – [mā]rušu ina kakki qātīšu kī asli uṭabbiḫšu (A) – mārušu ina kakki qātīšu muḫḫašu imḫaṣ (B) – mārušu ina patar qablīšu libbašu ittak[ip] (C) The historical model for this literary motif is obviously the murder of the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 681 BCE.1877 He was killed by his son Urdu-Mullissu, but for intra-Assyrian quarrels about the succession to the throne, not for the sacrilege, which is only the Babylonian reading of the events. While the murder is completely passed over in the Assyrian Eponym Chronicle,1878 it is at least hinted at in the inscriptions of Esarhaddon.1879 It is directly addressed only in the annals of Aššurbanipal.1880 The Babylonian Chronicle reports the event and gives its exact date.1881 In an inscription of the Late Babylonian king Nabonidus the death of Sennacherib is rendered virtually with the same phrase as in the Chedorlaomer Text (d), giving the same reason, i.e. the destruction of Babylon and the devastation of the land of Babylonia: 1876 In particular the figure of Bēl-ušēzib (PNA 1/II, pp. 338–339, s.v. Bēl-ušēzib 1), a

1877 1878 1879

1880

1881

Babylonian scholar of Esarhaddon, springs to one’s mind. In a letter, Bēl-ušēzib reminds Esarhaddon that, when he was crown prince, he, Bēl-ušēzib, had predicted that “Esarhaddon will rebuild Babylon and restore Esaĝil” (Aššur-aḫu-iddina Bābil ippuš Esaĝil ušaklal, Parpola 1993, pp. 86–88, no. 109, obv. 14’–15’). Parpola 1980; Frahm 1997, pp. 18–19. The Assyrian Eponym Chronicle notes for the year 681 BCE only that “Esarhaddon sat on the throne”: [(…) Aššur-a]ḫu-iddina ina kussî ittūšib, Millard 1994, p. 51. “Later, my brothers became completely mad and committed everything that is not good (in the eyes) of gods and men. They plotted evil and rebelled with weapons, in order to exercise kingship they butted each other like kids without divine consent in the midst of Nineveh” (arkānu aḫḫūʾa immaḫûma mimma ša eli ilānī u amēlūti lā ṭābu ēpušūma ikpudū lemutta isseḫûma kakkī ina qereb Ninua balu ilānī ana epēš šarrūti itti aḫāmiš ittakkipū lalāʾiš, after Borger, Asarh., p. 42, Nin. A I:41–44). “The rest of the(se Babylonian) people (who had sinned against Assyria I caught) alive (and) I slew them finally in between the bull-colossi where Sennacherib had been slain, the father of (my) father who begot me, on the occasion of his funerary offering” (sitti nišī balṭūssun ina alad-lammê ša Sîn-aḫḫē-erība ab abi bānīya ina libbi ispunū enenna anāku ina kispīšu nišī šâtunu ina libbi aspun, after Streck 1916/II, p. 38, Annals IV:70–73; Tsukimoto 1985, pp. 112–114, with note 405). “On the 20th day of the month Ṭebēt (of 681 BCE), Senn[ac]herib, king of Assyria, was killed by his son in a rebellion” (Ṭebēt 20. ūmu Sîn-[aḫ]ḫē-erība šar māt Aššur mārušu ina sīḫi idūkšu, after Grayson 1975a, p. 81, chronicle 1, III:34–35).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

527

– šar Subarti ša ina uzzi Marduk šalputti māti iškunu māru ṣīt libbīšu ina kakki urassibšu1882 “As to the king of Subartu (i.e. Assyria), who by (permission of) Marduk’s wrath had brought about the devastation of the land, his own son cut him down with the weapon.” Finally, the line of argument of the Chedorlaomer Text under discussion,1883 which argues that Sennacherib was slain by his son as a punishment for a sacrilege against “God” and his holy city, was adopted by the Hebrew Bible and transferred to Yahweh and Jerusalem.1884 Before the author of the text under discussion refers to the bad example of Tukultī-Ninurta, he deals with another wicked king whose name is not preserved. The passage which matters to our topic is the final remark: – malka lā zānin [Esaĝil mārušu] ina kakki ušamqit1885 “The king who would not provide for [Esaĝil,] [his son] struck (him) down with the weapon.” Astour (1966, pp. 94–97) unconvincingly tried to identify this wicked king with a person called Ibbi-Tutu (Ii-bí-dtu-tu) whom he thought to be Marduk-apla-iddina II in disguise. The character by the name Ibbi-Tutu, however, appears in the historical-literary text (see above, sub c) about the devastation of Babylonia by Kutir-Naḫḫunte,1886 and must have been coeval with him, at least according to the logic of the epic. Since Ibbi-Tutu’s name bears the personal determinative, he is certainly human and not divine, i.e. he is not some kind of alias of the god Nabû dealt with two lines ahead in that text. Since no king is known by that name either, Ibbi-Tutu may rather have been a local functionary, a governor or a high-priest in charge of Borsippa and Ezida.1887 Returning to the Chedorlaomer Text (d) under discussion, I suppose that the author dealt in lines obv. 8’–9’ or in the broken lines above with Sennacherib himself, and that he added the examples of earlier wicked kings (A–C), which are in fact modelled on Sennacherib, in order to illustrate that his fate came upon him as a 1882 Excerpt from a longer passage describing Sennacherib’s destruction of Babylon;

Nabonidus, Babylon Stele I:35’–41’, Schaudig 2001, p. 516.

1883 Text “d” (BM 35496), see p. 524 above with note 1870. 1884 2 Ki 19:37; 2 Chr 32:21; Isa 37:38. On the reflections of Sennacherib and the conquest of

Babylon in biblical sources see Frahm 1997, pp. 25–26 and Kalimi 2014, in particular p. 46 with note 107. In another context, the murder of Sennacherib also appears in the book of Tobit (1:21), see Holm 2014, pp. 310–311. On the Babylonian and biblical traditions about Sennacherib’s sacrilege and death see recently and in detail also Cogan 2009. However, I cannot adopt Cogan’s suggestion that the Babylonian narrative is dependent upon the biblical one (ibidem pp. 171–172). 1885 Chedorlaomer Text “d”, see p. 524 with note 1870; copies by Pinches 1897, p. 82 and King 1898, p. LI: (obv. 8’) ma-al-ku la za-nin (9’) [é-saĝ-gíl dumu-šú] ina ĝištukul ú-šam-qit; see also Jeremias 1917, p. 80; Astour 1966, p. 95. 1886 Lambert 1994b, p. 70, rev. 27’. 1887 The theophoric element of his name points to Borsippa. Tutu was the indigenous god of Borsippa before he was syncretized with Marduk. Later, he had to cede his temple to Nabû. – Jursa (2017, p. 89), too, thinks that Ibbi-Tutu was a local priest.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

528

just and logical punishment imposed by Marduk. Admittedly, the phrase “he who would not provide for Esaĝil” is a massive understatement for the deeds of Sennacherib, but the cautious formulation explains itself by the time of the composition of the text – probably shortly after the murder of Sennacherib – and by the addressee, probably his son Esarhaddon. There is also an example of a king killed by his son that is not part of the story-line dealing with the destruction of Babylon. That is Tarḫulara king of Gurgum, who was allegedly killed by his son Muttallu ca. in 711 BCE, at least according to some reports of Sargon II. According to other reports of Sargon, Tarḫulara was deported to Assyria.1888 For the murder of Tarḫulara, Sargon uses the same phrase as Nabonidus does later for the murder of Sennacherib (*ina kakki russubu, see p. 527): – Tarḫulara […] ša Muttallu apilšu ina kakki urassibū́šū́ma1889 “Tarḫulara […] whom his son Muttallu cut down with the weapon”. However, these events predate the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib in 689 BCE, and the murder of the latter in 681 BCE. They may be historical, but they are not part of the Babylonian tradition digesting Sennacherib’s sacrilege and murder. A: On the literary echo of the misdeeds of Tukultī-Ninurta I see also the excerpt from the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34, C) and the excerpts from Chronicle P (Source 71). See the discussion of the event in chapter 4.2, abduction no. 2. The cryptography used to write Tukultī-Ninurta’s name has been solved by Astour (1966, pp. 83–84), followed by Lambert (2004, p. 201). Apart from the example (1) dealt with above under A, there is also a slightly different example (2) from another Chedorlaomer Text. The orthographies do not employ the common forms tukul-ti or ĝiškim-ti to write tukultī “(the object of) my trust (is …)”, but bàd-maḫ and dur-maḫ, either one meaning “stronghold”: I I bàd-maḫ-dmaš a šá ìr-d⌈é⌉-tuš:a1890 1) I d I dumu šá ìr-é-tuš-a1891 2) [… ]dur-maḫ- maš The terms bàd-maḫ and bàd-gal “great fortress” are Sumerian semantic equivalents of tukultu “(object of) trust/mainstay” (CAD T, p. 461, s.v. tukultu lex.). The variant in dur-maḫ, otherwise to be read durmāḫu “cosmic rope” in Akkadian, is probably a phonetic variation triggered by bàd = dūru “wall/fortress”. The name given as the one of Tukultī-Ninurta’s father poses problems. In his own inscriptions, Tukultī-Ninurta calls himself son of Shalmaneser (I) and grandson of Adad-nārārī (I), his predecessors.1892 The name used here, Arad-Etuša “servant-of-Etuša”, 1888 See in detail Fuchs 1994, p. 415 and Hawkins in Iraq 36, 1974, p. 75. 1889 After Fuchs 1994, p. 217, Prunkinschrift ll. 83–84; partially broken ibidem p. 131, Annalen

l. 235, cf. ll. 237–238.

1890 From excerpt A (obv. 9’) under discussion, see also text d on p. 524 with note 1870. 1891 From BM 35404 (see also note 1868), obv. 19. 1892 Grayson, RIMA 1, pp. 231–299, passim; the same filiation occurs also in an inscription

of his son Aššur-nādin-apli (ibidem p. 301).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

B:

C:

529

cannot be reconciled with the name of Shalmaneser (Salmānu-ašarēd). Etuša is the name of Marduk’s cella in Esaĝil (see Source 35, commentary on l. 30). Since Shalmaneser did not rule over Babylon, there is no reason to suppose that Arad-Etuša might have been his Babylonian throne-name. Lambert (2004, pp. 201–202) reads Ardi-Saggil “servant-of-(E)saĝil” and interprets that deviating filiation as a vilification of Tukultī-Ninurta, making him the son or bastard of a – possibly Babylonian – nobody. Turning Tukultī-Ninurta into the son of a “servant-of-Esaĝil” probably also tries to blacken his sacrilege against Esaĝil, just like the chronicler of Source 49 blackened Šulgi’s offence against Anu by reminding his audience that Šulgi’s family originally came from Uruk, the city of Anu (Source 49, obv. 10). The king written ITU-UD-ḪUL-A has not yet been convincingly identified. If read syllabically, there is a phonetic similarity between *Tudḫul(y)a son of Gazza[…] and the Hittite king Tudḫaliya I (ca. 1450–1420 BCE), the successor of Ḫuzziya II.1893 However, there is no further historical or legendary information extant which could bolster up an identification with that king or another one by the name Tudḫaliya. As far as we know, the only Hittite king who took Babylon was Muršili I, in ca. 1595 BCE.1894 Muršili, at least, was murdered by a member of his family. The murderer, however, was not his son, but his brother-in-law.1895 In Babylonian sources, Muršili’s name was not remembered. His raid on Babylon was simlpy attributed to “the Hittites” (see p. 62 with note 296). The name “Tudḫaliya”, on the other hand, was the name of several famous kings of the Hittite empire. If the Babylonian scribe mistook Tudḫaliya I for Muršili, he would have been wrong for ca. 150 years and he would have put the king in the wrong chronological order, between the raids by Tukultī-Ninurta in ca. 1222 BCE and by Kutir-Naḫḫunte in ca. 1155 BCE. This, however, is perhaps a weak argument in the kind of literature we are dealing with. Astour proposed a marvellously sophisticated but unconvincing reading of the names, trying to show that ITU-UD-ḪUL-A means “Evil-Offspring” and that is in fact to be identified with Muršili I, the grandson of Ḫattušili I.1896 On the literary echo of the misdeeds of Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and of his son Kutir-Naḫḫunte II see also the excerpts from two royal inscriptions of Nebuchadnazzar I (Source 32 and Source 33), the excerpt from the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34, D) and the omens of Source 53 and Source 58. See the discussion of the event in chapter 4.2, abduction no. 3. At the beginning of line rev. 1, one expects the name of the wicked king. However, the available space seems to be far too small. Perhaps, the “king

1893 On the possibility of reading the name ITU-UD-ḪUL-A as “Tudḫaliya” see van Dijk 1986,

p. 167 and Astour 1992b, with earlier literature.

1894 See the discussion of this event in chapter 4.2, abduction no. 1. 1895 See the discussion on p. 62 above. 1896 Astour 1966, pp. 87–90; idem 1992b, p. 551.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

530

Edition of the Sources

of Elam” remained unnamed here. Furthermore, one wonders whether Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I, the father of Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, who was the reigning king of Elam when his son devastated Babylonia,1897 might have been the topic of this line. Then, Kutir-Naḫḫunte (rev. 3) would be the son who killed his father. Against this interpretation stands that in the parallel cases the son is never introduced by name – it is always the criminal father who is named. The information that Kutir-Naḫḫunte – or perhaps Šutruk-Naḫḫunte – was killed by his son is not supported by other sources. This element appears to be due to the Babylonian conviction that crimes as horrible as those committed by Kutir-Naḫḫunte against Marduk and Babylon had to be punished that way. It is even highly unlikely that Kutir-Naḫḫunte’s son, Ḫuteluduš-Inšušinak, would have killed his father, since in any case it would not have been his turn to succeed his father to the throne, but his uncle’s, Šilḫak-Inšušinak. Kutir-Naḫḫunte apparently had a good relationship to his son, and Šilḫak-Inšušinak who succeeded his brother to the throne of Elam likewise was on good and friendly terms with the widow of his brother, whom he married, and with her children.1898 Ḫuteluduš-Inšušinak in turn followed his uncle on the throne. So the members of the Elamite royal family appear to have lived in peace and harmony with each other. We have to discuss briefly the question whether it was only Kutir-Naḫḫunte II who raided Babylonia, or if it may have also been his namesake Kutir-Naḫḫunte I, a contemporary of Samsu-iluna (ca. 1749–1712 BCE). In the present framework, the figure of the “wicked Elamite king Kutir-Naḫḫunte” occurs in the following texts: 1) In Source 33, a royal inscription, probably of Nebuchadnezzar I. 2) In the excerpt under discussion (Source 72, C). 3) In another one of the Chedorlaomer Texts, the historical epic mentioned above on p. 524 sub (c) with note 1869. 4) In an inscription of Aššurbanipal dealing with his second campaign against Elam in 646 BCE. Only in text no. 1 it is made utterly clear that we are dealing with Kutir-Naḫḫunte II, in particular by the mention of the Babylonian kings Zababa-šuma-iddina and Enlil-nādin-aḫi. The excerpt under discussion (no. 2) and the historical epic (no. 3) also clearly have a late second or early first millennium character, even though they do not give datable names of Babylonian rulers. In Aššurbanipal’s Nergal-Laṣ-Inscription (no. 4), the wicked “Elamite KutirNaḫḫunte” serves as the headline for Aššurbanipal’s war aganist Elam, justifying it as a retaliation campaign.1899 In this inscription, Aššurbanipal dates the attack of Kutir-Naḫḫunte back to a time of “1635 years” before his own reign. Ever since, according to Aššurbanipal, vengeance had not been exacted on Elam. In his annals, 1897 See Brinkman 1968, p. 88; Henkelman 2011–2013 (RlA 13), p. 370. 1898 Labat 1975, pp. 488–489; Hinz 1980–1983b (RlA 6), p. 389. 1899 In the Nergal-Laṣ-Inscription: Streck 1916/II, pp. 178–180, K 2631+, obv. 12–18; Borger

1996, p. 83. See also the comment on p. 59 above. – On the question of Kutir-Naḫḫunte I or II see already Vallat 1993b with note 1904 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

531

not mentioning Kutir-Naḫḫunte by name, Aššurbanipal prides himself of having brought back to Uruk (a statue of) the goddess Nanāya, “who had turned away in wrath and had been dwelling in Elam for 1635 years”, respectively for “1535” or “1630” years.1900 Adding the 1635 years to 646 BCE, the year when Aššurbanipal devastated Elam, we arrive at 2281 BCE. If we pick the beginning of Aššurbanipal’s reign (669 BCE), we even arrive at 2304 BCE. These dates are far too high to match the raid by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II (ca. 1155 BCE). But this is in fact not the point. Even if we pick Kutir-Naḫḫunte I, the contemporary of Samsu-iluna (ca. 1749–1712 BCE), the number is still too high by more than half a millennium. Anyone working in Assyriology knows that the Babylonian and Assyrian calculations of dates (“Distanzangaben”) are a most tricky matter. Nabonidus dates e.g. Narām-Sîn of Akkade (ca. 2270–2235 BCE) 3200 years before his own reign, i.e. to roughly 3750 BCE. Nabonidus’ scholars obviously added up the various Babylonian dynasties according to the Babylonian King List, no matter that they often ruled side by side.1901 Calculations working with the Assyrian King List have at least a fair chance to get things right in chronological terms, because in the special case of the Assyrian kingship we deal with one single dynasty that had been in charge for roughly one and a half millennia. The Babylonians, on the other hand, had probably been calculating with the totals noted in their kinglist(s), which used to conflate the dates of various individual dynasties that had often been ruling side by side with one another. Since Kutir-Naḫḫunte – no matter whether no. I or II – had been troubling Babylonia and not Assyria, I assume that Aššurbanipal’s calculation was done with Babylonian sources and by Babylonian scholars. So I do not give as much credit to the calculated date, as others do. In the argumentation of several studies,1902 the obviously unreliable calculation presented by Aššurbanipal mixes with an unstable conglomeration of the following two non-arguments: 1) Contrary to the view held by Walther Hinz, there are no sources that allow to attribute a raid into Babylonia to Kutir-Naḫḫunte I. The claim repeatedly made by Hinz1903 that Šilḫak-Inšušinak I wanted to honour Kutir-Naḫḫunte I for his 1900 Streck 1916/II, p. 58, prism A, VI:107–124; Borger 1996, pp. 57–58, 242 (T §15, F §34, A

§59).

1901 See Schmidtke 1947–1952, also on other calculations in the inscriptions of Nabonidus;

text: Schaudig 2001, p. 422, no. 2.12 11 II 57.

1902 See Watai (2016, p. 164) for an overview of the diverse opinions. For illustration, I

single out a recent case: Obviously because of the date given by Aššurbanipal, Joan Goodnick Westenholz (1997b, p. 75) credited Kutir-Naḫḫunte I (ca. 1730–1700 BCE) with the abduction of Nanāya. Goodnick Westenholz (1997b, p. 71, note 107) referred to Jean-Jacques Glassner (1993b) who discussed the fragment of a Neo-Assyrian copy of a Babylonian literary text dealing with Samsu-iluna and read the sukkalmaḫḫu of Elam into a fragmentary line of the text (see immediately below). In the same article, however, Glassner (1993b) at least noted that the claim made by Hinz that KutirNaḫḫunte I raided Babylonia (see immediately below) rested on the “restitution hasardeuse d’une inscription […] sans rapport avec ce thème”. Beaulieu (2003, p. 185) was more reserved than Goodnick Westenholz. 1903 Hinz 1964, pp. 81–82; idem 1973, pp. 266–267; idem 1980–1983a (RlA 6), p. 384.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

532

alleged victory over Babylonia has no fundamentum in re. It relies only on an outdated interpretation of a broken and dark passage in an anonymous Elamite royal inscription from the Old Babylonian period.1904 2) Contrary to Jean-Jacques Glassner’s interpretation of a fragment of a NeoAssyrian copy of a Babylonian literary text dealing with Samsu-iluna, this fragent holds no clues to a raid into Babylonia by the Elamites during Samsuiluna’s reign, i.e. supposedly under Kutir-Naḫḫunte I. The fragment has been edited as a “chronicle”,1905 but it may as well be called a historical epic, containing literary allusions and direct speech. The fragment mentions neither a character by the name Kutir-Naḫḫunte, nor the land of Elam. It only contains a line running [l]a-am dnuska sukkal-maḫ sa-am-si-i-[lu-na …] (obv. 9’). In terms of grammar and word order, the phrase can hardly mean anything else but “[be]fore Nusku, the grand vizier of Samsu-i[una did something]”. Without drawing any conclusions, Lambert (1990, p. 31) only briefly mentioned that the term sukkalmaḫḫu was also used as a royal title in Elam. Glassner, however, embraced the idea and read the ruler of Elam into this fragment against all odds.1906 The term sukkalmaḫḫu as a desgination for the ruler of Elam occurs only in texts from Elam during the Old Babylonian period.1907 In political letters of the same period, the term sukkal Elamtim is used.1908 These customs are contemporary reflections of the political situation of that time. However, the text under discussion is not an Elamite or an Old Babylonian text, but a literary composition from the library of Aššurbanipal. I cannot see how one could possibly squeeze the sukkalmaḫḫu of Elam into this line. Aššurbanipal’s dramatic characterization of the figure as “the Elamite KutirNaḫḫunte who laid his hand on the sanctuaries of Babylonia and ruined Babylonia”1909 obviously refers to a well-known wicked character in Babylonian historiography. This can only mean the notoriously infamous Kutir-Naḫḫunte II. Kutir-Naḫḫunte I, the sukkalmaḫḫu of Elam who was a contemporary of Samsuiluna, does not play any role in Babylonian memory, and certainly not at all in the first millennium BCE in particular.1910 1904 Scheil 1932, pp. 71–75; König 1977, p. 20, 145–146, no. 70 C; Vallat 1993b. 1905 Lambert 1990, pp. 29–33, edition of K 10609; Glassner 1993a, pp. 222–223, no. 42; idem

2005, pp. 276, no. 43.

1906 Glassner 1993a, pp. 222–223, no. 42; idem 1993b; idem 2005, pp. 276, no. 43. 1907 CAD S, pp. 360–361, s.v. sukkalmaḫḫu, 2; there is one exception: a document, probably

from Dilbat, written in Akkadian, dated to the reign of Ammī-ṣaduqa, but issued in the name of the Elamite ruler Kukka-Našer III (VS 7, no. 67, obv. 1–2: sukkal-ma[ḫ] / sukkal elamki). So this “exception” reflects in fact also Elamite usage. 1908 CAD S, p. 359, s.v. sukkallu 2. 1909 Kudur-Nanḫundi Elamû ša (…) ana ešrēt māt Akkadî qāssu iddûma ušalpitu māt Akkadî, after Streck 1916/II, p. 178, K 2631+, obv. 12–14. 1910 Undisputedly, Elam was an important power also in the Old Babylonian period and frequently interfered with the ever-changing intra-Babylonian conflicts. But pace van Koppen 2013, the only reason to look for a major Elamite raid on Uruk during the late Old Babylonian period are the fancy dates given by Aššurbanipal. As stated above (p. 531), relying on these numbers would even take us to the Old Akkadian period.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

533

The sacrileges committed by Kutir-Naḫḫunte II (excerpt C) are not described with the same phrases as those used in excerpts A and B. The paragraph refers to the devastation of Babylonia by the Elamite kings Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I and KutirNaḫḫunte II in the 12th century BCE.1911 The most prominent sacrilege among the many misdeeds committed by these kings is the abduction of a statue of Marduk from Babylon to Elam.1912 In another one of the Chedorlaomer Texts, the historical epic mentioned above sub (c) at the beginning of this commentary on p. 524, it is Enlil himself who wrathfully calls Kutir-Naḫḫunte and the Ummān-Manda to devastate the land:1913 – ayyū *Kudur-nuḫuĝa/e [ē]piš lemnēti idkâmma Ummān-Manda [ispu]n māt Enlil – “‘Which one is Kudur-nuḫuĝa/e, the evil-[d]oer?’ (Enlil then) summoned the Ummān-Manda, [and he (: the Ummān-Manda) devasta]ted the land of Enlil.” (rev. 21’) a-a-ú IKU-KU-KU-KU-Ĝ[Á1914 e]-piš lem-né-e-tu4 – (rev. 22’) id-kam-ma lúérin-ma-an-d[a is-pu-u]n kur den-líl In the celestial omen of Source 58, dealing with that devastation of Babylonia by Šutruk-Naḫḫunte and Kutir-Naḫḫunte, it is also the Ummān-Manda, a typified and personified enemy who is rising against Babylonia. In the lines quoted above, the second half of the name Kutir-Naḫḫunte, which means “(the sun-god) Naḫḫunte (is my) protector”, displays a striking and alarming deviation from the normal form Naḫḫunte, an Elamite divine name that was certainly familiar also to the Babylonians. In the historical-literary text dealing with Kutir-Naḫḫunte’s crimes, the name is properly written ku-dúr-na-an-ḫu-un-di (Source 33, obv. 3’). But here, the name is transformed into either náḫ-ḫuĝ-ĝá or nuḫx-ḫuĝ-ĝe26. What is the meaning of this deviation? The paragraph is introduced by the phrase: – ḫepê māt Enl[il i]qtabi Šumeriš1915 “In Sumerian he [com]manded to break-up Enl[il’s] land.” In this line, “he” is probably Enlil himself. My translation of Šumeriš (“in Sumerian”) rests on the interpretation by Lambert, whereas other scholars have translated Šumeriš with “for” or “against Sumer”.1916 However, the Elamite attack struck Babylonia (māt Akkadî),1917 and not “Sumer” in the narrow sense. Moreover, 1911 See abduction no. 3 in chapter 4.2. Overviews over the Elamite raid into Babylonia and

1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917

the end of the Kassite Dynasty provide Brinkman 1968, pp. 88–89; Labat 1975, pp. 485– 487; Wiseman 1975, p. 446; Henkelman 2011–2013 (RlA 13), p. 370. See abduction no. 3 in chapter 4.2 and the discussion on pp. 123f. See also the echoes of this event in the omen of Source 58 (l. 4) and in the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34, D). BM 34062 = Sp. 158+Sp. II 962; Lambert 1994b, p. 70, see note 1869 on p. 524 above. See also Adalı 2011, pp. 163–165. I.e. either Iku-dúr-náḫ-ḫuĝ-ĝá or Iku-dúr-nuḫx-ḫuĝ-ĝe26, see the discussion below. Lambert 1994b, p. 70, BM 34062 rev. 20’: ḫe-⌈pe-e⌉ kur d+en-l[íl i]q-ta-bi šu-me-ri-iš. Lambert 1995, in his reply to Charpin & Durand 1994 (“contre Sumer”). The interpretation “against Sumer” was adopted e.g. by Foster 2005, p. 373, l. 20. Dūr-Kurigalzu, Sippar, Akkade, Ešnunna, Opis, Babylon and Nippur, see Brinkman 1968, pp. 88–89; Wiseman 1975, p. 446; Labat 1975, pp. 486–487. The historical epic

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

534

Edition of the Sources

there are hints that Enlil is indeed speaking Sumerian here, and the traces of his Sumerian speech can be found in the Akkadian rendering of what he said within the Akkadian text of the epic. In this passage, Enlil calls the Elamite prince KutirNaḫḫunte II, the son and heir of king Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I of Elam, to destroy Babylonia with the Ummān-Manda. The eye-catching element is, of course, the orthographical repetition in *IKU-KU-KU-KU-ĜÁ, marking the form as divine cryptography. Earlier interpretators of this cryptography proposed a reading *Kudur-lāḫamāl etc. and tried to show that the form matches the name Kedōrlāʿomer from Genesis 14.1918 However, these interpretations make no sense in Akkadian or Sumerian, and they do not explain why a Babylonian scribe should have chosen them. The similarity of the name of Chedorlaomer king of Elam from Genesis 14 and that of the historical Elamite prince Kutir-Naḫḫunte and his literary shadow is only superficial and does not hold valid for the rest of the name. The decisive element is obviously the last group that can be readily understood as ḫuĝ-ĝá, the ḫamṭu participle, or ḫuĝ-ĝe26(d), the marû participle of the Sumerian verbal base ḫuĝ “to rest/to be in place/to be placed = to be hired”. In Enlil’s mouth, the Elamite personal name KutirNaḫḫunte turns into a Sumerianized *Kudur-nuḫuĝa or -nuḫuĝed. The double [ḫ] can easily be ignored as a purely orthographic feature, found elsewhere in Sumerian, e.g. in verbal forms like mu-un-na-an-√ for *mu-n.a-n-√. The two forms in nuḫuĝa or nuḫuĝed can be understood as made up from the verbal base ḫuĝ “to rest/to be hired”. The element nu can either mean the negation nu, or stand as an allophon for lú “person”.1919 Enlil’s pronunciation *Kudur-nuḫuĝa/e thus explains Kutir-Naḫḫunte’s character and his role in Babylonian cosmic history etiologically as nu-ḫuĝa “hired person” in a first reading,1920 since he is called by Enlil to do the dirty job of smiting Babylonia, and in a second reading as nuḫuĝed “tireless” or “relentless”, since he did his very best to do harm to the temples of Babylonia. The imagery of a god “hiring” a foreign king against his people can also be found in Isa 7:20 with the king of Assyria being the razor “hired” by Yahweh to “shave” his people: “In that day the Lord will use a razor hired (‫ )שׂכירה‬from beyond the River – the king of Assyria – to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also” (Isa 7:20). Yahweh’s hiring the king of Assyria is an ironic mirror punishment for Ahaz of Judah asking Tiglath-pileser III to save him (hiph. ‫ישׁע‬, not using ‫ )שׂכר‬from the kings of Syria and Israel, and paying him from the temple’s treasury (2 Ki 16:7–8).1921 The sin of Ahaz consists of addressing the king of Assyria, not Yahweh, with the phrase ‫“ הושׁעני‬save me!” (cf. Ps 3:8; 7:2), and secondly by

1918

1919 1920 1921

mentioned above on p. 524 with note 1869 sub (c) bewails the desecration of Ekur (Nippur), Babylon, Eʾanna (Uruk, or perhaps Kiš?) and of Ezida and Borsippa (see Lambert 1994b). In particular Astour 1966, p. 94 and 1992a, p. 894, with earlier literature, summing up the discussion. The assumption is today apparently only maintained by Astour, see the introductory remarks to this commentary. Thomsen 1984, pp. 55–56, §§ 50–55. The reading ḫuĝa “hired” is corroborated by the shortenend variant writing Iku-dúrḫuĝ-ĝá “Kudur-the-hired-one”, see above with note 1865. On this thematic complex see in detail Naʾaman 1995 and Vargon 1998, p. 115.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

535

paying him from Yahweh’s treasury, thus insulting the god twice. King Asa of Judah in fact committed the same sin when he called on Ben-Hadad of AramDamscus for help against Israel, and payed him from the temple’s treasury (2 Chr 16:1–9).1922 The sin of hiring a foreign king and paying him from the temple’s treasury, stealing the god’s property, is exactly what Esarhaddon accuses the Babylonians of having done, arousing Marduk’s wrath, when they had called on the king of Elam for help, before the destruction of Babylon by Sennacherib:1923 – ana makkūr Esaĝil ekal ilānī (ašar lā âri) qāssunu ūbilūma ḫurāṣa kaspa nisiqti abnī ana māt Elamti ipšurū maḫīriš “They laid their hands upon the property of Esaĝil, palace of the gods, (a place not to be approached), and they sold (its) gold, silver, and precious stones off to the land of Elam as purchase price.” Source 73: Diary: Xerxes I is killed by his Son Obj:

Diary, listing lunar eclipses. Text: BM 32234, rev. IV’:4’. LBAT, p. xxxi, no. 1419 (no copy). Photo: Walker 1997, p. 20, fig. 7; Hunger 2001, pl. 2. Prov: Probably from Babylon. Date: Late Babylonian period. Lit: Stolper 1988, pp. 196–197. – Walker 1997, pp. 20–21, with figs. 6–7. – Hunger 2001, p. 20, rev. IV’:4’. – Kuhrt 2010, pp. 306–307, no. 90. Cont: Xerxes I is killed by his son (probably Artaxerxes I) on Ab 14 (August 4), 465 BCE. The text is discussed on p. 214 in chapter 10.6, see also pp. 123ff. – Ab 14 : Ḫišiʾaršu mārušu idūkšu – Ab 14 : (As to) Xerxes, his son killed him. – ne 1⌈4⌉ ⌈ḫi-ši⌉-ár-šú dumu-šú gaz-šú Com: The tablet deals with lunar eclipses and eclipse possibilities, arranged in 18 year groups (Hunger 2001, p. 16; saros cycle). The date of the day is quite certainly “14” (= 10+⌈4⌉),1924 since the traces of the number “4” show a single, elongated vertical, which is tyipcal for this number. The number “5” would have been written with two of these, “6” with three of them, “7” and “8” with far larger groups of wedges anyway. 1922 Asa was spared, though, because he also made great efforts to cut down foreign cults

(2 Chr 14:2–5; 15:8–18 and passim). On the topic of kings “hiring” (‫ )שׂכר‬foreign kings and troops see also 2 Ki 7:6, and lines 7–8 of the inscription of Kilamuwa king of Yʾdy (Gibson 1982, pp. 34–35, 37, no. 13, ll. 7–8). 1923 The following after Source 74, A 5–6, B2 7–8, C 11–12; phrases C 11 and B2 7 add: imšuʾū bušîšu “they stole its (: Esaĝil’s) possessions.” 1924 Pace Abraham Sachs, quoted in Parker & Dubberstein 1956, p. 17: “The day number is imperfectly preserved and all numbers from 14 to 18 are possible.”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

536

Edition of the Sources

In this text, the note on the murder of Xerxes follows immediately on a partially broken report on a lunar eclipse (rev. IV’:1’–3’) which appears to be the one scheduled for June 5, 465 BCE.1925 In the Babylonian calendar, it would have occurred on Simān 13 (Xerxes 21, after Parker & Dubberstein 1956). It is obvious that the ancient astronomer saw a connection between the lunar eclipses and the death of Xerxes. Lunar and solar eclipses were held to announce evil for the king. Usually, a substitute king would have been enthroned to save the king’s life (Parpola 1983, pp. xxii-xxiii). In the Babylonian calendar, lunar eclipses are possible only between the 12th and the 16th day of a given month. The classic dates for lunar eclipses dealt with in Babylonian celestial divination are the 14th–16th and, strangely enough, the 20th–21st day, although this is physically impossible.1926 It is worth noting that the diary dates Xerxes’ death to the 14th day, an ideal day for a lunar eclipse, which was thought to announce the death of a king. His murder occurred also nearly exactly two months after the above-mentioned lunar eclipse on June 5 (= Simān 13), 465 BCE. Was the date of Xerxes’ death perhaps a little bit idealized in the diary? It was certainly a perfect day for a wicked king to die. For the time being, this is the last documented example of a wicked king killed by his son, whom the Babylonians would have regarded as guilty of sacrileges against Marduk and Babylon; see the overview on pp. 123ff. and the discussion of Xerxes’ misdeed in chapter 10.6. Source 74: Esarhaddon: The Sins of the Babylonians Obj:

Excerpts from several royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon. Although written on distinct objects, the passages are virtually identical and justify to be arranged in “episodes”, as done by Borger, Asarh., pp. 12–14, § 11: Bab. A– G, episodes 2–8. The sigla A–D assigned below are only used in this study in order to arrange the different narratives of Marduk’s wrath. The manuscript sigla used by Borger (Asarh., pp. 10–11) and Brinkman (1983, p. 38) were: A1 (no. 1), Ba (no. 3), C2 (no. 4), D (no. 6), E1 (no. 7), E2 (no. 8), Ga (no. 10), Gb (no. 11), H (no. 12). The new texts are nos. 2, 5, 9, 13 and 14. 1: BM 78223 (CT 44, pls. 2–4, no. 3); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 104, 1. 2: BM 60032, no copy; transliterated by Millard in AfO 24, 1973, p. 17 and Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 104, 4; see also CDLI no. P450502. 3: K 192 (+ 4513) (BA 3, 1898, pp. 311, 313; photo: CDLI no. P393783); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 116. 4: BM 78221+78222 (CT 44, pls. 5–7, no. 5); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 105, 1.

1925 Walker 1997, p. 21; Steele & Stephenson 1997–1998, p. 203: partial (0.95) lunar eclipse;

Steele apud Hunger 2001, p. 396, on rev. IV’:1’–3’. The astronomical notation -464 equals 465 BCE. 1926 See Hunger 1993–1997b (RlA 8), p. 359, § 3a. See also here the examples in Source 55, Source 56, Source 59 and the discussion on p. 29.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

537

5:

Prov:

BM 132294 (joined to BM 78224 = CT 44, pl. 4, no. 4), no copy; transliterated by Millard in AfO 24, 1973, pp. 17–18 and Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 105, 2. 6: BM 91027 (I R 49, the Black Stone); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 114. 7: BM 78225 (CT 44, pl. 8, no. 6) + an unnumbered fragment in the Hirayama Collection (Tsukimoto 1990, p. 64); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 106, 1. The fragments join at line 7 I 14: ⌈it-|-ti⌉ é-saĝ-gíl. I count I:2’ of the Hirayama fragment consecutively as I:15. 8: BM 78248 (CT 44, pl. 9, no. 7); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 106, 5. 9: MMA 86.11.278 (CTMMA 4, no. 158, pp. 257–260, pl. 121); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 106, 7; joining with AO 7736 (AfO 18, pls. 21–22; Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 106, 2); joining with BM 78246 (CT 44, pls. 8–9, no. 8; Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 106, 6). In the transliteration given below, AO 7736 I 1’ and BM 78246 I’ 3’ join at line 9 I 3’: ⌈u⌉ | [d]15meš-šu. The reconstruction and transliteration follows Novotny 2017, pp. 447– 449 and 465. 10: BM 98972 (CT 34, pls. 1–2); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 108. 11: BM 122617+127846 (AfO 24, pl. 14); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 109. As far as I can see, there is no reason to combine manuscripts no. 10 (old “Ga”) and no. 11 (old “Gb”) into a single version, as Brinkman (1983, pp. 38–39) did. In the parts preserved, they do not mix. Furthermore, no. 11 has version B of Marduk’s wrath, and no. 10 contains version C, so they exclude one another. Leichty (RINAP 4), too, keeps them apart as nos. 108 and 109. 12: BM 82-3-23, 55 (AfO 24, pl. 14); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 117. 13: MMA 86.11.283 (CTMMA 4, no. 159, pp. 260–263, pls. 122–125, photo pl. 7); Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 111. 14: IM 142109; no copy, photograph in Iraq 61, 1999, p. 194, from which, however, the part quoted below is not visible; the transliteration follows al-Mutawalli 1999; Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 113. Version A: 1 Babylon (Ḥillah)1927 2 from the Sippar-Collection, but originally probably from Babylon 4 Babylon (Ḥillah) 5 Babylon (Ḥillah) 6 certainly from Babylon (the Black Stone, made for a foundation deposit of Esaĝil) 13 (Babylon?) Version B: 11 Nineveh 12 Nineveh Version C: 10 Nineveh 3 Nineveh Version D: 7 Babylon (Ḥillah)

1927 There is also a manuscript from Aššur (Leichty, RINAP 4, no. 104, 2), which, however,

is broken and does not preserve the passages under discussion.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

538

Edition of the Sources

8 Babylon (Ḥillah) 9 Babylon (Ḥillah) Version E 14 Babylon Date: Texts 1, 4, 7, 10 and 13 are dated by their colophons to Esarhaddon’s “first regnal year, the beginning of his reign” (mu-saĝ nam-lugal-la = rēš šarrūti).1928 Text 10 even gives the month, Ayyār, this would be ca. May 680 BCE. The dating of the events to the “beginning of his reign, his first regnal year” occurs also within the narrative of the reports on the restoration of Babylon.1929 For some manuscripts, however, there appears to be an allowance for “the early part” of Esarhaddon’s reign in general (Frame 1992, p. 67) or even as late as 674–670 BCE (Novotny 2015 and 2017). Manuscript 14 with version E had probably been written after Ayyār 672 BCE, since it names Aššurbanipal and Šamaš-šum-ukīn as heir designates, see Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 229. For our purposes here it is sufficient to date the texts to the reign of Esarhaddon on the whole. The matter is certainly a topic for further studies. Lit: Borger, Asarh., pp. 12–14, § 11: Bab. A–G, episodes 2–8. – Borger 1964, pp. 143–144. – Brinkman 1983. – Porter 1993, pp. 157–158, and passim. – Leichty, RINAP 4, passim; see above on the manuscripts. – Leichty 2014 (CTMMA 4), passim; see above on the manuscripts. – Johandi 2016, pp. 142–143, 151–152, 156–157 and passim. – Novotny 2017, in particular pp. 447–449, 465–470. Cont: Sins of the Babylonians and the wrath of Marduk, leading up to the destruction of Babylon (by Sennacherib) in 689 BCE. The “people” (nišū) certainly comprise also “priests” and “temple enterers” (ēribūt bīti), since the malefactors had access to Marduk’s temple Esaĝil at Babylon (crime no. 10: A 5; B2 7; C 11; on the “priests” or “temple enterers” see pp. 218f.). The versions’ different lines of arguments are discussed in chapter 4.3. An overview of the individual stages of the Babylon episodes and their phrases which very often employ verbally the same text runs as follows: 1. bad omens in the time of a former king (A 1) (B1 1) [ ? ] ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― 2. people lie to each other (A 2) [. . . .] [. . . .] 3. social disorder and crimes [. . . .] (C 1–7) 4. people forsake their gods (A 3) (B2 1) [C 8a] 5. people leave their duties, pursue other things (A 4) (B2 2) (C 8b) 6. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (B2 3) [C 9a] 7. people commit sins and taboos (B2 4) (C 9b) 8. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] (B2 5) [C 10a] 9. people incite a conspiracy against Assyria (B2 6) (C 10b)

1928 See also Frame 1992, p. 67. 1929 ina rēš šarrūtīya ina maḫrî palêya (Borger, Asarh., p. 16, ep. 12, version a, ll. 9–10).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

539

10a. people lay hands on the treasury of Esaĝil (A 5) (B2 7) (C 11) 10b. and steal from the temple (B2 7) (C 11) 11. they sell off its gold etc. to Elam as hire (A 6) (B2 8) (C 12) 12. Marduk becomes angry and plots evil (A 7) [. . . .] (C 13–15) 13. Marduk curses the land (C 16) ――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― 14. bad omens occur [ ? ] (C 17–19) The text’s different lines of argument are discussed in chapter 4.3, in particular on pp. 76f. The versions which discuss the crimes of the Babylonians most thoroughly are versions B and C, which – concluding from their find spots – had been written for an Assyrian audience. The most logical narrative is presented by version C. Version D from Babylon does not discuss any sins at all and does not mention any bad omens, but only states that Marduk had become angry with Babylon. Version E, also written for Babylon, summarizes the sins of the Babylonians rather cursorily (E 2–4) and does not mention any bad omens, either. The description of crime no. 10 (A 5; B2 7; C 11) has a precursor in the inscriptions of Sennacherib, see the commentary on A 5. A.

Marduk’s Wrath, Version A, with the Bad Omens first

(A 1)

inūšu (no. 6: ullânūʾa) ina palê šarri maḫrî ina māt Šumeri u Akkadî ittabšâ idātu lemnētu In those days (no. 6: before my time), during the reign of a former king, signs portending evil appeared again and again in the land of Sumer and Akkad. i-nu-šú (19) ina bala-e l[ugal m]aḫ-re-e (20a) ina kur eme-gi7 u ⌈uri⌉ki (20b) it-tab-šá-a (21) ámeš ḫulmeš [i]-nu-šú ina bala-e lugal (6’) maḫ-ri-i ina kur eme-gi7 (7’) u uriki it-tab-šá-a (8’) ámeš ḫulmeš i-nu-šu ina bala lugal maḫ-ri-i (10’) ina kur eme-gi7 u uriki (11’) it-tab-šá-a ámeš ḫulmeš [i]-nu-šu ina bala-e lugal maḫ-[ri-i] (21) [ina kur] eme-gi7 ù uri[ki] (22) [it-tab]-šá-a ámeš ḫulmeš ul-la-nu-ú-a ina bala (8) lugal maḫ-re-e ina kur eme-gi7 (9a) ù uriki (9b) it-tab-šá-a (10a) ámeš ḫulmeš

–

1 I 18b 2 I 5’ 4 I 9’ 5 I 20 6I7

(A 2) – 1 I 21b 2 I 9’ 4 I 12’ 5 I 23

nišū āšib libbīšu (var.: qerbīšu) anna (u) ulla aḫāmiš ītappalū (var.: -lā) idabbubā surrāti The people living therein used to answer each other ‘yes’ for ‘no’, telling lies. ùĝmeš (22) a-šib šà-bi-šu an-na ul-la (23) a-ḫa-míš e-tap-⌈pa⌉-lu (24) e-dab-bu-ba sur-r[a-a-ti] ùĝmeš a-šib qer-bi-šú (10’) an-na ù ul-la (11’) a-ḫa-míš i-tap-pa-la (12’) i-dab-bu-ba sur-ra-a-ti ùĝmeš a-šib šà-bi-šú (13’) an-na ul-la a-ḫa-míš (14’a) i-tap-pa-lu (14’b) i-dab-bu-ba (15’) sur-ra-a-ti meš ùĝ [a-šib šà-bi]-šú (24) [an-na ul-la a-ḫa]-míš (rest broken) © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

540 6 I 10b 13 I 0’

(A 3) – 1 I 25 2 I 13’ 4 I 16’ 6 13 I 3’

(A 4) – 1 I 26b 2 I 15’ 4 I 18’ 6 13 I 4’

(A 5) – 1 I 28b 2 I 17’ 4 I 20’ 6 I 14 13 I 6’

(A 6) – 1 I 31b 4 I 23’b

Edition of the Sources

ùĝmeš (11) a-šib šà-bi-šu an-na (12) ul-⌈la a⌉-ḫa-míš e-tap-pa-⌈lu⌉ (13) i-dab-[bu]-ba [sur-r]a-⌈a⌉-[ti] [ùĝmeš a-šib šà-bi-šu] (1’) an-[na ul-la a-ḫa-míš e-tap-pa-lu] (2’) e-[dab-bu-ba sur-ra-a-ti] ilānīšina ībukāma imēšā ištarātīšin(a)1930 They abolished their gods and despised their goddesses. [diĝirm]eš-ši-na ⌈e⌉-bu-k[a-ma] (26a) [e-me-š]á diš-tar-šin diĝirmeš-ši-na i-bu-ka-ma (14’) i-me-šá diš-tar-ši-na diĝirmeš-ši-na i-bu-ka-ma (17’) i-me-šá diš-tar-šin (omits this phrase) i-me-šá d[iš-tar-šin diĝirmeš-ši-na i-bu-ka-ma] ́ irkabā (no. 6 omits this phrase) parṣīšina īzibāma šanâtīma They forsook their cultic duties and embarked on strange ideas. par-ṣi-⌈ši-na⌉ (27) ⌈e⌉-zi-ba-ma šá-na-ti-ma (28a) ir-ka-ba [par]-ṣi-ši-na i-zi-ba-ma (16’) [šá]-na-ti-ma ir-ka-ba par-ṣi-ši-na i-zi-ba-ma (19’) šá-na-ti-ma ir-ka-ba (omits this phrase) par-ṣi-ši-n[a i-zi-ba-ma] (5’) šá-na-ti-[ma ir-ka-ba] ana makkūr Esaĝil ekal ilānī (ašar lā âri, nos. 6 omits) qāssunu ūbilūma They laid their hands upon the property of Esaĝil, palace of the gods, (a place not to be approached; no. 6 omits this phrase). a-na níĝ-ga (29) é-saĝ-gíl é-gal diĝirmeš (30) a-šar la a-ri šumin-su-nu (31a) ú-bi-lu-ma [a-na] níĝ-ga é-saĝ-gíl (18’) [é-gal] diĝirmeš a-šar la a-ri (rest broken) a-na níĝ-ga é-saĝ-íl (21’) é-gal diĝirmeš a-šar (22’) [l]a a-ri šumin-su-nu (23’a) [ú-bi]-lu-ma a-na [níĝ-g]a ⌈é⌉-[s]aĝ-í[l] (15) é-gal diĝirmeš šu-s[u1931-nu] (16a) ú-bi-lu-ma a-na níĝ-ga [é-saĝ-íl] (7’) é-gal diĝir[meš a-šar] (8’) la a-ri šumin-s[u-nu] [ú-bi-lu-ma] ḫurāṣa kaspa (no. 1 switches) nisiqti abnī ana māt Elamti ipšurū maḫīriš and they sold (its) gold, silver, and precious stones off to the land of Elam as purchase price. kù-babbar ⌈kù⌉-si22 (32) ni-siq-ti na4meš a-na (33) kur elam-maki ip-šu-ru ma-ḫi-riš kù-si22 kù-babbar (24’) [ni-siq-t]i na4meš a-na (25’) [kur ela]mki ip-šu-ru (26’a) [ma-ḫi-riš]

1930 Manuscript 6 omits this phrase; manuscript 13 probably switches the elements. 1931 Not šu-*š[u-nu], cf. the same sign in II:3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

541

kù-si22 k[ù-babbar] (17) ni-siq-ti na4meš a-⌈na⌉ (18) kur elam-maki ip-šu-ru ma-ḫi-riš kù-si22 kù-babbar ni-s[iq-ti na4meš] (10’) a-na kur el[am-maki] (11’) ip-šu-ru m[a-ḫi-riš]

6 I 16b 13 I 9’

(A 7) –

īgugma Enlil ilānī Marduk ana sapān māti ḫulluq nišīša iktapud lemutta Marduk, the Enlil of the gods, became enraged and plotted evil in order to smite the land and to destroy its people. 1 I 34 i-gu-ug-ma den-líl-lá(!) (35a) [d]iĝirmeš damar-utu (35b) a-na sa-pan (36) ⌈kur⌉ ḫul-lu-qu ùĝmeš-šá (37) ik-ta-pu-ud ḫul-tì 4 I 26’b i-gug-ma (27’) [d+en-líl diĝi]rmeš damar-utu (28’) [ana sa-pan kur ḫ]ul-lu-qu (29’) [ùĝmeš(-šá) ik-t]a-pu-ud (30’a) [ḫul-tì] 6 I 19 i-gu-ug-ma den-líl (20a) diĝirmeš damar-utu (20b) a-na sa-pan (21) kur ḫul-lu-qu ùĝmeš-[šá] (22) ik-ta-⌈pu⌉-ud munusḫ[ul] 13 I 12’ i-gug-ma [d+en-líl] (12’) diĝirmeš ⌈d⌉[amar-utu] (13’) [a-n]a sa-p[an kur (ḫul-lu-qu)] (rest broken) After this line, each manuscript of version A goes on with Borger’s episode 7, the description of the Araḫtu flooding Babylon,1932 i.e. they did not contain Borger’s episode 6 with the bad omens occurring before the destruction. This interpretation occurs only in version C below. B.

Marduk’s Wrath, Version B, with the Bad Omens first

Segment 1: (B1 1) inūšu ina palê šar maḫrīya [ittabšâ idātu] lemnētu – In those days, during the reign of a king who preceded me, [signs portending] evil [appeared again and again]. 11 I 25’ [i-nu-š]u ina bala-e (26’) [lugal ma]ḫ-ri-ia (27’) [it-tab-šá-a á]⌈meš⌉ ⌈ḫul⌉meš 12 8’ ì-nu!-šú i-na bala-e lugal maḫ-r[i-ia it-tab-šá-a ámeš ḫulmeš] (B1 2) – 11 I 28’ 12 9’ 12 11’

kullat māḫāzī gim[ir kal dadmī ni]šī āšibūt qerb[īšun …] The people living in all the cult centres and in ev[ery place …]. [kul-lat ma-ḫa]-zi (29’) [gi-mir kal da-ád-mì ù]ĝ‹meš› (30’) [a-ši-bu-ut qer-bi-šú-nu] [ku]l-lat ma-ḫa-zi gi-m[ir kal da-ád-mì ùĝmeš] (10’) ⌈a⌉-ši-bu-ut qer-b[i-šú-nu …] [. . . . .] ⌈x x⌉ man?-nu ul [. . . . . . .] (12’) [. . . . .] ⌈x⌉ ma ni [. . . . . . .]

(* * * break * * * ) Segment 2: (B2 1) [ilānīšina ībukāma] i[mēšā ištarātīšin] – [They abolished their gods and] d[espised their goddesses]. 11 II 0’ [diĝirmeš-ši-na i-bu-ka-ma] (1’) ⌈i⌉-[me-šá diš-tar-šin]

1932 On the topic of “flooding Babylon” see the discussions on pp. 123f. and 525 above. See

also here part E 5 in the source under discussion.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

542

(B2 2) – 11 II 2’

(B2 3) – 11 II 6’

(B2 4) – 11 II 8’

(B2 5) – 11 II 10’

(B2 6) – 11 II 12’

(B2 7) – 11 II 15’

(B2 8)

Edition of the Sources

́ par[ṣīšina] u[mašširāma] šanâ[tīma] irk[abā] They [forsook their] cultic [duties and] em[barked on] stran[ge ideas]. par-[ṣi-ši-na] (3’) ú-[maš-ši-ra-ma] (4’) šá-na-[ti-ma] (5’) ir!(ni)-k[a-ba] . . . [. . . . . . . . ] manzā[zu . . . . . . . . ] . . . [. . . . . . . . ] plac[e . . . . . . . . ]. AN [. . . . . . . .] (7’) ⌈man⌉-za-[zu . . .] ḫiṭ[īta šuršû] as[akka aklū] [They committed] si[ns and violated ta[boos]. ḫi-ṭ[i-tú šur-šu-ú] (9’) a-s[ak-ku ak-lu] . . . [. . . . . . . . ] qurr[ubū . . . . . ] . . . [. . . . . . . . , they were] clo[se to . . . . . ]. ina bi-⌈x⌉/ e[den …] (11’) qur-r[u-bu …] bilt[a ušabṭalū] uš[abšû] ri[kilta] [they stopped (delivering)] the(ir) tribu[te and] in[cited] a con[spiracy]. bil-t[a ú-šab-ṭa-lu] (13’) ú-š[ab-šu-ú] (14’) ri-[kil-tú] ana [makkūr] Es[aĝil] u Bā[bil] qās[sunu] ūb[ilūma] imšuʾū [bušîšun] They l[aid their] hands upon [the property of] Es[aĝil] and Bā[bil] and stole [their possessions]. a-⌈na⌉ [níĝ-ga] (16’) é-s[aĝ-(g)íl] (17’) ù ká-[diĝir-raki] (18’) šumin-s[u-nu] (19’) ú-b[i-lu-u-ma] (20’) im-šu-ʾu [níĝ-šumeš-šú-un]

11 II 23’

ḫurāṣa kaspa n[isiqti abnī] ša qereb [ekurri] ana māt Ela[mti ipšurū maḫīriš] (rest broken) They [sold] the gold, silver, and p[recious stones] which (had been deposited as votive gifts) in [the temple off] to the land of Elam [as purchase price]. kù-si22 kù-babbar n[i-siq-ti na4meš] (22’) ša qé-reb [é-kur] a-na ⌈kur⌉ ela[m-maki] (24’) [ip-šu-ru ma-ḫi-riš] (rest broken)

C.

Marduk’s Wrath, Version C, with the Bad Omens last

(C 1) –

[…] ⌈…⌉ [… īk]ul[ū karṣī iq]bâ ma⌈sik⌉ta […] ⌈...⌉ […, they spr]e[ad calumnies and sp]oke evil. […] ⌈x⌉ […] (2’) [i-k]u-l[u kar-ṣi] (3’) [iq]-ba-a ma-⌈sik⌉-ta

–

11 II 21’

10 I 1’

(C 2) – 10 I 4’

[ḫa]bālu šagāšu [ina] zumrīšina [i]ššakinma [Opp]ression and slaughter had become engrained in them. [ḫa]-ba-lu šag-ga-šu (5’) [ina] zu-um-ri-ši-na (6’) [i]š-šá-kin-ma © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

(C 3) – 10 I 7’

(C 4) – 10 I 9’

(C 5) – 10 I 12’

(C 6) – 3 ov. 1’ 10 I 14’

(C 7) – 3 ov. 2’ 10 I 16’

(C 8) – 3 ov. 3’

(C 9) – 3 ov. 4’

(C 10) – 3 ov. 5’

(C 11) –

[e]nša iḫabbilū [i]šarra[k]ū ana danni They aggrieved the [we]ak and hand[ed] (him) over to the strong. [e]n-šu i-ḫab-bi-lu (8’) [i]-šar-ra-[k]u a-na dan-ni ina qereb āli dullullu maḫār kadrê ibbašīma There was oppression and corruption1933 everywhere in the city. ina qé-reb eri dul-lu-lu (10’) ma-ḫar kàd-re-e (11’) ib-ba-ši-ma ūmīša lā naparkâ imšuʾū bušî ša aḫāmiš Daily without cease they stole each other’s possessions. u4-šam!(saĝ) la na-par-ka-a (13’) im-šu-ʾu níĝ-šumeš ša a-ḫa-míš māru ina sūqi ētarrar abāšu The son would curse his father in the street. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .] ⌈x x x x x x x⌉ [x x] ma-a-ru ina su-ú-qi (15’) e-ta-ra-ar ad-šu rēšu ana bēlīšu [amtu an]a bēltīša ul išem[me] The servant would not obe[y] his master, [the maid] not her lady. [re-e-šu a-na be-li-šu am-tu4 a-n]a be-el-ti-šá ul i-šem-[me] re-e-šu a-na en-šu (II:1) [géme ana nin-šá ul i-šem-me] ́ irkabā [ilānīšina ībukāma imēšā ištarātīšin parṣīši]na umašširāma šanâtīma [They abolished their gods and despised their goddesses,] they forsook the[ir cultic duties] and embarked on strange ideas. [diĝirmeš-ši-na i-bu-ka-ma i-me-šá diš-tar-šin] [par-ṣi-ši]-na ú-maš-ši-ra-ma šá-na-tim-ma ir-ka-ba [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ḫiṭ]īta šuršû asakka aklū [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ], they committed [si]ns and violated taboos. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ḫi-ṭ]i-tu šur-šu-ú a-sak-ku ak-lu [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bilt]a ušabṭalū ušabšû rikilta [. . . . . . . . . . . . ], they stopped (delivering) the(ir) [tribu]te and incited a conspiracy. [. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bil-t]u ú-šab-ṭa-lu ú-šab-šu-ú ri-kil-tú [ana makkūr Esaĝil ekal ilānī qās]sunu ūbilūma imšuʾū bušîšu They laid their [hands upon the property of Esaĝil,] [palace of the gods], and stole its possessions.

1933 Literally: “acceptance of bribes”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

543

544

Edition of the Sources

3 ov. 6’

[a-na níĝ-ga é-saĝ-gíl é-gal diĝirmeš šu]min-su-nu ú-bi-lu-u-ma im-šu-ʾu níĝ-šumeš-šú

(C 12) –

[ḫurāṣa kaspa nisiqti abnī ša qere]b ekurri ana māt Elamti ipšurū maḫīriš They sold [the gold, silver, and precious stones which (had been deposited as votive gifts) i]n the temple off to the land of Elam as purchase price. [kù-si22 kù-babbar ni-siq-ti na4meš šá qé-re]b é-kur a-na kur e-lam-ti ip-šu-ru ma-ḫi-riš

3 ov. 7’

(C 13) – 3 ov. 8’ 10 II 1’

(C 14) – 3 ov. 9’ 10 II 3’ 10 II 5’

(C 15) – 3 ov. 10’a 10 II 8’

(C 16) – 3 ov. 10’b 10 II 12’

(C 17) – 3 ov. 11’ 10 II 15’

[epšētīšina lemnēti En]lil ippalisma eziz libbašu kabattuš iṣṣariḫ [En]lil saw [their wicked deeds] and his heart became enraged, his mood flared up with anger. [ep-še-ti-ši-na ḫulmeš d+e]n-líl ip-pa-lis-ma e-zi-iz šà-ba-šú ka-bat-tuš iṣ-ṣa-ri-iḫ [ka-bat-]⌈ ⌉[-tuš] (2’) [iṣ-ṣ]a-r[i-iḫ] [Enli]l ⌈ilānī⌉ b[ēl] mātāt[i] ana sapāḫ māti u nišī iktapud lemutta [The Enli]l of the gods, the lo[rd] of (all) the lands plotted evil in order to scatter the land and the people. [d+en-líl-lá diĝirmeš en kur-kur a]-na sa-paḫ kur u ùĝmeš ik-ta-pu-ud le-mut-tu [d+en-líl]-lá ⌈diĝir⌉m[eš] (4’) e[n] kur-ku[r] a-na [s]a-paḫ kur u ùĝmeš (6’) ik-[t]a-pu-ud (7’) le-mut-[t]u ana sapān māti u ḫulluq nišīša libbuš ezizma (var.: ikpudma) In order to smite the land and to destroy its people his heart became enraged (var.: his heart plotted). [a-na sa-pan kur ù ḫul-lu-uq ùĝm]eš-šá lib-bu-uš e-ziz-ma a-na sa-pan kur (9’) ù ḫul-lu-uq ùĝmeš-šá (10’) lib-bu-uš (11’) ik-pu-ud-ma arrat marušti iššakin ina pîšu A grievous curse formed in his mouth. ar-rat ma-ru-uš-ti iš-šá-kin ina pi-i-šú ar-rat ma-ru-uš-ti (13’) iš-šá-kin (14’) ina pi-i-šu ina šamê u erṣeti idāt lemutti (magal) itta(na)bšâ ša ḫalāq mitḫarti In heaven and earth (numerous) signs portending evil appeared again and again, concerning the ruin of the universe. [ina an-e u ki-tì ámeš ḫul]-tì ma-gal it-ta-nab-šá-a ša ḫa-laq mit-ḫar-tì ina an-e u ki-tì (16’) ámeš ḫul-tì (17’) it-tab-šá-a (18’) ša ḫa-laq mit-ḫar-ti (rest broken)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

(C 18) – 3 ov. 12’

545

[ḫarrān šūt Enlil šūt Ani] šūt Ea manzāssunu ulamminū uštanaklamū idāt šalputti [(The stars of) the (celestial) paths of Enlil, of Anu, and] of Ea changed their places towards evil, displaying signs of destruction again and again. [kaskal šu-ut d+en-líl šu-ut d60] šu-ut dé-a man-za-su-nu ú-lam-me-nu uš-ta-nak-la-mu ĝiškimmeš šal-pú-ti

(C 19) –

[ša kiššat šam]ê (u) erṣeti mitḫāriš ittanakkirā *idātūša [Of all heav]en and earth, the signs took an ill turn jointly. 3 ov. 13’ [šá kiš-šat an-]⌈e⌉ ki mit-ḫa-riš it-ta-nak-ki-ra i-da-a-ti-šá After this line, the text of version C (manuscript no. 3) goes on with Borger’s episode 7, the description of the Araḫtu flooding Babylon.1934 D.

Marduk’s Wrath, Version D, with no Sins and no Omens at all

(D 1) –

ullânūʾa bēlu rabû Marduk īgug irūmma (*irūbma) Before my time, the great lord Marduk became furious and shook with rage, ul-la-nu-ú-a (11) en gal damar-utu (12) i-gu-ug (13) i-ru-um-ma [ul-la-nu-ú-a en gal]-⌈ú⌉ (2’) [damar-utu i-gu-u]g i-ru-um-ma!(šu) u[l-la-nu]-ú-a (13) e[n gal]-ú (rest broken)

7 I 10 8 I 1’ 9 I 12

(D 2) – 7 I 14 8 I 3’

(D 3) –

itti Esaĝil u Bābil eziz libbašu zenûta irši his heart was angry with Esaĝil and Babylon, he was full of wrath. ⌈it-ti⌉ é-saĝ-gíl (15) ù ká-diĝir-⌈raki⌉ (16) e-[z]i-i[z š]à-ba-šú (17) ze-[n]u-⌈tú⌉ ir-ši1935 [i]t-ti é-saĝ-gíl (4’) ù ká-diĝir-raki (5’) e-zi-iz š[à]-šú (6’) ze-nu-tu i[r]-ši

8 I 7’

ina uggat libbīšu u ṣarāḫ k[a]battīšu Through the rage of his heart and the heat of his [m]ood ina [ug]-gat šà-šú (19) ⌈ù⌉ [ṣ]a-ra-aḫ (20) k[a-bat]-ti-šú i-na ug-gat [šà]-šú (8’) ù ṣa-ra-aḫ [ka]-bat-ti-šú

(D 4) –

Esaĝil u Bābil namûta illikūma ēmû kišubbêš Esaĝil and Babylon became desolate and turned into wasteland.

7 I 18

1934 On the topic of “flooding Babylon” see the discussions on pp. 123f. and 525 above. See

also here part E 5 in the source under discussion.

1935 Tsukimoto (1990, pp. 64–65, E1b I 4’) mis-interpreted the signs at the end of the line as

ir-ši-šú(?), followed by Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 212, I:17, p. 306 (scores). The sign -ši takes a hypo-archaizing, pseudo Old Akkadian form, with the winkelhaken split up into two slanting horizontals. Cf. the same sign in the same fragment in áš-ši-m[a] (III:9’ = III:26); copied correctly in ú-ši-bu (II:8) in the joining fragment BM 78225 (CT 44, pl. 8).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

546 7 I 21 8 I 9’ 9 I 1’

Edition of the Sources

é-s[a]ĝ-íl (22) ù [k]á-diĝir-raki (23) [n]a-mu-tu (24) [i]l-li-ku-ma (25) [e]-mu-ú (26) [ki]-šub-bé-eš é-saĝ-gíl u k[á-diĝir]-raki (10’) na-mu-ta il-li-ku-ma (11’) e-mu-ú ki-šub-bé-eš [ki-šub]-bé-eš

(D 5) –

ilānūšu u ištarātūšu ipridūma kiṣṣīšunu ēzibūma ēlû šamāwîš Its gods and goddesses became frightened, they abandoned their shrines and went up to heaven. 7 I 27 [diĝir]⌈meš-šú⌉ ⌈u⌉ d[15]m[eš-š]ú (28) [ip]-ri-du-[ma] (29) [k]i-ṣi-šú-n[u] (30) [e]-zi-bu-m[a] (31) [e-lu]-⌈ú⌉ ⌈šá⌉-[ma-míš] 8 I 12’ diĝirmeš-šú u d15meš-šú (13’) ip-ri-du-ma ki-iṣ-ṣi-šú-nu (14’) e-zi-bu-ma e-lu-ú šá-ma-míš 9 I 2’ [diĝir]meš-šu (3’) ⌈u⌉ [d]15meš-šu (4’) i[p]-ri-du-ma (5’) k[i-i]ṣ-ṣi-šu-nu (6’) ⌈e⌉-zi-bu-ma (7’) ⌈e⌉-lu-ú (8’) ⌈šá⌉-ma-míš After this line, the text goes on with Borger’s episode 9, version c, the description of the people of Babylon going into slavery. E.

Marduk’s Wrath, Version E, with Babylonian Sins, but no Omens

(E 1) –

ullânūʾa bēlu rabû Marduk itti Esaĝil u Bābil eziz libbašu zenûta irši Before my time, the heart of the great lord Marduk was angry with Esaĝil and Babylon, he was full of wrath. ul-la-nu-ú-a en gal-ú damar-utu (9) it-ti é-saĝ-gíl ù ká-diĝir-raki e-zi-iz šà-šú ze-nu-tu ir-ši

14 8b

(E 2) – 14 10

(E 3) – 14 11

(E 4) – 14 12

(E 5) – 14 13

nišūšu anna ulla aḫāmiš ētappalā idabbubā lā šalimta Its (: Babylon’s) people used to answer each other ‘yes’ for ‘no’, speaking things that were not just. ùĝmeš-šú an-na ul-la a-ḫa-míš e-tap-pa-la i-dab-bu-ba la šá-lim-tu ana makkūr bēli rabî Marduk qāssunu ūbilūma ana māt Elamti iddinū ṭaʾta They laid their hands upon the property of the great lord Marduk and gave (it) away as a bribe to the land of Elam. a-na níĝ-ga en gal-i damar-utu šumin-su-nu ú-bi-lu-ma a-na kur elam-maki iddi-nu ṭa-aʾ-tú *epšētūšina eli Marduk Zarpānītu imraṣāma iqbû sapāḫšin Their actions became loathsome Marduk and Zarpānītu (/ “Zērbānītu”) and so they ordered them (: the Babylonians) to be scattered. ep-še-ti-ši-na ugu damar-utu dnumun-dù-tu im-ra-ṣa-ma iq-bu-ú sa-paḫ-šin eli āli mê ušbīʾma ušēmi kišubbêš (Marduk) had water run all over the city and turned it into wasteland. ugu eri ameš uš-bi-iʾ-ma ú-še-mì ki-šub-bé-eš

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

(E 6) – 14 14a

547

ilānūšu u ištarātūšu ipridūma ēlû šamāwîš Its gods and goddesses became frightened and went up to heaven. diĝirmeš-šú d15meš-šú ip-ri-du-ma e-lu-ú ša-ma-míš

(E 7) –

šubat āli innasiḫma ul innaṭṭal temenšu The (divine) dwelling(s) of the city were uprooted, its foundation(s) could not be found any more. 14 14b šu-bat eri in-na-si-iḫ-ma (15a) ul in-na-ṭal te-me-en-šú After this line, the text goes on with Marduk feeling mercy for Babylon again, which occured only at the beginning of Esarhaddon’s reign. Com: The logic of Esarhaddon’s report is discussed in detail on pp. 76ff. in chapter 4.3. With forms like ētarrar (C 6), ēmû (D 4), ētappalā (E 2), ēzibūma and ēlû (D 5, E 6) the manuscripts exhibit some minor Assyriasms. A 1: The phrase is a nearly verbal quotation from an inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I (Source 32, l. 15) in which this king explains why Marduk allowed Elam to smite Babylonia before his time (see also line B1 1 below). The great similarity between the phrases was already briefly noted by Borger,1936 but without drawing the necessary consequences.1937 Esarhaddon’s version A is very close to the text of Nebuchadnezzar. His version D is strikingly different since it does not give any sin or reason for Marduk’s wrath, neither does it mention any omens. Stefan Maul (1994, pp. 6–7) has argued in favour of differenciating “signs” (ittu–ittātu/ĝiškim) from “powers” (ittu–idātu/ámeš) in the genre of the namburbi-rituals. The problem is, that the meaning “power” is only derived from the Sumerian logogram á “arm/power”, as Maul conceded. The translation “power” makes good sense in the namburbi-rituals, but already Maul (1994, p. 7, note 53) himself acknowledged that this meaning is secondary since the Akkadian word is probably not to be derived from idu (*yad) “arm”, but either from the root √wʿd “to determine” or from the root √ydʿ “to know”, resulting in an original meaning “identifying mark/sign” for ittu–idātu. This makes it extremely difficult to tell it apart from ittu–ittātu (√ʾt, cf. Hebr. ʾōṯ, pl. ʾōṯōṯ) which clearly means “sign”. In 1960, CAD merged all attestations into one term ittu (“sign, characteristic”). On the basis of the two plural forms, von Soden separated ittu I from ittu II in 1965.1938 In 1966, Landsberger rejected the separartion of ittu I from ittu II and combined them like CAD to one term ittu “Kennzeichen/identifying feature”. According to Landsberger, the term stems from the root √ydʿ and produces two plural forms, the original idātu and a 1936 Borger, Asarh., p. 117, § 87a, on K 4874; Borger 1957–1958, p. 118, on § 87a. See recently

also Johandi 2016, p. 144, note 42.

1937 See the discussion on pp. 76ff. above in chapter 4.3. 1938 AHw I, pp. 405–406, s.v. ittu(m) I, idatu, ca. “das Besondere”, “Eigenschaft”, “Er-

scheinung”; in the plural: “Besondere Bedingungen”, “Konstellationen”; ibidem p. 406, s.v. ittu(m) II (Hebr. ʾōṯ) “Zeichen”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

548

Edition of the Sources

secondary ittātu. Landsberger convincingly explained that the examples in which the two logograms ámeš and ĝiškimmeš occur side by side are to be read as idātu (/ ittātu) giskimmū, not as *idātu ittātu.1939 The possible difference in meaning is crucial. If idātu in fact means “powers”, the Babylonian sins as presented by Nebuchadnezzar I (Source 32, l. 15) and here by Esarhaddon (in A 1, and probably also in B1 1) would have been induced by some kind of deteriorating cosmic situation whose actual cause is not specified. However, the Akkadian version of the bilingual report of Nebuchadnezzar I (Source 32) on the fall of Babylon to the Elamites renders the term Akkadian term idātu with ĝiškim “sign” of the Sumerian version.1940 This orthography does not support the possible meaning “powers” for idātu. The report of Easrhaddon who adopted the description nearly verbally, uses the logogram ámeš instead, insinuating the meaning “powers”. However, the use of the logogram ámeš for idātu “signs” had probably been transferred only secondarily from the homophonous term idu “arm” (= á). A similar case of a logogram transferred from one word to a homophone with a different meaning can be found e.g. in the widespread use of uru4 (= APIN) = erēšu (B) “to cultivate a field” for = erēšu (A) “to desire” (see CAD E, pp. 281–289). So we find in this phrase both logograms, i.e. ĝiškim as well as á, and the form idātu. The same distribution can be found in the descriptions of the favourable signs which are said to have occurred at the beginning of Esarhaddon’s reign: 1) (11) ukallim giskimbuš (gis-kim-bu-uš) (…) (17) iššaknānimma (18) idāt (i-daat) dumqi (…) (22) ittanabšâ elīya (23) idāt (ĝiškimmeš)1941 dumqi (24) šuʾātina āmurma1942 “(The planet Mars) showed his signal. (…) Good signs came into existence for me (…), they kept appearing over me. I observed these good signs and (…).” 2) (12) iš[ša]knānimma idāt (ámeš/[ĝ]iškim[meš])1943 (13) [damiqti] ina šamāwī (u) qaqqari (14) [ištappa]ra giskimmuš (gis-kim-mu/bu-uš)1944

1939 B. Landsberger in WO 3, 1964–1966, pp. 69–76: “Bedeutung von ittu (= sum. giskim) und

seine Etymologie”, in particular pp. 69–71 with note 84.

1940 Written: ĝiškim ∥ i-da-a-tu (Source 32, l. 15, text A). 1941 The sign can be checked only in the copy of manuscript A1b (VA 8411): [ĝi]škimmeš

(Schroeder, KAH II, no. 126, II’:1’); Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 180 (scores), no. 57, line 23, manuscripts nos. 1 (VA 8411 = Borger’s A1b) and 5 (VA –, no published copy). 1942 Paragraph quoted after Borger, Asarh., p. 2, Ass. A, II:11, 17–18, 22–24; Leichty, RINAP 4, pp. 121–124, 178–180 (scores), no. 57, II:11, 17–18, 22–24. 1943 A: áme[š] (CT 44, pl. 2, no. 3, II:2’); D: ámeš (I R 49, III:12); Ga: [ĝ]iškim[meš] (CT 34, pl. 1, IV:2’). 1944 Paragraph quoted after Borger, Asarh., p. 16, Bab. A–G, episode 12, version a; Leichty, RINAP 4, pp. 196–197, 250 (scores), no. 104, ex. 1 (= A), II:26–29 (gis-kim-bu-[uš]); p. 221, no. 108 (= Ga), IV:2’–8’ (gis-kim-bu-uš); p. 237, no. 114 (= D), ll. 12–14 (gis-kim-mu-uš).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

A 2: A 4:

549

“[Good] signs came into existence for me in heaven and earth, (Marduk) [kept sen]ding me his signal.” 3) To this latter paragraph, some texts add a phrase which comes in three slightly differing variations:1945 – uštanaklamanni damiqta it[tī] “(Marduk) kept showing (me his) good si[gn concerning me].” – uštanakl[am]ū damiqta ittī “(The gods) kept show[ing] (me his) good sign concerning me.” – [uštan]aklamū [damiqta it]tašu “(The gods) [kept sho]wing (me) his [good si]gn.” The good portents which Esarhaddon means are celestial omens and direct verbal messages from the gods transmitted by prophets. Esarhaddon uses the terms giskimmu (/giskimbu) and idātu. The singular term giskimmu is spelled out syllabically. For the plural term idātu, Esarhaddon indiscriminately uses the orthographies i-da-at, ámeš and ĝiškimmeš. This becomes very clear in example 2, where ámeš and ĝiškimmeš are used in the same place by different manuscripts. In example 1, the same phrase displays syllabically written i-da-at. As it appears, there are no clear syllabic orthographies writing the plural *it-ta-tu in the passages under discussion. That idātu (= ĝiškim) in fact meant “sign”, not “power” is also proven by the orthographical habits of the Diviner’s Manual. This handbook clearly deals with “signs”, not “powers”, and uses the logogram ĝiškim throughout.1946 Only once, the term is also rendered syllabically as ittātu,1947 but far more often as *idātu, in the construct state idāt šamê u erṣeti “signs of heaven and earth”.1948 As a result, I consent with Landsberger’s interpretation (see pp. 547f. above) and translate idātu with “(ominous) signs”. However, apart from this lexical question, one can nevertheless feel a transition taking place which finally arrives at a situation like the one that Maul (1994, pp. 6–7) reconstructs for the namburbi-rituals, see the discussion here on pp. 77f. The sin of speaking insincerely, saying “yes” for “no”, is listed among the offences in the incantation Šurpu (tablet II:6; Reiner 1958, p. 13). The term šanâtu “other/strange/perverse things” comprises here (and in B2 2 and C8) also the Babylonians’ desire to shake off Assyrian rule. On šanâtu “different/hostile words or things” see CAD Š/I, p. 388, s.v. šanītu. On rakābu in a transferred meaning, ca. “to embark on something”, see CAD R

1945 After Borger, Asarh., pp. 16–17, episode 12, versions a and c. – A: uš-⌈ta⌉-nak-l[a-m]u

sig5 it-ti (CT 44, pl. 2, no. 3, II:8’; Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 197, no. 104, II:33). – B: uš-tanak-la-man-ni sig5-tu i[t-ti] (BA 3, 1898, p. 313, rev. 1; Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 245, no. 116, rev. 1). – C1: [uš-ta-n]ak-la-mu / [sig5-tu it-t]a-šu (CT 44, pl. 4, no. 4, I’:4–5; Leichty, RINAP 4, p. 204, no. 105, ex. 2, III:8–9, misread). 1946 ĝiškim (Oppenheim 1974, pp. 199–200, ll. 1, 43, 44, 45, 49, 55). 1947 it-ta-a-tu (Oppenheim 1974, p. 199, l. 2). 1948 i-da-at (Oppenheim 1974, pp. 199–200, ll. 22, 24, 36, 38, 53). munus

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

550

A 5–6:

A 7:

p. 87, s.v. rakābu 2d. The term šanâtu also occurs in the reproach directed against the king of Babylon in the frame story of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, l. 5). This analysis of the sins of the Babylonians (also in B2 7–8 and C 11–12) occurs already in the inscriptions of Sennacherib. Sennacherib also includes the acts of the Babylonian “usurper” king Mušēzib-Marduk (Šūzubu, 692–689 BCE) into his list of Babylonian misdeeds: – (20) Šūzubu (…) (28) qereb Bābil ērub Bābilû (29) ana lā simātīšu ina kussî ušēšibūšu (30) bēlūt māt Šumeri u māt Akkadî ušadgilū pānīšu (31) bīt makkūri ša Esaĝil iptûma ḫurāṣa kaspa (32) ša Bēl u Zarpānītu bušâ bīt ilānīšunu ušēṣûni (33) ana Umman-menanu šar māt Elamti (34) ša lā īšû ṭēma u milka ušēbilūš ṭaʾta 1949 “Šūzubu (…) entered Babylon, and the Babylonians placed him on the throne, for which he was not fitted, and entrusted to him the government of the land of Sumer and Akkad. They opened the treasury of Esaĝil and brought forth the gold and silver of Bēl and Zarpānītu, the property of the temple of their gods. They sent it as a bribe to Umman-menanu (Ḫumban-nimena), the king of the land of Elam, who does not have sense or insight.” Another inscription of Sennacherib specifies the squandered possessions as Sennacherib’s votive gifts in particular: “the silver, gold (and) precious [stones that] I had given as presents (uqaʾʾiša qīšāti) [to Bēl and Zarpānītu]”.1950 In the course of the conquest of Babylon in 689 BCE, Mušēzib-Marduk (“Šūzubu”) had been taken prisoner by Sennacherib, transported to Assyria and certainly killed there.1951 His reign, which was illegitimate in Assyrian eyes, is probably subsumed by Esarhaddon under the term “conspiracy” (rikiltu) in C 10 and in B2 6. This line (see also C 14–15) has been adopted virtually verbally from the Poem of Erra (I:102–103).1952 However, in the Poem of Erra it is Erra, not Marduk, who plots evil against humanity (see the discussion on p. 212 above). Išum rebukes Erra: – (102) bēlu Erra minsu ana il[ānī lemut]ta takpu[d] (103) ana sapān mātāti ḫulluq [nišīšin lemut]ta takpudma “Lord Erra, why did you plo[t evi]l for the god[s], (why) did you plot [evi]l to smite the lands and to destroy [their people]?”

1949 After the “Chicago Prism” V:20, 28–34; Luckenbill 1924, pp. 41–42; Grayson & Novotny,

RINAP 3/1, p. 181.

1950 After Frahm 1997, p. 207, T 174 (K 2622+), obv. 10–11; Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2,

p. 198, Sennacherib no. 146, obv. 10–11: kù-babbar kù-si22 ni-siq-ti [na4meš ša a-na den u zar-pa-ni-tu4] / ⌈ú-qa-i⌉-ša qi-šá-a-ti. 1951 Bavian inscriptions, l. 46 (Luckenbill 1924, p. 83; Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/2, p. 316); Babylonian chronicle: Grayson 1975a, pp. 80–81, no. 1, III:22–23. 1952 Cagni 1969, pp. 68, 178 on tablet I:103; Vera Chamaza 2002, pp. 103–104 with note 809. d

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

551

The phrase lemutta kapādu “to plot evil” plays an important role in the pieces of literature which deal with the various destructions of Babylon, see the discussion on pp. 211ff. above. This phrase quotes nearly verbally the line introducing the devastation of B1 1: Babylon and Babylonia by the Elamites in the report of Nebuchadnezzar I (Source 32), l. 15, see the commentary on line A 1 above. On šanâtu “other/strange/perverse things”, see the commentary on A 4. B2 2: At the beginning, restore perhaps an[zilla kabsū] “[they committed] B2 3: abo[minations”]. In the second part, one might also read kù […], with the two winkelhaken at the beginning of manuscript no. 11 II 7’ perhaps being an ancient line numbering: “⌈20⌉”. Same phrase used in C 10, see the commentary there. B2 6: B2 7–8: See the commentary above on A 5–6. C 2: šag-ga-šu: Irrespective of the spelling, which suggests the substantive šaggāšu “murderer”, I understand this form as the infinitive of šagāšu “to slaughter”, as does CAD Š/I, p. 71, s.v. šaggāšu, additional remark on the examples of šag-ga-šu occurring besides ḫabālu “to oppress”. Already Borger (1957–1958, p. 114, on § 11) in his addendum to this very line (Babylon Episode 3, c1, l. 4) had proposed to reconstruct the phrase [ḫa(b)]ba-lu šag-ga-šu “[opp]ression and slaughter” here. Borger referred to another example with the same peculiar spelling: ana ḫa-ba-li u šag-ga-ši “(a demon who has set his mind) on oppression and slaughter” (Castellino in OrNS 24, 1955, p. 246, l. 22). C 7: Although this phrase is restored from two broken manuscripts which do not overlap, I do not think that there is anything missing. One may perhaps think of adding something like *ul inaʾʾid “(the servant) would not heed (his master)” to the first half-sentence, but in this case I would expect a chiastic composition with the following “maid”: *rēšu ana bēlīšu ul inaʾʾid – ul išemme amtu ana bēltīša. C 8: On šanâtu “other/strange/perverse things”, see the commentary on A 4. C 10: The earlier part of the line is probably to be restored after phrase B2 5, which, however, is not much help since it is very fragmentary, too. The latter part of the line contains the same phrase as B2 6. Borger (Asarh., p. 13, episode 3, version c3) proposed [sat-tuk-k]u “the offerings” at the beginning of the line. This restoration, however, is obsolete after the publication of manuscript no. 11 which preserves the beginning of line B2 6. Apart from that, in the new pair of thoughts – withholding the tribute due and entering a new pact hostile to Assyria – the elements match better than the “offerings” and the “conspiracy”. On the phrase bilta/mandatta šubṭulu “to withhold the tribute” see CAD B p. 176 s.v. baṭālu 2a and p. 236 s.v. biltu 5b, 1’. C 11: The singular suffix on bušîšu speaks in favour of restoring an epithet for Esaĝil, and not “and Babylon” as in phrase B2 7. On the accusation of “stealing from Marduk” see also the commentary above on A 5–6. C 14f: See the commentary above on A 7. C 17: mitḫartu: Luckenbill (1927, p. 250, sub § 659B) obviously translated the term with “totality”, arriving at “total destruction” for ḫalāq mitḫarti. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

552

C 19: D 1: D 4–5: E 1–7:

E 5:

Earlier, Meissner & Rost (1898, pp. 243, 357, on II:10) had translated “Eintracht”, “Übereinstimmung”, and “Harmonie”, and understood the term as a reference to a cosmic harmony of the stars (“Zusammenwirken der Gestirne”). Borger (Asarh., p. 14, episode 6, l. 11) obviously followed rather them than Luckenbill, and translated “Symmetrie”. However, Esarhaddon does not talk about some disturbed cosmic harmony between two elements, e.g. Assyria and Babylonia, depicted in the stars, but about Babylonian sins only, committed against Marduk and Babylon. Here, mitḫartu1953 (CAD M/II, p. 135, s.v. mitḫartu 2) probably designates “totality” or “universe”, characterized by the “matches” of the spatial dimensions of the world, i.e. above and below, front and rear, right and left, describing a cube into which the world is set up. Elsewhere it is used besides tenēšētu “humanity” or nišū “people” in parallelismus membrorum (Lambert 1960a, p. 128, ll. 51–52; Reiner in JNES 19, 1960, p. 35, ll. 112–113). The idea that the signs of heaven and earth correspond to each other and work jointly is verbally expressed in the Diviner’s Manual, see p. 98f. above. The verbal form i-ru-um-ma (= irūmma from *irūbma) apparently mixes the verbs raʾābu (pret. *irʾub) “to become furious” and râbu (√rwb, pret. *irūb) “to tremble”. Cf. E 5–6 and see the discussion of these lines on pp. 71f. above. Version E is an abridged summary of the more elaborate narratives of Esarhaddon’s other reinterpretations of the destruction of Babylon: E1 = D 1–2. E2 = A 2. E3 = A 5–6, B2 7–8, C 11–12. E4 = (A 7), C 13–15. E 5–6 = D 4–5. On the topic of “flooding Babylon” see the discussions on pp. 123f. and 525 above.

Source 75: Excerpts from the Babylonian Chronicle Obj:

Prov:

Date: Lit:

Excerpts from the Babylonian Chronicle. A: Text: CT 34, pl. 44 (BM 75976), II:18’–19’ = case 7’; = Grayson 1975a, p. 76, chronicle 1, II:4’–5’. B: Text: CT 34, pl. 50 (BM 92502), III:28–31a; = Grayson 1975a, p. 81, chronicle 1, III:28–31a. Babylonia; the Babylonian Chronicle is extant in three manuscripts. BM 92502 comes from Babylon, BM 75976 and BM 75977 come from Sippar. Excerpt A is taken from BM 75976, since BM 92502 is nearly destroyed in this part, and excerpt B is taken from BM 92502. Neo- or Late Babylonian period. Grayson 1975a, chronicle 1 (see above).

1953 Thus, not the equally possible mitḫurtu, because of the clear vowel [a] in the related

terms mitḫāriš “all together” and mitḫāru “matching”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

553

Cont: Pattern of religious-historical interpretation (see p. 24 above): Captured and abducted gods are released, but the releasing land (A) or the releasing king (B) is smitten with plague or illness afterwards, as a revenge. A. Return of the gods of the Sealand, plague in Assyria (707 BCE) (II 18’) 15. [ša]ttu (araḫ) Tašrīt 22. ūmu ilānū ša māt tâmt[i] – (II 19’) [ana aš]rīšunu itūrū mūtānū ina māt aššur šakn[ū] (II 18’) The 15th [ye]ar: On the 22nd day of the month Tašrīt the gods of the – Sealand (II 19’) returned [to] their [pl]aces; there was plague in Assyria. (II 18’) – [m]u-15 itidu6 u4-22-kam diĝirmeš šá kur tam-t[ì] (II 19’) [ana k]i-šú-nu gurmeš úšmeš ina kur aš-šur ĝar[meš] B. Return of the gods of Uruk, death of Ḫumban-ḫaldaš I (681 BCE) (III 28) – 8. šattu šarru ina Bābil u[l ī]ši (araḫ) Duʾūz 3. ūmu (29) ilānū šūt Uruk ultu [Šūša]n? ana Uruk īrubū (30) ina (araḫ) Tašrīt 23. ūmi Ḫumb[an-ḫal]daš šar Elamti ina muṣlāli (31a) maḫiṣma ina rabê [Šamši i]m(t)ūt (III 28) – The 8th year of there no[t b]eing a king in Babylon, on the 3rd of the month Du’ūz (29) the gods of Uruk went from [Sus]a? into Uruk. (30–31a) On the 23rd of the month Tašrīt Ḫumb[an-ḫal]daš, king of Elam was smitten (with paralysis) at noon and [d]ied at [sun]set. (III 28) mu-8-kam lugal ina tin-tirki n[u t]uku itišu u4-3-kam (29) diĝirmeš šu-ut – unugki ta [šuši]n? ki 1954 ana unugki ku4meš (30) ina itidu6 u4-23-kam ḫum-b[a-ḫal]da-šú lugal elam ina an-bar7 (31a) ma-ḫi-iṣ-ma ina šú-e d[utu(-ši) ú]š-ut Com: The two excerpts from the Babylonian Chronicle provide an ideological counterpart to the prophecy conveyed in the letter from Source 76. There, Marduk compassionately announces that he will not take revenge on Assyria after he has been released to Babylon again. In the excerpts under discussion here, however, the Babylonian gods do appear to take revenge after their repatriation. A: The entry deals with the 15th year of Sargon II, king of Assyria, that is his third year as king of Babylon (707 BCE). The chronicle combines two pieces of information. Three years after Sargon had deposed Mardukapla-iddina II as king of Babylon, he released the captured gods of the Sealand to their proper shrines. Afterwards, and that certainly means “in consequence”, Assyria is smitten with a plague. Since in the ancient Near East plagues were perceived as punishments inflicted by angry gods, this incident would have been considered as brought about either by the Assyrian god Aššur himself who would not agree to the release, or by the gods of the Babylonian Sealand in revenge. Since the text is a Babylonian one, the latter is the choice to make. The Assyrian eponym chronicle does not report any plague. Claiming that the Assyrians tried to conceal the plague is not a satisfactory solution, since in other cases the Assyrian eponym chronicle does not shy away from reporting uncomplimentary

1954 The room for šušin = [mùš-ere]n would be very small. But reading Elamtu (thus

Grayson) is ruled out, since it is written (kur) elam (= nim) throughout the text.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

554

B:

Edition of the Sources

facts.1955 Rather, the Babylonians simply exaggerated some minor everyday casualties, taking them for the divine revenge they were expecting. The date is important: On the very same day, the 22nd of Tašrīt 707 BCE, the gods of Dūr-Šarru-kīn entered their temples there at Sargon’s newly built residence.1956 Releasing captured gods on this happy event was probably meant as a gesture of grace. In the same year of 707 BCE, the booty of Dūr-Yākīn had been carried off and Dūr-Yākīn was destroyed, according to the Neo-Assyrian eponym chronicles.1957 The Babylonian chronicle reports the capture of Dūr-Yākīn for the 13th year (709 BCE),1958 the year when Sargon II officially “took the hand of Bēl” during the New Year’s festival. The gods of the Sealand were probably those captured in the conquest of Dūr-Yākīn. The Babylonian Chronicle reports a case similar to the one described above sub A when the gods of Uruk had been released by the king of Elam. In the first year of Nergal-ušēzib (693 BCE), the Assyrians had entered Uruk and had plundered the city and its temples. Then the Elamites came and deported the people and the gods of Uruk.1959 Shortly afterwards, the Elamite king Ḫallušu-Inšušinak I was killed in a rebellion.1960 This was probably already understood by the Babylonians as divine revenge. Twelve years later, in the “eighth year of there not being a king in Babylon” (in 681 BCE), the Elamites released the gods of Uruk and sent them home. Three months after the gods had entered Uruk again, the Elamite king Ḫumban-ḫaldaš I was smitten with paralysis and died on the very same day. According to the Babylonian concept of illness, diseases were generally caused by gods or ghosts, quite often as a punishment. Consequently, illnesses were commonly called “Hand-of-the-Godxy”.1961 Here, the Elamite king is said to have been “smitten” (maḫiṣ). Given the ancient concept of illness and divine agency, this means that the king had

1955 See Millard 1994, pp. 57–60 on the individual years: revolt in the years 826–820, 763–

1956

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961

760, 746; revolt and plague in 759; plague in 802; Sargon II killed, his camp [looted] in 705 BCE. Millard 1994, pp. 48, 60 on the year 707 BCE (the eponym chronicles do not mention the releasing of the gods of the Sealand, neither the plague); Grayson 1975a, p. 76, note on line II:5’ of chronicle 1. Millard 1994, pp. 48, 60. Grayson 1975a, p. 75, chronicle 1, II:1’–2’. Grayson 1975a, pp. 78–79, chronicle 1, II:46–III:3. Grayson 1975a, p. 79, chronicle 1, III:6–8. Heeßel 2000, pp. 49–54; idem 2007b; Maul 2002, p. 12; Scurlock & Andersen 2005, pp. 430–439. Heeßel tries to differentiate between the cause of an illness and its name on the basis of only slightly varying spelling traditions of individual terms of the type “Hand-of-the-Godxy”. This approach, however, means applying modern concepts of cause and effect to the ancient Near East. By contrast, Maul (2002, p. 12) emphasizes the ideological approach to the concept that underlies the term “Hand-of-the-God”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

555

been smitten by a god.1962 Another three months later, Sennacherib was killed by his sons. In reporting Sennacherib’s death directly after the death of Ḫumban-ḫaldaš I,1963 the Babylonian Chronicle probably connects the deaths of these two kings to a similar divine verdict. The same reading of history is insinuated in the story on the death of Ḫumban-ḫaldaš II, when the Babylonian Chronicle reports the king’s death two lines after his attack on a Babylonia: “The king of Elam entered Sippar and a massacre took place. (…) On the seventh day of the month Elūl Ḫumban-ḫaldaš (II), king of Elam, whithout becoming ill, died in his palace.”1964 Today, we may speculate about the peculiar “medical problems” of the royal family of Elam,1965 but the Babylonians certainly rather observed a divine punishment. The strange death of Ḫumban-nimena (Menanu) also happened in a period of severe divine wrath. Ḫumban-nimena was “smitten with paralysis” in April 689 and died in February 688. In the meantime, Sennacherib had destroyed Babylon in December 689.1966 So we have rather to ask our sources – in keeping to Babylonian concepts – whether Marduk in his wrath against Babylon had deliberately deactivated the only power that could have opposed Sennacherib. Source 76: Assyrian Prophecy: Marduk’s Mercy Obj:

Prophecy, communicated to the Assyrian king Aššurbanipal in a letter. Text: Harper, ABL (12), no. 1249 (83–1–18, 361), photos at the end of ABL 13. The collation asterics and exclamation marks are taken over from the transliteration by Cole & Machinist 1998. Prov: Arbaʾil: Letter of Aššur-ḫamātūʾa (rev. 6), functionary of the temple of Ištar of Arbaʾil in the reign of Aššurbanipal (PNA 1/I, pp. 186–187). Date: Neo-Assyrian period, reign of Aššurbanipal, 668 BCE. Lit: Cole & Machinist 1998, pp. XVII, 111, no. 139. – Nissinen 2000, p. 97. – Villard 2001, p. 71. – Nissinen 2002, pp. 11–12. – Nissinen 2003, p. 168, no. 112. – Nissinen & Parpola 2004. – Nissinen 2010, pp. 36–37. – Tiemeyer 2013, pp. 258–261. Cont: Marduk-Bēl, after having entered Babylon again in 668 BCE, sends his greetings to Mullissu, Aššurbanipal and Assyria. Marduk confirms that he is

1962 See Scurlock & Andersen 2005, pp. 327–330, 450, 465 on strokes and on humans struck 1963 1964 1965 1966

(*maḫiṣ) by gods; Couto 2007, pp. 15–16 on maḫāṣu. Grayson 1975a, p. 81, chronicle 1, III:34–35. Grayson 1975a, pp. 83–84, chronicle 1, IV:9–11. As does Waters 2000, p. 36. Grayson 1975a, p. 80–81, chronicle 1, III:19–25.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

556

Edition of the Sources

completely reconciled and at peace with Assyria, calming the justified fears (see Source 75) of the Assyrians that the god might take revenge for his abduction and humiliation as soon as he is installed to all his former powers at Babylon again. See the discussion on pp. 58f. (obv. 1) [anāku] Bēl ētarba (2) issi Mu[ll]issi assilim (3) Aššur-bāni-apli šar māt Aššur – (4) ša turabbīni (5) [l]ā tapallaḫ (6) [anā]ku Bēl arteʾanki (7) Aššur-bāni-apli ina māti ša kēnat (8) šū adi mātīšu (9) arteʾanki (10) ina šulmi šalimti (11) issu ālīki attūṣi (12) rēmu gimlu (13) [.. . . . . .. . . . .]. .. (obv. 1) – [I am] Bēl. I have entered. (2) I have made peace with Mu[ll]issu. (3) Aššurbanipal king of Assyria (4) whom she raised, (5) fear [n]ot! (6) [I] am Bēl. I have forgiven you (: Mullissu). (7) Aššurbanipal is in a country that is safe. (9) I have forgiven you (: Mullissu), and (also) him, together with his country. (10) Peacefully and safely (11) I departed from your city. (12) Mercy and compassion (13) [. . .. . . . . .. .. ]. . . (obv. 1) – [a-na-ku] en e!-⌈tar!⌉-ba! (2) ta* dni[n-l]íl a-si-⌈lim!⌉ (3) Iaš-šur-dù-a lugal ⌈kur⌉ aš (4) ⌈ša!⌉ tú-ra-bi-i-⌈ni!⌉ (5) [l]a! ta-pa-làḫ (6) [a-na]-ku! en ar-te-an-ki (7) I! aš-šur-dù-a ina kur ša gin (8) šu-ú a-di kur-šu (9) ar-te-an-ki (10) ina silim!-mu šal-lim-te (11) ta* eri-ki at-tú-ṣi (12) ⌈re!-e!-mu!⌉ gim-lu (13) [x x x x x]-ni-kum (?) (rest of obverse broken) Com: The reverse giving some more information and the name of the sender of the letter, Aššur-ḫamātūʾa from Arbaʾil (see below), is omitted here. The god Marduk-Bēl1967 (obv. 1, 6) has made peace (obv. 2: salāmu) and has had mercy (obv. 6, 9, 12: reʾāmu/rêmu)1968 upon the goddess Mullissu, Aššurbanipal and his country, after leaving (from Arbaʾil, or Aššur?) and arriving (at Babylon). Marduk-Bēl’s peacemaking comes as the fulfilment of a promise made earlier by Ištar-Mullissu of Arbaʾil to Esarhaddon: Aššur-aḫu-iddina lā tapallaḫ! māt Aššur utaqqan ilānī ⌈zenûti issi māt Aššur ušallam⌉ “Esarhaddon, have no fear! I will put put Assyria in order and reconcile the angry gods with Assyria.”1969 In fact, Bēl does not state where he has “entered” (obv. 1). The phrase could also mean “I have entered (your vision)”. This expression is used in the introduction to the report on the vision sent by Ištar of Arbaʾil to Aššurbanipal: Ištar āšibat Arbaʾil ērubamma “Ištar who dwells at Arbaʾil entered”.1970 But since Bēl says: “I departed from your city” (obv. 11), I understand his “entering” as entering another city instead of a dream.1971

1967 In the spelling of the god’s name the divine determinative (diĝir) is omitted. Nissinen

1968

1969 1970 1971

& Parpola (2004, pp. 201–202), discussing the omission in detail, understand it as a peculiar Assyrian attitude towards the Babylonian god. In their commentary, Nissinen & Parpola (2004, p. 206) mix the two separate verbs rêmu/reʾāmu (√rḥm) “to show mercy” and râmu/riyāmu (√rym) “to grant”. This misinterpretation has consequences for their understanding of the whole text. After Parpola 1997, p. 17, no. 2.5, III:19’–20’; probably from the mouth of Sinqīša-āmur of Arbaʾil (name lost). See also Nissinen 2010, p. 34. Streck 1916/II, p. 116, V:52–53. Similarly also Nissinen & Parpola 2004, p. 202.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

557

In this prophecy, the city from which Marduk departs is a city of Mullissu (obv. 11), which points to Nineveh or Arbaʾil. Ištar-Mulissu was also venerated at Aššur as the spouse of the god Aššur,1972 but I think it is unlikely that the city of Aššur would have been called “her city” (obv. 11) – it was rather her husband’s.1973 Since the sender of the letter, Aššur-ḫamātūʾa, was a functionary of the temple of Ištar of Arbaʾil in the reign of Aššurbanipal,1974 Arbaʾil is probably the choice to make. However, Marduk’s final point of departure to Babylon was not Arbaʾil, but the inner city of Aššur (Libbi-āli) with the large temple complex of the god Aššur. We know from chronicles, oracle queries and royal inscriptions that in the accession year of Šamaš-šumu-ukīn (668 BCE), Marduk and the gods of Babylonia went out from Libbi-āli and entered Babylon.1975 Already his father Esarhaddon, in his anticipating report (see pp. 56f.), said that the gods of Babylon, among them Marduk and Zarpanītu (Bēl and Bēltīya), were “created” (banû N) or “born” (walādu N) in the temple of Aššur at Aššur and that they took from there their journey to Babylon.1976 In retrospect, Esarhaddon’s son Aššurbanipal stated that “Marduk had been residing in Baltil (Aššur) in the presence of his father (Aššur) who created him”.1977 According to a scribal note, the bed and the throne of Marduk (Bēl) were set up in the temple of Aššur after the items had been looted from Esaĝil.1978 But other elements of Marduk’s furniture and paraphernalia may have been stored also in the temples of Nineveh and Arbaʾil. The booty of a city like Babylon was certainly to vast to be stored at Aššur alone. So, even though Marduk’s final point of departure was the inner city of Aššur, it is not to be ruled out that “Marduk” – as the transcendet deity or physically in the form of statues1979 or other parts of the spoils of Esaĝil – was deemed “present” also at Arbaʾil during his exile and that he was expected to bid his farewell to his divine “host”. Ištar of Arbaʾil, respectively her priesthood, appears to have been a kind of patron for the captured and exiled gods of Babylon after the destruction of the city by Sennacherib in 689 BCE. In the prophecy from the reign of Esarhaddon quoted below we can see how Ištar of Arbaʾil cares for the gods of Esaĝil who “languish in the steppe of mixed evil”. The “steppe” (ṣēru) is the place that evil spirits and the souls of those not properly buried are doomed to roam. Here it is a kind of limbo 1972 See in detail Meinhold 2009, pp. 191–207, in particular on the relationship between

Mullissu and the Ištar-goddesses of Nineveh and Arbaʾil.

1973 Nissinen & Parpola (2004, p. 208) argue for the city of Aššur instead. 1974 Rev. 6: Iaš-šur-ḫa-mat-ia; see PNA 1/I, pp. 186–187. 1975 Chronicles: Grayson 1975a, p. 86, no. 2, IV:34–36; p. 127, no. 14, ll. 35–36. Oracle

1976 1977 1978 1979

queries: Starr 1990, pp. 236–240, no. 262, obv. 4, rev. 8; no. 263, ll. 1’–2’; no. 264, obv. 3– 4, rev. 7–8; no. 265, rev. 8–9. The royal inscriptions of Esarhaddon, Šamaš-šumu-ukīn and Aššurbanipal are discussed on pp. 56f. above. Borger, Asarh., p. 83, § 53, rev. 35; p. 88, § 57, rev. 11, 17. Frame, RIMB 2, p. 200, no. B.6.32.2, ll. 36–41 (Streck 1916/II, p. 244); p. 207, no. B.6.32.6, ll. 7–9 (Streck 1916/II, p. 232); p. 218, no. B.6.32.14, ll. 23–26 (Streck 1916/II, p. 240). Streck 1916/II, p. 298, II(“III”), ll. 35–36; Matsushima 1988, p. 102. In the Neo-Babylonian period, there were at least seven statues of Marduk of major importance at Babylon (see p. 521 above with note 1862), and certainly many more all over the city.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

558

Edition of the Sources

where the ghosts of the Babylonian gods waste away, with their statues smashed or plundered. The prophet Lā-dāgil-ili from Arbaʾil delivers the following words of Ištar of Arbaʾil to Esarhaddon:1980 (II 24’–25’a) ilānū ša Esaĝil ina ṣēr lumni balli šarbubū (25’b–26’a) arḫiš šitta maqluʾāte ina pānīšunu lušēṣiʾū (26’b–27’) lillikū šulamka liqbiʾū “The gods of Esaĝil languish in the steppe of mixed evil. Quickly let two burnt offerings be sent out into their presence, so they may go and order your well-being!” Given the information of obv. 11 which states that Bēl has departed from the city of the goddess, the place which Bēl has “entered” (obv. 1) is certainly Esaĝil at Babylon. Marduk returned from Assyria to Babylon in 668 BCE, bringing with him Šamaš-šumu-ukīn, the new Babylonian king to be.1981 The whole text is a kind of farewell to Assyria, stating that everything went all right during the journey and that Marduk would not take revenge on Assyria for his exile, now that he is restored to all his powers at Babylon again.1982 In a way, it corresponds to the blessings Marduk showered upon Assyria during his first “trip” to Aššur according to the Marduk Prophecy (Source 34, C, in particular C 9–11). The time when captured gods were released and restored to their proper places was a dangerous time for the nation that once had captured these gods. Restored to their former powers, the gods might take revenge by sending plagues or smiting the foreign king with illness, see Source 75. Marduk however, at least according to this prophecy communicated by an Assyrian, has completely forgiven Mullissu, Aššurbanipal and Assyria. The god had shown what he can do even in captivity when wicked Sennacherib was killed by his son.1983 The Assyrians were probably bracing for more. Roughly 60 years later, when Marduk ordered Nabopolassar to finally avenge Babylonia on Assyria, it turned out that Marduk had not forgiven at all and that this prophecy, comunicated by the Assyrian Aššur-ḫamātūʾa, was an Assyrian self-deception (see pp. 58f.). In this vision, communicated by an Assyrian official, Marduk-Bēl speaks Assyrian,1984 but not without refinement: The verbal form ar-te-an-ki (= Assyrian arteʾanki) “I have forgiven you”, which occurs twice (obv. 6, 9), is made up from the signs (-te-an-ki) that also write the name of Marduk’s ziqqurrat at Babylon: étemen(=te)-an-ki. The pun works only in the Assyrian dialect, in Babylonian the verbal form would have been *artēnki.

1980 After Parpola 1997, p. 16, no. 2.3, II 24’–27’. 1981 See the comments on pp. 57 and 557 above. 1982 Pace Tiemeyer (2013, p. 261) who misplaces this text by two decades into the time of

the victory of Aššurbanipal over his brother Šamaš-šumu-ukīn in 648 BCE.

1983 See the discussion on pp. 124f. and 526f. above. 1984 assilim (l. 2), (ša) turabbīni (l. 4), arteʾanki (ll. 6, 9), attūṣi (l. 11).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

559

Source 77: Nebuchadnezzar II and the Fish for Marduk Obj:

Excerpt from a rock inscription of Nebuchadnezzar II. 1. Version written in Old Babylonian characters (IV:58–V:18). Copy: Weissbach 1906, pl. 12–13. Photo: Weissbach 1906, pl. 2. 2. Version written in Neo-Babylonian characters (IIb:5’–21’). Copy: Weissbach 1906, pl. 25. Photo: Weissbach 1906, pl. 4. Deviations from the copies are read from the photographs (scanned and enlarged) and marked with an asterisk (*). Prov: Lebanon, Brisa, Wādī aš-šarbīn. Date: Late Babylonian period: Nebuchadnezzar II (acc. 605, 604–562 BCE). Lit: Weissbach 1906, pp. 17–18. – Langdon 1912, pp. 154–157, Nbk. no. 19, A IV:58–V:18. – Berger 1973, pp. 316–318, Wadi Brisa-Inschrift. – Da Riva 2012, p. 47; new photographs and reproductions of Weissbach’s copies on pp. 159–160, 176. Cont: The text deals with the re-organization of the fish offerings for Marduk by Nebuchadnezzar II. It is intertextually related to the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35),1985 in particular to part dealing with the sin of Puzur-ilī of Akšak (ll. 48–52). In compensating the one fish embezzled by Puzur-ilī thirtyfold, as stipulated by § 8 of the Codex Hammurapi, a law still in use in the Late Babylonian period, Nebuchadnezzar II achieves redemption for his land from his predecessor’s sin. The text is discussed in chapter 10.3. In the following passage from the inscription at Brisa Nebuchadnezzar II reports on the fish offerings for Esaĝil that had been reorganized and increased by him. The passage forms the end of a detailed list of offerings (sattukkū) for Esaĝil enumerating various animals, vegetables, fruits and drinks of all kinds. At the end of column IV of the Old Babylonian version the topic moves on bringing in fresh (“living”) fish for the regular offerings to Marduk: [nūnu] balṭ[u ša gin]ê Marduk ([ku6] bal-ṭ[i šá gi-n]é-e damar-utu, text 1 IV:58). The text is severely damaged in both versions and becomes intellegible only after several lines. Nebuchadnezzar had read an inscription of a royal predecessor and in doing so it occurred to him to increase the number of fishermen assigned to deliver fish to Esaĝil. In particular fresh fish caught and delivered on the same day was not brought into Esaĝil as a “fish tribute” (nūn tāmarti) until Nebuchadnezzar arranged for it to be. A number of corresponding terms and phrases (see below, in particular ll. 4–5) make it clear that the “inscription of a former king” which Nebuchadnezzar checked were the parts of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35, ll. 47–55, 64–69) – purportedly a letter of Damiq-ilīšu of Isin – which deal with the “fish tribute” (nūn tāmarti) for Marduk.

1985 See the commentary on p. 562 below.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Edition of the Sources

560

The “Fish Episode” of Nebuchadnezzar’s Brisa Inscription 1 [in]a šiṭir šumi ša šar pā[ni *ma]ḫrî (/ [ma]ḫrā) 1 V 1 [ina ši]-ṭi-ir4* [š]u-⌈um⌉* šá* [lugal] pa-[ni] 2 IIb 5’ [i-n]a* ⌈ši-ṭir⌉ šu-mi ša lugal pa-[ni ma-a]ḫ-ra-a 2 1

V

2

2

IIb

6’

3 1

V

3

2

IIb

7’

4 1

V

4

2

IIb

8’

5 1

V

5

2

IIb

9’

1

V

6

2

IIb

10’

6

7 1

V

7f

2

IIb

11’

8 1

V

9f

2

IIb

12’

1

V

11

2

IIb

13’

9

[ . . . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈. .⌉ [. . . ām]urma [ma-aḫ]-⌈ra⌉-a [ . . . . . ] ⌈ . . ⌉ [ . . . . . ] [ . . . . . . . . . . ] ⌈ . . . ⌉ [ . . a-m]u*-ur-ma [ša? . . . . . . . . . . ] . . . nūn [tā]marti [a-mu-u]r-ma [šá? . . . . . . . ku6 ta-mar-ti] [šá? . . . . . . . . ] ⌈ . . ⌉ nu-⌈nu⌉ [ta]-mar*-ti ana Esaĝil ul ī[r]umma (= *īrubma) [a-na] é-sa[ĝ-íl] ul ì-[ru-um-ma] ⌈a-na é⌉-saĝ-íl ul ⌈ì⌉-[ru]-um-ma nūnu ša ūm balṭu1986 [ul] uṭṭa[ḫ]ḫi [ku6 u4-1-kam] ba[l-ṭi ul] uṭ-ṭa-[aḫ-ḫu] [x?] ku6 ⌈u4-1⌉-[kam] ⌈ba⌉-al-⌈ṭa⌉ [ul uṭ]-⌈ṭa⌉-[aḫ]-ḫu šelāšā nūna balṭa ana ginê Marduk bēlīya [30 ku6 ba]l-ṭi ⌈a⌉-[na g]i-né-⌈e⌉ ⌈d⌉[amar-utu (en-ía)] ⌈30 ku6⌉ bal-ṭi a-na gi-né-e damar-utu en-ia ša ištu ūmī rūqūti […]? ipparkû šá [t]a u4 s[udmeš . . ] ⌈ . . ⌉ [ . . . ] (8) ip-[pa]-a[r]-⌈ku⌉-[ú] šá iš-tu u4-um ⌈ru⌉-qú-tì ip-pa-ar-ku-ú Marduk bēl(ī) libbā1987 yāti [u]šadkâ[n]ni d *⌈amar*⌉-utu be*-[lí] li[b-ba] (10) i[a-a-t]i [ú]-šad-ka-[an]-ni d amar-utu en ⌈li*⌉-ib-⌈ba* ía*⌉-a-t[i* ú-šad-ka-an-ni]1988 eli šukudakkī E[saĝ]il [e]l l[ú]⌈šu-ku6-da⌉-ku ⌈é⌉-[saĝ-í]l e-li lúšu-ku6-da-⌈ku?⌉ [é-saĝ]-í[l]

1986 Probably due to the orthography using ideograms, the word order with the adjective

after the rectum is awkward. One should possibly fill in the expression from line 12: nūnu balṭu ša ūm. 1987 With the Late Babylonian form of the 1st person possessive pronoun in -ā instead of -ī (see e.g. Schaudig 2001, p. 145, § IV.1.2.a-b). 1988 Line read from the enlarged photograph: Weissbach 1906, pl. 4. There are various but insigificant traces of the upper parts of ú-šad-ka-an-ni.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

10 1

V

12

2

IIb

14’

11 1

V

13

2

IIb

15’

12 1

V

14

2

IIb

16’

13 1

V

15

2

IIb

17’

14 1

V

16

2

IIb

18’

1

V

17

2

IIb

19’f

15

16 1

V

18

2

IIb

21’

561

ešrā mārī Bābil 20 ⌈lú⌉dumumeš ba-bi-l[u]ki 20 dumumeš ⌈ká⌉-[diĝir-raki] mārī šukudakkī labīrūti ⌈dumu*⌉meš šu-k[u6-d]a-ku la-bi-ru-ti [dumu]meš lúšu-ku6-⌈da⌉-[ku la-bi-ru-ti] [a]na šuḫmuṭ nūni balṭi š[a] ūm [a-n]a šu-ḫu-mu-⌈uṭ⌉ ku6 bal-⌈ṭi⌉ š[á] u4-um [a]-na šu-uḫ-mu-ṭa nu-[ú-nu bal-ṭi] ana ginê Marduk bē[l]īya [a]-na gi-⌈né⌉-e damar-utu e[n]-ía [šá] u4-⌈um⌉ a-na gi-né-e [damar-utu] ́ umaʾʾiršunūtīma ú-ma-⌈ir-šú-nu⌉-ti-ma [en-ia] ⌈ú⌉-ma-ʾi-[ir-šú-nu-ti-ma] nūna balṭa ana ginê Marduk bēlīya ku6 bal-ṭi ana ⌈gi⌉-né-e damar-utu en-ía [nu]-ú-nu [bal-ṭi] (20’) [a]-na gi-né-e [damar-utu en-ía] (ina) naptan šēri u līlāti u[ṭaḫḫ]û kin-nim ⌈ù⌉ [kin-sig] ⌈ú⌉-[ṭaḫ-ḫu]-⌈ú⌉ ⌈kin⌉-nim ù ⌈kin⌉-sig ú-[ṭaḫ-ḫu-ú]

Translation (following the composite text) (1–2) [I lea]rnt [fro]m an inscription of a [for]mer king of ol[d, . . . . . .] (3) [that formerly and up to my reign] fish as an [of]fering gift (4) did not e[n]ter Esaĝil and (5) fresh (“living”) fish of the (same) day was [not] offe[r]ed. (8) (But) Marduk, (my) lord, [p]laced into my mind (the idea to bring in) (6) thirty fresh fishes for the regular offering to Marduk, my lord, (7) (a custom) that had ceased since distant days. (9) In addition to the (former) fishermen of E[saĝ]il (14) I assigned (10) twenty citizens of Babylon, (11) descendants of fishermen from old (12) [t]o rush fresh fish o[f] the (same) day (13) for the regular offering to Marduk, my lor[d], and so (15–16) they [(constantly) bring in] fresh fish for the regular offering to Marduk, my lord, for the morning and the evening meals.”

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

562

Edition of the Sources

Com: For Marduk, the mār rubê ša apsî 1989 “the son of the prince of the Apsû”, or “the princely son of the Apsû”, fish is a very special offering materia, a gift or kind of a tribute (tāmartu, l. 3) from the realm of his father Ea. Nebuchadnezzar’s achievement is accomplished in imitation of the pious deeds of queen Ku-Baʾu and king Utu-ḫeĝal, as related by the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35). Marduk granted kingship to Ku-Baʾu the alewife and to Utu-ḫeĝal the fisherman as a reward for them taking care of the fish to be served to Marduk promptly. There, the same phraseology is used: nūn tāmarti “fish tribute”, nūnu balṭu (ša ūmi) “fresh fish (of the same day)”, šukudakku “(temple) fisherman”, ḫamāṭu Š “to bring in quickly”, and ṭeḫû D “to offer” (ll. 5, 16).1990 Term Brisa Esaĝil Chronicle nūn tāmarti l. 3 ll. 47, 65 šukudakku ll. 9, 11 ll. 48, 50, 51, 53, 65, 69 nūnu balṭu (ša ūmi) ll. 5, 6, 12, 15 ll. 52b, 53 ḫamāṭu Š l. 12 ll. [53], cf. 57 ṭeḫû D ll. 5, 16 ll. 52b, 66, 67 Note that the “fresh fish” (nūnu balṭu) is written *ku6 bal-ṭi throughout in the Old Babylonian version1991 using the cuneiform signs bal = bala = palû “reign/dynasty” and ṭi = silim = šalmu “safe and sound”, respectively šulmu “well-being”. So, for someone making use of the cabbalistic ambiguity of the cuneiform script, Nebuchadnezzar had made his “reign and dynasty safe” by preparing “fresh fish” for the divine meal of Marduk. 1 The phrase ina šiṭir šumi amāru “to learn from an inscription” normally acquires a construction with ša + subordinative: “to learn that …”. However, in īrumma (*īrubma, l. 4) there is no subordinative marker, the form should be *īrubū́ma. Similarly, in line 5 the verbal form *uṭṭaḫḫi also lacks the subordinative ending, despite of the spelling [uṭ]-⌈ṭa⌉-[aḫ]-ḫu in exemplar 2. The form should end in *-ḫu-ú. It is possible that the scribe produced two defective subordinatives without markers. Such unmarked forms would become more and more common in this period (von Soden 1995, p. 136, § 83g; Schaudig 2001, p. 195, § IV.3.6, f–g). Or else, the scribe used some other, indicative construction without a subordinative particle in line 3. In using the phrase *šiṭir šumi ša šarri “inscription giving the name of a king” Nebuchadnezzar makes it clear that he quotes from a royal inscription, and not from administrative documents. These would have been dubbed ṭuppānū “clay tablets” or leʾânū “wooden writing boards”. Since the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35) is styled as a literary royal letter of a particular king, it was certainly considered an official inscription of the šiṭir šumi type. 1989 See the epithet employed in the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35), ll. 54, 58 (var.) 1990 The connection of the phraseology of this part of the Brisa inscription to some of the

topics and phrases of the Esaĝil Chronicle was noted already by Weidner 1928–1929, p. 235, note 4, quoted by Güterbock 1934, p. 56. 1991 In text 1 V:14, 17; damaged in text 1 IV:58 (see above sub “content”), V:5, 6.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Late Second and First Millennium

4:

563

The spelling *i/ì-ru-um-ma is a proper Late Babylonian orthography for *īrub-ma, expressing the assimilation between [b] and [m]. Another example is ú-ši-im-ma = *ūšib-ma (Schaudig 2001, pp. 124, 517, no. 3.3a IV 42’; Nabonidus). 4–5: These lines, introduced by inūšu “in those days”, are also found word-byword in line 52b of the Late Babylonian version of the Esaĝil Chronicle (Source 35): – inūšu nūnu ‹ša› ūm ana Esaĝil ul īrub nūnu balṭu ‹ul› uṭṭaḫ[ḫi] “In those days, fish of the (same) day did not enter Esaĝil, fresh fish was ‹not› offer[ed].” This line is absent from the older version of the chronicle from Aššur which predates Nebuchadnezzar. As it appears, they had been inserted as a gloss into the chronicle during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to pay tribute to his pious deed, see chapter 10.3, in particular pp. 199ff. 6: The commodity “fresh fish(es)” follows the numeral “thirty” obviously as a collective singular (von Soden 1995, § 139h-i; Streck 1995, p. 51, § 38e), as opposed to the “twenty Babylonian fishermen” in ll. 10–11. See the discussion on pp. 200f. above in chapter 10.3 on the meaning of the number “thirty” in this context. 16: The terms for the meals in the morning and the evening (kin-nim and kinsig) may be realized in Akkadian as naptan šēr(t)i u līlāti, or even closer to the Sumerian expressions as *kinnimmu (no clear syllabic examples extant yet) and kinsīgu. Only in order to be complete in talking about Nebuchadnezzar and fish one may also refer to the omen from the 12th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, dealing with a fish having no left fin. The omen is recorded in writing on a bronze model of a fish, found at Babylon (Jakob-Rost 1962). Lacking its left fin, this fish indicated the “downfall of the enemy country”. However, there is no connection to the fish episode discussed here.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary Akkadian abāku “to lead away” – i-b[u-uk-šú] (Source 33: obv. 12’) – [i-bu-uk-šú] (Source 71: IV 2) “to push away”, here “to abolish” – i-bu-ka-ma (Source 74: A 3 + var. ⌈e⌉bu-k[a-ma]) – [i-bu-ka-ma] (Source 74: B2 1, C 8) abātu D “to smash” – ub-bit-su-nu!-tú (Source 70: B 2) Dt “to be destroyed” – ú-tab-bat (Source 57: 5) abāya “abāya-bird” – àbamušen (Source 36: 16) abiktu “defeat” – [a⌉-⌈bi-ik-ti⌉ (Source 71: IV 1) – [a-bi-ik]-tuš (Source 72: rev. 2) abnu “stone” – na4meš (Source 74: A 6) – [na4meš] (Source 74: B2 8, C 12) abu “father” – ⌈a-ba⌉-a-š[u] (Source 27: 2) – ⌈a⌉-bi-šu (Source 35: 19) – ad-šu (Source 74: C 6) – ad-šú (Source 35: 77) (Source 71: IV 9a) Pl. “forefathers” – admeš-šú (Source 33: obv. 4’) abūb(ān)iš “as (by) a flood” – a-bu-biš (Source 33: obv. 8’) – a-bu-ba-niš (Source 72: rev. 2) abullu “(city or temple) gate” – abul (Source 31: 52) (Source 37: II 24) – [abul] (Source 37: I 25, IV 3’) See also Abul-Ištar, Abul-Uraš and Abul-maḫīri sub “City Gates”. adāru N “to darken/to become eclipsed” – kan5-šú (Source 56: 1c) (Source 59: 2, 6, 7, 17) – kan5-ma (Source 59: 2)

adi “until/to” – a-di (Source 35: 26 + var. ⌈a⌉-na, 61, 66, 82) (Source 37: I 13, II 3, 5) (Source 44: obv. 22) (Source 71: IV 12) – [a-di] (Source 35: 22) – en (Source 34: A 2) (Source 35: 62 + var. ⌈a-di⌉) (Source 37: II 17) “together with” – a-di (Source 76: obv. 8) agāgu “to become enraged” – i-gu-ug (Source 74: D 1) – i-gu-ug-ma (Source 44: obv. 20) (Source 74: A 7 + var. i-gug-ma) – i-gu-⌈ug⌉-m[a] (Source 32: 17 + var. i-gug-ma, ⌈i⌉-gu-ug-[ma]) agû “crown” – aga (Source 34: B 9, 11) aḫāmiš “each other/one another” – a-ḫa-míš (Source 37: III 14’b) (Source 58: 1 + var. aḫa-míš) (Source 74: A 2, C 5, E 2) – a-[ḫa]-míš (Source 37: II 16) aḫātu “sister” – nin(9)-šú (Source 36: 14) aḫāzu G “to seize” – i-taḫ-ḫa-za (Source 70: A 3 + var. i!ta!-ḫaz) “to learn” – ⌈a⌉-ḫa-a-zi-šú (Source 49: rev. 8’) Š stative “to be incited” – šu-ḫu-za (Source 32: 18) aḫītu “(out)side/aside” – a-ḫi-ta (Source 32: 19) aḫrû “later/future” – aḫ-ra-a-ti (Source 46: 46) ana aḫrât ūmī “for evermore” – aḫ-ra-at (Source 31: 53) aḫu I “brother” – šeš (Source 34: D 6) – šeš-šú (Source 34: D 6)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

566

aḫu-rabû (or šešgallu) “high priest” (lit.: “big brother”) – [lúše]š-gal-i (Source 49: rev. 7’) – šeš-gal (Source 37: II 5) aḫu II “(side /) bank” – a-ḫi (Source 36: 20) aḫû “strange” – a-ḫu-ti (Source 38: 26) – a-ḫu-tú (Source 38: 28) “non-canonical”, see the discussion on p. 401 – a-ḫa-a-ti (Source 36: 34) akalu “bread” – ninda (Source 45: 7) – nindaḫi-a (Source 35: 53 + var. nindameš) akālu “to eat/to consume/to devour” – gu7 (Source 34: D 6) asakka akālu “to violate a taboo” – ak-lu (Source 74: C 9) – [ak-lu] (Source 74: B2 4) karṣī akālu “to spread calumnies” – [i-k]u-l[u] (Source 74: C 1) Š “to cause to be consumed” – u-šá-kil (Source 48: rev. 7) akāšu D “to set aside” – uk-ki-šá (Source 33: obv. 13’) akītu “akītu (New Year’s) festival” – a-ki-ti (Source 37: III 9’) ūm akīti “the day of the akītu festival” – u4-mi a-ki-⌈tì⌉ (Source 37: II 3) bīt akīti “akītu house” – é a-ki-ti (Source 46: 47) alaktu “way/travel” – a-lak-tú (Source 34: D 9) – ĝen (Source 58: 4 + var. ĝen-⌈tuš⌉, ará) “behaviour/conduct” – a-lak-ti (Source 35: 9) – ⌈a⌉-lak-ti lugal maḫ-⌈ri⌉ (Source 35: 40 + var. [a-lak]-⌈ti?⌉ ⌈lugal⌉ maḫ-ri) – ‹a-lak›-ti lugal maḫ-ri (Source 35: 76) On alakti šarrī maḫri (Source 35: 40, 76) in the sense of “history of kings past” see pp. 21f. and 114f.

alāku “to go/to walk/to come” – il-li-ku (Source 37: III 5’, 8’) – il-li-ku-ma (Source 74: D 4) – it-tal-kam (Source 71: IV 13) – it-tal-ku-n[i] (Source 36: 27) – ĝen (Source 34: C 14, D 15) (Source 41: A 4) – [ĝe]n (Source 37: III 18’) – [ĝen] (Source 34: B 14) – ĝen-ak (Source 55: 5) – ĝen-ik (Source 34: B 1) – ĝen-ku (Source 34: D 2) (Source 37: III 14’a, 15’a) (Source 54: 5 + var. ĝen) – ĝen-ma (Source 34: D 3) – ĝenmeš (Source 34: D 3) – [(ĝenmeš)] (Source 38: 26) – ĝenmeš-ni (Source 36: 34) (Source 37: I 18) – ĝenmeš-⌈ni⌉ (Source 37: I 10) – ĝenme[š]-ni (Source 37: II 15) ptc. ālik pāni “predecessor” – a!(za)-lik pa-ni (Source 35: 76) Gtn here “to walk widely” – ĝenmeš (Source 34: A 1) – ĝenmeš-ku (Source 34: A 2) Š “to let walk” – ú-šal-lak (Source 39: 41) alpu “bull/ox” – gu4 (Source 35: 73) (Source 36: 15) (Source 68) – g[u4] (Source 50: A) – gu4⌈meš⌉ (Source 35: 72) ālu “city” – eri (Source 31: 46b, 50) (Source 34: B 5, C 12, 14, D 14) (Source 35: 20, 24, 34a A, 37a A, 60) (Source 36: 2, 5, 7, 11, 16, 20) (Source 37: III 7’, 11’b) (Source 38: 27, 28) (Source 39: 38, 41 + var. eriki) (Source 45: 10) (Source 47: VI 96 = 3×) (Source 56: 1d) (Source 59: 8 A, 15 A) (Source 71: IV 11) (Source 72: rev. 1) (Source 74: C 4, E 5, E 7) – ⌈eri⌉ (Source 37: III 3’) – er[i] (Source 38: 25) – [er]i (Source 34: B 5)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– [eri] (Source 34: B 5, 12, 13) – eri-ia (Source 31: 52) – eri-ĝu10 (Source 34: D 12) – er[i-ĝu10] (Source 34: B 8) – eri-ki (Source 76: obv. 11) – ⌈eri-šu⌉ (Source 35: 60 A) – [er]i-š[u] (Source 35: 46) – eri-šú (Source 35: 18, 69) – e[ri-šú] (Source 35: 17) – [e]ri-šú (Source 38: 23) alû “alû-demon” – [a-lu]-⌈ú⌉ (?) (Source 37: I 23) amāru “to see/to observe” – i-mu-ru (Source 37: III 3’, 12’) – i-mu-ru-š[u] (Source 37: I 15) – i-mu-ru-šu-ma (Source 37: III 4’a, 13’a) – ⌈i⌉-mu-ru-šu-ma (Source 37: III 2’) – i-tam-ru (Source 37: III 17’) – i-tam-ru-šú (Source 37: II 20a) – i-tam-⌈ru-šu⌉ (Source 37: II 8) – li-mu-ru-ma (Source 70: B 6) – igi-⌈ru⌉ (Source 54: 6 B) – igi-ma (Source 56: 1c) (Source 59: 5, 7) ina šiṭir šumi amāru “to see from an inscription” > “to read” > “to learn” – [a-m]u-ur-ma (Source 77: 2) N “to be seen” – in-⌈nam⌉-ma-r[u] (Source 39: 38 + var. in-MAR-ma-ru) – it-tan-mar (Source 36: 4, 12, 20 = 2×, 31, 33) (Source 37: I 22, 23, III 18’) – ⌈it-tan⌉-mar (Source 37: III 18’) – it-tan-ma[r] (Source 36: 7, 18) – it-ta[n-mar] (Source 36: 8, 28) – i[t-tan-mar] (Source 36: 21) – it-tan-ma-ru (Source 36: 30) – it-tan-ma-r[u] (Source 36: 16) – igi-ir (Source 36: 2) – ig[i-i]r (/ ig[i-r]u?) (Source 37: I 6) – igi-ma (Source 59: 6) – igim[eš] (Source 36: 1) N with itti (aḫāmiš) “to be seen together” > “to meet” – igimeš (Source 58: 1) – igi-ir (Source 59: 3)

567

amātu “word/matter/thing” – a-mat (Source 35: 3) (Source 70: A 7) – [a-m]a-a-[t]i (Source 35: 11) – mistake for ana māt: ⌈a-na a-mat⌉ (Source 35: 18, A) “command” – [enim] (Source 49: obv. 1) ammammu “beer jar” – dugam-ma-am (Source 35: 52a + var. am-ma-am-me) amtu “maid” – [am-tu4] (Source 74: C 7 + var. [géme]) amūtu “liver (omen)” “ominous liver”, described in the protasis of an omen – bà (Source 42) (Source 43) (Source 45: 7) (Source 52) (Source 53) (Source 60) (Source 61) “omen” – a-mu-ut (Source 12) (Source 14) (Source 15) (Source 20: 10) (Source 22: A, B1, C2) (Source 24) (Source 28: B, C) – a-mu-⌈ut⌉ (Source 17: 13) (Source 28: A, 52) – a-⌈mu-ut⌉ (Source 27: 2) – ⌈a-mu⌉-[u]t (Source 21: 13) – [a-mu-ut] (Source 25) – u4-mu-ut (Source 11) – bà-ut (Source 29: A) (Source 30) (Source 40) (Source 41: A 2) (Source 42) (Source 45: 8) (Source 49: rev. 2’) (Source 50) (Source 51: A) (Source 52) (Source 60) (Source 61) (Source 62) (Source 63) (Source 64) (Source 66) (Source 68) (Source 69) – bà-u[t] (Source 43) – b[à-ut] (Source 67) – [bà-ut] (Source 65) – šà-múd (Source 18) (Source 54: 4 + var. bà-ut) ana “to/for” – a-na (Source 14) (Source 22: B2) (Source 31: 53) (Source 34: D 7) (Source 35: 4) (Source 36: 11) (Source 37: II 13) (Source 39: 36)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

568

(Source 44: obv. 20) (Source 46: 44b) (Source 70: A 7) (Source 71: IV 3) (Source 74: A 5) – ⌈a⌉-na (Source 35: 26 + var. a-di) – a-n[a] (Source 38: 23) – ana (Source 33: obv. 5’) (Source 34: D 4) (Source 35: 19) (Source 36: 14 = 4×) (Source 37: II 11) (Source 38: 26) (Source 39: 39) (Source 47: VI 98) (Source 52) (Source 54: 5 + var. ana) (Source 55: 1c) (Source 56: 1c) (Source 57: 3) (Source 58: 4) (Source 71: IV 9b = 2×) (Source 75: III 29) (Source 77: 15 + var. [a]-na) as nota accusativi – a-na (Source 35: 68 A) a-na and ana passim anāku “I” – a-na-ku (Source 34: A 1, D 14) – ⌈a-na⌉-[ku] (Source 35: 33b) – [a-n]a-ku (Source 35: 3) – [a-na]-ku! (Source 76: obv. 6) – [a-na-ku] (Source 76: obv. 1) – a-na-ku-ma (Source 34: A 2, D 1, 3, 4) (Source 35: 11) – ana-ku (Source 34: D 1) – [ana]-ku (Source 34: D 2) – ia-a-ši(!) (Source 70: B 7) – ⌈ía⌉-a-t[i] (Source 77: 8 + var. i[a-at]i) anna/-â “yes” – an-na (Source 74: A 2, E 2) – an-na-a (Source 59: 12) annu “consent” – a[n!-n]i-⌈šu⌉-nu (Source 35: 27b) annu “sin” see arnu annû “this” – a-ni-u-um (Source 13) – an-ni-i (Source 45: 8) – ⌈an⌉-ni-ta (Source 34: D 2) anūtu “divine sovereignty” (lit.: “rank of Anu”) – da-nu-ti-ĝu10 (Source 34: B 2, 11) – [da-nu-t]i-ĝu10 (Source 34: B 9) – d60-ú-tu (Source 49: obv. 13) anzanunzû “the waters of the deep” – an-za-nun!-z[e]-⌈e⌉ (Source 35: 15)

anzillu “abomination” – an-zil-lu4 (Source 70: B 1) – an-zil!-lu4 (Source 70: A 3) apālu “to answer” – e-tap-pa-la (Source 74: E 2) – i-tap-pa-lu (Source 74: A 2 + var. etap-pa-⌈lu⌉, i-tap-pa-la) apkallu “(mythological) sage” – abgal (Source 35: 43) aplu “firstborn son” – a (Source 49: obv. 3, rev. 6’) (Source 72: obv. 9’) – a-šú (Source 35: 83 S) – ibila-šú (Source 35: 78) apil kalbati “son of a bitch” – ⌈a nig⌉ (Source 35: 42) appu “nose” – ap-pa (Source 35: 29) – [ap-pa-šú] (Source 36: 25) apsû “Apsû/abyss” – ap-si-⌈i⌉ (Source 35: 58 + var. abzu) – ap-s[i-i] (Source 35: 19) – [ap-s]i-i (Source 35: 54) apu “canebrake” – [a-p]i (Source 37: II 23) arāku “to become long” – gíd-da (Source 49: rev. 8’) arāru (I) “to curse” – e-ta-ra-ar (Source 74: C 6) – i-ru-ur (Source 59: 11) – i-ru-ur-[ma] (Source 35: 44) arāru (II) Gtn or Ntn “to tremble (with fear)” – li-tar-ra-ru (Source 35: 29) arāru (III, variation of ḫarāru) D stat. “to be deeply grooved” – ur-ru-ur (Source 67) arbūtu (by-form of ḫarbūtu) “devastation” – ár-bu-ta5 (Source 55: 5 + var. ár-butu) arḫiš “quickly” – ar-ḫi-iš! (Source 35: 9) ārib-zēri “seed-crow” – buru5-še-numun (Source 36: 6) arnu (/annu) “misdeed/sin” – an-na-šú (Source 35: 71)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– ár-na‹-šu› (Source 33: obv. 4’) “penance” – a-ra-an-šú (Source 35: 75) arrabu “dormouse” – ár-ra-bu (Source 36: 28) – [ár-r]a-bu (Source 36: 24) arratu “curse” – ar-rat (Source 74: C 16) aru (/larû) “branch/twig” – pameš (Source 36: 5) asakku “taboo” – a-sak-ku (Source 74: C 9) – a-s[ak-ku] (Source 74: B2 4) aslu “sheep” – as-lu (Source 72: obv. 11’) asû “physician” – lúa-⌈zu⌉meš (Source 37: II 7) asurrakkū “abyss” – a-sur-⌈rak⌉-ki-i (Source 35: 15) ašāgu “boxthorn” – a-šá-gu (Source 70: B 4) aširtu “shrine/sanctuary”, see also ešertu – a-šìr-ti-šú (Source 35: 29, 37b) – áš-[ra-ti]-šu? (Source 35: 8) ašru “place” – a-šar (Source 39: 35) (Source 74: A 5) – [a-šar] (Source 39: 43) – áš-ru-šú (Source 35: 39 + var. ⌈a⌉[šar-šú]) – ki-šú-nu (Source 58: 6) – [k]i-šú-nu (Source 75: II 19’) – KI (Source 34: D 2) or > kī? aššu “on account of” – áš-šú (Source 70: B 1) – mu (Source 34: B 9) atta “you” – at-ta (Source 70: B 2) – at-⌈ta⌉ (Source 35: 3) – [at-ta] (Source 35: 4) – a-⌈ka-a⌉-šú (Source 35: 3) – ⌈ka⌉-a-šá (Source 35: 40) – ⌈ka-a⌉-šá (Source 35: 33b + var. ka-ašú)

569

attalû “eclipse” – diĝir-gegge (Source 56: 1a, 2, 3, 4, 5) (Source 59: 1, 5, 6) – (an-ta-lù) (Source 55: 1a) awātu (/amātu) “word/matter” – a-wa-at (Source 19) – a-ma-a-ti (Source 35: 25) – a-mat (Source 35: 60) – a-⌈mat⌉ (Source 35: 32 + var. ⌈enim⌉) – ⌈enimmeš-ia⌉ (Source 35: 14) awīlu “man” – a-wi-lim (Source 22: A) awīl mê “water-man” – lú ameš (Source 36: 2) awû (/amû) Gt “to speak/to tell” – i-ta-mu-ú (Source 70: A 4 + var. i!-ta!mu-ú) – i-t[a-ma-a] (Source 35: 14 + var. ⌈i?⌉[ta-ma-a]) – [li]-ta-mu-ka (Source 35: 76) “to set one’s mind on sth.” – i-ta-mu‹-u› (Source 33: obv. 7’) ay (vetitive particle) “not” – [a-a] (Source 35: 39) ayyalu “deer” – dàra-maš (Source 37: III 3’) – dàra-mašmeš (Source 37: II 12) bābu “gate” – ká (Source 37: II 7, 23, III 7’, 16’) – kámeš (Source 34: D 5) bāb ekalli “gate-of-the-palace” (element on the liver) – ká é-gal (Source 22: A, B1, B2, C1, C2) (Source 28: B) – ká ⌈é⌉-[gal] (Source 28: A, 51) – me-ni (Source 52) bakû “to weep” – i-bak-ku-ú (Source 54: 6 + var. i-baak-ku-u, ⌈i⌉-[ba-a]k-⌈ku⌉) balāṭu “to live/to get well” – ba-la-ṭu (Source 35: 32 + var. ba-laṭ) – bal-ṭa-a-ti (Source 35: 82) – ti-uṭ (Source 54: 6 B) – timeš (Source 34: D 10) – tin (Source 35: 74) (Source 49: rev. 8’)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

570

“to continue” – ba-laṭ (Source 35: 35a) balṭu “living/fresh (fish)” – ⌈ba⌉-al-⌈ṭa⌉ (Source 77: 5 + var. ba[lṭi]) – bal-ṭi (Source 77: 6, 15) – bal-⌈ṭi⌉ (Source 77: 12) – ⌈bal-ṭu⌉ (Source 37: II 9) – bal-[ṭu] (Source 35: 52b + var. [ba]lṭu) – b[al!-ṭu] (Source 35: 53 + var. [bal]ṭu, ⌈bal!⌉-⌈x⌉) banû “to produce/to build” – ib-ta-ni (Source 33: obv. 5’) – ⌈ib⌉-ta-ni (Source 26: XIII 1) – ib-ni (Source 35: 77) – [ib-ni] (Source 35: 58 S) – dù-ma (Source 43) – dím-ma (Source 34: C 14, D 15) – [dím-ma] (Source 34: B 14) See also bunnû (D). banû “fine/of good quality” in mār banî “well-to-do (man from a good family)” – dumumeš dùmeš (Source 34: D 7) barārītu “evening watch” – en-nun an-úsan (Source 56: 1b) barbaru “wolf” – ur-bar-ra (Source 36: 11) (Source 37: II 6, III 2’) bārtu “revolt” – ḫi-ĝar (Source 56: 2) bâru I “to catch (fish)” – i-bar-ma (Source 35: 65 + var. i!(an)bar-ma) – i-ba-ru-ma (Source 35: 49 + var. ibar-r[u]-⌈ú?⌉-[ma]) – i-ba-[a]r!-r[u-ú-ma] (Source 35: 51 + var. i-bar-ru-[ ]-⌈ú?⌉-[ma], [i]-bar[ru-ú-ma]) bâru II “to revolt against” – i-bar (Source 41: B 7) barû “to see/to check/to scan” – ba-rù (Source 49: rev. 5’) – b[a?-ru-ú] (Source 35: 35c A) – [i-bar-ri] (Source 35: 35c F) – ‹i-ba-ar-ri› (Source 35: 76)

– i[gi-ká]r (Source 37: II 14) bašlu “cooked” – ba-áš-lu (Source 35: 67 + var. ba-ášla) bašû “to exist” – ba-šu!-ú (Source 70: B 5) – ⌈ĝál⌉-[ú] (Source 70: A 2 + var. [baš]u-⌈ú⌉) – i-ba-áš-ši (Source 35: 6) – i-ba-áš-šú (Source 35: 34b) Š here “to incite (a conspiracy)” – ú-šab-šu-ú (Source 74: C 10) – ú-š[ab-šu-ú] (Source 74: B2 6) N “to come into existence/ to occur/to be formed” – ib-ba-ši-ma (Source 74: C 4) – ib-ba-ši-[ma] (Source 49: obv. 12) – it-tab-šá-a (Source 74: A 1, C 17 + var. it-ta-nab-šá-a) – [it-tab-šá-a] (Source 74: B1 1) – it-tab-ši (Source 36: 18) – it-tab-š[i] (Source 36: 17) – i[t-tab-ši] (Source 43 + var. min-ma = it-tab-ši) – [it-tab-ši] (Source 36: 22) – ĝál (Source 55: 1b) (Source 56: 1d, 2) – ĝál-ši (Source 56: 3 + var. ĝál) parallel to šakānu N – ĝál-š[i] (Source 54: 3 + var. ĝar, ĝaran) batāqu “to split up” – ba-táq (Source 12) baṭālu “to cease” – ⌈ba⌉-aṭ-⌈la⌉-at (Source 35: 8) Š “to stop sth.” – ú-šab-ṭa-lu (Source 74: C 10) – [ú-šab-ṭa-lu] (Source 74: B2 6) bâʾu Š “to have (water) run” – uš-bi-iʾ-ma (Source 74: E 5) bēltu “lady” – be-el-⌈ti⌉ (Source 35: 14) – be-el-ti-šá (Source 74: C 7) – b[é-le]-et (Source 35: 10) – gašan-ia (Source 35: 10) bēlu “lord” – be-lí (Source 35: 66 + var. den)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– be-lu (Source 35: 25) (Source 49: obv. 15) – be-lu4 (Source 32: 17) (Source 35: 54 A) – en (Source 34: A 1, D 1 = 2×) (Source 35: 49 S, 78) (Source 44: obv. 20) (Source 74: D 1, E 1, 3) (Source 77: 8 + var. be-[lí]) – ⌈en⌉ (Source 35: 22) – e[n] (Source 74: C 14) – [e]n (Source 33: obv. 10’) – ⌈en⌉-en (Source 35: 22) – en-ia (Source 46: 45) (Source 77: 6) – en-ía (Source 77: 15) – e[n]-ía (Source 77: 13 + var. [en-ia]) – en-šu (Source 74: C 7 + var. [be-lišu]) – enmeš-ia (Source 31: 50) – d+en (Source 71: IV 5) bēl ḫīṭi “criminal” – [en ḫi-ṭi] (Source 33: obv. 4’) bêlu “to exercise rulership/to dominate” – i-be-el (Source 49: obv. 5) – i-be-lu4 (Source 41: A 3) – en-el (Source 58: 2 + var. ⌈i⌉-[be-el]) bēlūtu “lordship/supremacy/rule” – en-ú-ti-šú (Source 49: rev. 9’) – [be-lu-ut-s]u (Source 33: obv. 13’) – [be-lu-tú] (Source 33: obv. 3’) berû Št (bitrû Š) “to pass all the way through” – uš-te-eb-ri (Source 28: B) bêšu “to depart / to regress” astron., or nasāḫu/nesû/rêqu? – PAD-ra-ma (Source 57: 2 + var. PADr[á-ma]) bibbu “wild ram” – bi-ib-bu (Source 36: 20) biltu “tribute” – bil-t[a] (Source 74: B2 6) – [bil-t]u (Source 74: C 10) – bi-lat-su-nu (Source 35: 59) – bi-[lat]-si-na (Source 35: 13 + var. bilat-s[i-na]) – [bi-lat-su-nu] (Source 35: 22) – gú-unmeš-ki-[na] (Source 34: D 14)

571

– ⌈gú-⌉unḫi.a.meš-ki-na (Source 34: C 13) – [gú-unḫi.a.meš-ki-na] (Source 34: B 13) binûtu “figure” – dù-t[i-ĝu10] (Source 34: B 9) – d[ù-ti-ĝu10] (Source 34: B 11) bīru “(space in) between” – i-na bi-ri-šu-nu (Source 18) bitrû Š see berû Št bītu “house/temple” – é (Source 35: 19, 52a) (Source 36: 17, 22) (Source 37: II 4, 5, 7, 23) (Source 49: obv. 8) (Source 49: rev. 9’) – émeš (Source 36: 5, 12) – éḫi-a.meš (Source 34: D 4) – [é] (Source 37: I 6) “room” – é (Source 71: IV 11) bīt akīti “akītu house” – é a-ki-ti (Source 46: 47) bītāt mayyāli “bed chambers” – é-ĝišnámeš (Source 37: III 17’) ērib-bīti “temple enterer” – lúku4-é! (Source 70: A 1 + var. [lúk]u4é) bukru “firstborn son” – bu-uk-ra-šu (Source 33: obv. 3’) bunnû (D) “to make beautiful/to embellish” – ú-ban-ni-ma (Source 35: 46) – ⌈ú⌉-[ban]-⌈ni⌉-ma (Source 35: 74 + var. ⌈ú⌉-‹ban-ni-ma›) bušû “goods/possessions” – níĝ-ĝálmeš-šá (Source 34: B 5) – níĝ-šu-šá (Source 36: 13) – níĝ-šumeš (Source 74: C 5) – níĝ-šumeš-šú (Source 74: C 11) – [níĝ-šumeš-šú-un] (Source 74: B2 7) dabābu “to speak/to tell” – id-da-bu-ub (Source 37: I 20) – i-dab-bu-ba (Source 74: A 2 + var. edab-bu-ba, E 2) dadmū “settlements/cities” – da-ád-mì (Source 32: 24) (Source 35: 20) – [da-ád-mì] (Source 74: B1 2)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

572

dâku “to kill/defeat” – i-da-ak-ma (Source 17: 11) – i-du-uk-ku-ú (Source 17: 12) – i-du-ku-šu-ma (Source 37: II 11) – i-du-ku-šu-nu-ti (Source 37: II 13) – ⌈i⌉-[du-ku-šu (??)] (Source 27: 3) – id-duk (Source 37: II 23) – gaz-šú (Source 73) – gaz-šú-ma (Source 37: II 25) – gazmeš-ši (Source 43) – gazmeš-šú (Source 37: I 7, 17, II 6, III 4’a, 13’a) (Source 71: IV 11) – gazmeš-⌈šú⌉ (Source 37: III 2’) dalālu (I) “to sing (praise)” – da-la-li (Source 46: 45) dalālu (II) D “to oppress” – dul-lu-lu (Source 74: C 4) – [ú-dal-lil]-ma (Source 33: obv. 8’) daltu “door (leaf)” – ĝišigmeš (Source 37: II 24) dâlu “to move” – i-du-lu (Source 37: II 20a, III 17’) damqu “good” – dam-qu (Source 35: 33b) damiqtu “good” (subst.) – da-mi-iq-tu (Source 32: 16 + var. damì-iq-tu, [d]a-mi-iq-ti) dāmu “blood” – da-me (Source 70: A 4 + var. da-mu) danānu “strength” (element on the liver) – kalag (Source 53) dannu “strong” – da-⌈an⌉-nim (Source 27: 3) – dan-ni (Source 74: C 3) – dan-nu (Source 70: B 7) dannūtu “might” – dan-nu-ti-šú (Source 46: 45) dāriš “for evermore” – [da-riš] (Source 35: 24) dārītu “eternity” – da-ra-a-ti (Source 34: D 13) dekû “to summon up/to remove” – id-de-ki (Source 33: obv. 10’) – id-ke-e-ma (Source 71: IV 6) – id-kaš-šum-ma (Source 35: 62 + var. [i]d-ka-šum-ma, id-ka-áš-šum-ma)

– [id-ka-šum-ma] (Source 35: 42) – id-ku-šu-ma (Source 71: IV 11) St. “to be raised” – de-ki (Source 51: A) Š with libbu “to prompt/to place into the mind” – [ú]-šad-ka-[an]-ni (Source 77: 8) diĝirgubbû “diĝirgubbû-priests” – lúdiĝir-gub-bameš (Source 70: A 2 + var. diĝir-gub-bameš) dišpu “syrup/honey” – làl (Source 36: 12) dumqu “good(ness)” – dum-qí (Source 35: 6) – [dum]-qa (Source 32: 20) dūru “wall” – bàd (Source 57: 5) (Source 71: IV 4) – [bà]d (Source 49: obv. 9) – bàdmeš-šú (Source 56: 1d) ebbu “pure/holy” – [e]b-bu-ti (?) (Source 37: IV 6’) ebertu “the other bank (of a river)”, ina eberti ereb Šamši “on the western bank (of the Euphrates)” – ina bal-ri dutu-šú-a (Source 37: II 6, 22) – i-na bal-ri dutu-šú-a (Source 37: III 12’) – ⌈ina⌉ b[al-ri dutu-šú-a] (Source 37: III 2’) ebēru “to cross (a river)/to come over” – i-bi-ram-ma (Source 37: III 8’) edammû “edammû-priest” – lúe-dam-mu-ú (Source 70: A 1, text 2) edēlu “to bolt/to close a door” – [i-di-lu] (Source 37: II 24) edû “to know” – i-de-ma (Source 35: 32) – i-du-ú (Source 35: 64) ekallu “palace” royal palace – é-gal (Source 22: B2) – é-gal-am (Source 22: B1) – é-gal-lam (Source 22: A, C1) – é-gal-šú (Source 51: A)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

mār ekalli “son, member of the palace/courtier” – dumu é-gal (Source 41: B 6) epithet of Esaĝil: – é-gal (Source 35: 30) (Source 74: A 5) – [é-gal] (Source 74: C 11) part of the liver: bāb ekalli “gate-of-the-palace” – ká é-gal (Source 22: A, B1, B2, C1, C2) (Source 28: B) – ká ⌈é⌉-[gal] (Source 28: A, 51) – me-ni (Source 52) ekal ubāni “palace of the finger” – é-gal šu-si (Source 51: A) ekēmu “to take away” – e-ki-mu (Source 35: 50 A) – i-kim (Source 33: obv. 2’) – i-ki-im-ma (Source 35: 67 + var. ikim-ma, e-ki-mu-š[u-ma], 68 + var. ikim-ma) – ik-⌈kim⌉ (Source 59: 15 + var. [i]k-kiim) ekurru “temple/sanctuary” – é-kur (Source 74: C 12) – [é-kur] (Source 74: B2 8) – [é-kurme]š-šú (Source 34: C 2) – é-kur-bal-ti-il5 (Source 34: C 1) – é-kur-saĝ-íl (Source 34: D 12) eli “(up)on/over”, with verbs expressing sentiment “to” – e-li (Source 16: 5) (Source 35: 77) – e-li-ka (Source 35: 6) – e-li-šu (Source 31: 51) – ugu (Source 63 = 2×) (Source 72: obv. 10’, 14’) (Source 74: E 4, 5) – ugu-šá (Source 45: 7) – ugu-šu (Source 30 + var. ugu-šú) – [ugu-ĝu10] (Source 34: C 1) “more than/in addition to” – e-li (Source 77: 9 + var. [e]l) – ugu (Source 33: obv. 4’) elîš “above” – an-t[a] (Source 59: 2) ellu “holy” – el-li (Source 35: 44) – kù-tu4 (Source 35: 14)

573

elû “to rise/to go up” – e-lu-⌈u⌉ (Source 32: 19) – e-lu-ú (Source 74: D 5, E 6) – el-l[a-a]m-ma (Source 37: III 5’) – i-li-am (Source 23: A) – i-te-lu-[ú] (Source 36: 11) – ⌈e11⌉-ma (Source 34: B 6) D “to raise” – ⌈ul⌉-l[u-ú] (Source 35: 30 + var. ⌈ú⌉ul-lu-[ú]) Š “to cause to go up/to bring sth. up” – ú-še-lu-niš-šu (Source 37: II 11) – ⌈ú⌉-[še-lu-šú] (Source 37: II 25) – e11-li (Source 34: D 4) elû “upper” – e-li-tì (Source 35: 13 + var. [e-li-t]i) – e-li-tu4 (Source 35: 28 + var. [e-l]it[ú]) elât šamê “zenith of heaven” – e-lat an-e (Source 35: 26 + var. elat!(man) ⌈an-e⌉) ēma “wherever” – e-ma (Source 39: 40) emēdu “to impose” – i-mid-⌈su⌉ (Source 35: 61 + var. imid!-s[u]) – i-mi-id-s[u] (Source 44: obv. 23) – i-‹mi-id-su-ma› (Source 35: 75) D “to place upon” – um-[mi-id-ma] (Source 34: B 11) emētu “mother-in-law” – e-me-ti-šú (Source 36: 14) emû see ewû enšu “weak” – [e]n-šu (Source 74: C 3) ēntu “high priestess” – nin-diĝir-rameš (Source 57: 3) ēnu “lord” – e-ni (Source 35: 79) enūma see inūma epēqu D stat. “to be very solid” – up-pu-uq (Source 24) ep(e)ru “(loose) earth/soil” – e-per (Source 35: 60) – e-pe-er (Source 44: obv. 18) – ep-ri-šu (Source 31: 51)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

574

– saḫarḫi-a (Source 46: 46) (Source 47: VI 96) – [saḫ]arḫi-a (Source 45: 9) epēšu “to do/to execute/to make” – e-pu-uš (Source 35: 59 + var. ⌈e-pùš⌉, [d]ù!-uš) – i-pu-uš (Source 35: 60 + var. i-pu-ušma) (Source 44: obv. 19) (Source 49: obv. 4, rev. 3’) – i-pu-[uš] (Source 49: rev. 4’) – i-pu-šu (Source 44: obv. 20) (Source 45: 10) – i-pu-šú (Source 35: 75) – ⌈i-pú-šum⌉-ma (Source 45: 8) – ep-pu-uš (Source 49: obv. 1) – dù-uš-ma (Source 49: obv. 8, 9) – in-a5 (Source 49: obv. 2) – [dù-ma] (Source 65) D stat. “to be completed” – up-puš4 (Source 49: rev. 5’) epištu “deed, action” – ep-še-ti-ši-na (Source 74: E 4) – [ep-še-ti-ši-na] (Source 74: C 13) epšu “act” epšu (loc.) pîšu “at his command” – [ep]-šú pi-i-šú (Source 35: 36 + var. ⌈ep-šu⌉ pi-i-šu) erâ see iria erbu “entry”, in ereb Šamši “sunset” – e-reb dutu-ši (Source 35: 61) – e-reb dutu-š[i] (Source 44: obv. 22) – [e-reb] ⌈dutu⌉-[ši] (Source 35: 22) – ku4 dutu-ši (Source 34: A 2) – dutu-šú-a (Source 54: 1 + var. dutuku4-ku4) ina eberti ereb Šamši “on the western bank (of the Euphrates)” – ina bal-ri dutu-šú-a (Source 37: II 6, 22) – i-na bal-ri dutu-šú-a (Source 37: III 12’) – ⌈ina⌉ b[al-ri dutu-šú-a] (Source 37: III 2’) erbû “locust” – ⌈er⌉-bi-im (Source 26: XII 49)

erēbu “to enter” – e-re-ba (Source 39: 38) – e-rib (Source 39: 41) – e!-⌈tar!⌉-ba! (Source 76: obv. 1) – ⌈ì⌉-[ru]-um-ma (Source 77: 4) – i-ru-ub (Source 22: B2) – i-ru-ba (Source 37: II 22) – i-ter-bu (Source 32: 21) – ir-ru-bi (Source 35: 52b) – i-ru-bu-nim-ma (Source 37: II 13) – ku4-šú (Source 37: III 11’b) – ⌈ku4-šú⌉ (Source 37: III 3’) – ku4meš (Source 75: III 29) – [ku4meš] (Source 38: 27) Š “to let enter” – li-[še-ri-bu-m]a(!) (Source 35: 13) – ú-šèr-reb (var. ú-še-rab) (Source 39: 35, 43) – ú-še-reb (Source 39: 37 + var. ⌈ú⌉-šeer-rab) ērib-bīti “temple enterer” – lúku4-é! (Source 70: A 1 + var. [lúk]u4é) erṣetu “earth/soil” – ki (Source 36: 13) – ki-tì (Source 35: 31A + var. an-e ⌈u⌉ ki-tì) (Source 36: 6, 12) The examples for šamû u erṣetu “heaven and earth” see sub šamû. erû “copper” – urudu (Source 36: 7) esēpu “to gather up” – e-si-pa (Source 47: VI 98) – e-si-pa-ma (Source 31: 52) esēru “to shut someone up” – i-si-ru-šu-ma (Source 71: IV 11) e(s)sû “(clay) pit” – e-se-e (Source 44: obv. 18) ešertu “shrine”, see also aširtu – eš-re-e-ti (Source 32: 24) ešēru Št lex. “to keep in good order” – šu-te-šu-ra (Source 35: 64 A) eṭēru “to take away” – e-ṭir-ma (Source 35: 68 A) – kar-⌈ir⌉ (Source 59: 15 A)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

N “to be taken away” – in-na-ṭir (Source 35: 38 + var. [in-née]ṭ-⌈ṭi⌉-ir) eṭlu “(young) man” – guruš (Source 36: 14 = 4×) ewû/emû “to turn into sth.” – e-ma-a (Source 32: 20) – e-mu-ú (Source 74: D 4) – [i-mì] (Source 35: 44) D, Š “to turn sth. into sth.” – um-mì (Source 32: 24) – ú-še-mì (Source 33: obv. 9’) (Source 74: E 5) ezēbu “to leave/to forsake” – e-zi-bu-ma (Source 74: D 5) – i-te-ez-ba (Source 32: 20) – i-zib (Source 49: obv. 17) – i-zi-ba-ma (Source 74: A 4 + var. ⌈e⌉zi-ba-ma) stat. ezib “apart from” – e-zib (Source 35: 33a) ezēzu “to become enraged” – e-zi-iz (Source 74: C 13, D 2, E 1) – e-ziz-ma (Source 74: C 15, text 3) ezzu “fierce” – ez-ze-tú (Source 70: B 4) gabāru, variant of kabāru “to become fat”, see p. 460 Dt “to be puffed up” – ug-da-bir-ma (Source 45: 7) gabarû “counterpart” – gaba-ri (Source 44: obv. 19) “copy” – g[aba-ri] (Source 49: rev. 5’) gabbu “all” – gab-bi (Source 72: rev. 2) galû Š “to deport” – [ú-šá-ag-lu-ú-ma] (Source 45: 11) gamāru “to bring to an end/ to exterminate” – ig-mu-ur (Source 44: obv. 21) – til-šú (Source 48: rev. 7) stat. “to be at an end” – ga-mi-ir (Source 23: B) – til (Source 59: 13) D “to give in full”

575

– ug-dam-mir-[ši] (Source 35: 55 + var. [ug]-da-[am-mir-ši]) – [ug]-⌈dam⌉-[mi-i]r-šú-ma! (Source 35: 58 S) gāmirūtu “supremacy” – [ga-m]e-ru-tu (Source 49: obv. 4, var. ga-mi-ru-ut, see the comm.) garānu D “to pile up (high)” – ú-gar-ri-in (Source 46: 47) gimillu “reward” – gi-mil (Source 35: 6) gimirtu (/gimratu) “totality/all” – gim-rat-si-in (Source 32: 20 + var. gim-rat-si-IM) gimlu “compassion” – gim-lu (Source 76: obv. 12) gimru “totality/all” – gi-mir (Source 35: 59 + var. g[i!-mir], ⌈gim-ra?⌉) – gi-m[ir] (Source 74: B1 2) ginû “regular offering” – gi-né-e (Source 77: 6, 13, 15) – [g]i-na (Source 37: III 11’a) giskimmu see ittu gišimmaru “date palm” – ĝišĝišimmar (Source 36: 8 = 2×, 9, 10, 30, 32) – ĝišĝišimmarmeš (Source 36: 29) gullulu (D) “to sin against” – ú-gal-la-lu (Source 35: 37a) gušūru “roof beam” – ĝiš-ùrmeš (Source 36: 5) ḫabālu “to oppress” – [ḫa]-ba-lu (Source 74: C 2) – i-ḫab-bi-lu (Source 74: C 3) ḫadîš “joyfully/favourably” – ḫa-diš (Source 35: 54, 58) ḫāʾiru “husband” – ḫa-i-ri-ši-na! (Source 57: 3) ḫalāqu “to vanish/to perish/ destruction” – ḫa-laq (Source 74: C 17) – záḫ (Source 38: 24) – záḫ-šú (Source 59: 9) – ⌈záḫ-šú⌉ (Source 59: 14) – zá‹ḫ› (ḪA-‹A›) (Source 55: 2)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

576

D “to destroy” – ḫul-lu-qu (Source 74: A 7) – ḫul-lu-uq (Source 74: C 15) ḫallum “ḫal-sign” – ḫal (Source 23: A) – [ḫ]a-lu-um (Source 23: B) ḫalqu “lost part/loss” – ḫal-qa (Source 35: 83 S) ḫâlu “to exude” – [i-ḫ]i-i[l] (Source 36: 12) ḫalūqu “destruction” – ḫa-lu-qì (Source 33: obv. 7’) ḫamāṭu “to be swift” – iḫ-tam-ṭù (Source 32: 23) Š “to (deliver) quickly/to rush” – uš-taḫ-miṭ (Source 35: 57 + var. [uštaḫ-m]e-e[ṭ]) – uš-t[aḫ-mi-ṭu] (Source 35: 53) – šu-uḫ-mu-ṭa (Source 77: 12 + var. šuḫu-mu-⌈uṭ⌉) ḫammāʾu/ḫammû “rebel” šar ḫammāʾī/ḫammê “rebel king” – šar ḫa-am-me-e (Source 22: B2) – lugalmeš í[m-g]i (Source 34: D 8) ḫanāpu D, Š “to desecrate” – ú-ḫa-an-na+pu (Source 70: A 5 + var. ú-ḫan(kan)-n[a-p]í?) – ú-šá-an-na!-pu (Source 70: A 5 + var. ú-šá-an-na-pí) ḫarābu “to become waste” – ḫa-rab (Source 56: 1d) Š “to lay waste/to devastate” – ú-šaḫ-ra-bu (Source 39: 40 + var. úšaḫ-ra-ba) – ú-šá-aḫ-rib (Source 32: 24) ḫarāru D stat. “to be deeply grooved” – ḫu-ru-ra-at (Source 20: 10) – ḫu-ur-ru-ra-a[t] (Source 21: 13) Variation in arāru: – ur-ru-ur (Source 67) ḫarbūtu (see also arbūtu) “devastation” – kar-tú (Source 41: A 4) ḫarrānu “road/journey” – ḫar-ra-an (Source 71: IV 6) – kaskal (Source 34: D 2)

“(astronomical) path (in the sky)” – [kaskal] (Source 74: C 18) “mercantile expedition” – [k]askalmeš (Source 34: B 4) ḫâšu “to hurry/to hasten” – aḫ-tí[š-šu] (Source 34: C 4) – [i-ḫ]i-⌈iš⌉-ma (Source 35: 19) ḫašû “lung” – mur (Source 19) (Source 21: 13) (Source 30 = 2×) (Source 43) (Source 67) ḫaṭṭu “sceptre” – ĝišĝidru (Source 34: D 8) – ḫaṭ-ṭa-šu (Source 35: 38) possibly in a pun: – ḫaṭ-ṭì-i (Source 34: B 1) ḫâṭu “to examine”: ḫāʾiṭu “examiner” – láḫa-i-ṭu (Source 34: A 1) ḫaṭû “to sin” – i-ḫaṭ-ṭa-a (Source 57: 3 + var. i-ḫaaṭ-ṭa-a) ḫayyāṭu “inspector” – lámeš.ḫa-a-a-ṭu (Source 34: A 1) ḫepû “to break/to demolish” – iḫ-p[e]-e (Source 72: rev. 1) Scribal note ḫepi “it is broken” – ḫe-pí (Source 35: 52b S, 54 S, 75 S, 76 S) (Source 55: 2 A, 3 A) – ⌈ḫe⌉-pí (Source 35: 64 S) – ḫe-pí ḫe-⌈pí⌉ (Source 35: 61 S) ḫilēpu “willow tree” – ĝiškìmmeš (Source 38: 28) ḫiṣbu “yield” – ḫi-iṣ!-bu (Source 22: B2) – [ḫi-ṣib] (Source 34: C 3) ḫiṭītu “sin” – ḫi-ṭ[i-tú] (Source 74: B2 4) – [ḫi-ṭ]i-tu (Source 74: C 9) ḫīṭu “sin” – ḫi-ṭu-šú (Source 33: obv. 4’) bēl ḫīṭi “criminal” – [en ḫi-ṭi] (Source 33: obv. 4’) ḫurāṣu “gold” – kù-si22 (Source 74: A 6, B2 8) – [kù-si22] (Source 74: C 12) ḫuršānu “mountain/bedrock” – ḫur-šá-ni (Source 31: 47)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

ḫušaḫḫu “hunger/famine” – ḫu-šaḫ-ḫu (Source 44: obv. 21) – su-gu7 (Source 54: 3) idu “arm/side” – á (Source 59: 2 = 2×) – [ámin-š]ú (Source 34: C 7) igāru “(enclosure) wall” – é-gar8 (Source 37: II 15) – é-gar8meš (Source 36: 27) iginutukû “blind(ed person)” – igimin-nu-tuku (Source 49: obv. 11) ikkibu “taboo/sacrilege” – níĝ-gig (Source 44: obv. 20) iltānu see ištānu ilu “god” – i-li (Source 22: A) – ì-lí (Source 22: B1: C1) – diĝir (Source 35: 35b, 37a + var. diĝirmeš, 64 + var. diĝirmeš, 66, 77) (Source 37: II 3) (Source 59: 2, 6, 17) – ⌈diĝir⌉ (Source 35: 34a + var. diĝirmeš) – di[ĝir] (Source 35: 34b A) – diĝirmeš (Source 34: D 3) (Source 35: 17, 36) (Source 36: 31) (Source 37: II 4) (Source 39: 35) (Source 53) (Source 58: 3, 6) (Source 74: A 5, A 7) (Source 75: II 18’, III 29) – diĝir⌈meš⌉ (Source 39: 43) – ⌈diĝir⌉meš (Source 35: 37a A) – ⌈diĝirmeš⌉ (Source 35: 39) – ⌈diĝir⌉m[eš] (Source 74: C 14) – diĝirmeš-š[á] (Source 32: 18) – diĝirmeš-ši-na (Source 74: A 3) – [diĝirmeš-ši-na] (Source 74: B2 1, C 8) – diĝirmeš-šú (Source 74: D 5 + var. [diĝir]meš-šu, E 6) – diĝirmeš-šú-nu (Source 70: A 5, A 7 = 2×) – diĝir-ma (Source 32: 20) – diĝir[meš] (Source 32: 23) – di[ĝirmeš] (Source 70: B 1) – di[ĝir? meš] (Source 35: 35c F) – [diĝirm]eš (Source 49: obv. 6, var. diĝir-diĝir, see the comm.) (Source 59: 14)

577

– [diĝirmeš] (Source 32: 24) (Source 74: C 11) – diĝirmeš galmeš (Source 31: 49) (Source 35: 27a, 29, 34a) il(ān)u ša ilānī “(Marduk) the god over (all) the gods” (see p. 397) – diĝirmeš šá diĝirmeš (Source 35: 78) šar ilānī ša ilānī = “(Marduk) the king of the gods among the (other) gods” = “the divine king of (all) the gods” – ⌈lugal diĝirmeš šá diĝirmeš⌉ (Source 35: 17 A) ilūtu “godhead/divine character” – ⌈diĝir-ti⌉-ka (Source 70: B 1) – diĝir-ra (Source 49: obv. 17) – [i-lu-ti-šú] (Source 33: obv. 10’) imbû “fiber” – ĝišKA-GÍR-ĝiš[immar] (Source 36: 10 + var. [ĝišK]A-GÍR-ĝišimmar) imēru “donkey” – anše (Source 36: 15) imittu “right side” – i-mi-tim (Source 16: 4) (Source 28: C) – i-mi-tì (Source 17: 10) – [z]ag (Source 30) – zag-dib (Source 37: III 16’) – 15 (Source 30) – 15-šá (Source 45: 7) immeru “sheep”, here “ram” – udu-níta (Source 36: 4) imšukku “domed lid” – im-šu-uk-ki-ma (Source 42) – im-šuk-ki-ma (Source 61 + var. minma = im-šu-uk-ki-ma) ina “in/on/at” – i-na (Source 16: 4) (Source 17: 10 = 2×) (Source 18) (Source 23: A) (Source 23: B) (Source 28: A, 53) (Source 28: B) (Source 30 + var. ina) (Source 31: 52) (Source 32: 15 + var. ina) (Source 34: B 2) (Source 35: 12) (Source 36: 5) – ina (Source 33: obv. 10’) (Source 34: D 6) (Source 35: 6) (Source 36: 1 = 2×) (Source 37: II 1) (Source 38: 28) (Source 39: 41) (Source 40) (Source

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

578

44: obv. 21) (Source 45: 8) (Source 46: 47) (Source 48: rev. 7) (Source 49: obv. 1) (Source 50 = 2×) (Source 51: A = 2×) (Source 53) (Source 54: 1) (Source 56: 1a = 3×) (Source 57: 1) (Source 59: 1) (Source 70: B 4) (Source 71: IV 4) (Source 72: obv. 11’) (Source 74: B1 1 + var. i-na) (Source 75: II 19’) (Source 76: obv. 7) – ta (Source 55: 1a = 2×) “in (the course of n years)” = “after (n years)” – ina (Source 58: 5) i-na and ina passim inanna “now” – ina-an-na (Source 70: B 1) – ⌈i-na⌉-an-na (Source 35: 9) īnu “eye” – igimin-šú (Source 36: 25) inūma/enūma “when” – [e-nu-ma] (Source 37: IV 8’ = I 1) inūmī “when” – i-nu-mi (Source 13) inūšu “then/in those days” – i-nu-šú (Source 32: 15 + var. i-nu-šu) (Source 35: 52b) (Source 74: A 1 + var. i-nu-šu, ul-la-nu-ú-a) – ⌈i-nu-šú⌉ (Source 35: 66 S) – ì-nu!-šú (Source 74: B1 1 + var. [i-nuš]u) ipšu see epšu iria “side by side” – i-ri-a (Source 62) irtu “breast” in ina pāṭ irat tâmti “at the edge of the open sea” – i-rat (Source 35: 65 + var. i-rat!(ḫu)) isḫabbu “rogue” – is-ḫab-ba (Source 39: 36) isu “jawbone” – u[zume-zé] (Source 36: 26) iṣṣūru “bird” – mušenmeš (Source 34: C 7) – [mušen]meš (Source 38: 26) iṣṣūr-ḫurri “partridge” – buru5-ḫabrud-damušen (Source 36: 16)

išaru “penis” – ĝìš (Source 36: 4) (Source 41: A 1, B 5) išātu “fire/flame” – i-šat (Source 70: B 4) – izi (Source 37: II 14) – [iz]i (Source 72: rev. 3) “lightning” – izi-šú (Source 37: III 19’) miqitti išāti “fall of fire” = “stroke of lightning” – šub-ti izi (Source 36: 17, 18) – šub-tì izi (Source 36: 22) išdu “foundation” – iš-di (Source 35: 7) – i[š-da-šú] (Source 35: 31) – suḫuš (Source 49: obv. 9) “(personal) status” – [suḫu]šm[eš]-⌈šú⌉ (Source 49: rev. 8’) išid šamê “base of heaven” – i-šid an-e (Source 35: 26) išittu “treasury” – i-šit-ta-šu (Source 35: 38 + var. [i]⌈šit⌉-ta-šú) išku “testicle” – šir (Source 41: B 5) ištānu/iltānu “north wind” – im-si-sá (Source 56: 1a + var. im[I]I) (Source 59: 3, 7) ištar(t)u “goddess” – diš-tar (Source 35: 77) – diš-tar-šin (Source 74: A 3 + var. dištar-ši-na) – [diš-tar-šin] (Source 74: B2 1, C 8) – iš8-tármeš (Source 37: II 27) – d15meš-šú (Source 74: D 5 + [d]15meššu, E 6) (išti/) issi (Assyrian) “with” – ta (Source 76: obv. 2) ištu/ultu (prep.) “from” – iš-tu (Source 35: 22, 26, 61 + var. ultu) (Source 77: 7 + var. [t]a) – ul-tu (Source 44: obv. 22) – ta (Source 34: A 2) (Source 36: 19) (Source 37: II 17, 21) (Source 57: 1 + var. ul-tu) (Source 75: III 29)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

issu (Assyrian) – ta (Source 76: obv. 11) (conj.) “after” – [ul-tu] (Source 33: obv. 6’) išû “to have” – tuku (Source 41: B 5) – tuku-ú (Source 49: rev. 2’) – tuku-⌈ú] (Source 68) – tu[ku-š]i (Source 43) – [tuku] (Source 61) “to exist”, negated in ul īši (/ lā īši, laššu) “there is not” – n[u t]uku (Source 75: III 28) itti “with” – it-ti (Source 74: E 1) – ⌈it-ti⌉ (Source 74: D 2) – it-ti-[šu] (Source 35: 34b) – [it-ti]-ia (Source 35: 14) – [it-ti-šu] (Source 35: 35c A) – ki (Source 58: 1) (Source 59: 3) “on behalf of” – ki-šú (Source 34: C 6) ittu “(ominous) sign/portent”, pl. idātu/ittātu, see the commentary on Source 74: A 1 on pp. 547ff. – it-ta (Source 39: 42) – i-da-a-tu (Source 32: 15) – i-da-a-ti-šá (Source 74: C 19) – ámeš (Source 74: A 1, C 17) – [á]⌈meš⌉ (Source 74: B1 1) – ĝiškimmeš (Source 36: 34) (Source 74: C 18) – [ĝiš]kimmeš (Source 36: 1) (Source 38: 25) – [ĝiš]kim-šú (Source 59: 17 C) itû “border (region)” prep. itê “next to” – i-te-e (Source 44: obv. 19) pl. ittû “neighbours” – it(!)-tu-ú-a-a (Source 17: 11) itûtu “selection” – i-tu-ut (Source 35: 20) izbu “fruit”, here “anomaly” – iz-bu-um (Source 24) – iz-bu (Source 41: A 1, B 5) izuzzu “to stand (by)/to step up to” – it-ta-ziz (Source 32: 19)

579

– iz-za-z[i] (Source 35: 37b + var. [izz]a-az-zi) – iz-zi-za-[am-m]a (Source 35: 14) – gub-iz (Source 40 + var. [iz-z]i-zu!) jaʾnu see yaʾnu kabāru see gabāru kabāsu “to step into/upon sth.” anzilla kabāsu “to commit an abomination” – ik-tab-su (Source 70: A 3) D “to roam” – mu-gub-is (Source 34: A 1) kabattu “mind/mood” – ka-bat-tuš (Source 74: C 13) – k[a-bat]-ti-šú (Source 74: D 3 + var. [ka]-bat-ti-šú) kabtu “heavy” – kab-tu (Source 33: obv. 4’) – ⌈ka⌉-bit-ti (Source 35: 22) – ⌈ka-bit-tú⌉ (Source 35: 59) – [ka-bit-t]u4 (Source 35: 13) kadrû “bribe” – kàd-re-e (Source 74: C 4) kakkabu “star” – mul-šú (Source 35: 37b) – mulmeš (Source 36: 19) kakku “weapon” – kak-ku (Source 37: IV 7’) – ĝištukul (Source 16: 5) (Source 34: D 6) (Source 56: 2) (Source 71: IV 4, 11) (Source 72: obv. 11’, 15’) – [ĝištukul (?)] (Source 27: 2) “weapon mark” (element on the liver) – ĝištukul (Source 16: 4) (Source 17: 10) (Source 40) – [(ĝiš)tuku]l (Source 18) kalab-urṣi “badger” – ur-ki (Source 36: 12) (Source 37: II 7) kalbatu “bitch/female dog” apil kalbati “son of a bitch” – ⌈a nig⌉ (Source 35: 42) kalbu “dog” – ur-gi7 (Source 36: 15 = 2×, 19) – ur-gi7me[š] (Source 34: D 9)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

580

kalû “all/totality” – ka-la-ma (Source 36: 31) – ka-la-šú (Source 35: 81) – kala-šú (Source 59: 4) – kala-šá (Source 59: 11 + var. dù-a-biš[á]) – ka-la-ši-na (Source 49: obv. 4) – ka-lu-šá-ma (Source 60) – dù-a-bi (Source 34: D 3, 13) – dù-a-bi-ši4-na (Source 34: A 2, C 8) – [kal] (Source 34: C 5) (Source 74: B1 2) kamû N “to be bound” – ik-kam-mu-ú (Source 35: 36) kamûtu “state of being a captive” kamûssu “(as) captive/in fetters” – ka-mu-us-su (Source 54: 5 + var. kamu-su, lá-su) – [ka-mut-su] (Source 33: obv. 12’) kanāšu D “to subject” – ú-kan-ni-⌈šu-uš⌉ (Source 35: 26) kankannu “pot-stand” – kan-kan-ni (Source 36: 18, 33 + var. [ka]n-⌈kan⌉-‹ni›) (kannu) – ⌈ĝiškan⌉ (Source 38: 30) kânu “to be firm”, here “to be safe” – gin (Source 76: obv. 7) D “to strengthen/to consolidate/ to establish” – ku-un-ni (Source 35: 7) – tu-k[a]-⌈x⌉ (Source 35: 15 + var. [tu]ka-nu) – ú-⌈kin⌉ (Source 49: rev. 9’) – ú-ki[n] (Source 49: obv. 9) – gin-in (Source 34: B 4) – [gin] (Source 49: rev. 8’) kapādu (G, D) “to design” – ak-pu-ud-ka-ma (Source 35: 7) lemutta kapādu “to plot evil”, see the discussion on pp. 211ff. – ik-pu-ud-ma (Source 74: C 15, text 10) – ik-ta-pu-ud (Source 74: A 7, C 14) – ú-kap-pi-da (Source 33: obv. 5’)

kapāru Dt “to be cut to pieces” – uk-tap-pa-⌈ru⌉ (Source 35: 36) kappu “wing” – pameš (Source 34: C 7) karābu “to bless” – [i]k-ru-ba-an (Source 35: 15) – šùd-ub (Source 34: C 9) karānu “wine” – ka-ra-[ni] (Source 35: 56 + var. ĝiš ⌈ĝeštinmeš⌉) – ka-r[a-ni] (Source 35: 57) – ĝišĝeštin (Source 36: 28) kāribu “(protective) kāribu-genie” – dka-ri-bu (Source 37: III 16’) karmu “wasteland/ruins” – kàr-me5 (Source 14) – k[ar-mi] (Source 35: 38) – [kar-míš] (Source 33: obv. 9’) karṣu “calumny” – [kar-ṣi] (Source 74: C 1) karû “mound” – ka-re-e (Source 46: 47) karû “to grow small” – lúgud-[d]a (Source 34: D 8) kaspu “silver” – kù-babbar (Source 55: 1c) (Source 74: A 6, B2 8) – [kù-babbar] (Source 74: C 12) kašādu “to capture/to arrive” – ak-šud (Source 31: 50) – ik-šu-da[m-ma] (Source 37: II 1) – kur-du-šú (Source 51: A) katāmu “to cover”, here “to conceal” – dul-ma (Source 59: 4) kayyāna “firmly” – ka-a-nam (Source 35: 31 + var. ka-aa-nam, ki-[niš]) kezēru (/ kazāru) G stat. “to have curly hair” – kaz-rat (Source 36: 4) kī (prep.) “like/in accordance with” – ki-i (Source 36: 23) (Source 37: III 9’) – ki! (Source 72: obv. 11’) “as if” in kī šalmi “as if everything was all right” (see pp. 438ff.) – ki-i šal-me (Source 37: II 4)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

(conj.) “that/as/when/after” “that” – ki (Source 37: II 20a, III 17’) – KI (Source 34: D 2) or > ašru? “as/when/after” – ki (Source 34: C 6) (Source 35: 8) (Source 37: II 22, 25) – k[i] (Source 37: II 24) – ki-i (Source 36: 24) (Source 37: II 21) – [ki]-⌈i⌉ (Source 36: 23) kīʾam “so/thus/like this” – ki-am (Source 13) – ki-a-am (Source 59: 17) – ⌈ki?-a⌉-am (Source 35: 27b) – ki-a-⌈am⌉ (Source 35: 54) kibru “shore/edge”, in šarrūt kibrāt arbaʾi “kingship over the four regions”, variant: šarrūt kiššati “kingship over the world” – lugal-ú-ut kib-ra-a-tu4 ar-ba-ʾi (var. lugal-ut k[ib-ra-a]t a[r-ba]-ʾi, [lugalut kib]-rat ar-ba-ʾi, [lugal-ú]-tu kibrat ar-ba-ʾi) (Source 35: 58 A–B, E–F; Sargon of Akkade) kibsu “tracks (of an animal)” – kib-⌈su⌉ (Source 39: 40) kidinnūtu “privileged status” (see chapter 11.3, A) – ki!(di)-di-⌈in-nu!-tú⌉ (Source 35: 16 + var. [k]i-⌈di!⌉-i[n-nu-tú] kidudû “rites” – ⌈ki-du-de-e⌉ (Source 35: 49 A) kīma “as/like” – ki-ma (Source 20: 10) (Source 21: 13) (Source 32: 20) (Source 35: 2, 23, 30, 31, 46, 74) – ⌈ki⌉-ma (Source 35: 36) – ⌈ki-ma⌉ (Source 27: 1) – gin7 (Source 34: C 2, 7) (Source 42) (Source 43) (Source 45: 7) (Source 61) (Source 67) – [gin7] (Source 34: C 4) (Source 49: rev. 5’) kimiltu “wrath” – ki-mil-ta (Source 32: 17)

581

(kinaštu/) kinaltu “(temple) collegium” – ki-na-al-tu (Source 70: A 1, text 1) *kinnimmu see naptan šēri kinsīgu see naptan līlāti kīnu “reliable/true” – ki-ni (Source 35: 27b) – gi-na (Source 34: C 11) kīniš “reliably/firmly” – ki-niš (Source 35: 14 + var. [ki]-ni⌈iš⌉, 27a) – ki-[niš] (Source 35: 31 A + var. ka(a)-a-nam) kīru “kiln” – ki-ri (Source 70: B 3) kirû “garden/orchard” – ĝiškiri6meš (Source 36: 29) kisallu “court(yard)” – kisal (Source 37: II 15) kīsu “bag” – ki-si (Source 67) – ki-sí-im (Source 20: 10) – níĝ-na4 (Source 21: 13) kiṣru “knot/structure” – ki-ṣir (Source 31: 47) kiṣṣu “shrine” – ki-ṣa (Source 31: 46b) – [k]i-⌈iṣ-ṣi⌉-šu (Source 35: 44) – ki-iṣ-ṣi-šú-nu (Source 74: D 5 + var. [k]i-ṣi-šú-n[u], k[i-i]ṣ-ṣi-šu-nu) kišādu “shore (of the sea)” – gú (Source 48: rev. 5) kiššatu “totality/all/universe” – kiš-šat (Source 35: 12 + var. k[iš(!)šat], 17) – kiš-[šat] (Source 35: 21) – [kiš-šat] (Source 74: C 19) šar kiššati “king of All” (or “despotic king”, see pp. 44f.) – lugal ki-ša-ti (Source 23: A) – lugal ki-šár-ra (Source 56: 1c) (Marduk) šar kiššat šamê u erṣeti “(Marduk,) the king of all heaven and earth” – lugal kiš-š[at an]-e ù ki-t[ì] (Source 35: 39 A)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

582

– lugal ki[š-šat a]n-e u ki-tì (Source 35: 58 S) šarrūt kiššati “kingship over the world”, variant: šarrūt kibrāt arbaʾi “kingship over the four regions” – šar-[ru-ut kiš-šat] (Source 35: 58 S; Sargon of Akkade) šarrūt kiššat mātāti “kingship over all the lands” – ⌈lugal⌉-tu (var. ⌈lugal⌉-ut) kiš-šat kur-kur (Source 35: 45; Gilgameš) – ⌈lugal-ut⌉ (var. lugal-ú-u[t]) ⌈kiš⌉-šat kur-kur (Source 35: 55; Ku-Baʾu) – [l]ugal-ú-tu kiš-šat kur-kur (Source 35: 70 + var. lugal-ut kiš-šat kur!kur, šar-ru-u[t kiš-š]at! kur-[kur]; Šulgi) kiššūtu “dominion/supremacy” – kiš-šu-[ut] (Source 45: 8) – šú-ut (Source 59: 16) kišubbû “wasteland” – ki-šub-bé-eš (Source 74: D 4, E 5) kuddimmu (a salty plant and the salt obtained from it) – ku-di-me (Source 31: 51) kullatu “totality/all” – kul-lat (Source 35: 20) – kul-lat-si-na (Source 33: obv. 8’) – [ku]l-lat (Source 74: B1 2) kullu (D) “to hold” ina qāti kullu “to bear in mind” – tu-kal (Source 56: 1c) (Source 59: 7) kullumu (D) “to reveal/to expose/to teach” – kul-lu-mu (Source 35: 64) – ⌈uk⌉-tal-lim (Source 36: 13) – ú-kal-lam-ka (Source 59: 6) – ú-⌈x-x-x⌉ (Source 35: 5) Štn “to display again and agin” – uš-ta-nak-la-mu (Source 74: C 18) kūnu “stability/steadfastness” – ku-un (Source 35: 20 + var. ⌈kun⌉) kunukku “(in) seal(ed form)” – ku-nu-uk (Source 36: 28) kussû “throne” – gu-za (Source 71: IV 9a) – ĝišgu-za (Source 34: B 2)

– [ĝi]šgu-za (Source 38: 24) – [ĝiš]gu-za-šú (Source 71: IV 11) kutallu “backside” – ina ku-tal (Source 37: II 10) kutû “jug”, here “trunk” – ku-ta-a (Source 36: 23) lā (negation) “not” – la (Source 32: 21, 23) (Source 35: 61, 64 = 2×, 67) (Source 37: III 3’, 5’ = 2×, 8’ = 2×, 9’, 12’) (Source 39: 35, 41, 43) (Source 44: obv. 23) (Source 49: obv. 14) (Source 54: 2) (Source 55: 3 + var. la!(ad)) (Source 56: 4 + var. nu) (Source 70: A 4, A 7) (Source 74: A 5, C 5, E 2) – ⌈la⌉ (Source 35: 3) – [l]a! (Source 76: obv. 5) – l[a?] (Source 35: 3) – [la] (Source 32: 20) (Source 37: III 6’a) (Source 72: obv. 10’, 14’) – nu (Source 41: B 5) (Source 43) (Source 49: rev. 2’) (Source 68) – ⌈nu⌉ (Source 61) – n[u] (Source 37: III 18’) – [nu] (Source 56: 1d D) (Source 65) labānu “to stroke (the nose)” – [li]l-bi-n[u] (Source 35: 29) labāšu “to dress” – lab-šu (Source 35: 36 + var. l[a!-abšu]) D “to clad” – ú-lab-biš (Source 49: obv. 20) labīru “old” – la-bi-ru-ti (Source 77: 11) “original” in colophons – sumun-šú (Source 49: rev. 5’) Sumerian phrase: – libir-ra-bi-gin7 (Source 36: 35) laḫru “ewe” – u8 (Source 68) lalû “pleasure/joy” – la-la-a-šú (Source 49: obv. 1) lamādu “to learn” – li-mad (Source 35: 9) lamassu “protective spirit” – [dlamma] (Source 32: 19) lamḫuššû see tuqsiqqû

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

lapātu “to touch” – il-⌈tap-tu⌉ (Source 70: A 4) D stat. “to be anomalous” – tagmeš-at (Source 60) Š “to ruin/to wreck/to annihilate” – ú-šal-pit-ma (Source 35: 62) – ú-šal-pit-⌈ma⌉ (Source 35: 42) – ú-šal-pi-tu (Source 63 + var. [ú-šal]pi-tú-šú) – [ú-šal-pi-tu(-šú)/ḫul(-šú)] (Source 64) – [ḫul-šú] (Source 65) Št pass. “to be defiled” – uš-tál-pat (Source 55: 3 + var. uš-talpat) (Source 56: 4) – [uš-tá]l-pa-tu (Source 56: 1d D) laputtû “officer” – lúnu-bándameš (Source 35: 50 + var. lú ⌈‹nu›-bánda⌉) larû see aru lašḫu “jaw” – la-áš-ḫi-šú (Source 36: 26) laššu “there is not” see išû lawû/lamû Gtn “to beleaguer” – ⌈lil⌉-tam-mu-u (Source 35: 37b) lemēnu D “to make sth. bad” – ú-lam-man-ma (Source 39: 42 + var. [ú-lam]-ma-am-ma) – ú-lam-me-nu (Source 74: C 18) lemnu “evil/wicked” – lem-ni (Source 39: 43) – lem-nu (Source 39: 35) – lem-nu-ti (Source 32: 21) – [ḫulmeš] (Source 74: C 13) “(portending) evil” – lem-né-ti (Source 38: 25) – ḫulmeš (Source 74: A 1) – ⌈ḫul⌉meš (Source 74: B1 1) lemuttu “evil” (subst.) – le-mut-tu (Source 32: 16) (Source 74: C 14) – [lem-né]-⌈e⌉-ti (Source 33: obv. 5’) – ḫul-ti (Source 35: 69 + var. munus+ḫul) – ḫul-tú (Source 71: IV 9b) – ḫul-tì (Source 74: A 7 + var. munus ḫ[ul], C 17) – [ḫ]ul-tì (Source 49: obv. 12)

583

– munusḫul (Source 48: rev. 6) – ‹munusḫul› (Source 35: 75) leqû “to take” – al-qa-a (Source 47: VI 98) – íl-qá-a (Source 15) – ti-qé (Source 59: 16) – [x x]-eq-⌈qé⌉ (Source 35: 18) lēʾu “wooden tablet/writing board” – [ĝišd]a (Source 49: rev. 5’) libbu “heart/midst” – li-ib-ba-am (Source 19) – ⌈li⌉-ib-⌈ba⌉ (Source 77: 8 + var. li[bba]) – li-ib-bi (Source 17: 10) – lib-bu-uš (Source 74: C 15) – šà (Source 34: D 5, 12) (Source 36: 26, 30) (Source 37: II 14, III 18’) (Source 38: 27) – ⌈šà⌉ (Source 36: 28) – ⌈šà?⌉ (Source 39: 37 Z) – šà-ka (Source 35: 3) – šà-šú (Source 40) (Source 74: D 3, E 1) – š[à]-šú (Source 74: D 2 + var. [š]àba-šú) – šà-ba-šú (Source 72: rev. 3) (Source 74: C 13) – šà-bi (Source 35: 35c F) (Source 46: 44b) – [š]à-bi (Source 37: IV 2’) – [šà-b]i (Source 36: 26) (Source 45: 11) – šà-bi-⌈ia⌉ (Source 35: 20) – šà-bi-ka (Source 35: 6) – šà-bi-šá (Source 34: B 2, 3, 4) – šà-bi-šu (Source 74: A 2 + var. šà-bišú, qer-bi-šú) – šà-bi-šú-nu (Source 49: obv. 12) – ⌈šà-bi⌉-šu-nu (Source 35: 30) – šà-bi-⌈x⌉ (Source 35: 11) ša libbi “that (: the thoughts) of the heart” – šá šà-⌈bi⌉ (Source 35: 35c A) – šá šà-bi-ka-ma (Source 35: 76) ina libbi “with respect to” – ina šà (Source 59: 8)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

584

libbū (loc., here ca.) “consisting in” – [li-ib-b]u-ú (Source 35: 2) līpu in līp-līpi “offspring” – li-ip-li-pi-šú (Source 35: 79) – lúšà-bal-b[al] (Source 49: rev. 6’) littu “progeny” – li-⌈it⌉-ti-šú (Source 35: 80) lū (particle of affirmation) – lu (Source 31: 53) – lu-ú (Source 35: 11 + var. ⌈lu!⌉-[ú], 24, 28 + var. ⌈lu⌉, 54 + var. lu) – lu!-⌈ú⌉ (Source 35: 21) – [lu-ú] (Source 35: 20, 31) ū-lū “or” – [ú⌉-lu (Source 56: 1d, B + var. 𒑲) luʾʾû (D) “to defile” – ú-la-ʾi-i-⌈ma⌉ (Source 35: 71 + var. ⌈ú-le⌉-ʾi-ma) mādu “many” – ma-da-a-tú (Source 38: 25) mâdu “to become numerous” – im-t[i-du] (Source 38: 28) magal “in large numbers” – ma-gal (Source 74: C 17, text 3) magāru “to grant” – [im-gu-ru] (Source 35: 25) maḫāru “to face sth./to accept” – ma-ḫar (Source 74: C 4) – mu-uḫ-ri-i (Source 17: 14) – muḫ-ri (Source 40) – [mu-uḫ]-ri (Source 18) maḫāṣu “to smite/to smash/to wound” – im-ḫaṣ (Source 72: obv. 15’) – ⌈sìg⌉-[ṣu] (Source 36: 25) “to be smitten (with paralysis)” – ma-ḫi-iṣ-ma (Source 75: III 31a) māḫāzu “city/cult centre” – ma-ḫa-zi (Source 36: 13) (Source 39: 37, 42) (Source 57: 5) (Source 74: B1 2) – [ma-ḫa]-zi (Source 33: obv. 9’) – [ma-ḫa-zi] (Source 33: obv. 11’) – ma-ḫa-zi-iš (Source 32: 21) – ma-ḫa-ze-e-šú-nu (Source 47: VI 97) – ma-ḫa-zu (Source 70: A 2 + var. [maḫ]a-zi)

– ma!-ḫa-zu (Source 72: rev. 2) māḫiru “rival” – gaba-ri (Source 68) maḫīru “purchase price” – ma-ḫi-riš (Source 74: A 6, C 12) – [ma-ḫi-riš] (Source 74: B2 8) maḫra “previously” – i-na maḫ-ra (Source 31: 47) maḫru “front” ina maḫar “in the presence of” – ina ma!-ḫar (Source 70: B 1) “former time” – maḫ-ri (Source 35: 76) – maḫ-⌈ri⌉ (Source 35: 40) – maḫ-ri-ia (Source 33: obv. 6’) – maḫ-r[i-ia] (Source 74: B1 1 + var. [ma]ḫ-ri-ia) maḫrû “earlier/former” – maḫ-ri-i (Source 32: 15) (Source 74: A 1 + var. maḫ-re-e) – [ma-a]ḫ-ra-a (Source 77: 1) makāku “to stretch out (the hand)” – i-ma-ak-ka-ku (Source 34: D 7) makkaru “goad” makkarāniš “as with a goad” – ma-ak-ka-ra-niš (Source 35: 63) makkūru “property” – níĝ-ga (Source 48: rev. 6) (Source 49: rev. 5’) (Source 71: IV 5) (Source 74: A 5, E 3) – [níĝ-g]a (Source 49: obv. 7) – [níĝ-ga] (Source 74: B2 7, C 11) – níĝ-gameš-šá (Source 34: B 5) mala “as much/many as” – ma-la (Source 35: 25) (Source 70: A 2, B 5) – m[a-l]a (Source 34: D 10) mala … ū … “as much as … or …” – ma-la … ù … (Source 36: 1) malāku “to give advice”, – lu-[um]-⌈lik⌉ (Source 35: 33b) māliku “counselor” – ma-[lik] (Source 35: 19 + var. [m]a⌈lik⌉) malû G “to become full” – im-lu-ú (Source 32: 21 + var. [i]m-luu)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

D “to fill” – ⌈mul⌉-l[i-i] (Source 35: 12) – si-a-l[i] (Source 34: C 8) D “to fulfil” – si-a-ma (Source 34: C 9, D 11, 2×) mamma(n) “whoever”, negated “nobody” – mam-ma (Source 37: III 3’, 11’b) – ma-am-man (Source 35: 35b + var. ma-am-ma) – ma-am-‹man› (Source 35: 77) – [ma]-am-‹ma› (Source 35: 77 + var. [m]am-ma) mannu “who?” – man-nu (Source 34: D 2) manzāzu “position/place” – ma-an-za-za (Source 35: 15) – ⌈man⌉-za-[zu] (Source 74: B2 3) – man-za-su-nu (Source 74: C 18) “station” (element on the liver) – na (Source 53) maqātu “to fall” – im-qu-tu (Source 37: II 25) – i-ma-aq-qu-⌈tu⌉ (Source 54: 6 + var. i-ma-qu-tu, i-ma-qú-tu-ú, ⌈i-ma-aqqú-tu⌉, i!(ḫé)-mé-qu-[tu]) Gtn “to keep falling (in masses)” – šub-šubmeš-ni (Source 36: 19) Š “to let fall/to fell/to cast” – [ú-šam-q]it (Source 71: IV 5) – šu!-um+qí-it-s[u-nu-tú] (Source 70: B 3) – [šub(-it)] (Source 37: III 19’) maqlû “burning” – ma-aq-la-šu-un (Source 70: B 4) maqqītu “libation” – ma-qa-a-ti (Source 35: 56 + var. maaq-qa-⌈a⌉-[ti]) marāṣu “to become loathsome” – im-ra-ṣa-ma (Source 74: E 4) Š “to sicken” – gig-iṣ (Source 34: D 5) martu “gall bladder” (on the liver) – mar-tim (Source 16: 5) (Source 17: 10) – mar-tum (Source 26: XII 45) – ⌈ma-ra-tum⌉ (Source 27: 1)

585

– zí (Source 61) (Source 63 = 2×) – zímeš (Source 53) mārtu “daughter” – dumu-munus (Source 49: obv. 10) – dumu-munus-šú (Source 36: 14) māru “son/citizen/member” – ma-a-ru (Source 74: C 6) – ma-ri-[ka] (Source 35: 16) – dumu (Source 35: 41, 47 A, 54, 58, 70 + var. dumu(+nita?), mar) (Source 48: rev. 5) (Source 49: obv. 10) (Source 71: IV 4) (Source 72: obv. 13’) – du[mu] (Source 35: 83 S) – [dumu] (Source 36: 36 B) – dumu-šú (Source 35: 72, 75) (Source 71: IV 10) (Source 72: obv. 15’, rev. 3) (Source 73) – [du]mu-šú (Source 72: obv. 11’) – [dumu-šú] (Source 49: rev. 7’) – dumumeš (Source 34: B 4, D 7 = 2×) (Source 77: 10 + var. ⌈lú⌉dumumeš) – ⌈dumu⌉meš (Source 77: 11) – dumumeš-šá (Source 43) mār ekalli “son, member of the palace/courtier” – dumu é-gal (Source 41: B 6) maruštu “grievousness” – ma-ru-uš-ti (Source 74: C 16) qāt marušti “hand of misfortune” – šu níĝ-⌈gig⌉ (Source 51: A) “wickedness” – ma-ru-uš-tú (Source 70: B 1) masiktu “evil” – ma-⌈sik⌉-ta (Source 74: C 1) maṣṣartu (en-nun) “watch” see barārītu and šāt urri “evening-” and “morning watch” mašāʾu “to steal” – im-šu-ʾu (Source 74: B2 7, C 5, C 11) maškanu “place” – ma-aš-ka-an (Source 23: A) (Source 23: B) mašmaššu “exorcist” – ⌈lúmaš-maš⌉ (Source 49: rev. 6’) mašû “to forget” – i-ma-[áš-ši-ma] (Source 35: 60)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

586

mātu “land” – ⌈ma-a⌉-ta (Source 32: 18) – ma-a-ti (Source 32: 21, 22 + var. [ma]-a-tu4) – ma-ti (Source 23: A) – ma-tim (Source 22: C1) – ⌈ma-tim⌉ (Source 22: B1) – ma-tum (Source 21: 14) – ma-sú (Source 13) – ma-ti-šu (Source 12) – kur (Source 33: obv. 5’, 8’) (Source 34: B 1, C 9, D 3, 5, 8 = 2×) (Source 35: 12, 18 = 2×) (Source 36: 1, 13, 19, 32, 34) (Source 38: 24) (Source 39: 39) (Source 41: A 3, 4, B 6) (Source 47: VI 98) (Source 49: obv. 5, 6) (Source 53) (Source 55: 3, 5) (Source 56: 3, 4) (Source 58: 2, 4) (Source 59: 10, 11) (Source 63: E) (Source 65) (Source 70: A 2, B 5) (Source 71: IV 6, 7, 8 = 2×, 10, 12) (Source 72: rev. 2) (Source 74: A 1, A 6, A 7, C 12, C 14, C 15, E 3) (Source 75: II 18’, 19’) (Source 76: obv. 7) – ⌈kur⌉ (Source 74: B2 8) (Source 76: obv. 3) – kur (-[su]) (Source 64) – ⌈kur-ka⌉ (Source 35: 81) – kur-šu (Source 76: obv. 8) – kur-šú (Source 35: 68) – ‹kur-šú› (Source 35: 80) – [kur-šú] (Source 71: IV 2) – [kur] (Source 33: obv. 7’, 11’) (Source 37: IV 8’ = I 1) (Source 38: 25) (Source 56: 1d D) (Source 71: IV 1) (Source 72: rev. 1) – kur-kur (Source 35: 12, 24, 45, 55, 70 + var. kur!-kur) (Source 49: obv. 4, rev. 10’) – kur-ku[r] (Source 74: C 14) – kur-kurmeš (Source 34: A 1, 2, C 13, D 14) – k[ur-kurmeš] (Source 34: B 13) – [kur-kurme]š (Source 34: C 8) – [kur]meš (Source 34: C 3) – kalam (Source 34: C 14, D 15)

– [kalam] (Source 34: B 14) mātu elītu u šaplītu “the upper and lower lands” – kur e-li-tì u ša[p]-li-tì (Source 35: 13 + var. [kur e-li-t]i ⌈ù⌉ šap-⌈li⌉-ti) – kur e-li-tu4 u [š]ap-li-ti (Source 35: 28 + var. [kur e-l]i-t[ú u ša]p-⌈li!-tì⌉) mâtu “to die” – im-‹tu-ut› (Source 35: 73) – i-mu-tu (Source 28: B) – [i-mu-tu] (Source 28: A, 53) – i-mu-tu-ú (Source 28: C) – ba-úš (Source 30 + var. i-mu-[tu], úš-tu4) – úš (Source 56: 4) – [ú]š-ut (Source 75: III 31a) – úš-m[a!] (Source 50) – [úš] (Source 50) – úšmeš (Source 34: D 10) mayyālu “bed” bītāt mayyāli “bed chambers” – é-ĝišnámeš (Source 37: III 17’) mēsu “mēsu-tree” (see pp. 116f. and 382f.) – ĝišmes (Source 35: 36 + var. me-[esi]) mêšu “to despise” – i-me-šá (Source 74: A 3 + var. [e-meš]á) – ⌈i⌉-[me-šá] (Source 74: B2 1) – [i-me-šá] (Source 74: C 8) migru “favourite” – mi-gir (Source 70: B 7) miḫirtu “counterpart”, prep. “opposite to” – mi-iḫ-rat (Source 35: 60 + var. ⌈miḫrat⌉, mi-iḫ-ret) miḫru (pl. miḫrētu) “weir” – mi-iḫ-ri (Source 30) – mi-iḫ-ret (Source 35: 69) milku “advice/counsel/wits” – mi-lik-šá (Source 32: 22) – mil-ki (Source 35: 33b + var. mil⌈ka⌉) – ⌈mil-ki-šú⌉ (Source 35: 35b + var. ⌈mil-ki-šu⌉)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

mimma “whatever” – mim-ma (Source 54: 2) – [mi]m-ma (Source 49: obv. 1) minītu “number/proportion” – [mi]-na-a-⌈tú⌉ (Source 72: obv. 10’) – [mi-na]-⌈a-tú⌉ (Source 72: obv. 14’) miqittu “fall/defeat” – šub (Source 55: 1b + var. [šub-t]i, ⌈šub⌉-tì) – šub-tì (Source 56: 2 + var. [šu]b-⌈ti⌉) miqitti išāti “fall of fire” = “stroke of lightning” – šub-ti izi (Source 36: 17, 18) – šub-tì izi (Source 36: 22) mīšaru “justice” – mi-šá-ri (Source 32: 19) mitḫāriš “jointly” – mit-ḫa-riš (Source 74: C 19) mitḫartu “universe” – mit-ḫar-ti (Source 74: C 17 + var. mit-ḫar-tì) mītu “dead” – mi-tú (Source 36: 28) mû “water” – me-e (Source 35: 53 + var. ameš) – ameš (Source 34: B 10) (Source 36: 27) (Source 37: II 15) (Source 72: obv. 10’, 14’) (Source 74: E 5) awīl mê “water-man” – lú ameš (Source 36: 2) muḫḫu “skull” – ugu-ḫa-šú (Source 72: obv. 15’) “top” in ana/ina muḫḫi ana muḫḫi: “for/with regard to” – a-na ugu (Source 70: A 7) – a-n[a ugu] (Source 38: 23) ina muḫḫi “upon/with regard to” – ina ugu-⌈ḫi⌉ (Source 37: III 18’) mukīl-rēš-lemutti “mukīl-rēš-lemuttidemon” (“Supporter-of-Evil”) – saĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za (Source 36: 18, 31, 33) (Source 39: 43) – saĝ-ḫul-ḫ[a-zameš] (Source 38: 29) – dsaĝ-ḫul-ḫa-za (Source 37: III 17’) – [dsaĝ-ḫul-ḫ]a-⌈za(!)⌉ (?) (Source 37: I 23)

587

In the Underworld Vision of an Assyrian Prince (Livingstone 1989, p. 71, no. 32, rev. 5), the mukīl-rēš-lemutti is described as flying about with spread wings and having the head of a bird, human hands and feet. mummu see Ea mummu “Creator Ea” murašû “wildcat” – sa-a-ri (Source 36: 21) muṣlālu “noon” – an-bar7 (Source 75: III 30) muškēnu “poor” in mār muškēni – dumumeš maš-ka15meš (Source 34: D 7) muštālu “judicious” – ‹muš-ta-lu4› (Source 35: 78) muštarḫu “proud” – mu-⌈uš-tar⌉-ḫi (Source 35: 17) mūšu “night” – ĝi6 (Source 37: II 14) (Source 59: 17) ina šāt mūši “in the dead of night” – i-na šat m[u]-ši (Source 35: 14 + var. i-na šá-a[t mu-ši]) mūtānū (pl.) “casualties/plague” – úšmeš (Source 75: II 19’) naʾādu “to pay attention” – ⌈it⌉-ta-id-ma (Source 35: 57) nabalkutu (N) “to overthrow/revolt against” – i-ba-al-ki-ti-šu (Source 12) – i-ba-al-ki-tù-šu (Source 13) – ib-bal-ki-tu (Source 31: 48) – balameš-ma (Source 71: IV 8) – balameš-šú (Source 56: 3) – balameš-šu-ma (Source 71: IV 10) – [ib-bal-ki-tu-šú/bala-šú] (Source 64) “to fall (upon)” – bala-ma (Source 30) Š “to overturn” – balam[eš] (Source 38: 30) nabû “to call by name/to appoint” – i-nam-bu-ú (Source 35: 79) – i[m-b]i (Source 35: 60) – ⌈im-bu-ú⌉ (Source 45: 10) – im-‹bu-ú› (Source 35: 80)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

588

nadānu “to give” – ad-di-nu(-)k[úm?] (Source 35: 4) – id-din (Source 35: 53 = 2×) – ‹id-din› (Source 35: 80) – id-din-ši (Source 35: 55 B) – id-din-šú (Source 35: 58 + var. id-dinš[u]m) – id-din-šum-ma (Source 35: 45 + var. ad-din-šum-ma) – id-di-in!-ma (Source 35: 70 + var. [i]d-din-šum-[ma]) – id-di-nu (Source 37: II 28) (Source 74: E 3) – [id-di-nu] (Source 35: 34b) – it-ta-din (Source 35: 63, 68 + var. iddin) – sum-in (Source 56: 1c + var. [nad]in) (Source 59: 8) – sum-šu (Source 34: C 11) Št lex. “to give advice” – lu-uš-ta-ad-di[n] (Source 35: 33b F) nadû “to set up/to throw/to reject” – ad-di (Source 34: B 2) – id-di-m[a] (Source 71: IV 2) – id-du-ši (Source 32: 18 + var. id-dušá) – [i-da-a-ma/šub-ma] (Source 35: 39) – šub (Source 57: 2) – šub-e (Source 36: 34) – šub-di-ma (Source 37: III 19’) stat. “to be located” – na-di (Source 28: C) – šub-di (Source 18) – šub-di-ma (Source 51: A) Gtn – šub-šub-di (Source 36: 6) nagbu “totality/all” – na-gab-šú-nu (Source 33: obv. 9’) naḫāsu “to go back/to return” – aḫ-ḫi-sa (Source 34: D 2) – aḫ-ḫi-s[a] (Source 34: B 12) – [aḫ-ḫi-s]a (Source 34: C 12) nâḫu D “to quiet” – nu-uḫ-ḫi (Source 46: 44b) nakādu “to palpitate/to fear” – lik-ku-du (Source 70: B 6)

nakāpu “to gore/to butt” – it-ta-k[ip] (Source 72: rev. 3) – nak-pa (Source 59: 4) nakāru “to change/to turn hostile” – ik-ki-ru (Source 35: 61 + var. ik-kiru-šu-ma, ik-ki-ru-šú-ma, ik-KÌR-šuma) – ik-ki-ru-šú-ma (Source 44: obv. 23) – it-te-k[i]r? (Source 37: I 12) – na-kir (Source 37: III 4’b) – na-kir-ma (Source 37: III 7’) “to deny a statement or agreement” – ik-kìr-šu-ma (Source 35: 61 + var. ikkir6-šu-ma, ik-k[ir-šu-ma]) Gtn “to take an ill turn jointly” – it-ta-nak-ki-ra (Source 74: C 19) D “to alter/take away” – u-nak-k[ir-(ma)] (Source 49: obv. 14) – ut-te-kìr (Source 35: 50 S) nakāsu “to cut (off), D “to slaughter” – ú-n[ak-ki]s-ma (Source 37: II 2) naklu “ingenious” – nak-la (Source 35: 35b) nakru “hostile” – nak-ru-tu4 (Source 35: 36 + var. nakru-tu) nakru “enemy” – lúkúr-rum (Source 17: 11) – lúkúr-am (Source 17: 12) naksu “severed” – nak-su (Source 36: 2) – tar-su (Source 38: 29) nâlu “to lie down” – ni-lat (Source 45: 7) namāru D “to let sth. shine” – z[álag-ir] (Source 34: C 2) nammaššû “creatures”, here “people” (see chapter 11.3, B) – nam-maš-še-e (Source 35: 12, 62) – nam-maš-⌈še-e⌉ (Source 35: 42) – [nam-m]aš-⌈še⌉-e (Source 35: 18) namtaru “namtaru-demon” – nam-ta-ru (Source 32: 21 + var. nam-tar) namû (/nawû) “desert/environs” – na-mu-u8-i[š] (Source 32: 24 + var. ⌈na⌉-mu-iš)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– na-me-e-šú (Source 56: 1d) namû (/nawû) D “to turn sth. into a desert/into ruins” – ú-nam-ma (Source 39: 42 + var. únam!-me) – ú-nam-mì (Source 32: 24) namûtu “desolation” namûta alāku “to become desolate” – na-mu-ta (Source 74: D 4 + var. [n]amu-tu) naparkû (N) “to cease” – ip-pa-ar-ku-ú (Source 77: 7) naparkâ (adv.) negated in lā naparkâ “without cease” – la na-par-ka-a (Source 74: C 5) naparqudu (N) “to lie flat” – na-pár-qud (Source 30 + var. [nap]ár!-qud!) napištu “life/living being” – nap-šá-a-ti (Source 32: 20) – zimeš-šú (Source 35: 74 + var. na-pišt[i-šú]) – ⌈zimeš⌉-šú (Source 35: 74 F) – zim[eš-šú] (Source 49: rev. 8’) naplusu (N) “to look/to see” – ip-pa-lis-ma (Source 74: C 13) – ip-pa-lis-si-ma (Source 35: 54 + var. ip-‹pa›ḫe-pi-lis-[si-ma] – ip-pa-lis-su-ma (Source 35: 58 + var. ip-pal-l[i-s]u-ma) – ip-pal-su-šu-ma (Source 35: 27a) – igi-bar-ma (Source 54: 2) naplastu “view” (element on the liver) – igi-bar (Source 20: 10) – [igi-bar] (Source 25) naptanu “meal (offering)” – nap-tan (Source 35: 49 + var. bur) (Source 36: 31) naptan līlāti “evening meal” – ⌈kin⌉-sig (Source 77: 16) naptan šēri “morning meal” – kin-nim (Source 77: 16) naqābu here “to pierce” – n[aq-ba-t]u (Source 45: 7) naqāru “to tear down/to destroy” – aq-qur (Source 31: 50)

589

– iq-⌈qur⌉ (Source 71: IV 4) Š (elative) “to destroy completely” – šu-uq-qur (Source 56: 1d) naqû “to offer” – ⌈aq⌉-qí-⌈šim⌉-ma (Source 35: 10) – iq-qi (Source 37: III 9’) – iq-‹qi› (Source 37: III 11’a) – iq-⌈qu⌉ (Source 37: II 4) – [iq]-qu-ú (Source 37: II 3) narkabtu “chariot” – ĝišgigir-su (Source 37: II 17) nāru “river” – íd (Source 30) (Source 35: 69) (Source 37: II 10, 21) narû “stele” – na4-rú-a (Source 49: obv. 16) nasāḫu “to tear out” – as-su-ḫa-am-ma (Source 46: 47) – is-suḫ-ma (Source 44: obv. 18) – is-su-⌈uḫ⌉-ma (Source 35: 60 + var. isuḫ-ma, [is-s]uḫ-ma) – is-su-ḫu-ma (Source 45: 9) “to pass/to elapse (said of time)” – na-sa-ḫu (Source 35: 51 + var. ⌈nasa⌉-ḫi) – is-suḫ (Source 59: 17) “to depart / to regress” astron., or bêšu/nesû/rêqu? – PAD-ra-ma (Source 57: 2 + var. PADr[á-ma]) N “to be uprooted” – in-na-si-iḫ-ma (Source 74: E 7) – zimeš (Source 58: 3 + var. zimeš-ma) nasāqu “to be choice/excellent” – [n]a-⌈ás-qá⌉-at (?) (Source 35: 8) nasīkātu (pl.) “far-away lands” – [n]a7-si-[k]a-[ti] (Source 39: 37 + var. na-si-k[a-ti], [na-si-ka]-tú!) nasqu “choice/excellent” – na-as-qí (Source 35: 5) naṣāru “to guard” – na-ṣir (Source 32: 20) našāku D “to bite (many people)” – ú-na-šá-ku (Source 34: D 9) – ú-n[a-š]á-ku (Source 34: D 10)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

590

našû “to lift/to elevate/to carry/to bring/to bear” – ⌈i⌉-[na]-⌈áš⌉-šu-ú (Source 35: 79) – it-ta-ši (Source 36: 8) – [it-ta]-ši (Source 33: obv. 3’) – ta-na-⌈áš⌉-ši (Source 35: 16) – liš-šu-ú (Source 35: 59 + var. l[i-iššu-ú]) – ílmeš (Source 34: D 14) – ⌈íl⌉meš (Source 34: C 13) – íl[meš] (Source 34: B 13) našû “raised” našâ rēši “with raised head/exalted” – na-šá-a re-e-ši (Source 35: 24) naṭālu N “to be seen, found” – in-na-ṭal (Source 74: E 7) naṭû “to hit” – it-ta-ṭi (Source 35: 63) nawāru see namāru nazāru “to curse/to condemn” – it-ta-za-ar (Source 59: 11) nēberu “crossing” – né-bé-ri (Source 37: III 7’) nēḫu “calm/peaceful” – né-‹eḫ-ti› (Source 35: 81) nekelmû (N) “to frown (at someone)” – ik-kel-me-šú-ma (Source 49: obv. 18) – igi-⌈dúl⌉-šú-ma (Source 48: rev. 7) neqelpû (N) “to float (down a river)” – iq-qé-lep-pu-ma (Source 37: II 10) nēpeštu “treatment” – dù-tú (Source 48: rev. 7) nesû “to depart / to regress” – is-si-ma (Source 32: 16 + var. is-se-e[ma]) astron., or bêšu/nasāḫu/rêqu? – PAD-ra-ma (Source 57: 2 + var. PADr[á-ma]) nêšakku “nêšakku-priest” – lú!nu-èš (Source 70: A 1 + var. lúnéšak-ku) nēšu “lion” – ur-maḫ (Source 36: 11) (Source 37: I 17, III 11’b) – [ur-maḫ] (Source 37: II 22) – ur-ameš (Source 34: D 9)

nikpu “goring (of an ox)” – ni-kip (Source 35: 73) (Source 50) nimru “panther” – nim-ru (Source 37: II 9) nindabû “(food) offering” – nidbameš (Source 34: D 4) nīqu /niqû “sacrifice” – ni-qa-a (Source 35: 10) – siskur (Source 37: III 9’) – ⌈siskur⌉ (Source 37: III 11’a) – siskurmeš (Source 37: II 3, 5) – udu-sískur (Source 35: 72 + var. niiq) – udu-sískur-ka (Source 35: 32 + var. ni-qí-ka) nīru “yoke” (element on the liver) – ni-ri (Source 40) Nīru “yoke-star” – mulšudun (Source 54: 1 + var. mul5 šudun) nisiqtu “choice” – ni-siq-ti (Source 74: A 6) – n[i-siq-ti] (Source 74: B2 8) – [ni-siq-ti] (Source 74: C 12) niṣirtu “secret” – [n]i-ṣir-ti (Source 49: obv. 14) nišku “bite” – ni-šik (Source 35: 73) (Source 50) – ni-ši-ik (Source 28: B) – [ni-š]i-ik (Source 28: C) – n[i-ši-ik] (Source 28: A, 53) nišū “people” – ni-ši (Source 32: 20) – ùĝḫi-a (Source 34: D 5, 9) – ùĝmeš (Source 33: obv. 8’) (Source 35: 13) (Source 46: 45, 46) (Source 55: 1c) (Source 74: A 2, C 14) – {ùĝmeš} (Source 54: 5) – [ù]ĝ‹meš› (Source 74: B1 2) – ùĝmeš-šá (Source 74: A 7, C 15) – ùĝmeš-⌈šá⌉ (Source 32: 18) – [ùĝ]meš-šá (Source 34: B 5) – ùĝmeš-šú (Source 35: 63) (Source 59: 13) (Source 74: E 2) – ‹ùĝmeš-šú› (Source 54: 6 E) – ùĝme-šú (Source 44: obv. 21) – [ùĝmeš] (Source 45: 11)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

nuḫar (the temple on top of a ziqqurrat, here at Babylon) – nu-ḫar (Source 37: III 19’) nukurtu “hostility” – nu-kur-ti (Source 33: obv. 7’) – nu-kúr-ti (Source 49: obv. 6) nūnu “fish” – nu-na (Source 35: 50 A, 67 + var. n[u-n]u) – nu-nu (Source 35: 52b) – ⌈nu-nu⌉ (Source 35: 52b) – ⌈nu?-nu?⌉ (Source 35: 52a A) – nu-un (Source 35: 66) – ku6 (Source 77: 5, 12 + var. nu-[únu], 15 + var. [nu]-ú-nu) – ⌈ku6⌉ (Source 77: 6) – ku6meš (Source 35: 49, 51 + var. ⌈nu⌉na, 53) nūn tāmarti “fish offering” – ku6meš ta-mar-tu4 (Source 35: 65 + var. nu-nu t[a-mar-ti]) – ku6 ta-mar?-[ti] (Source 35: 47) – nu-⌈nu⌉ [ta]-mar-ti + var. [ku6 tamar-ti] (Source 77: 3) nûʾu “brute” – [nu]-⌈ʾa⌉ (Source 39: 35 + var. nu-ʾaa) padānu “path” (element on the liver) – pa-da-an (Source 28: C) – [pa-da-ni]m (Source 28: C) – ĝíri (Source 53) (Source 62) – [ĝíri] (Source 50) pādû in lā pādû “relentless” – [la p]a-du-u (Source 32: 21) pagru “(living) body/trunk” – pag-r[u] (Source 36: 25 + var. [pa]gru) – adda-šú (Source 48: rev. 7) “corpse” (see also šalamtu) – pa-gar-šú (Source 35: 69 + var. addašú, šá-lam-ta-šú) – adda (Source 36: 21) paḫāru (I) “potter” – lúbáḫar! (dug!-silà!-bur!) (Source 70: B 3)

591

paḫāru (II) “to gather/unite” – ip-ḫu-r[u-šu]m?/[-ni]m (Source 21: 14) palāḫu “to fear/to respect/to revere” – pa-la-ḫa (Source 35: 64 + var. pa-laḫu) – [pa]-laḫ (Source 49: obv. 15) – pa-liḫ (Source 35: 83 S) – ta-pa-làḫ (Source 76: obv. 5) palāsu see naplusu (N) palāšu “to pierce” – ip-lu-uš-ma (Source 28: B) – [ip-lu-uš-ma] (Source 28: A, 51) palḫiš “timidly” – [pal-ḫiš] (Source 35: 29) palû “reign/dynasty” – pa-le-e (Source 32: 15) – pa-li (Source 23: B) – bala (Source 54: 3) (Source 55: 5) (Source 59: 15 + var. bala!) – [bal]a (Source 33: obv. 6’) – bala (+ var. bala-e) (Source 35: 48) (Source 74: A 1) – bala-e (Source 38: 24) (Source 74: B1 1) – bala-ku (Source 35: 2) – bala-šú (Source 33: obv. 2’) (Source 59: 13) – ⌈bala-šú⌉ (Source 35: 41 + var. [p]ala-šú) – bala-[šú] (Source 33: obv. 13’) – [b]ala-e-šú (Source 49: obv. 16) pānu “front” – igi (Source 54: 2) ina pān “in front of” – [(ina) ig]i (Source 45: 10) pāna “before” – pa-na (Source 37: IV 1’) “earlier time” in: ālik pāni “predecessor” – a!(za)-lik pa-ni (Source 35: 76) šar pāni “a former king” – lugal pa-na (Source 33: obv. 6’) – lugal pa-[ni] (Source 77: 1)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

592

pl. “face” – pa-n[i-šú] (Source 38: 24) – igi-šú (Source 54: 1 + var. [igim]eš-šú) papāḫu “cella” – pa-pa-ḫi (Source 36: 18) (Source 37: III 16’) paqādu “to take care of something” – ip-qid (Source 37: II 5) stat. “to be put in charge” – [pa-qí-id-ma] (Source 35: 47) parādu “to become frightened” – ip-ri-du-ma (Source 74: D 5, E 6) parakku “dais/throne/shrine” – bára (Source 35: 21, 22 + var. [parak]-ka, 59 + var. ⌈bára⌉meš) (Source 37: II 23) – bárameš (Source 57: 4) (Source 58: 3) – bára-šú!-n[u] (Source 72: rev. 2) parāku “to block” – gib-ik (Source 34: D 8) parāru D “to be scattered”, here “to be diffuse” – [pur]-ru-úr (Source 64) parāsu “to cut off” – tar-us (Source 34: D 4) – tarmeš (Source 34: D 9) parṣū (pl.) “rites/cultic duties” – par-ṣi (Source 35: 64) – par-ṣi-šú (Source 35: 45 + var. ⌈parṣi-ia⌉, 71 + var. [par]-ṣi-šu) – par-ṣi-ši-na (Source 74: A 4) – par-[ṣi-ši-na] (Source 74: B2 2) – [par-ṣi-ši]-na (Source 74: C 8) – [ĝar]za (Source 49: obv. 13) parzillu “iron” – an-bar (Source 71: IV 2) pašāru here “to sell off” – ip-šu-ru (Source 74: A 6, C 12) – [ip-šu-ru] (Source 74: B2 8) – búrmeš (Source 55: 1c + var. búrme) pašīšu “pašīšu-priest” – lúpa-ši-ši (Source 70: B 5) – lúpa-ši-š[i!(meš)] (Source 70: A 1 + var. lú pa-ši-šú) paššūru “(laid) table”, here “meal” – ĝišbanšur (Source 37: II 3)

patālu “to twine” – [pa-at-la] (Source 27: 1) patru “dagger” – ĝíri an-bar (Source 72: rev. 3) pāṭu “border” – pa-aṭ (Source 35: 21 + var. ⌈paṭ⌉) – paṭ (Source 35: 65 + var. [p]a-aṭ!(ṣi), pa-a[ṭ]) peḫû “to block” – badmeš-a (Source 34: D 5) peṣû “white” – babbar (Source 36: 16 = 2×) petû “to open” D stat. “to be wide open” – pu-ut-ta-ti (Source 52 + var. badme[š(-at)]) pīḫātu “district” – nam (Source 37: I 14) pillû “pillû-plant” – [ĝ]išnam-tar (Source 36: 30) pirku “quarrel” – gib (Source 34: D 8) pīru “elephant” – am-si (Source 36: 23) pitiltu “palm-fiber” – ⌈pi-ti-il-tim⌉ (Source 27: 1) pitruštu “ambiguous sign/omen” – du8-ušmeš-te (Source 65) piṭru “fissure/split” – du8meš (Source 61) pû “mouth/command” – pi-i-šu (+ var. pi-i-šú) (Source 35: 36) (Source 74: C 16) – pi-i-š[ú] (Source 37: III 9’) – ka (Source 56: 5) – k[a] (Source 59: 14) puḫādu “lamb” – sila4meš (Source 37: II 2) purussû “decision” – eš-bar (Source 35: 33a) (Source 56: 1c) (Source 59: 8) – e[š-b]ar (Source 34: D 1) – eš-bar-šú (Source 59: 17) pūtu “forehead” – saĝ-ki (Source 36: 3)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

qablītu “middle (watch)”, short for maṣṣartu qablītu – múru (Source 57: 1) qablu “battle” – qá-⌈ab-la⌉ (Source 18) – qá-a[b-lam] (Source 17: 14) – múru (Source 40) qablu “waist/loin” – múru-šú (Source 72: rev. 3) – [murub4meš] (Source 34: C 6) “midst”, in ina qabal “within” – ina múru (Source 37: II 15) qablû “middle (adj.)” – múru (Source 19) qabû “to speak/to command” – iq-ba-a (Source 35: 33a S + var. iqqa-ba-a = N) – [iq]-ba-a (Source 74: C 1) – iq-b[i] (Source 35: 56 + var. i[q!-bi]) – iq-bi-⌈ma⌉ (Source 32: 18) – iq-bi-šum-ma (Source 35: 73 + var. qa-bi-šu[m-ma]) – iq-bu-ú (Source 70: A 7) (Source 74: E 4) – iq-bu-šu (Source 35: 61 + var. i[q-buš]ú) – [i]q-bu-šu (Source 35: 60) – iq-bu-šú (Source 35: 25) (Source 59: 12) – lu-uq-bi-kú[m] (Source 35: 9) – ⌈qí-bi⌉-ma (Source 35: 1) – taq-ba-a (Source 35: 32 + var. taq-buú) – du11-ga (Source 34: B 1, D 2, 3, 14) (Source 58: 4 + var. du11-bi) – [du11-ga]-šum-ma (Source 50) “to answer” – liq-bu-ni (Source 70: B 7) N “to be said/told” – iq-qa-ba-a (Source 35: 33a A + var. iq-ba-a = G) qâlu “to heed” – ⌈ta⌉-qul-ma (Source 35: 5) qalû “to burn” – iq-lu (Source 72: rev. 3) D “to roast” – qu-liš-šú-nu-ti (Source 70: B 3)

593

qamû D “to burn (sth.)” – qu-mi-šú-nu-ti (Source 70: B 2) qaqqadu “head/top” – qá-qá-ad (Source 26: XII 46, 48) – saĝ-du (Source 36: 2, 9) – [saĝ-d]u (Source 38: 29) – saĝ-dumeš-šú (Source 36: 8) See also ṣalmāt qaqqadi “black-headed humanity”. qarnu “horn” – qar-nu (Source 36: 32) – si (Source 36: 3) – simeš-šú (Source 36: 4) (Source 59: 4) (qaštu “bow”; there is no *qašat qabli “bow of battle” in the omens of KuBaʾu, see the comm. on Source 40) qâšu “to give as a present” – níĝ-ba-su (Source 34: C 10) – níĝ-ba[-su-ma] (Source 34: C 3) qatāru Š “to let (smoke) billow” – šuq-tir (Source 70: B 4) qātu “hand” – qa-ti-ka (Source 35: 82) – qá-ti-šú (Source 35: 67 + var. qa-ti[šú], šu-šú) – šu-su (Source 35: 69) – šumi[n-ĝ]u10 (Source 35: 12) – šumin-ia (Source 49: obv. 1) – šumin-ka (Source 35: 7) – šumin-šú (Source 72: obv. 11’, 15’) – šumin-su-nu (Source 34: D 7) (Source 74: A 5 + var. šu-s[u-nu], E 3) – šumin-s[u-nu] (Source 74: B2 7) – [šu]min-su-nu (Source 74: C 11) – [šu]min (Source 71: IV 10) – [šu(-ĝu10)] (Source 34: B 6) ina qāti kullu “to keep in mind” – šu-ka (Source 56: 1b) (Source 59: 7) “handwriting” – qa-át (Source 49: rev. 7’) qāt marušti “hand of misfortune” – šu níĝ-⌈gig⌉ (Source 51: A) qatû “to cease” – i-qat-ta (Source 35: 38 + var. ⌈i-qatta?⌉) – qá-ti (Source 55: 5 + var. ⌈til⌉)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

594

qebru “buried” – ⌈qé⌉-eb-⌈ru⌉-ti-ma (Source 35: 41) qerbētu (pl.) “environs/pastures” – qer-bé-te (Source 39: 40) qerbu “midst” – qé-reb (Source 32: 21) (Source 36: 19, 32) (Source 49: obv. 8) (Source 74: B2 8, C 4) – ⌈qé-reb⌉ (Source 35: 13) – [qé-re]b (Source 74: C 12) – qer-bi-šú (Source 74: A 2 + var. šà-bišu, šà-bi-šú) – ⌈qer-bi-šu⌉ (Source 35: 72 A) – qer-b[i-šú-nu] (Source 74: B1 2) qerēbu Gt/D stat. “to be (very) near” – qit-ru-ub (Source 59: 5 + var. qurr[u-ub], 10 + var. [qur-ru-ub], 14 + var. qur-ru-ub) – [qit-ru-ub] (Source 59: 9 + var. qurru-ub) – qur-r[u-bu] (Source 74: B2 5) D “to bring near” – [ú]-qar-ri-bu (Source 71: IV 4) qibītu “word/order” – ⌈qí⌉-bi-ti-⌈šú⌉ (Source 35: 68 + var. [q]í-bi-⌈ti⌉-šu) – [qí-bit-su] (Source 35: 25) qutru “smoke” – qu-tur-šú-un (Source 70: B 4) raʾābu “to become furious” – i-ru-um-ma (Source 74: D 1 + var. iru-um-ma!(šu)) rabābu “to relent” – [ir-b]u-ub (Source 37: IV 7’) rabāṣu “to lie down/to couch” – ná-ma (Source 37: I 17, II 6) – ⌈ná-ma⌉ (Source 37: III 2’) rābiṣu “(lurking) demon” – ⌈maškim⌉meš (Source 35: 37b) “guardian” – ⌈ra-bi⌉-[ṣu] (Source 32: 19) rabîš (terminative adv.) “greatly” – ra-biš (Source 48: rev. 5) rabû (I) “to become great” – rab-ba-aʾ (Source 49: obv. 18)

D “to raise (a child)” – tú-ra-bi-i-⌈ni!⌉ (Source 76: obv. 4) Š stat. “to be extremely great” – šur-bu-u (Source 33: obv. 4’) rabû (II) “to disappear”, rabû Šamši “sunset” – šú-e d[utu(-ši)] (Source 75: III 31a) rab(b)û “big/great/large” – ra-⌈ba⌉-a (Source 33: obv. 10’) – ra-bu-um (Source 16: 4) – ra-bi-tu4 (Source 49: obv. 19) – rab-ba-a-tu4 (Source 72: rev. 1) – [ra-a]b-bu-ti (?) (Source 37: IV 6’) – gal (Source 34: B 8) (Source 74: D 1 + var. [gal]-ú) – ⌈gal⌉ (Source 35: 66 + var. gal-i) – gal-i (Source 35: 49 S) (Source 74: E 3) – gal-ú (Source 34: A 1, D 1) (Source 35: 54 A, 78) (Source 44: obv. 20) (Source 71: IV 5) (Source 74: E 1) – ⌈gal⌉-ti (Source 35: 29) – gal!-tú (Source 70: B 1) – galmeš (Source 31: 49) (Source 35: 27a, 29, 72) (Source 58: 3 A, 6 A) “magnate” – lúgalmeš (Source 71: IV 8, 10) See also aḫu-rabû “high priest” (lit.: “big brother”). raggiš “with evil intent” – ⌈ra?⌉-a[g-giš] (Source 70: A 6) raḫāṣu “to devastate”, inchoative N stem in figura etymologica: riḫiṣti Adad irraḫḫiṣ “a devastation by Adad will occur” – ra-ti diškur ra (Source 55: 1b) rakābu “to ride/to embark on” – ra-ki-ib (Source 16: 5) – ir-ka-ba (Source 74: A 4, C 8) – ir!(ni)-k[a-ba] (Source 74: B2 2) rakāsu “to gird” – kešda-s[u] (Source 34: C 6) ramānu “(one)self” – ra-man-ka (Source 35: 81) – ra-⌈ma⌉-a[n-k]a (Source 35: 7)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

raqqatu “meadow” Raqqat Katuna “Meadow of (the goddess) Katuna” – sal-la ‹d›ká-tùn-na (Source 45: 9) rasābu “to slay/to cut down” – i-ra-si-ib (Source 34: D 6) rašû “to get/to have” – ir-ši (Source 32: 17) (Source 74: D 2, E 1) – ir-⌈ta⌉-ši (Source 38: 23) – [ra]š (Source 32: 20) Š “to commit (a sin)” – šur-šu-ú (Source 74: C 9) – [šur-šu-ú] (Source 74: B2 4) (râbu “to tremble”, see the comment on i-ru-um-ma = *irūbma instead of *irʾub in Source 74: D 1) rebītu “(city) square” – re-bi-ti (Source 39: 40) – re-bit (Source 39: 41) – sila-daĝal (Source 34: B 8) redû “to lead/to take control” – i-re-di (Source 22: A) – i-re-du-ú (Source 22: B1) – i-re-ed-d[u-ú] (Source 22: C1) Š “to let (water) flow” – [ú-šar-da-a] (Source 72: obv. 11’, 15’) rēmu “mercy” – ⌈re!-e!-mu!⌉ (Source 76: obv. 12) rêmu “to have mercy/to forgive” – ar-te-an-ki (Source 76: obv. 6, 9) rêqu “to depart/to regress” astron., or bêšu/nasāḫu/nesû? – PAD-ra-ma (Source 57: 2 + var. PADr[á-ma]) rēštu “beginning/first part” – ré?-še-tu (Source 35: 47 S) rēštû “first/foremost” – reš-tu-ú (Source 35: 47 A) rēšu “head/top” – re-eš (Source 28: C) – re-e-ši (Source 35: 24) – re-ši-ka (Source 35: 16) – re-ši-šú (Source 35: 30 + var. ⌈re⌉-šišu) – saĝ (Source 51: A)

595

“servant” – re-e-šu (Source 74: C 7) reʾû (Gtn) “to tend (sheep)” – li-ir-te-ʾ[e] (Source 35: 23) rigmu “cry/roar/noise” – gù-šá (Source 36: 6) – gù-šú (Source 37: III 19’) (Source 57: 2) riḫiṣtu “devastation” – ra-ti (Source 55: 1b) rikiltu “conspiracy” – ri-kil-tú (Source 74: C 10) – ri-[kil-tú] (Source 74: B2 6) rubû “prince” – ru-bé-e (Source 35: 54, 58 + var. nun) (Source 39: 36 + var. nunmeš) – ru-bu-‹ú› (Source 35: 78) – ru-[bu-ú] (Source 35: 17) ruqqu “copper pot” – ⌈urudušen⌉ (Source 36: 22) rūqu “distant” – ru-qu-ti (Source 35: 7) – ru-qu-tu (Source 35: 16) – ru-q[u-t]i (Source 35: 32 + var. [ruq]u-⌈ti⌉) – ⌈ru⌉-qú-tì (Source 77: 7 + var. s[udmeš]) rūʾu “friend” – ru-u8-a (Source 34: D 6) – ru-u8-a-šú (Source 34: D 6) sābītu “alewife” – [sa-bé]-⌈e⌉-ti (Source 18) – munus-kurun-na (Source 40) – munus-⌈kurun-na⌉ (Source 35: 52a + var. ⌈munus?sa⌉-bit) – munus-ku[ru]n-nam (Source 35: 55 S) – [mu]n[us-k]úrun-na (Source 43) sadāru stative “to be constant/ to keep to something” – sad-rat (Source 32: 16) – sad-ru (Source 36: 29) saḫāpu “to cover” – sà-aḫ-pa-at (Source 19) saḫaršuppû “leprosy” – [saḫar-šub-ba]-a (Source 49: obv. 19)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

596

saḫāru G stative “to be encircled” – saḫ-rat (Source 42) – saḫ-rat-ma (Source 61) D “to turn (one’s attention) to (someone)” – ú-sa-ḫi-ru (Source 35: 34b A) sakāpu “to overthrow/to set aside” – is-ki-pu (Source 16: 6) – is-ki[p] (Source 35: 41) – [is-ki-ip] (Source 33: obv. 13’) – [sa-kap] (Source 38: 24) salāmu “to become reconciled” – a-si-⌈lim!⌉ (Source 76: obv. 2) – sal-ma (Source 34: B 7) salīmu “peace” salīma rašû “to become reconciled” – sa-lim (Source 38: 23) sâmu “to become red” – sa5-ma (Source 59: 5) sapāḫu “to scatter” – sa-paḫ (Source 74: C 14) – sa-paḫ-šin (Source 74: E 4) – bir-aḫ-‹šá› (Source 59: 10) N “to be scattered” – birmeš (Source 59: 13) sapḫu “scattered” – bir-tu4 (Source 59: 10 + var. bir!(ḫi)tu4) sapannu “flatlands”, ina sapanni šadî ca. “in the midst of the mountains” – ina sa-pan-ni kur-i (Source 36: 7) sapānu “to smite / to cast down” – ⌈is⌉-p[u-un] (Source 33: obv. 8’) – sa-pan (Source 74: A 7, C 15) sapsāpu “moustache” – tùn-bar (Source 36: 4) sarāqu “to scatter (incense)” – is-ruq (Source 37: II 5) – is-ruq-ma (Source 37: II 5) – i[s-r]u[q-(ma)] (Source 37: II 2) sâru “to whirl” – i-sur!-ru (Source 70: A 6 + var. i-s[urru]) sarru/ṣarru see ṣarrātu sekēru “to dam (a river)” – se-ker (Source 30 + var. se-ker6!)

semeru “ring”, here “manacle” – ḫar (Source 71: IV 2) simtu “thing that is befitting”, negated in ša lā simāt “unbefitting” – šá la si-mat (Source 49: obv. 14) sinništu “woman” – munus (Source 36: 4) – [munus] (Source 36: 23, 24) sippu “sill” (of the bāb ekalli) – sí-⌈ip⌉-pi (Source 28: A, 51) – [sí-ip-p]i (Source 28: B) sisītu (/urītu) “mare” – munusanše-kur-ra (Source 36: 3) sissinnu “date spadix” – sis-sin-na (Source 36: 9) sittu “rest” – si-it-ti (Source 47: VI 97) suḫurrāʾu (?) “encirclement” – SÚ-ḫu-ra-im (Source 12) su(p)pû “prayer” – su-pe-e-šá (Source 35: 11) sūqu “street” – su-ú-qi (Source 74: C 6) surrātu (pl.) “lies/falsehood” – sur-ra-a-ti (Source 32: 18) (Source 74: A 2) – sur-ra-at (Source 49: obv. 16) suššu (an obscure constructive element of gates) – su-uš-šú (Source 37: IV 3’, 5’) – su-uš-ši (Source 37: II 24) – [su-uš-š]i (Source 37: I 25) ṣabāru “to prattle” – i-ṣab-bu-ru (Source 70: A 6) ṣabātu “to seize/to (under)take” – aṣ-bat-ma (Source 35: 11) – iṣ-ba-tu (Source 19) – iṣ-bat-ma (Source 37: III 8’) – dab (Source 34: D 2) – ⌈dab⌉-ma (Source 34: B 6) – [iṣ-bat-ma] (Source 33: obv. 12’) Š “to let someone take something” – ú-šá!(za)-aṣ-bit (Source 71: IV 6) ṣābū (pl.) “troops” (see also ummānu) – érinmeš (Source 34: C 6) (Source 37: II 23, 27) – érin-šú (Source 54: 6 C)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

ṣâḫu “to laugh” – i-ṣi-iḫ (Source 36: 2) – [iṣ-ṣi-iḫ] (Source 38: 29) ṣalālu “to sleep” – ṣa-la-la (Source 44: obv. 23) – ṣa-la-lu (Source 35: 61 + var. ṣa-la-la) ṣalmāt qaqqadi “black-headed humanity” (see chapter 11.3, C) – ṣal-mat qaq-qa-du (Source 35: 23) ṣalmu “figure/appearance” – alan (Source 34: B 9, 11) ṣâlu/ṣêlu “to fight” – tá-ṣí-íl-šu (Source 15) ṣamādu “to tie/to connect” Gtn “to connect firmly” – lámeš-da (Source 34: B 5) ṣarāḫu G “(to get into) heat” – ṣa-ra-aḫ (Source 74: D 3) N “to flare up with anger” – iṣ-ṣa-ri-iḫ (Source 74: C 13) ṣarrātu “lies/falsehood” (pl. fem. of sarru/ṣarru “false”) – ṣar-ra-a-tu4 (Source 70: A 3 + var. [ṣa]r-⌈ra-a-ta⌉) ṣeḫēru “to become small” – iṣ-ḫir-ma (Source 32: 22) ṣeḫēru D “to diminish (sth.)” – turmeš (Source 34: D 8) ṣēnu “wicked” – ṣe-e-nu (Source 32: 23) ṣēnu “flock of sheep” – ṣe-e-nu (Source 35: 23) ṣēru “steppe” – edin (Source 38: 27) (Source 39: 41) – edin-ma (Source 39: 41) “plain (place)”, here an element of the lungs observed in extispicy – edin (Source 43) ṣerru “snake” – ṣe-ri-im (Source 26: XII 46) ṣīru “august/lofty” – ṣi-i-ri (Source 35: 21, 78) – ⌈ṣi⌉-[i]-ri (Source 35: 12 + var. ṣi-⌈i⌉[ru-t]ú) – ṣir-tú (Source 35: 14) – ⌈ṣir⌉-ti (Source 35: 68 + var. ṣir-te) – ṣi-ru-ti (Source 33: obv. 9’)

597

– [ṣi-ru-tú] (Source 35: 24) ṣītu “rising”, pl. ṣâtu in ūmū ṣâti “(those distant) days when (humanity) had risen (from the earth)”, mirrored into the future as “distant days, (for) evermore” – ana (/ a-na) u4meš (/ u4-me, u4-mu) ṣa-a-ti (Source 35: 31) ṣīt Šamši “sunrise” – ṣi-it dutu-ši (Source 35: 22, 61) (Source 44: obv. 22) – è dutu-ši (Source 34: A 2) ṣuḫurrāʾu “diminution” – ṣú-ḫu-ra-im (Source 12) ša (/šu/ši, fem. šāt) “he of/who” (determinative pronoun) – si (Source 12) – sá (Source 14) (Source 15) – ša (Source 16: 6) (Source 17: 13) (Source 19) (Source 20: 11) (Source 21: 14) (Source 22: A, B1, C2) (Source 24: B) (Source 25) (Source 26: XIII 3) (Source 34: A 2) (Source 36: 1) (Source 37: III 9’) (Source 41: A 3) (Source 45: 9) (Source 74: C 5) (Source 76: obv. 7) (Source 77: 1 + var. šá) – šá (Source 29: B, C) (Source 30) (Source 31: 47) (Source 35: 5) (Source 36: 23) (Source 37: I 14) (Source 38: 24, 25) (Source 40) (Source 43) (Source 44: obv. 18) (Source 45: 8) (Source 48: rev. 5) (Source 49: obv. 5) (Source 50) (Source 51: A) (Source 52) (Source 59: 6) (Source 60) (Source 63) (Source 64) (Source 65) (Source 68) (Source 70: A 2) (Source 71: IV 9b) (Source 72: obv. 9’) (Source 75: II 18’) – ⌈šà⌉ (Source 54: 4 + var. šá) – šat (Source 35: 14 + var. šá-a[t]) – šu-ut (Source 74: C 18) (Source 75: III 29) – [šu-ut] (Source 74: C 18 = 2×) “against” – šá (Source 70: B 1)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

598

ša and šá passim See also šāt urri “morning watch”. šaʾālu “to ask/to inspect” – áš-al (Source 34: B 1) See also muštālu (ptc. Gt) “judicious”. šadādu “to pull/to take along” – liš-[du-ud] (Source 35: 22) – ⌈taš-du⌉-ud (Source 35: 3) šadû (I) “mountain” – šá-di-i (Source 39: 39) – kur-i (Source 36: 7) – kurmeš-ni (Source 34: A 1) in the sense of “origin” – kur-i-šu (Source 36: 28) šadû (II) “east (wind)” – im-kur-ra (Source 59: 2) šagāšu “to slaughter” – šag-ga-šu (Source 74: C 2) šaḫâpu “marsh boar” – šaḫ-ĝišgi (Source 36: 11) šaḫāt/ṭu “to fear” – liš-ḫu-ṭu (Source 70: B 6) šaḫluqtu “annihilation/disaster” – ša-aḫ-lu-uq-ti (Source 55: 4 + var. [š]aḫ-lu-uq-tu4) – ša-aḫ-/-lu-uq-ti (Source 26: XIII 3–4) – ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tí (Source 11) – ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tim (Source 20: 11) (Source 22: B1) – ša-⌈aḫ-lu⌉-[u]q-t[im] (Source 22: A) – ša-aḫ-lu-uq-[ti]m (Source 25) – ša-aḫ-lu-u[q-tim] (Source 22: C2) – ša-aḫ-lu-uq-tum (Source 24 + var. šaaḫ-⌈lu⌉-uq-tim) – nam-gilim-ma (Source 54: 3) – níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma (Source 52) (Source 56: 1c + var. ⌈ša⌉-aḫ-⌈lu-uq⌉-[ti], 5) (Source 60) (Source 62) (Source 29: B + var. níĝ-ḫa-lam-ma!(ki)) – [níĝ-ḫ]a-lam-m[a] (Source 67) šaḫû “pig” – šaḫ (Source 36: 15) šakānu “to put/to place/to set up” – iš-kun (Source 37: IV 6’) (Source 71: IV 7) (Source 72: rev. 2) – [iš-kun-ma] (Source 71: IV 1) – iš-ku-un (Source 14)

– iš-⌈ku⌉-nu (Source 33: obv. 7’) – [i]š-tak-kan (Source 35: 71) – [il-ta-kan] (Source 38: 24) – šá-ka-n[i] (Source 35: 6) – ša-ki-in (Source 17: 10) – šá-kin (Source 36: 23, 32) – ša-ki-im-ma (Source 16: 4) – šak-na-at (Source 36: 26) – šak-nu (Source 70: A 7) – šu-kun (Source 70: B 4) – taš-⌈ku⌉-un (Source 35: 4) – [ĝar] (Source 41: A 1) – ĝar-át (Source 36: 4) – ĝar-ma (Source 41: B 5) – ĝar-na (Source 65) – ĝar-nu (Source 54: 1) – ĝar-un-[ma] (Source 34: C 7) – ĝar-[šu] (Source 35: 61 A) – ĝarmeš (Source 53) (Source 62) – ĝar[meš] (Source 75: II 19’) Š “to cause to be in place” – ul-⌈taš+kin⌉ (Source 35: 7) N “to be established/to occur” – i-sá-kín (Source 13) – iš-šá-kin (Source 74: C 16) – [i]š-šá-kin-ma (Source 74: C 2) – iš-šak-ki-nu (Source 39: 40) – iš-ša-ak-nu-ma (Source 28: A, 53) – iš-ša-ak-nu-šum (Source 28: B) – ‹liš-šá-kin› (Source 35: 82) – ĝar (Source 56: 1a + var. ĝar-ma, 2, 3, 4, 5) – ĝar-ma (Source 59: 1) – (ĝar) (Source 55: 1a) parallel to bašû N – ĝar-an (Source 54: 3 + var. ĝar, ĝálš[i]) šaknu “governor” – lúšak-nu-ti-šú (Source 71: IV 6) šalālu “to plunder/to carry off as spoils” – [iš-t]a-lal (Source 32: 24) – iš-lul (Source 72: obv. 14’) – ⌈iš⌉-lul (Source 72: obv. 10’) – iš-lu[l] (Source 72: rev. 1) – iš-lu-lu (Source 49: obv. 6, var. iš-lul, see the commentary)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– iš-l[u-la] (Source 33: obv. 11’) – [iš-lu-lu]-ma (Source 45: 9) šalamtu “corpse” – šal-mat (Source 40 + var. adda) – ša-la-am-tum (Source 17: 13) – ša-lam-tum (Source 18) – šá-lam-ta-šú (Source 35: 69 + var. adda-šú, pa-gar-šú) – addameš (Source 34: D 5) šalamtaš (*šalamtiš) with emû “to become (like) a corpse” – [šá-lam-ta-áš] (Source 35: 44) See also pagru. šalāmu “to be safe and sound” – liš-lim (Source 49: obv. 1) “to be favourable” – [silim-át] (Source 65 = 2×) D “to keep safe and sound” – šul-lu-me (Source 35: 7) – šul-lu-mu (Source 35: 81) šalḫû “outer city wall” – šal-ḫu-ú (Source 37: II 19) šalimtu “justness, safety” – šá-lim-tu (Source 74: E 2) – šal-lim-te (Source 76: obv. 10) šallatu “booty” (see also šillatu II) – [šal-lat-sún] (Source 33: obv. 11’) šalmu “favourable/in good order” – šal-ma-a-tu4 (Source 70: A 4 + var. šal-ma-tú) – [silim-ti] (Source 65 = 2×) kī šalmi “as if everything was all right” (see pp. 438ff.) – ki-i šal-me (Source 37: II 4) šalputtu “destruction” – šal-pú-ti (Source 74: C 18) šamāṭu stative “to be rubbed off” – šá-miṭ-ma (Source 40) šamšu “sun” see Šamaš “sun-god”, ṣīt Š. “sunrise”, ereb/rabû Š. “sunset” šamû/šamāwū “heaven/sky” – an-e (Source 35: 16, 37b, 46 + var. šá-ma-mi) (Source 36: 19) (Source 37: II 14) (Source 54: 2) (Source 59: 4) – ⌈an-e⌉ (Source 35: 30) – a[n]-e (Source 34: D 4)

599

– ša-ma-míš (Source 74: E 6) – šá-ma-míš (Source 74: D 5) elât šamê “zenith of heaven” – e-lat an-e (Source 35: 26 + var. elat!(man) ⌈an-e⌉) išid šamê “base of heaven” – i-šid an-e (Source 35: 26) šiṭir(ti) šamāwī “celestial writing” – ši-ṭir šá-ma-mi (Source 35: 46 + var. [ši-ṭir]-⌈ti⌉ an-e, 74 + var. [ši-ṭir a]n⌈e⌉) šupuk šamê “base of heaven” – [šu-puk an-e] (Source 32: 19) šamû u erṣetu “heaven and earth” – an-e u ki-tì (Source 35: 17, 19, 21, 29, 30 + var. an-e ⌈ù ki⌉-[t]ì, 34a + var. an-e ù ki-tì, 39, 77) (Source 74: C 17) – an-e ⌈u⌉ ki-tì (Source 35: 31 + var. A with ki-tì only) – [a]n-e u ki-tì (Source 35: 58 S) – [an]-e ù ki-t[ì] (Source 35: 39) – [an-]⌈e⌉ ki (Source 74: C 19) – an ⌈u? ki?⌉ (Source 35: 26 + var. ⌈an⌉[e u ki-tì]) šanû “to change/to turn strange or mad” – iš-na-a (Source 32: 15) – iš-ni (Source 32: 18: 22) šanû D “to repeat/to tell again” – ⌈lu⌉-[šá]-an-[na-ak-ku] (Source 35: 40 + var. lu-uš-šá-ni-k[a]) šanû/šanītu “other < second” see sub “Ordinal Numbers” šapāku “to heap up” – aš-pu-uk (Source 31: 53) N “to be heaped up” – dub (Source 56: 1d) šapālu “to become low” – i-šap-pi-lu (Source 57: 4) šapāru “to send/to write” – áš-pur-⌈kúm⌉-ma (Source 35: 3) – [il-tap-ra] (Source 38: 25) – [kin-šu] (Source 34: B 10) šaplānu “below”, here “inwardly” – šap-la-nu (Source 70: A 5 + var. ina ša[p-l]a-nu)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

600

šapliš “below” – ki-ta (Source 59: 2) šaplû “lower” – šap-li-i (Source 37: II 24) – ša[p]-li-tì (Source 35: 13 + var. šap⌈li⌉-ti) – [š]ap-li-ti (Source 35: 28 + var. [ša]p⌈li!-tì⌉) – ki-ta-i (Source 37: I 25, II 15) šaptu “lip” – šap-tú (Source 36: 26) šaqû “to become exalted” – šá-⌈qat⌉ (Source 35: 20) šaqû “lofty” – šá-qu-tu (Source 57: 4) šāqû “cupbearer” – lúšu-du8-a-šú (Source 35: 56) šarāḫu Gt see muštarḫu šarāku “to give as a present”, here “to hand over” – [i]-šar-ra-[k]u (Source 74: C 3) šarru “king” – lugal (Source 33: obv. 2’) (Source 35: 42, 48, 79, 80) (Source 37: I 16, II 5, III 5’, 6’b, 8’, 10’, 13’b, 19’, IV 4’, 5’) (Source 41: A 4, B 7) (Source 49: obv. 2, 3, 10, 18) (Source 50) (Source 51: A) (Source 54: 4) (Source 56: 2, 3, 4 + var. 20) (Source 59: 12) (Source 60) (Source 75: III 28, 30) (Source 76: obv. 3) – ⌈lugal⌉ (Source 35: 1, 50) (Source 37: II 1, III 15’b) (Source 62) – ⌈lugal?!⌉ (Source 27: 2) – l[ugal] (Source 35: 1) – [lugal] (Source 34: B 6, C 1) (Source 71: IV 1) (Source 72: rev. 1) – lugalmeš (Source 49: obv. 5) iššebu = 3.20 = 200 – 200 (Source 36: 1) (Source 55: 5 = 2×) With attributes, human kings: šarru dannu “strong king” – lugal dan-nu (Source 70: B 7) šar ḫammāʾī/ḫammê “rebel king” – šar ḫa-am-me-e (Source 22: B2) – lugalmeš í[m-g]i (Source 34: D 8)

šar kiššati “king of All” (or “despotic king”, see pp. 44f.) – lugal ki-ša-ti (Source 23: A) – lugal ki-šár-ra (Source 56: 1c) šar mātāti “king of (all) the lands” – lugal kur-kur (Source 49: rev. 10’) šarru maḫrû “former king” – šar-ri maḫ-ri-i (Source 32: 15 + var. with š[ar?-ri], lugal) – lugal maḫ-ri-i (Source 74: A 1 + var. lugal maḫ-re-e) šar maḫri “king of a former time” – lugal maḫ-ri (Source 35: 76) – lugal maḫ-⌈ri⌉ (Source 35: 40) šar maḫrīya “a king who preceded me” – lugal maḫ-r[i-ia] (Source 74: B1 1 + var. [lugal ma]ḫ-ri-ia) šar pāni maḫrû “a former king of old” – lugal pa-[ni ma-a]ḫ-ra-a (Source 77: 1) šar pāni maḫrīya “a former king who preceded me” – lugal pa-na maḫ-ri-ia (Source 33: obv. 6’) Marduk, king of the gods: šar kiššat šamê u erṣeti “king of all heaven and earth” – lugal kiš-š[at an]-e ù ki-t[ì] (Source 35: 39) – lugal ki[š-šat a]n-e u ki-tì (Source 35: 58 S) šar ilānī ša kiššat šamê u erṣeti “king of the gods of all heaven and earth” – lugal diĝirmeš šá kiš-šat an-e u ki-tì (Source 35: 17 + var. ⌈lugal diĝirmeš šá diĝirmeš⌉, [šar]-ri šá di[ĝirmeš]) šarrūtu “kingship” – ša-ar-ru-ta-am (Source 19) – lugal-us-su (Source 35: 63 + var. [lugal]-ut-su, [lugal-ut-s]u!) – ⌈lugal-su?⌉ (Source 35: 38) – [lugal-t]ú (Source 49: rev. 3’) – lugal-ut (Source 35: 68 + var. [l]ugal-ú-tu, [ša]r-ru-ut) – [l]ugal-ú-tú (Source 49: rev. 4’) – ‹lugal-ut› (Source 35: 80)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

šarrūt kibrāt arbaʾi “kingship over the four regions”, variant: šarrūt kiššati “kingship over the world” – lugal-ú-ut kib-ra-a-tu4 ar-ba-ʾi (var. lugal-ut k[ib-ra-a]t a[r-ba]-ʾi, [lugalut kib]-rat ar-ba-ʾi, [lugal-ú]-tu kibrat ar-ba-ʾi) (Source 35: 58 A–B, E–F; Sargon of Akkade) šarrūt kiššati “kingship over the world”, variant: šarrūt kibrāt arbaʾi “kingship over the four regions” – šar-[ru-ut kiš-šat] (Source 35: 58 S; Sargon of Akkade) šarrūt kiššat mātāti “kingship over all the lands” – ⌈lugal⌉-tu (var. ⌈lugal⌉-ut) kiš-šat kur-kur (Source 35: 45; Gilgameš) – ⌈lugal-ut⌉ (var. lugal-ú-u[t]) ⌈kiš⌉-šat kur-kur (Source 35: 55; Ku-Baʾu) – [l]ugal-ú-tu kiš-šat kur-kur (Source 35: 70 + var. lugal-ut kiš-šat kur!kur, šar-ru-u[t kiš-š]at! kur-[kur]; Šulgi) šāru “wind” – im (Source 54: 2) – immeš (Source 34: B 10) šārū erbettu “the four winds” – im-límmu-ba (Source 52) šassūru “womb / birth-goddess” – ⌈ša⌉-surmeš (Source 34: B 7) šatammu “temple administrator” – šà-tam (Source 37: II 7) šatpu “(clay) pit” – šat-pi-šú (Source 35: 60 + var. šat-pii-šu) šattišam “annually” – ⌈šat⌉-ti-šam (Source 35: 35a + var. mu-šam) šattu “year” – mu (Source 49: obv. 2) (Source 49: rev. 4’) – mume (Source 37: III 14’b) – mumeš (Source 37: II 16) (Source 58: 5) (Source 71: IV 7, 12) – m[umeš] (Source 34: D 13) – mumeš-šú (Source 35: 47 S) – mu-an-nameš (Source 34: B 3)

601

– mu-an-na[meš] (Source 49: rev. 3’) – [m]u–1-kam (Source 34: C 5) – mu-1-kammeš-ĝu10 (Source 34: D 11) with ordinal numbers: – mu-7-kam (Source 37: II 12, 14, III 4’b) – mu-8-kam (Source 37: III 6’b) (Source 75: III 28) – mu-11-kam (Source 37: II 15) – mu-13-kam (Source 37: II 16) – mu-14-kam (Source 37: II 16, 26) – mu-15-kam (Source 37: II 16, 18) – [m]u-15 (Source 75: II 18’) – mu-16-kam (Source 37: III 11’b) – mu-17-kam (Source 37: II 19) – mu-⌈17/18⌉-[kam] (Source 37: II 20b) – mu-19-kam (Source 37: III 10’) – mu-20-kam (Source 37: III 13’b) – mu-⌈25⌉-kam (Source 37: III 15’b) – mu-26-kam (Source 37: III 19’) – mu-60+šu–1-kam (Source 49: rev. 10’) šāt urri “morning watch” – en-nun u4-zal-le (Source 56: 1b) (Source 59: 3) šaṭāru “to write” – iš-ṭur-ma (Source 49: obv. 17) – iš-ṭur-[ma] (Source 49: obv. 15) – sar-ma (Source 49: rev. 5’) – [sar-ma] (Source 49: rev. 8’) šebû “to become sated” – lu-uš-bu (Source 49: obv. 1) šēdu “(protective) genie” – [še-ed] (Source 32: 20) šegû N “to go mad” – [idimmeš]-ma (Source 34: D 9) šēlebu “fox” – ka5-a (Source 36: 15) šemû “to hear/to listen” – áš-me-e-ma (Source 70: A 1) – áš-te-nem-mu-ú (Source 35: 40) – ta-[aš]-⌈me⌉-e-ma (Source 35: 4) – i-šem-[me] (Source 74: C 7) – iš-me-e-ma (Source 35: 44 + var. [i]šme-ma)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

602

– [i]š-me-šú-ma (Source 35: 39 + var. ⌈iš⌉-me-⌈šu⌉-ma) – i[š-mu-ú-ma] (Source 35: 25) – [iš-me-m]a (Source 35: 14) šēnu “sandal” – še-ni-im (Source 28: B) – še20-e-nim (Source 28: C) – [še-ni-im] (Source 28: A, 53) – [še-nu-um] (Source 28: A, 52) (Source 28: B) – še-ni-šú (Source 35: 73 + var. kuš e:[si]r-šú) – kuše-sír (Source 50) šēpu “foot” – [še]-pi-im (Source 28: B) – [še-pi-im] (Source 28: A, 52) šerru “infant” – šèr-ri-ši-na (Source 55: 1c) šērtu “punishment” – še-ret-su (Source 49: obv. 19) šešgallu see aḫu-rabû “high priest” šêṭu “to despise” – i-še-ṭu (Source 31: 48) šeʾu “barley (/grain)” – še (Source 56: 1d) šeʾû (Gtn) “to seek (intensively)” – áš-te-ʾe-e (Source 35: 8) – iš-te-ʾe-e-ma (Source 48: rev. 6) – téš-te-né-ʾe-e (Source 35: 5) šillatu (I) “blasphemy” – šil-latmeš (Source 49: obv. 16) šillatu (II < *šallatu) “booty” (mixed up with šillatu I “blasphemy”, see the comm. on Source 48, rev. 7) – šil-lat (Source 48: rev. 7) (Source 49: obv. 7) (Source 71: IV 5) (Source 72: rev. 1) – [šil-lat] (Source 72: obv. 10’, 14’) šīlu “hole” – ši-li-im (Source 17: 10) – ši-lum (Source 28: B) (Source 28: C) – [ši-lum] (Source 28: A, 51) – bùru (Source 45: 7) (Source 51: A) šīmtu “destiny/lot” – ši-ma-tu-šú (Source 49: obv. 18) – nammeš (Source 34: D 1)

ṭuppi šīmāti “tablet of destinies” – [dub] nammeš (Source 34: C 10) šinnu “tooth” – šin-na (Source 36: 26) šīru “(ominous) meat (of the sacrificial animal)” – uzu (Source 37: III 18’) “omen” – uzu (Source 45: 8) šittu see sittu šitūltu “consultation” – ši-tul-ti (Source 35: 3) šiṭru/šiṭirtu “writing” šiṭir(ti) šamāwī “celestial writing”, see the discussion on p. 128 and the commentary on l. 46 of Source 35 – ši-ṭir šá-ma-mi (Source 35: 46 + var. [ši-ṭir]-⌈ti⌉ an-e, 74 + var. [ši-ṭir a]n⌈e⌉) šiṭir šumi “(royal) inscription” – ⌈ši-ṭir⌉ šu-mi (Source 77: 1 + var. [ši]ṭi-ir4 [š]u-⌈um⌉) šū/šī “he/she” (anaphoric pronoun) – šá-a-šú (Source 35: 34a + var. šá-ašu, 37a, 39 + var. ⌈šá-šu⌉) – šá-a-tu (Source 31: 50) – ši-i (Source 26: XIII 2) (Source 35: 54) – šu-ú (Source 35: 35c + var. šu-⌈ma?⌉, 60) (Source 76: obv. 8) – ⌈šu⌉-[ú] (Source 35: 42) – šu-a-⌈ti⌉ (Source 35: 66 + var. [šu]⌈a⌉-tu4) – šu-⌈a-tu⌉ (Source 35: 9) – šú-a-ti (Source 46: 47) šūma “the same” = “ditto” – min-ma (Source 61) šubtu “dwelling” – šu-bat (Source 33: obv. 10’) (Source 39: 35) (Source 39: 36 + var. šubat!(bi), 43) (Source 74: E 7) – šub-ti (Source 35: 81) – [šu]b-ti-šú (Source 71: IV 6) – [ki-tuš] (Source 34: C 1) šuglû see galû Š

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

šuḫ(ar)ruru (Š) “to lay waste” – ú-šaḫ-ra-ru (Source 39: 40) – [u]š-ḫar-ri-ri (Source 37: IV 8’ = I 1) šuklulu (Š) “to perform in perfection” – šuk-lu-lu (Source 35: 64) – šu-[uk-lu-lu] (Source 35: 45 + var. ⌈šu?-uk-x-x⌉) – ú-šak-lil (Source 35: 71) “to complete” – ú-šak-li[l] (Source 49: obv. 8) šukudakku “(temple) fisherman”, see the commentary on Source 35, line 48 and p. 168 – šu-ku6 (Source 30 + var. lúšu-ku6) – šu-ku6-da-ku (Source 35: 65 + var. [šu]-ku6-dak-ka) – ⌈šu⌉-ku6-da-ku (Source 35: 50) – lúšu-ku6-dak-ka (Source 35: 53 + var. [š]u-ku6-da-ku) – lúšu-ku6-⌈dak-ka⌉ (Source 35: 69 + var. šu-ku6-da-ku, šu-ku-⌈dak-ku⌉) – lúšu-ku6-dak (Source 35: 48 + var. šuku6-da-ku) – lúšu-k[u6]-⌈dak⌉ (Source 35: 51 + var. ⌈šu⌉-ku6-da-ku) – lúšu-ku6-da-⌈ku?⌉ (Source 77: 9 + var. l ú [ ]⌈šu-ku6-da⌉-ku) – lúšu-ku6-⌈da⌉-[ku] (Source 77: 11 + var. šu-k[u6-d]a-ku) šulmu “peace/well-being” – šul-me (Source 32: 19) – šul-mu (Source 35: 32 + var. ⌈šu-xx⌉) – silim!-mu (Source 76: obv. 10) šulmu “well-being” (a groove on the lobus quadratus of the liver) – šu-ul-mi-im (Source 23: B) – šu-⌈ul⌉-mi-im (Source 23: A) – silim (Source 53) šulputu “defiled” – ḫul-tu4 (Source 55: 3) (Source 56: 4) – [ḫul(-tú)] (Source 56: 1d D) šuluḫḫū (pl.) “purification rites” – [šu-l]uḫ-ḫa (Source 49: obv. 17) – šu-luḫ-ḫi-šu (Source 35: 71 + var. šu-[luḫ]-ḫi-šú)

603

šumēlu “left side” – šu-me-el (Source 28: A, 51) – [šu-me-lam] (Source 28: B) – gùbu (Source 30) – gùbu-šá (Source 36: 3) – 150 (Source 30) – 150-šá (Source 45: 7) šumma “if” – šum-ma (Source 19) (Source 23: A, B) (Source 26: XII 45) – be (Source 20: 10) (Source 30) (Source 40) (Source 41: A 1, B 5) (Source 42) (Source 43) (Source 45: 7) (Source 51: A) (Source 52) (Source 53) (Source 60) (Source 61) (Source 62) (Source 63) (Source 66) (Source 67) (Source 68) – [be] (Source 25) (Source 50) (Source 65) (Source 69) – diš (Source 16: 4) (Source 17: 10) (Source 21: 13) (Source 22: B1, B2, C1, C2) (Source 24) (Source 54: 1) (Source 55: 1a, 2–5 = 5×) (Source 56: 1a, 2–5 = 5×) (Source 57: 1) (Source 58: 1) (Source 59: 1) – ⌈diš⌉ (Source 27: 1) – [diš] (Source 18) (Source 28: B) (Source 28: C) (Source 64) – maš (Source 22: A) (Source 28: A, 51) šumu “name” – šu-mi (Source 77: 1 + var. [š]u-⌈um⌉) – šu-ma-an-[šú] (Source 35: 24 + var. [š]u-⌈me⌉-[šu]) – [šu]-mi-ki (Source 35: 12) – mu-šú (Source 35: 60, 80) – mu-⌈šú⌉ (Source 45: 10) “meaning” – šu-um-šu (Source 22: A) – šum-šu (Source 22: B1, B2) – mu-šú (Source 43: A) (Source 63: A) – mu-ni (Source 61: A) šupêlu (/ šupellu) “to alter” – šu-pel-li (Source 35: 56 + var. šu-peel-lu) – uš-pe-⌈él⌉ (Source 35: 57 + var. ušp[el])

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

604

– [u]š-pel-ma (Source 35: 72 + var. uš⌈(te?)-pe?⌉-el-ma) šupku in šupuk šamê “base of heaven” – [šu-puk an-e] (Source 32: 19) šurinnu “emblem” – šu-nir (Source 59: 4) šurrû (D) “to begin” – sar-ma (Source 56: 1a + var. [s]ar(!)ma) (Source 56: 1b) (Source 59: 3, 5) “to start (an action against someone)”, here “to oppose” – ú-šar-ri (Source 35: 35b) šuršudu (Š) adjective and stative “sturdily founded” – šur-šu-da (Source 31: 46b) – [šur-šu-da] (Source 35: 31) šutebrû (Št) see berû Št šuttatu “pit” – [š]u-ut-ta-tu4 (Source 37: II 25) šuttu “dream” – máš-ĝi6 (Source 35: 33a + var. ⌈máš⌉-ĝi6-ia) šūtu “south wind” – im-u18-lu (Source 56: 1a, 1b + var. im-1) – im-1 (Source 59: 2) tābalu “dry land” – ta-ba-li (Source 37: II 11) tabālu “to take away (its light)” > “to disappear”(astronomically) – it-bal (Source 59: 4) – tùm (Source 59: 6) See also (w)abālu Gt. tāḫāzu “battle” – [ta]-ḫa-za-šú (Source 32: 23) taḫsistu “reminder” – ⌈ĝeštug?-tu⌉ (Source 35: 9) tālu “young date palm” – ĝišĝišimmar-du13-du13 (Source 36: 9) tāmartu “sight/presentation” – ta-mar-ti (Source 46: 46) nūn tāmarti “fish offering” – ta-mar-tu4 (Source 35: 65) – ta-mar?-[ti] (Source 35: 47) – [ta]-mar-ti (Source 77: 3) “appearance (in the skies)” – [igi-lá-šú] (Source 64)

tâmtu “sea” – tam-tì (Source 35: 65 + var. [tam]tu4) (Source 48: rev. 5) māt tâmti “Sealand” – kur tam-t[ì] (Source 75: II 18’) – kur a-ab-ba (Source 38: 24) tanittu “praise” – ta-nit-ti (Source 46: 45) tarku “dark” – ta-ri-ik (Source 28: C) tarṣu in ana/ina tarṣi “in the time of” – ana tar-ṣi (Source 71: IV 12) – [ana tar-ṣi] (Source 71: IV 1, 3) – ina tar-ṣi (Source 36: 1) târu “to return/to turn (into)” – i-ta-ar (Source 35: 38 + var. i-ta-ri) – i-[t]u-ra-am-ma (Source 71: IV 3) – i-tur-ru (Source 58: 6 + var. gurmeš) – [i]t-tu-ru-ni (Source 37: II 26) – ⌈gur-ma⌉ (Source 37: II 14) – gurmeš (Source 75: II 19’) D “to restore” – gur (Source 35: 83 S) Dt “to be given back in turn”, with tuktû “vengeance”: “to be avenged” – ut-tar-ru (Source 58: 5) tassuḫtu “decrease (of cattle)” – ta-as-su-uḫ-tu4 (Source 56: 3 + var. [ta-as-su-u]ḫ-tu) tazzimtu “desire” – ta-⌈zi⌉-im-te (Source 35: 64 + var. [t]a-⌈az-zi-im⌉-tu4, [ta-z]i-im-tu4) tebû “to rise” – i-te-eb-bu-ú-ma (Source 17: 12) – ti-bé-e (Source 17: 13) – zi-ma (Source 40) (Source 58: 2) – [z]i (Source 18) tēdištu “renewal” – te-diš-⌈ti⌉ (Source 35: 35a + var. tedir-tu4) tēkītu “unjust act” – te-ki-tu (Source 33: obv. 5’) temennu “foundation” – te-me-en-šú (Source 35: 31 + var. teme-en-⌈šu⌉) (Source 74: E 7)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

tērtu “omen” – te-er-tum (Source 26: XIII 2) “extispicy” – [uzuur5-úš] (Source 65) tiʾāmtu see tâmtu tību “onslaught” – ti-bu-šú (Source 32: 23) tibûtu “rising” – ti-b[u]-ut (Source 22: B2) tillātu (pl.) “auxiliary troops” – illatmeš-šú (Source 56: 3) tillu “heap (of ruins)” – ti-li (Source 14) (Source 35: 38 + var. du6) – du6 (Source 46: 47) tinūru “oven” – ti-nu-ri (Source 36: 17) tīrānū “intestinal convolutions” – šà-niĝin (Source 66) – [šà-niĝin] (Source 69) tittu “fig-tree” – ĝišpèš (Source 36: 30) tuktû “vengeance” – tuk-tu-ú (Source 58: 5) tukultu “trust/confidence” – ĝištukul-ti (Source 31: 49) tuqsiqqû (/lamḫuššû) “divine-dress” – túg-sig5 (Source 36: 21) ṭaʾtu “bribe” – ṭa-aʾ-tú (Source 74: E 3) ṭabāḫu D “to slaughter” – ú-ṭa-bi-⌈iḫ⌉-šú (Source 72: obv. 11’) ṭābtu “salt” – munu (Source 36: 20) ṭâbu “to be pleasing” – du10 (Source 34: C 1) Š(D) “to take pleasure in sth.” – du10-ma (Source 34: B 8) – [du10-ma] (Source 34: C 1) ṭābu “good”, here “favourable” – [du10-gameš] (Source 34: B 10) ṭaḫdu “abundant” – ṭa-aḫ-da (Source 34: C 3) ṭarādu “to drive away” – iṭ-⌈ru⌉-da (Source 33: obv. 2’)

605

ṭeḫû “to come near” “to approach (with sexual intent)” – te (Source 36: 14 = 4×, 15 = 3×) G stative and Dt “to be offered” – ṭè-ḫu-ú (Source 35: 66 + var. [uṭṭ]aḫ-ḫu-ú, ‹uṭ›-ṭaḫ-ḫu-ú) – uṭ-ṭaḫ-ḫu (Source 35: 66 + var. u[ṭṭaḫ-ḫi]) – uṭ-ṭaḫ-[ḫi] (Source 35: 52b) – uṭ-ṭa-[aḫ-ḫu] (Source 77: 5 + var. [uṭ]-⌈ṭa⌉-[aḫ]-ḫu) D “to bring as an offering” – ⌈ú⌉-[ṭaḫ-ḫu]-⌈ú⌉ (Source 77: 16) ṭēmu “report/order/thinking” – ṭè-em (Source 32: 18) (Source 35: 34b) – ṭè-ma (Source 35: 8) – ṭè-mi (Source 35: 5) ṭuḫḫû “offered” – ṭuḫ-ḫa-a (Source 35: 67) ṭuppu “tablet” – dub-pi (Source 35: 83 S) (Source 36: 36) (Source 49: obv. 16) – [dub] (Source 49: rev. 6’) ṭuppi šīmāti “tablet of destinies” – [dub] nammeš (Source 34: C 10) ṭupšarru “scribe” – lúdub-sar (Source 36: 36) u “and” – u (Source 34: D 1) (Source 35: 18) (Source 36: 4) (Source 37: II 3) (Source 38: 26) (Source 41: A 1, B 5) (Source 45: 7) (Source 48: rev. 6) (Source 49: obv. 7) (Source 56: 1d) (Source 58: 1) (Source 59: 17 C) (Source 61) (Source 70: B 1) (Source 71: IV 5) (Source 72: obv. 10’) (Source 74: A 1 + var. ù) – ú (Source 14) (Source 15) – ù (Source 28: C) (Source 30 + var. u) (Source 31: 49) (Source 34: D 12) (Source 35: 8) (Source 36: 4) (Source 37: II 4) (Source 47: VI 97) (Source 49: obv. 5) (Source 70: A 2 + var. u) (Source 74: E 1) (Source 77: 16)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

606

u and ù passim u “and” or ū “or”? – u (Source 54: 6 + var. ki-min, 𒑲) ū “or”, in ū-lū “or” – [ú⌉-lu (Source 56: 1d, B + var. 𒑲) mala … ū … “as much as … or …” – ma-la … ù … (Source 36: 1) ubānu “finger” (of the liver) – ú-ba-nu-um (Source 26: XII 47) – šu-si (Source 43) (Source 45: 7) (Source 61) (Source 63) – šu-s[i] (Source 63) – šu-simeš (Source 53) ekal ubāni “palace of the finger” – é-gal šu-si (Source 51: A) “finger” of the lung: – šu-si (Source 19) ubbuṭu “famine” – ub-bu-ṭú (Source 55: 1b) uggatu “rage” – ug-gat (Source 74: D 3) uḫinnu “green, unripened dates” – ú-ḫi-na (Source 36: 29) – ú-ḫi-nu (Source 36: 8) ul (particle of negation) “not” – ul (Source 35: 5, 6, 35b, 37b, 52b, 57, 66, 71, 77) (Source 37: II 2, 5, 18, III 14’a, 15’a = 2×) (Source 74: C 7, E 7) (Source 77: 4) – ⌈ul⌉ (Source 35: 4) (Source 37: II 17) – [u]l (Source 35: 4) (Source 37: III 9’) – u[l] (Source 35: 34b) – [ul] (Source 77: 5) – ‹ul› (Source 35: 52b) – ú-ul (Source 22: B2) – nu (Source 34: D 10) (Source 37: III 14’a) (Source 59: 4) (Source 65) – n[u] (Source 75: III 28) ulla “no” – ul-la (Source 74: A 2, E 2) ullânu “before” – ul-la-nu-ú-a (Source 74: A 1 + var. var. i-nu-šu, i-nu-šú, D 1, E 1) ultu see ištu ū-lū see ū

umāmu “(strange, wild) beast” – ú-ma-am (Source 39: 37 + var. [ú⌉ma-mi, 39, 41) – [u-m]a-mi (Source 38: 27) ūmiša(m) “daily” – u4-mi-šam-ma (Source 36: 6) – u4-šam!(saĝ) (Source 74: C 5) shortened form in the sequence ūmiarḫi- (u) šattišam “daily, monthly, annually” – u4-mu (Source 35: 35a) umma “thus” (quotative particle) – um-ma (Source 35: 54) – ⌈um⌉-ma (Source 35: 39) – ⌈um?-ma?⌉ (Source 35: 11 + var. um![m]a) – ⌈um-mu⌉ (Source 35: 1) – [um-ma] (Source 35: 20, 33b) ummānu “troops” (see also ṣābū) – um-ma-ni (Source 17: 11) – u[m-ma-ni-k]a (Source 35: 7) – érin (Source 55: 1b) – érin-ni (Source 56: 2 + var. érin) – érinḫi.meš-ka (Source 35: 32) ummān Qutî “the troops of the (barbarian) Gutians > the horde of the Gutians” (see p. 241) – érin gu-ti-um (Source 35: 62 + var. érin qu-ti-[i], [éri]nmeš gu-ti-iki, [u]mma-an gu-ti-um) – érin-an qu-ti-i (Source 35: 68 + var. éri[n gu-ti-um]) ummān Qutî + var. without ummān: – érin gu-ti-um (Source 35: 63 + var. um-⌈ma⌉-an qu-ti-i, [gu-ti-ik]i, gu-tiumki, gu+ti-[i]) Ummān-Manda – érin-man-da (Source 58: 2) – [ér]in-man-⌈da⌉ (Source 35: 42) ummânu “scholar” – lúum-man-nu (Source 49: obv. 14) – lúum-man-nu-[šú] (Source 49: obv. 11) ummu “mother” – ama-šú (Source 36: 14)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

ūmu “day” – u4-um (Source 77: 7 + var. u4) – u4-mu (Source 37: II 14) – u4-mi (Source 34: B 10) (Source 35: 7) (Source 37: II 4, 5) – u4-mi-šú-nu (Source 35: 34b) – u4meš (Source 31: 53) (Source 35: 31 + var. u4-me, u4-mu, 32 + var. u4-me, 51 + var. ⌈u4⌉-me, 82) – ⌈u4⌉meš-ĝu10 (Source 34: D 11) – [u4meš-ĝu10] (Source 34: C 9) – u4meš-šú (Source 49: rev. 8’) – u4-1-‹kam› (Source 35: 52b) ša ūm “of the (same) day” – š[á] u4-um (Source 77: 12) – ⌈u4-1⌉-[kam] (Source 77: 5) with ordinal numbers: – u4-3-kam (Source 37: II 17) (Source 75: III 28) – u4-7-kám (Source 57: 1 A) – u4-11-kam (Source 37: II 1) – u4-14-kam (Source 37: II 19) (Source 56: 1a + var. u4-14-kám) – u4-14-kám (Source 55: 1a) (Source 59: 1 + var. u4-14-kam) – u4-15-kam (Source 37: II 20b) – u4-15-kám (Source 55: 2 + var. u415-ka[m]) (Source 56: 2 + var. [u4]⌈15⌉-[kam]) – u4-16-kam (Source 37: II 12) – u4-16-kám (Source 55: 3 + var. u416-kam) (Source 56: 3 + var. ⌈u4⌉-16kam) – u4-20-kám (+ var. u4-20-kam) (Source 55: 4) (Source 56: 4) (Source 58: 1) – u4-21-kam (Source 37: III 19’) (Source 49: rev. 10’) – u4-21-kám (+ var. u4-21-kam) (Source 55: 5) (Source 56: 5) – u4-22-kam (Source 75: II 18’) – u4-23-kam (Source 75: III 30) – u4-25-kam (Source 37: II 9) – u4-26-kam (Source 37: II 14) – u4-28-kám (Source 59: 5 + var. u428-kam)

607

ūm akīti “the day of the akītu festival” – u4-mi a-ki-⌈tì⌉ (Source 37: II 3) ūm Enlil “the day (of the festival) of Enlil (of Nippur)” – u4-mi d+en-líl (Source 36: 28) “light” – u4-mi (Source 54: 6 B) urītu see sisītu urru see šāt urri ûrtu “instruction/order” – ur-ti (Source 35: 4, 34b) – u[r?-ti-šú] (Source 35: 29) ūru “vulva” – gal4-la (Source 36: 4) (Source 41: A 1, B 5) ussangû “leader” (lit.: “bellwether”) – ùz-saĝ-gu-šú-nu (Source 35: 28 + var. ⌈ùz-saĝ-gu-šu-nu⌉(-)m[a]) uṣurtu (mostly plural) “(divine) design/ordinances” – ĝiš-ḫurmeš (Source 35: 64) (Source 42) (Source 49: obv. 13) utnēnu “to beseech” – ut-nen-ši (Source 35: 11) utukku “utukku-demon” – ú-tu[k-k]u (Source 32: 21) uznu “ear” – ú-⌈zu-un-ka⌉ (Source 35: 4) – ĝeštugmin (Source 36: 25) – ĝeštug? min (Source 35: 8 C) (w)abālu “to carry/to bring” – [li-bil] (Source 35: 30) – ú-bil-ma (Source 35: 69) – ú-bil-lu (Source 71: IV 10) – ú-bi-lu-ma (Source 74: A 5, E 3) – ú-bi-lu-u-ma (Source 74: C 11) – ú-b[i-lu-u-ma] (Source 74: B2 7) – tùm-⌈lam⌉ (Source 34: D 12) Gt (or from tabālu) “to carry away” – it-b[a-la] (Source 35: 69 + var. it[bal]) (w)alādu “to give birth” – it-ta-aʾ-lad (Source 36: 6, 19) – ú-li-du (Source 36: 23) – ú-[li-du] (Source 36: 24) – ù-tu-ma (Source 68)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

608

(w)apû Š “to glorify” – lu-šá-pu (Source 35: 12) (w)aqāru Š “to esteem”, ptc.: – mu-šá-qir (Source 32: 23) (w)aqru “rare” – aq-ru-tú (Source 38: 27) (w)arādu “to go down” – ú-ri-[d]u (Source 37: II 21) Š “to lead down” – ú-šèr-re-da (Source 39: 39 + var. úše-re-d[a]) (w)arḫi(šam) “monthly”, also shortened in the sequence ūmiarḫi- (u) šattišam “daily, monthly, annually” – ⌈ár-ḫi⌉ (Source 35: 35a + var. itišam) (w)arḫu “month” – iti (Source 55: 1a) See also sub “Month Names”. (w)arka “afterwards” – egir (Source 71: IV 8) (w)arki “after” – ar-⌈ki⌉ (Source 37: II 16) – egir (Source 37: III 14’b) – egir-šú (Source 54: 6 C) (w)arkū (loc.) “later” – [ar]-ku-ú (Source 35: 17) (w)arkātu (pl.) “circumstances” – ⌈ar⌉-k[a]-⌈at⌉ (Source 35: 9) (w)aršu “soiled” – ár-šu-tu (Source 35: 36 + var. [a]ršu-ti) (w)âru/maʾāru “to go” “to go (against)” = “to oppose” – iʾ-a-ri (Source 35: 35b) “to go (into)” – a-ri (Source 74: A 5) – iʾ-a-r[u] (Source 39: 35 + var. a-ri) – iʾ-i-ru (Source 39: 43) D “to charge/to give orders” – ú-ma-ar (Source 41: B 6) – ú-ma-ʾi-ir (Source 71: IV 8) – ú-ma-⌈ir-šú-nu⌉-ti-ma (Source 77: 14 + var. ⌈ú⌉-ma-ʾi-[ir-šú-nu-ti-ma]) – [ú-ma-ʾi-ir-šu] (Source 35: 45)

(w)aṣû “to go out (/through), to grow out” – at-tú-ṣi (Source 76: obv. 11) – ⌈ú-ṣi⌉ (Source 28: A, 52) – ú-ṣa-a (Source 37: II 18, III 9’, 14’a, 15’a) – [ú]-⌈ṣa-a⌉ (Source 37: II 17) – [ú-ṣa-a] (Source 37: III 6’a) – è-at (Source 36: 3) “the procession of Bēl” – a-ṣe-e d+en (Source 37: II 2) “rising” (of a star) – è-šú (Source 54: 1) Š “to let go forth/to sprout/to bring out” – uš-te-ṣi (Source 49: obv. 7, var. è, see the comm.) (Source 71: IV 5) – è (Source 48: rev. 7) – èmeš (Source 36: 5) – ⌈è] (Source 36: 9, 10) Š stative “to be driven out” – ⌈è]-[ṣ]u (Source 37: III 18’) (w)ašābu “to sit/to dwell” – a-šib (Source 35: 22, 59) (Source 37: II 23) (Source 71: IV 12) (Source 74: A 2) – ⌈a⌉-ši-bu-ut (Source 74: B1 2) – tuš-ab (Source 34: D 13) – tuš-ma (Source 34: B 3) – tušmeš (Source 53) Š “to let sit/dwell” – ú-še-šá-[ab] (Source 39: 36 + var. úše[š-šá-ab]) – ú-še-šib (Source 37: IV 2’) – ú-še-ši-bu (Source 45: 11) (Source 71: IV 9a) – ‹šu-šu-bu› (Source 35: 81) (w)ašāru D “to let something go” – um-taš-[ši-ru] (Source 35: 52a + var. ⌈um-taš⌉-[ši-r]u, [um-taš]-ši-[ru]) “to forsake” – ú-maš-ši-ra-ma (Source 74: C 8) – ú-[maš-ši-ra-ma] (Source 74: B2 2) (w)atāru D “to increase” – ú-a[t-tir] (Source 35: 74) Š “to elevate” – [ú-šat-tar] (Source 35: 17)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

stative “to be exceedingly great” – šu-tu-ru (Source 33: obv. 4’) yaʾnu “it is not extant” – ia-aʾ-nu (Source 36: 25) (Source 37: IV 3’) zagmukku “New Year’s festival” – zag-muk (Source 35: 72) zakāru “to say” – mu-ma (Source 34: C 12) – [mu-ma] (Source 34: B 12) zakû “to become clear” – iz-ku (Source 56: 1a) (Source 56: 1b) (Source 59: 2) zalāqu “bright-stone” – na4zálag!(babbar+dili) (Source 34: C 2) zamāru N “to be sung” – [li-iz-za-am-ru] (Source 35: 24) zanānu I “to rain” – [šur] (Source 34: C 5) zanānu II “to provide (a temple with food etc.)” – iz-nu[n] (Source 48: rev. 5) zāninūtu “office of the provider (of the temples”, on the concept see the discussion on p. 146 with note 681 – za-ni-nu-ut (Source 35: 59 + var. [zan]i-nu-t[u4], za-ni-nu-‹ut›) zaqānu stative “to be bearded” – zaq-na-at (Source 36: 4)

609

zâqu “to blow” – i-zi-qa (Source 54: 2 + var. i-zi-iq, riqa) zarû “to sow” – az-ru (Source 31: 51) zenû “to become angry” – [i]z-nu-⌈ú⌉ (Source 32: 19) zenûtu “wrath” – ze-nu-tu (Source 74: D 2 + var. ze[n]u-⌈tú⌉, E 1) zibānītu “(pair of) scales” – [ĝišz]i-ba-an-na (Source 34: C 11) zibbatu “tail” – kunmeš-šú (Source 68) zikaru “male” (here adj.) – nita (Source 36: 8, 19) ziqnu “beard” – ziq-na (Source 36: 4) zummû (D) “to cause to miss/to deprive of”, here “to deprive of (knowledge)/to conceal” – ú-za-am-ma (Source 39: 38 + var. úza-am-me) zumru “body” – zu-mur-šú (Source 49: obv. 20) – zu!(su)-um-ri-š[ú] (Source 35: 71 + var. ⌈zu⌉-u[m-ri-šú], z[u-um-ri-šú]) – zu-um-ri-ši-na (Source 74: C 2) – su-ĝu10 (Source 34: B 11) zunnu “rain” – šèĝ (Source 34: C 5)

Non-lemmatic min “ditto” – {min} (Source 63: F) min-ma = šūma “the same” – min-ma (Source 61) ki-min “ditto”, probably also for šanîš “variant” (see p. 484) – ki-min (Source 37: III 10’) (Source 54: 6 + var. 𒑲, u) (Source 58: 1 A)

glossenkeil, here probably for šanîš “variant” or ū-lū “or” (see p. 484) – 𒑲 (Source 41: B 7) (Source 49: rev. 2’) (Source 54: 6 + var. ki-min, u) (Source 56: 1d D + var. [ú⌉-lu) marker of the end of a line – 𒑳 (Source 55: 2 K) separator – 𒐕 (Source 18)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

610

Cardinal Numbers ištēn(u)/ištēt “(a unique) one” – 1-kam (Source 35: 51) – 1-et (Source 36: 3, 26) – 1-e[t] (Source 36: 26 + var. [1-e]t) šina/šitta “two” – 2 (Source 22: A) (Source 37: II 12, 23) (Source 68) – ši-ta (Source 27: 1) adi šinīšu “for a second time” – 2-šú (Source 35: 62 + var. ši-ni-šú) šalāšu “three” – 3 (Source 22: B1: C1) (Source 34: B 10) (Source 37: II 16) arbaʾu/erbû “four” – 4 (Source 22: B2: C2) (Source 36: 4) (Source 37: II 4) (Source 53 = 4×) – 4-ta (Source 53 = 2×) šārū erbettu “the four winds” – im-límmu-ba (Source 52) šarrūt kibrāt arbaʾi “kingship over the four regions”, variant: šarrūt kiššati “kingship over the world”

– lugal-ú-ut kib-ra-a-tu4 ar-ba-ʾi (var. lugal-ut k[ib-ra-a]t a[r-ba]-ʾi, [lugalut kib]-rat ar-ba-ʾi, [lugal-ú]-tu kibrat ar-ba-ʾi) (Source 35: 58 A–B, E–F; all Sargon of Akkade) šeššu “six” – 6 (Source 36: 8) stative “(to be) sixfold” – 6-ma (Source 62) sebû “seven” – 7 (Source 35: 51) (Source 66) (Source 71: IV 7) – 7 (Source 65) tišû “nine” – 9 (Source 37: III 14’b) – 10 lá 1 (Source 49: rev. 4’) ešrā “twenty” – 20 (Source 77: 10) šelāšā “thirty” – 30 (Source 58: 5)

Complex Cardinal Numbers – 18 (Source 49: obv. 2) – 2 4 (Source 34: B 3) – 30 (Source 77: 6) – 47 (Source 36: 34)

– [4] 8 (Source 49: rev. 3’) – [7]6 (Source 71: IV 12) – 3020 (Source 35: 47 S) Ordinal Numbers

šanû “second/another” – šá-ni-i (Source 35: 27a) – šá-nim-ma (Source 35: 66 + var. šá!(a)-nim-ma) – ša-nu (Source 22: B1: B2) – ša-nu-um (Source 22: A) – mìn-ú (Source 43) (Source 61) *šanîš “secondly/variant”, not rendered verbally, but probably expressed with the glossenkeil or the note ki-min (“ditto”, see p. 484) šanītu (fem.) “second(ary)/strange” – šá-na-tim-ma (Source 74: C 8)

– šá-na-ti-ma (Source 35: 5) (Source 74: A 4) – šá-na-[ti-ma] (Source 74: B2 2) šalšu “third(ly)” – [š]al-šú (Source 52) rebû “fourth” – 4-ú (Source 63) samānītu “eighth”, Kirû-samānītu “Eighth-Orchard”, on the western bank of Babylon – ĝiškiri6–8-ni-tu4 (Source 37: III 12’) – ĝiškiri6–8-ni-tu4 (Source 37: III 2’)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

12th month = Addār – 12 iti (Source 55: 1a) 14th of Ab – ne 1⌈4⌉ (Source 73)

611

See also the ordinal numbers in the notations u4-n-kam(2) and mu-n-kam sub ūmu “day” and šattu “year”. Month Names

Nissān (I) – itibára (Source 37: II 18, III 4’b, 6’b, 10’) – iti⌈bára⌉ (Source 37: II 17) Ayyār (II) – itigu4 (Source 37: II 1, 19, III 2’, 3’) Simān (III) – itisig4 (Source 37: II 14, 20b) – [iti]sig4 (Source 37: I 10) Duʾūz (IV) – itišu (Source 37: II 6, III 11’b) (Source 75: III 28) Ab (V) – itine (Source 37: II 7, 12) – ⌈iti⌉ne (Source 49: rev. 10’) – ne (Source 73)

Ulūl (VI) – itikin (Source 37: II 15) Tašrīt (VII) – itidu6 (Source 36: 22) (Source 37: II 9) (Source 57: 1) (Source 75: II 18’, III 30) Araḫsamna (VIII) – itiapin (Source 36: 17) Ṭebēt (X) – itiab (Source 36: 10) Šabāṭ (XI) – itizíz (Source 37: III 19’) (Source 59: 1) Addār (XII) – itiše (Source 37: II 17) (Source 56: 1a) – 12 iti (Source 55: 1a) Sumerian

a “water” – a (Source 6: B 4.22 2×, 5.20 2×) – ⌈a⌉ (Source 6: B 4.22) – ⌈a⌉-gin7 (Source 8: A 21) a-ab-ba(-k) “(water of the) sea” – a-ab-ba (Source 2: 9) – a-ab-ba-ka-ta (Source 4: A 36) a-ma-ru “flood” – a-ma-ru (Source 4: E1 76) a-da-lam “now” – a-da-lam (Source 1: B2 20) a-šà “field” – [a⌉-⌈šà⌉-bi (Source 1: A 8, in note 1210) á “arm/side” – á (Source 3: 40 X2, 41) – [á] (Source 3: 40 X2) “power” – á (Source 3: 40) “might/force” – á (Source 6: A 2a.4)

“force” in *níĝ-á-zi “violent/wicked” – níĝ-‹á›-zi (Source 32: 23) a5(-k; nà = *n.a5) / kè (*k-ed) “to do/to execute/to treat” – ak-⌈a⌉ (Source 35: 59 D) – ba-ab-ak-a (Source 9: A 230) – ba-an-ak-kè-eš (Source 7: 244 + var. ba-an-ak-e-eš, ba-da-an-ak-⌈kè⌉) – ga-àm-a5 (Source 2: 19) – ù-‹mi›-ni-nà (Source 3: 40 + var. ùmu-ni-nà) – kè-dè (Source 2: 12) íb--a5 “to become angry” – íb ba-an-a5 (Source 1: A 5, in note 1209) šu bal--a5 “to alter” – šu bal ‹nu›-mu-u[n-a5] (Source 35: 57 D) abzu “Abzu” – abzu-ke4 (Source 35: 58 D) áĝ “…” see ki--áĝ “to love”.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

612

alan “image/statue” – alan (Source 10: B I 21) – alan-ĝu10 (Source 2: 20) bal “to change” – al-bal (Source 32: 18) “to go over/to cross” – ba-ra-ab-bal (Source 6: A 2a.4) “to (be) hand(ed) over” – ba-e-⌈bal⌉ (Source 6: B 4.11) lipiš--bal “to become angry” – lipiš-bi na-an-bal-la (Source 32: 17) ki-bala “rebel land” – ki-⌈bala⌉-a-šè (Source 6: A 2a.3) – ki-bala-šè (Source 4: E3 145) šà--bal-bal “to breed” – šà ba-ni-ib-bal-bal (Source 4: E3 146) šu bal--a5 “to alter” – šu bal ‹nu›-mu-u[n-a5] (Source 35: 57 D) bala “reign” – bala (Source 32: 15) – bala-bi (Source 9: B 237) bar “to let go (out)” igi--bar “to look at” – igi nu-b[ar-re]-da (Source 8: B 9) – [igi i-ni]-in-bar (Source 8: B 10) – igi (…) mu-un-ši-in-{ni}-bar (Source 3: 37) bar “(outside/) aside” – ⌈bar⌉-ra (Source 4: D 377) See also ki-bar. ĝiš búr “fetters/clamp” – ĝišbúr-ra (Source 4: A 35) buru5mušen “swallow” – buru5mušen (Source 4: A 37) buru14 “harvest” – buru14-a (Source 10: B I 16) dab5 “to take/to seize/to catch” – dab5-bé-dè (Source 4: A 34) – ba-ni-in-dab5-bé (Source 3: 43 X2) – ba-ra-an-dab5 (Source 4: D 374) – im-ma-an-dab5 (Source 4: C 304) dal “to fly” – ba-ra-an-dal-a-gin7 (Source 4: A 37) “to blow” – dal-la-gin7 (Source 4: E4 491)

dé “to pour” – ba-an-dé (Source 6: B 4.22) di--ku5 “to render judgement” – di-ku5-da-ni (Source 10: A I 13) dib “to seize” see šà-dib-ba “wrath” didli (plural marker) – udug-ḫul-didli (Source 32: 21) diĝir “god” – diĝir (Source 32: 20) – diĝir-re-e-ne (Source 32: 18: 24) – diĝir-bé-ne (Source 2: 8) See also nin-diĝir. dím “to make/to do/to fashion” – mu-na-dím (Source 10: B II 7) – mu-u[n-dím-ma] (Source 35: 75 D) diri “superior” – diri (Source 3: 40) du see ĝen dù “to build/to set up” – ga-bí-ib-dù-dù (Source 2: 18 + var. ga-⌈bí⌉-ib-ĝar, ga-bí-ib-durunx(tuštuš)-uš) – mu-na-dù (Source 10: A I 14) – mu-[un-dù] (Source 35: 60 D) du7 see ḫé-du7, šu--du7 du11(-g)/e/di(-d) “to speak” – ma-an-du11 (Source 2: 13) – ma-an-du11-ga-àm (Source 2: 17) – [im-ma]-an-du11-[ga] (Source 35: 60 D) – bí-in-eš-àm (Source 9: B 238 + var. bí-in-DU11-eš-àm) – [al-mu-un-da-a]b-bé (Source 32: 18 + var. al-mu-un-da-ab-ba) – ḫé-eb-bé (Source 2: 24 + var. ⌈ḫé⌉b[í-ib]-⌈DU11⌉[(-)…]) “to turn sth. into sth.” – ba-ab-du11 (Source 4: E3 145) du11(-g)+a “command” – du11-ga-ba (Source 9: B 238) di(-d) see u6-di(-d) “(to) marvel” See also níĝ-du11(-g), ság--du11(-g). dúb “to smite” – [m]u-un-⌈dúb⌉ (Source 6: A 2a.4) dumu “child/son” – dumu (Source 35: 58 D, 70 D) – dumu-ni (Source 1: A 6, 9)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– dumu-na (Source 35: 72 D) – dumu-dumu-ĝu10 (Source 2: 24 + var. dumu-dumu-né-n[e], dumudumu-ĝá!-ke4) durun see tuš e see du11(-g) é “house/temple” – é-bi (Source 4: A 37) (Source 9: A 230) é-gal “palace” – é-gal (Source 4: A 34 + var. é-gal-la, B1 104, 105 + var. é-gal-la-na, B2 393) è (UD.DU) “to go up” – ⌈ši-in⌉-U[D.DU] (Source 32: 19 + var. [ši-in-UD.D]U) – è-a-gin7 (Source 6: B 4.22, 5.20) “to go out/to leave” – ba-ra-è (Source 4: D 373, 376) – im-ta-an-è (Source 4: E1 75 + var. im-ta-an-e11) è-è = i-i “to bring forth” – ba-ni-ib-i-i (Source 4: E3 146) è here = barû “to check” – ba-an-è (Source 36: 35) e11(-d) “to go/come down” – e11-dè (Source 1: B1 14; B2 19) – im-ta-an-e11 (Source 4: E1 75 + var. im-ta-an-è) en “lord” – en-e (Source 32: 17) – en-⌈e⌉ (Source 35: 60 D) en “ēn-priest(ess)” – en-ĝu10-ne (Source 2: 20) ene “he/she” (personal pronoun) – [e-n]e (Source 35: 60 D) enim “word” – enim (Source 35: 60 D) – enim-zu (Source 1: A 10) en-na “until/to” – en-na (Source 2: 9) ér “tear” – ér (Source 4: B1 106) eri “city” – eri (Source 2: 17) – [e]ri (Source 35: 60 D) – eri(!) (Source 6: A 2a.3)

613

– eri-ni-šè (Source 4: A 37) – eriki-ni (Source 4: D 373) – ⌈eriki-ni⌉ (Source 4: D 373) – eriki-ni-⌈ta⌉ (Source 4: D 375) – ⌈eriki-ta⌉ (Source 4: D 376) – eriki-bé-ne (Source 2: 8) – eriki-eriki-bi (Source 2: 12) érim “hostile/enemy” – érim-e (Source 4: A 32, 34) èš “festivals” – èš-èš-a-ne-ne-{a} (Source 2: 19) gaba “breast/opposite/edge” – gaba (Source 4: A 36) gaba--gi4 “to withstand” – gaba-gi4 (Source 4: E1 76 + var. gaba-ri) gaba-ri “counterpart/opposite to” – gaba-r[i] (Source 35: 60 D) “adversary/rival” – gaba-ri (Source 4: E1 76 + var. gabagi4) gal “great” – gal (Source 10: B I 15) – gal-gal-l[a] (Source 35: 72 D) See also é-gal. gi “to lie/lay waste” – [íb-t]a-an-gi (Source 32: 24 + var. íb-ta-an-g[i]) gi(-n) “to be firm/to be settled” – gi-n[a-a] (Source 10: B II 6) gi4 “to (re)turn” gaba--gi4 “to withstand” – gaba-gi4 (Source 4: E1 76 + var. gaba-ri “adversary”) zi--gi4 “to hold one’s breath” – zi im-ma-ni-in-gi4 (Source 4: B1 104) gi4/17 in ḫul--gi4/17 “to hate” – ḫul ba-an-gi17 (Source 1: A 5, 6) – ḫul ba-an-⌈gi17⌉ (Source 1: B2 18) – ḫul mu-⌈un⌉-{a}-gi4 (Source 1: B1 13) gig “bitter” – gig (Source 4: B1 106, B2 393) zi gig--pa-an “to breathe heavily” – zi gig mu-un-pa-an-pa-an (Source 4: B2 393)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

614

giĝ4 “shekel” – giĝ4 (Source 7: 244 + var. kin) gir5 “exile(d person)” – gir5 (Source 4: D 375) gu “filament” (element on the liver) – gu-da (Source 3: 42) gu-la “great” see zag(-)gu-la(2) gú “neck” – gú-bi (Source 3: 41) – gú-ri-bi (Source 3: 42) gú--šub “to turn the neck (angrily)” – ⌈gú⌉ š[ub-b]a-⌈meš⌉ (Source 32: 19 + var. [gú] šub-ba-meš) “(river)bank” – gú (Source 2: 7 = 4×) gú-saĝ-kal “all together” – gú-saĝ-kal (Source 32: 20) gu4(-d) “bull/ox” – gu4 (Source 35: 72 D) – gu4!(mu)-da (Source 35: 73 D) gu7 “to eat” – gu7-gu7-a (Source 4: C 304 + var. gu7-naĝ-a) gub/su8(-g) “to stand” – al-gub-ba (Source 32: 19 + var. algub-bu) – ⌈ba-e⌉-gub-bu-dè (Source 1: B2 19) – ba-su8-ge-eš (Source 4: D 377) “to set up” – mu-na-an-gub (Source 10: A I 16) gùb-bu “left” – gùb-bu-ba (Source 3: 40 X2) – gùb-bu-ĝá (Source 3: 40 X1) – gùb-bu-na (Source 3: 42) gùn “to be bright and colourful” here “to be lavishly decorated” – gùn-a (Source 10: A I 15) – gùn-⌈a⌉ (Source 10: B I 19) gur “to (re)turn” – im-me-guru-‹da› (Source 1: A 9) – nu-gur-re-dè (Source 4: A 37) gùr see ul-gùr-ru ĝá-/ĝe26-e “I” – ĝá-ra (Source 2: 17) (Source 3: 37) – ĝá-a-ra (Source 1: A 5) (Source 2: 13)

ĝál “to be extant” see ḫul-ĝál “illdisposed” ĝá-nun “storehouse” see nam-ĝánun “office/rank as (the main) storehouse” ĝar/ĝá-ĝá “to put/to set” – ĝar-ra (Source 3: 42) – ga-⌈bí⌉-ib-ĝar (Source 2: 18 + var. ga-bí-ib-dù-dù, ga-bí-ibdurunx(tuš-tuš)-uš) – ba-ni-ib-ĝar (Source 4: E3 145) – im-mi-íb-ĝar (Source 8: A 21) – ma-an-ĝar (Source 3: 39 + var. imma-an-ĝar) – mu-un-ĝar (Source 3: 38) – ì-ĝá-ĝá (Source 3: 43 X1) – ĝá-ĝá-da (Source 2: 11 + var. ĝá⌈ĝá⌉-dè) šu zi--ĝar “to invest (someone)” – šu zi bí-in-ĝar-re-eš-àm (Source 9: B 238) See also nu-ĝar-ra. ĝen/du/*er “to go/come” – du-bi (Source 4: E1 76) – du-ù-dè (Source 4: D 375) – è-ra (Source 32: 21 + var. e-ra) On *er (ḫamṭu pl.) see also pp. 255f. ĝi6-par4 “ĝipar-shrines” – ĝi6-par4-ra-ne-ne-a (Source 2: 21) ĝìri “foot” ĝìri íl-la “raised foot” > “onslaught” – ĝìri íl-la-a-ni (Source 32: 23) “path” – ⌈ĝìri⌉ (Source 4: D 374) ĝiš “wood”, here “implement” – ĝiš (Source 10: B I 16) saĝ ĝiš--ra “to hit the head with a stick” > “to kill” – saĝ ĝiš bi-ra-ra (Source 3: 43 + var. with bí-ra-‹ra›) ĝiškim “sign” “portent” – ĝiškim-bi (Source 32: 15) “mark” – ĝiškim (Source 1: A 10)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

ḫa-lam “to destroy” in lú ḫa-lamma(/-k) “destroyer”, on the term see note 1168 on p. 244 – lú ḫa-lam-ma (Source 7: 244 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma-bi) – lú ḫa-lam-ma-ke4 (Source 4: E2 230 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma-ne) – lú ḫa-l[am-ma-(ke4)] (Source 8: B 10) – lú kúr-ra (Source 4: A 33 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma) ḫé-àm “approval” (“may it be so!”) – ḫé-àm-bi (Source 9: B 238 + var. ḫéàm-ni, ḫé-àm) ḫé-du7 “ornament” – ḫé-du7 (Source 10: B I 17) ḫi(2)-li “charms” – ḫí-⌈li⌉-bi (Source 32: 23) ḫul “evil” – ḫul (Source 4: E4 491) – ḫu[l] (Source 6: B 4.22 in var.) – [ḫul] (Source 6: B 4.22) ḫul-bi “in an evil way” – ḫul-bi (Source 9: A 230) ḫul-ĝál “ill-disposed” – ḫul-ĝál-ĝu10 (Source 3: 43 + var. [ḫul-ĝ]ál-e) ḫul--gi4/17 “to hate” – ḫul ba-an-gi17 (Source 1: A 5, 6) – ḫul ba-an-⌈gi17⌉ (Source 1: B2 18) – ḫul mu-⌈un⌉-{a}-gi4 (Source 1: B1 13) See also nam-ḫul, níĝ-ḫul, udug-ḫul. ḫúl see šà-ḫúl ḫur-saĝ “mountain range” – ḫur-saĝ-ĝá-ta (Source 4: A 36, in variant) íb “wrath” íb--a5 “to become angry” – íb ba-an-a5 (Source 1: A 5, in note 1209) ĝiš ig “door” – ĝišig (Source 10: A I 15) igi “eye/front” “before” – igi (Source 2: 10, 22, 23)

615

igi--bar “to look at” – igi nu-b[ar-re]-da (Source 8: B 9) – [igi i-ni]-in-bar (Source 8: B 10) – igi (…) mu-un-ši-in-{ni}-bar (Source 3: 37) íl “to lift/to elevate” – m[u]-⌈un⌉-[í]l (Source 1: B1 14) – ‹mu›-un-íl-la (Source 1: B2 19, in note) ĝìri íl-la “raised foot > onslaught” – ĝìri íl-la-a-ni (Source 32: 23) ní íl-la “awe-laden” – ní íl-la-a (Source 9: B 236 + var. with íl-‹la›-a) im “wind/storm” – im (Source 4: E4 491) lú im “windy man”, here “bandit” – lú im (Source 1: B1 15) – ⌈lú⌉ im (Source 1: B2 20) ì-ne-éš “now” – ì-ne-éš (Source 1: B1 15) ir “to plunder” – e-ra+a (Source 5: 3’) ir-ra “desert” – ir-ra-šè (Source 32: 24 + var. [ir-r]aa-šè) i-si-iš--lá-lá “to be stricken with sorrow” – i-si-iš ba-ni-in-lá-lá (Source 4: B1 105) iši “dunes” – iši (Source 4: A 36) ka(-k) “mouth (> “verdict”) – ka-ka-ni (Source 2: 6) kal “to be/hold sth. precious” – nu-mu-un-da-ab-kal-la (Source 32: 23) See also gú-saĝ-kal. kalam “land (Sumer)” – kalam-ma (Source 2: 6) (Source 32: 21) – kalam-ma-šè (Source 1: B1 14) – kalam-ma-⌈šè⌉ (Source 1: B2 19 + var. kalam-ma-‹šè›) ki “place/where” – ki (Source 4: A 32) (Source 10: A I 13)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

616

ki kúr “alien place” – ⌈ki kúr-šè⌉ (Source 4: D 375) ki--áĝ “to love” – ki-⌈áĝ-ĝá⌉ (Source 4: D 373) – ⌈ki-áĝ-ĝá⌉ (Source 4: D 374) ki-bala “rebel land” – ki-⌈bala⌉-a-šè (Source 6: A 2a.3) – ki-bala-šè (Source 4: E3 145) ki-bar “(outside/) aside” – ki-bar-ra (Source 32: 19) ki-ná “resting place / lair” – ki-ná (Source 4: E3 145) ki-tuš “dwelling place” – ki-tuš-bi (Source 4: A 33) – ki-tuš-ba (Source 4: A 32) (Source 10: B II 6) – ki-⌈tuš⌉-ba (Source 1: A 8) kíĝ-gi4-a “omen” – kíĝ-gi4-a-ĝu10 (Source 3: 39 + var. [kíĝ-gi4]-⌈a⌉-[ĝ]á) kù(-g) “holy” – kù (Source 8: B 9) – kù-bi-šè (Source 3: 38) kù-sí (/kù-si22) “gold” – kù-sí (Source 10: B I 18) kù-babbar “silver” – kù-[babbar] (Source 10: B I 21) – kù-‹babbar› (Source 10: B I 19) ku4(-r)/sun5 “to enter” – ku4-ku4-dè (Source 2: 10) – nu?-ku4?-⌈bé⌉?/ĝál? (Source 5: 1’) – al-sun5-ne-eš (Source 32: 21) ku5(-d) see di--ku5 kur “mountain / highland” – kur-bi-ta (Source 1: B2 19) – kur-b[i-t]a (Source 1: B1 14) – kur-ta (Source 4: E1 75) – kur-ra-ke4 (Source 4: E3 145) “(foreign) land” – kur (Source 4: A 35, E4 488, 489, 490) (Source 5: 1’) – kur-re (Source 4: E4 487, 488, 489, 490) – kur-kur (Source 1: A 8) “land” (= Babylonia) – kur-ra (Source 32: 18)

kúr “to change/to take a turn” – ⌈ba⌉-an-⌈kúr⌉ (Source 35: 61 D) – a[b-kúr-ra] (Source 32: 15) kúr “to turn strange/mad” – ši-in-kúr-ru-d[a] (Source 32: 22) kúr “strange/unfamiliar” – ⌈kúr⌉ (Source 4: D 374) ki kúr “alien place” – ⌈ki kúr-šè⌉ (Source 4: D 375) lú kúr “hostile/enemy” – lú kúr (Source 1: A 8) – lú kúr-ra (Source 1: A 7) (Source 4: A 33 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma) kur6 “(food) ration” – kur6-re (Source 4: C 304) kuš7--su “to level” – kuš7 ḫé-ni-ib-su-su (Source 4: E4 491) lá “to bind” – lá-lá (Source 3: 42) i-si-iš--lá-lá “to be stricken with sorrow” – i-si-iš ba-ni-in-lá-lá (Source 4: B1 105) d lamma “protective spirit” – dlamma (Source 32: 19) libir(-ra) “old”, here “original” – libir-ra-bi-gin7 (Source 36: 35) líl “wind/haunted place” – líl-lá (Source 32: 24) lipiš “wrath” lipiš--bal “to become angry” – lipiš-bi na-an-bal-la (Source 32: 17) lú “person” – lú (Source 3: 43) (Source 4: A 33, 34, D 373, E2 230) (Source 8: B 9) See also nam-lú-u18-lu. lú ḫa-lam-ma(/-k) “destroyer”, on the term see note 1168 on p. 244 – lú ḫa-lam-ma (Source 7: 244 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma-bi) – lú ḫa-lam-ma-ke4 (Source 4: E2 230 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma-ne) – lú ḫa-l[am-ma-(ke4)] (Source 8: B 10) – lú kúr-ra (Source 4: A 33 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

lú im “windy man”, here “bandit” – lú im (Source 1: B1 15) – ⌈lú⌉ im (Source 1: B2 20) lú kúr “enemy” – lú kúr (Source 1: A 8) – lú kúr-ra (Source 1: A 7) (Source 4: A 33 + var. lú ḫa-lam-ma) lú-maḫ “lu-maḫ-priest” – lú-maḫ (Source 2: 20) lugal “king/lord” – lugal (Source 4: C 304) (Source 6: A 2a.3) (Source 32: 15) – lugal-bi (Source 4: B1 104, B2 393) – lugal-ĝu10 (Source 2: 6) See also nam-lugal. luḫ see nu-luḫ-ḫasar, šu-luḫ lul see níĝ-lul ma-da “land” – ma-da (Source 2: 9) “the land (of Sumer/Babylonia)” – ma-da (Source 2:17) (Source 4: E4 487) (Source 32: 22) maḫ “huge/enormous” – maḫ (Source 6: B 4.22, 5.20) See also lú-maḫ. *ma-al-ga/ma-al-gi “wits” – [m]a-al-gi-bi (Source 32: 22) me “to be” – nu-me-a (Source 1: A 8; B1 16; B2 21) See also ḫé-àm. me “divine powers”, here “rites” – ⌈me⌉-bi (Source 35: 71 D) mè “battle” – [m]è (Source 32: 23) mí-ul ca. “charms/beauty” – mí-ul-lá (Source 10: B I 20) mu “name” – mu-bi (Source 10: B IV 5’) “fame” – mu (Source 2: 11) mú “to clothe” – ba-ra-an-mú (Source 4: D 376 + var. im-ma-a[n-mú]) muš “snake” – muš (Source 4: E3 145) ná “to lie” see ki-ná “resting place”

617

naĝ “to drink” – gu7-gu7-a (Source 4: C 304 + var. gu7-naĝ-a) na-an-ga-ma “earlier / former” – na-an-ga-ma (Source 1: B2 18) na-me “any” (indefinite pronoun) – [n]a-me (Source 1: B1 13) nam-ĝá-nun “office/rank as (the main) storehouse” – nam-ĝá-nun (Source 2: 11) nam-ḫul “evil” (subst.) – [n]am-ḫul-la (Source 32: 16) nam-lugal “kingship” – nam-lugal (Source 1: B2 21) – nam-lugal-la (Source 1: B1 16) – n[am-lugal] (Source 35: 70 D) nam-lú-u18-lu/ùlu “people” – nam-⌈lú⌉-u18-lu (Source 32: 20 + var. [na]m-lú-u18-lu) – n[am-lú-ùlu-bi] (Source 10: B II 2) nam-ra-a5(-k) “booty/spoil” – nam-ra-aka-ne-ne (Source 2: 12 + var. nam-ra-aka-ne-ne-a) nam-sipa “shepherdship” – nam-sipa (Source 1: B1 14; B2 19) (Source 2: 6) nam-tar “nam-tar demon” – nam-tar (Source 32: 21) nam--tar “to decide as destiny” – nam mu-un-ta[r!] (Source 35: 73 D) nam-ú-a “office of the provider (of the temples)”, on the concept see the discussion p. 146 with note 681 – [nam-ú-a] (Source 35: 59 D) nam-úš see saĝ--ús ní “fear” in ní íl-la “awe-laden” – ní íl-la-a (Source 9: B 236 + var. with íl-‹la›-a) níĝ-du11(-g) “spoken (word)” – níĝ-⌈du11⌉-[ga?]-⌈ni⌉ (Source 35: 61 D) níĝ-ḫul “evil” (subst.) – [níĝ-ḫul] (Source 35: 75 D) níĝ-lul “falsehood” – níĝ-lul-la (Source 32: 18)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

618

níĝ-sa6(-g+a) “good, marvellous, gracious thing” – níĝ-sa6-ga (Source 4: C 304) – níĝ-sa6-⌈ga⌉-ni (Source 3: 37) níĝ-si-sá “justice” – níĝ-si-sá (Source 32: 19) níĝ-sig5 “good” (subst.) – níĝ-sig5-ga (Source 32: 16) *níĝ-á-zi “violent/wicked” – níĝ-‹á›-zi (Source 32: 23) niĝin(2) “to wander around” – níĝin (Source 1: B2 20) nin-diĝir “nin-diĝir-priestess” – nin-diĝir-ĝu10-ne (Source 2: 20) ní-te(-n/ĝ) “self/shudder/freeze”, see the comment on Source 4: A 34 – ní-te-na-ka (Source 4: B2 393) – ní-te-na-‹ka› (Source 4: A 34, B1 104, 105) nu-ĝar-ra “treacherous” – nu-ĝar-ra (Source 9: A 231 + var. ‹nu›-ĝar-ra) nu-luḫ-ḫasar “devil’s dung” – nu-luḫ-ḫasar (Source 1: B1 15, B2 20 + var. nu-ḫa-rasar, nu-ḫa-LAsar) numun “semen/seed/descent” – numun (Source 1: B1 16, B2 21) (Source 4: E3 146) nun “prince” – nun (Source 35: 58 D) pa-an “to blow/to breathe” zi gig--pa-an “to breathe heavily” – zi gig mu-un-pa-an-pa-an (Source 4: B2 393) ra “to hit” in saĝ ĝiš--ra “to hit the head with a stick” > “to kill” – saĝ ĝiš bi-ra-ra (Source 3: 43 + var. with bí-ra-‹ra›) ra(-k) “to plunder/to carry off” – ši-in-bi-ra-ka (Source 32: 24) See also nam-ra-a5(-k). ri “to set in place”, here “to turn sth. into sth.” – ba-ni-in-ri (Source 32: 24) See also gaba-ri.

ri (?) “to depart”, see the commentary on the line – ab-te-ri-a (Source 32: 16) sa6(-g) “beautiful” see níĝ-sa6(-g) sa10 “to sell” – sa10-sa10 (Source 1: B1 15) – sa10-sa10-d[è] (Source 1: B2 20) ság--du11(-g) “to disperse” – ság d[u11-ga] (Source 10: B II 5) saĝ “head/top/beginning” saĝ ĝiš--ra “to hit the head with a stick” > “to kill” – saĝ ĝiš bi-ra-ra (Source 3: 43 + var. with bí-ra-‹ra›) “earlier (times)” – saĝ-ĝá-ke4 (Source 32: 15) “foremost/fine” – saĝ-⌈ĝá⌉-n[a] (Source 32: 18) See also gú-saĝ-kal, ḫur-saĝ, ur-saĝ, ùz-saĝ. saĝ(+a) “guardian” – saĝ-ĝá (Source 32: 19) saĝ--ús “to be constant”, in a peculiar mix-up with nam-úš “death”, see the commentary – saĝ nam-úš-e-ne (Source 32: 21 + var. saĝ nam-m[u-úš-e-ne]) sar “to be swift” – ši-in-sar-re (Source 32: 23) sar “to write” – ab-sar-àm (Source 36: 35) sè(-g) “to place”, here “to be made into” – ì!(ir)-sè-ga (Source 32: 20 = 2×) si “to fill/to turn into” – ba-an-si (Source 32: 24) si--sá see níĝ-si-sá si “horn” si--tun “to gore with a horn” – [si-t]un (Source 35: 73 D) sig5(+a) “good” – ⌈sig5⌉-[ga]-⌈me⌉ (Source 32: 19) See also níĝ-sig5. sig7 “to be (made) beautiful” – sig7-[ga] (Source 10: B I 20)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

silim “well-being” – silim-ma-ke4 (Source 3: 39 + var. silim-ma) sipa “shepherd” – sipa-bi (Source 4: A 34) See also nam-sipa. sískur “prayer” – sískur-bi (Source 2: 24) su see kuš7--su sù(-d/ř) “to be (made) long” – in-sù-ud-da-àm (Source 9: B 237 + var. in-su13-ud-⌈da⌉) “to dispel” – s[ù-sù-da] (Source 10: B II 4) su8(-g) see gub sùḫ “to be confused” – im-sùḫ-sùḫ (Source 1: A 8) sum “to give/to hand over” – bí-in-sum-mu (Source 1: A 7) – ma-an-sum (Source 2: 6 + var. baan-sum) – mi-ni-sum (Source 3: 41) – mu-na-an-sum (Source 1: B1 16) – [mu-n]a?-an-sum (Source 1: B2 21 + var. mu-na-sum) – sum-mu-dè (Source 4: A 32) sun5 see ku4(-r) šà(-g) “heart/midst” – šà (Source 2: 18) (Source 3: 38) – šà-ba (Source 32: 21) šà--bal-bal “to breed” – šà ba-ni-ib-bal-bal (Source 4: E3 146) šà-dib-ba “wrath” – [šà]-dib-ba (Source 32: 17) šà-ḫúl “delight” – šà-ḫúl-la-ka-na (Source 4: B1 106) šà-ne-ša4 “supplication” – šà-ne-ša4-ĝu10 (Source 3: 38) šéš/še8 in ér-- šéš/še8- še8 “to weep” – ér gig mu-un-še8-še8 (Source 4: B1 106) urudu šen “vessel” – urudušen (Source 8: B 9) šu “hand” – šu-ĝá (Source 3: 43)

619

šu bal--a5(-k) “to alter” – šu bal ‹nu›-mu-u[n-a5] (Source 35: 57 D) šu--du7 “to perform in perfection” – šu nu-un-⌈šu⌉-du7 (Source 35: 71 D) šu--šub “to strike hard” – šu im-ma-da-an-šub (Source 8: A 21) šu zi--ĝar “to invest (someone)” – šu zi bí-in-ĝar-re-eš-àm (Source 9: B 238) šu-luḫ “purification rites” – ⌈šu-luḫ-bi⌉ (Source 35: 71 D) šu-ku6-(da-k) “(temple) fisherman”, see the commentary on Source 35, line 48 and p. 168 – [šu-ku6-(da-ke4?)] (Source 35: 69 D) šu-nir “(divine) emblem” – šu-nir-ĝu10 (Source 2: 20) – dšu-nir (Source 10: B I 15) – dšu-nir-ba (Source 10: B IV 3’) šu-peš6 “cult centre” – šu-peš6 (Source 32: 21) šub “to throw down/to forsake” – ba-an-šub-ba (Source 32: 20) – [mu-un-š]ub-ba (Source 32: 18 + var. m[u-un-šub-ba]) gú--šub “to turn the neck (angrily)” – ⌈gú⌉ š[ub-b]a-⌈meš⌉ (Source 32: 19 + var. [gú] šub-ba-meš) šu--šub “to strike hard” – šu im-ma-da-an-šub (Source 8: A 21) te (?) “to depart”; see the commentary on the line – ab-te-ri-a (Source 32: 16) til “to end” – [n]u-til-aš (Source 32: 23) túg “garment” – túg (Source 4: D 376) tuku/du12-du12 “to (let) have” – im-ma-an-tuku (Source 1: A 10) – nu-tuku-àm (Source 4: E1 76) – ba!(ma)-ra-ab-t[uku-a] (Source 32: 20 + var. [ba-r]a-ab-tuku-a) – in-[tuku-a] (Source 32: 17)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

620

– du12-du12-dè (Source 2: 11 + var. du12-du12-da) ĝiš tukul “weapon” – ĝištukul (Source 6: B 4.20) – ĝištukul-la (Source 6: A 2a.4) “weapon mark”(element on the liver) – ĝištukul (Source 3: 41, 42) túm “to lead (away/back)” – mu-un-túm-ma-a (Source 10: A I 11) – túm-mu-dè (Source 4: A 35) tum4 “to be suitable” – tum4-ma (Source 10: B I 16) tun “to butt” si--tun “to gore with a horn” – [si-t]un (Source 35: 73 D) tur “to become small/to diminish” – ab-tur-ra-àm (Source 32: 22) tuš/durun “to (let) dwell” – nu-tuš-ù-dè (Source 4: A 32) – tuš-ù-dè (Source 4: A 33) – ga-bí-ib-durunx(tuš-tuš) (Source 2: 21 + var. ga-bí-ib-durunx(tušru-tuš)) – ga-bí-ib-durunx(tuš-tuš)-uš (Source 2: 18 + var. ga-bí-ib-dù-dù, ga-⌈bí⌉ib-ĝar) – durunx(tuš-tuš)-ù-dè (Source 2: 12) See also ki-tuš. ú-a “provider (of the temples)”, on the concept see the discussion p. 146 with note 681 – ú-a (Source 9: B 236) ù “and” – ù (Source 2: 7, 8) u4 “day/when” – u4 (Source 1: A 9; B2 18) (Source 10: A I 8) – ⌈u4⌉ (Source 1: B1 13) – [u4] (Source 10: B II 1) – u4-ba (Source 4: E1 75) – ⌈u4⌉-bi-a (Source 32: 15) u4-da “today” – u4-da (Source 1: A 5) “storm” – u4 (Source 4: E4 487) u6-di(-d) “(to) marvel” – u6-di-dè (Source 10: B I 17)

udug in udug-ḫul “evil udug demon” – udug-ḫul-didli (Source 32: 21) ugu “top” – ugu-bi-ta (Source 9: A 231) úgugu5-bi “monkey” – úgugu5-bi (Source 1: B2 19) – úgugu5 (over bi)-bi (Source 1: B1 14) ùĝ “people” – ùĝ-bi (Source 4: A 32) uĝnim “troops” – uĝnim-bé-ne (Source 2: 8) ul (ca. “splendor”) see mí-ul ul “remote days” – ul-ta (Source 9: B 236) ul-gùr-ru ca. “loving affection” – ul-gùr-ru (Source 3: 41) ul-ḫé “base of heaven” – ul-ḫé (Source 32: 19) ul4-ul4-la-bi “hastily” – ul4-ul4-la-bi (Source 4: D 376) ù-mu-un “lord” – ù-mu-un (Source 5: 2’) umuš “wits/thinking” – umuš!(šu) (Source 32: 18) ur “dog/predator” – ur-re (Source 6: B 4.11) – ⌈ur-ra⌉ (Source 6: B 4.20) ur-saĝ “hero” – ur-saĝ (Source 5: 4’) úru “city/settlement” – [ú]ru (Source 32: 21) – úru-didli (Source 32: 24) ús “to be constant” – ba-ab-ú[s-sa] (Source 32: 16) úš “to die” – a-am-úš-a-ba (Source 5: 4’) – ⌈am⌉-[úš-a-ba] (Source 5: 2’) ùšu “thirty” – ùšu (Source 7: 244) ùz-saĝ “lead goat”, here “foremost” – [ùz-saĝ] (Source 6: A 2a.3) uzu “flesh/meat” – uzu (Source 3: 39, 40 X1 = 2×) za-e “you” – za-e (Source 1: A 10) za-gìn “lapis-lazuli” – za-gìn-na (Source 10: B I 19)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

zag “side/border” – zag (Source 4: A 36) (Source 10: B II 5) – [zag] (Source 6: A 2a.4) zag “shrine” – zag (Source 32: 24) zag(-)gu-la(2) ca. “shrine” – zag(-)gu-la-ne-ne (Source 2: 18 + var. ĝiš zag -gu-lá-ne- ne , ĝiš z[agg]u-la-ne-ne, zag(-)gu-la!- ne -nea) zal “to blow” – ba-e-zal-la (Source 4: E4 487) – ḫé-eb-zal (Source 4: E4 487, 488 = 2×, 489 = 2×, 490 = 2×) zà-mí “praise” – zà-míma (Source 10: A I 15) zi “breath/life” – zi-ni-šè (Source 35: 74 D) zi--gi4 “to hold one’s breath” – zi im-ma-ni-in-gi4 (Source 4: B1 104) zi gig--pa-an “to breathe heavily”

621

– zi gig mu-un-pa-an-pa-an (Source 4: B2 393) zi-(d+a) “right/legitimizing” – zi-da (Source 3: 41) – [z]i-da (Source 3: 40 X2) – zi-da-ĝá (Source 3: 41) – zi-da-na (Source 3: 40 X1) šu zi--ĝar “to invest (someone)” – šu zi bí-in-ĝar-re-eš-àm (Source 9: B 238) zi(-g) “to rise/to be incited” – ab-zi-zi-e-a (Source 32: 18) – im-zi-ge (Source 1: A 8) – z[i-ga] (Source 6: B 5.20) zi(-g) “to remove” – íb-ta-an-zi-ge4-eš-àm (Source 9: A 231 + var. íb-ta-zi-ge-eš-a) zi(-g) “to raise (the arm)” in *níĝ-á-zi “violent/wicked” – níĝ-‹á›-zi (Source 32: 23) zi(-r) “to raze/to tear out” – me-zí-ir-zí-re-ne (Source 4: E2 230 + var. me- zi -i[r-zi-re-ne])

Divine Names Addu/Adad – diškur (Source 37: III 19’) (Source 55: 1b) (Source 57: 2) Antu – [an-tu4] (Source 49: obv. 1, rev. 5’, 6’) An(u), see also anūtu – an (Source 9: B 237) – da-ni7 (Source 70: B 7) – da-nu-um (Source 35: 27a + var. danum) – da-num (Source 35: 80) – [da-num] (Source 35: 25) – d [60] (Source 49: rev. 5’) – [d6]0 (Source 49: obv. 18) – [d60] (Source 49: obv. 1, rev. 6’) (Source 74: C 18) Anunna – da-nun-na-ke4-ne (Source 9: B 236 + var. diĝir da-nun-na-ke4-ne, da-nun‹na›-ke4-ne)

– da-nun-na-bi (Source 4: D 377) Aššur – aš-šur (Source 31: 48, 49) – an-šár (Source 46: 45) Alad-šimalla(š) – dala[d-ši-ma-a]l-la-aš (Source 32: 20) Bēl (= Marduk) – en (Source 76: obv. 1, 6) – d+en (Source 35: 49 + var. damarutu , 60) (Source 36: 21) (Source 37: II 2, 17, 18, III 9’, 14’a, 15’a) (Source 48: rev. 7) (Source 57: 2 + var. damar-utu) (Source 58: 4) (Source 71: IV 12 = 2×) – [d+e]n (Source 37: II 20b) – [d+]e[n] (Source 37: III 6’a) – d+ [en] (Source 37: III 16’) – [d+en] (Source 35: 44) Bēlet-Ninua (in Babylon) – [dg]ašan-ni-nú-a (Source 37: I 6)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

622

Ea, see also Nudimmud – dé-a (Source 35: 77) (Source 74: C 18) Ea mummu “Creator Ea” – dé-a mu-um-mì (Source 35: 19 + var. [dé]-a mu-⌈um⌉-m[u]) Enki (= Ea) – den-ki (Source 9: B 237) Enlil (of Nippur) – den-líl (Source 2: 6) (Source 9: B 237) – ⌈den-líl⌉ (Source 35: 25) – d+en-líl (Source 35: 27a) (Source 70: B 7) – [d+en-líl] (Source 74: C 18) – d+en-líl-le (Source 1: A 5, 9; B1 15) – d+e[n-lí]l-le (Source 1: B1 13) – den-líl-le (Source 1: B2 18, 20) (Source 2: 13, 17) (Source 4: E1 75) – den-líl-lá (Source 1: A 5, in note) (Source 2: 22) (Source 4: E1 76) – den-líl-lá-šè (Source 2: 11) ūm Enlil “the day (of the festival) of Enlil (of Nippur)” – u4-mi d+en-líl (Source 36: 28) Enlil (= Aššur) – d+en-líl (Source 34: C 6) Enlil (= Marduk) – d+en-líl (Source 35: 61 + var. d+en-lílle, Sum. ergative) (Source 59: 11) – den-líl (Source 74: A 7 + var. den-líllá(!)) – [d+e]n-líl (Source 74: C 13) – [d+en-líl]-lá (Source 74: C 14) Girra/Gibil – [dg]i-bil (Source 34: C 4) Gula – dgu-la (Source 35: 14) Katuna in Raqqat Katuna “Meadow of (the goddess) Katuna” (at Babylon) – sal-la ‹d›ká-tùn-na (Source 45: 9) Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti (= Nabû) – [dd]umu-⌈é-kiš⌉-šat-an-e-u-ki-tì (Source 35: 47 + var. ⌈ddumu?-é?-kiššat-an⌉-u-ki)

Marduk – damar-utu (Source 34: A 1, D 1) (Source 35: 17, 54, 58, 66) (Source 44: obv. 20) (Source 71: IV 5) (Source 74: A 7, D 1, E 1, 3, 4) (Source 77: 6, 8, 13, 15) – damar-⌈utu⌉ (Source 35: 49 + var. d+ en) – da[mar-utu] (Source 35: 78) – [damar-utu] (Source 33: obv. 10’) Mullissu (of Arbaʾil) – dni[n-l]íl (Source 76: obv. 2) Nabû see also Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-uerṣeti – dnà (Source 35: 79, 83 S) – d+nà (Source 37: III 5’, 8’, 14’a, 15’a, 18’ = 2×) Nanna, see also Sîn – dnanna (Source 4: D 373) (Source 10: A I 8) Ningal – dnin-gal-e (Source 4: D 375) Nin-Isina – dnin-isinx(in)si-na-ka-šè (Source 2: 10) Ninkarrak – dnin-kar-ra-ak-a (Source 35: 10) Ninmaḫ – dnin-maḫ-a (Source 9: B 237 + var. d nin-maḫ-bi) Nisaba – dnisaba (Source 34: D 4) Nudimmud (= Ea) – dnu-⌈dím⌉-m[ud] (Source 35: 25) Nunbi-me-anki (divine emblem) – dnun-bi-me!(bar)-an-ki (Source 10: B IV 4’) Sîn (/ Suʾen), see also Nanna – den.zu-e (Source 4: D 374) – d+en.zu-na (Source 2: 23 + var. d nanna-[šè]) – d+en.zu-na-ra (Source 1: A 6, 9) – d30 (Source 37: I 2) (Source 49: obv. 8, 15) (Source 56: 5) celestial body: “the moon” – 30 (Source 58: 1) – [30] (Source 64)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– (d+en.zu) (Source 55: 1a) Siraš – dsiraš (Source 34: D 5) Šakkan – dšákkan (Source 34: D 4) Šamaš, see also šamšu celestial body: “the sun” – 20 (Source 58: 1)

623

– dutu (Source 59: 3) Šazu = Marduk (see pp. 117f.) – ‹dšà-zu› (Source 35: 76) Tašmētu – dtaš-me-tu4 (Source 37: I 21) Zarpānītu (/ “Zērbānītu”) – dnumun-dù-tu (Source 74: E 4)

Temple Names Bīt-rēš – é-re-eš (Source 49: rev. 7’, 9’) Dublamaḫ – dub-lá-maḫ (Source 10: A I 12) (Edaraʾanna), chapel of Bēltīya in Esaĝil – [é?⌉ dgašan-i[a] (Source 37: I 9) Egalmaḫ – é-g[al-m]aḫ (Source 35: 10) – [é-gal-ma]ḫ (Source 35: 13) Eĝidru-kalamma-summu – é-ĝišĝidru-kalam-ma-[s]u[m-m]u (Source 37: II 10) (Eĝišḫurankiʾa), temple of BēletNinua at Babylon – [é dg]ašan-ni-nú-a (Source 37: I 6) Ekišnuĝal, Eĝišnuĝ/gal – é-kiš-nu-ĝál-šè (Source 2: 23) – é-ĝiš-nu11-ĝál (Source 55: 4) – [é-ĝ]iš-nu11-gal (Source 49: obv. 8) Ekur at Nippur – é-kur-ra-⌈šè⌉ (Source 2: 22) Ekur-Baltil (= Ešarra) at Aššur, see also Baltil – é-kur-bal-ti-il5 (Source 34: C 1) Ekur-Saĝil see Esaĝil Enamtila (palace of the divine kings of the Third Dynasty of Ur) – é-nam-ti-la (Source 4: B1 106) Esaĝil – é-saĝ-íl (Source 35: 30, 52b, 53, 57 + var. ⌈é-saĝ-gíl⌉, 59 + var. é-saĝ-gíl, 72) (Source 36: 17, 22) (Source 37: II 4, III 9’) (Source 38: 26) (Source 48: rev. 6) (Source 49: obv. 7) (Source 74: A 5 + var. é-saĝ-gíl)

– ⌈é⌉-saĝ-íl (Source 35: 74) (Source 77: 4) – é-saĝ-í[l] (Source 35: 48 + var. ⌈ésaĝ⌉-gíl) – é-s[a]ĝ-íl (Source 74: D 4 + var. ésaĝ-gíl) – é-sa[ĝ-íl] (Source 35: 46 + var. ésaĝ-gíl) – ⌈é⌉-[saĝ-í]l (Source 77: 9) – [é-s]aĝ-íl (Source 35: 21) – [é-saĝ-í]l (Source 35: 56 + var. ésaĝ-gíl) – ⌈é-saĝ-íl-la⌉ (= Sum. genitive, Source 35: 59 D) – é-s[aĝ-(g)íl] (Source 74: B2 7) – é-saĝ-gíl (Source 35: 72 A) (Source 71: IV 5) (Source 72: obv. 10’, 14’) (Source 74: D 2, E 1) – ⌈é-saĝ-gíl⌉ (Source 35: 47 A) – [é-saĝ-gíl] (Source 74: C 11) Ekur-Saĝil – é-kur-saĝ-íl (Source 34: D 12) On the spelling é-saĝ-gíl vs. é-saĝ-íl see the discussion on pp. 388f. (Etemenanki) ≈ nuḫar (the temple on top of a ziqqurrat, here at Babylon) – nu-ḫar (Source 37: III 19’) Etuša – ⌈é⌉-tuš-a (Source 35: 30) Ezida at Borsippa – é-zi-da (Source 36: 27) Sig-kur-šaga at Ĝiša(-Umma) – sig4-kur-šà-ga (Source 9: A 230 + var. sig4-ḫur-šà-abki-ba-ka, sig4kur-⌈šà-ba⌉)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

624

Temple Gates Bāb-Bēlīya (probably in Esaĝil) – ká-en-ia (Source 37: III 3’)

Ka-ḫili-su (gate of the chapel of Zarpānītu in Esaĝil) – ká-ḫi-li-sù (Source 36: 33) Personal Names

Adapa – a-⌈da-pà⌉ (Source 35: 43) Adad-šuma-iddina of Babylon – [I.diškur-mu-sum-na] (Source 71: IV 3) Adad-šuma-uṣur of Babylon – I.diškur-mu-ùru (Source 71: IV 9a) Akka of Kiš – ⌈Iak⌉-ka (Source 35: 41) Amar-Sîn (Amar-Suʾena) of Ur – amar-d+en.zu-na (Source 28: B) (Source 50) – ⌈amar-d+⌉[en.zu-na] (Source 28: C) – Iamar-d+en.zu-na (Source 35: 72) – Iama[r-d+en.zu-na] (Source 28: A, 52) – [Iamar]-d+en.zu-na (Source 49: rev. 4’) – dam[ar-de]n.⌈zu⌉ (or dam[ard e]n.⌈zu-na!⌉ ?) (Source 27: 2) variant with Būr-Sîn of Isin – amar-d+en(!).zu-na (Source 51: B + var. bur-d30) Antiochos II – Ian-ti-ʾi-ku-su (Source 49: rev. 10’) Anu-aḫa-ušabši – ⌈I⌉d60-šeš-ĝál-ši (Source 49: rev. 6’) Anu-balāssu-iqbi – [I.d60]-tin-su-[e] (Source 49: rev. 7’) Apil-Sîn of Babylon – [Ia-pil-d+e]n.zu (Source 35: 1) Arad-Etuša – Iìr-d⌈é⌉-tuš:a (Source 72: obv. 9’) Aššur-bāni-apli of Assyria – Iaš-šur-dù-a (Source 76: obv. 3) – I!aš-šur-dù-a (Source 76: obv. 7) Aššur-nāṣir-apli/*Aššur-nādin-apli of Assyria – Ian-šár-na-ṣir-a (Source 71: IV 10)

([…]-)Bangar of Subartu – [I(…)](-)ban-ga-ár (Source 49: obv. 5; also […](-)ba-ĝar, see pp. 470f.) Būr-Sîn of Isin, variant with AmarSuʾena of Ur – bur-d30 (Source 51: A + var. amard+ en(!).zu-na) Damiq-ilīšu of Isin – ⌈(I)da-mi-iq-diĝir-šu⌉ (Source 35: 1) Egi-batila – Ie4-gi7-[ba-ti-la] (Source 49: rev. 2’) Ekur-zākir – [Ié-kur-za-kir] (Source 49: rev. 6’) Enlil-nādin-aḫi of Babylon – dbe-mu-⌈šeš⌉ (Source 33: obv. 6’) – ⌈d⌉be-mu-šeš (Source 33: obv. 12’) En-me-barage-si of Kiš – Ien-me-bára-a-g[e-si] (Source 35: 41) Enmerkar of Uruk – Ien-me-kár (Source 35: 42) – I.d+en-me-kár (Source 35: 44 + var. I en-⌈me-kár⌉) (Eʾ)ulmaš-šākin-šumi of Babylon – ⌈ul⌉-[maš-ĝar-mu] (Source 37: II 26) Gazza[…] (Ḫuzziya II of Ḫatti?) – IGAZ-ZA?-[ ] ⌈x⌉ [ ] (Source 72: obv. 13’) Gilgameš of Uruk – [d]ĝiš (Source 35: 45) Ḫiši’aršu see Xerxes Ḫumban-ḫaldaš I of Elam – ḫum-b[a-ḫal]-da-šú (Source 75: III 30) Ibbi-Sîn of Ur – di-bí-den.zu (Source 4: A 35, B1 105) – i-bi-den.zu (Source 20: 10) (Source 22: B1) – [i-bi-den.z]u (Source 25)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– Ii-bi-den.zu (Source 22: A, C2) – i-bi-d+en.zu (Source 21: 14) (Source 24 + var. i-bi-den.zu) (Source 26: XIII 5) – i-bí-d+en.zu (Source 13) – i-bí !-d+en.zu (Source 5: 2’) – i-bí-den.zu (Source 12) (Source 14) – i-bí-d30 (Source 54: 4) (Source 62) (Source 64) – i-bí-⌈d⌉[30] (Source 66) – i-bí-[d30] (Source 61) – [i-bí-d30] (Source 67) – Ii-bí-d30 (Source 52 + var. i-bí-d3[0]) (Source 65) – Ii-[bí-d3]0 (Source 63 + var. [Ii-b]íd 30) – Ii-bi5-d30 (Source 29: A) – ⌈I⌉im-bi-d30 (Source 35: 75) “Ibbi-Ašim-babbar” (cryptography) – I⌈babbar⌉-a-še-em-me-íb-bi (Source 36: 1) Išbi-Erra of Isin – Iiš-bi-dèr-ra (Source 1: B1 16) – Iiš-bi-èr-ra (Source 16: 5) – diš-bi-èr-ra (Source 1: B2 21) – iš-bi-dèr-ra (Source 68 + var. iš:bi-dèrra) – iš-bi-èr-ra (Source 15) – iš!-bi-èr-ra (Source 5: 4’) – iš!-bi-er-r[a] (Source 69) Išbi-Erra also appears in the texts of Source 2 and Source 3, although not mentioned by name in the present excerpts. Kaštiliyaš IV of Babylon – ⌈Ikaš-til⌉-[ía-àš] (Source 71: IV 1) – [Ikaš-til-ía-àš] (Source 71: IV 1) Kidin-Anu – Iki-din-d60 (Source 49: rev. 6’) Ku-Baʾu of Kiš – ⌈ku-ub⌉-ba-bu-ú (Source 17: 13) – ku-up-pa-[bu] (Source 18) – ku-ub-‹ba›-a-ba (Source 19) – fkù-dba-ú (Source 35: 52a, 53, 55) (Source 40 + var. dkù-dba-ú) (Source 41: A 2) – dkù-[dba-ú] (Source 42)

625

– [fkù-dba-ú(?)] (Source 43) Kutir-Naḫḫunte II of Elam – ku-dúr-na-an-ḫu-un-di (Source 33: obv. 3’) – Iku-dúr-ḫuĝ-ĝá (Source 72: rev. 3) – [(Iku-dúr-ḫuĝ-ĝá)] (Source 72: rev. 1) – IKU-KU-KU-KU-Ĝ[Á] = Iku-dúr-náḫḫuĝ-ĝá or Iku-dúr-nuḫx-ḫuĝ-ĝe26 in BM 34062, rev. 21’ (see p. 524 with note 1869 on the text; see p. 533 on the reading of the name) Lu-Nanna, son & scholar of Šulgi – Ilú-dnanna (Source 49: obv. 11) Marduk-ēṭir – I.damar-utu-sur (Source 35: 83 S) Marduk-šuma-iqīša – [I.damar-utu-mu]-ba-šá (Source 36: 36 B) Mušēzib-Bēl – Ikar-d+en! (Source 35: 83 S) Nabû-mukīn-apli of Babylon – d+nà-gin-a (Source 37: III 6’b, 10’, 13’b, 19’) – d+nà-gin-⌈a⌉ (Source 37: III 15’b) – d+nà-gin-ibila (Source 37: IV 5’) – [d+nà-gi]n-ibila (Source 37: IV 4’) Nabû-šumu-libūr of Babylon – [dn]à-mu-li-bur (Source 37: I 16) Nabû-zuqup-kēnu – I.dnà-zu-qu-up-gi-na (Source 36: 36) Narām-Sîn of Akkade – Ina-ram-d[30] (Source 35: 62 + var. ⌈na⌉-ram-d30, ⌈na-ra-am-d⌉30) (Ninurta)-tukulti-Aššur of Assyria – Itukul-ti-an-šár (Source 71: IV 12 = 2×) Puzur-ilī of Akšak – Ipuzur5-diĝirmeš (Source 35: 48 + var. I púzur-diĝir⌈meš⌉) Rabsisi of Subartu – Irab-si-si (Source 49: obv. 5) Samsu-iluna of Babylon – Isa-am-su!?-i-lu-na (Source 70: B 7) *Sîn-(m)uballiṭ see Egi-batila Suḫāya – [Is]u-ḫa-a-a (Source 35: 83 S)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

626

Sumu-la-El of Babylon – Isu-mu-la-diĝir (Source 35: 80) Šarru-kīn of Akkade – lugal-gi-na (Source 45: 8) – lugal-gin (Source 35: 56 + var. ⌈lugal-gi-na⌉) – Ilugal-gin (Source 35: 57 + var. lugal-gi-⌈na⌉, [lugal-k]e-en) – Ilugal-gin (Source 44: obv. 1) Šulgi of Ur – dšul-gi (Source 35: 70, 75) – [dšul-g]i-⌈ra⌉ (Source 35: 75 D) – I.dšul-gi (Source 48: rev. 5) – [I.]⌈d⌉šul-gi (Source 49: obv. 10) – [I.dš]ul-gi (Source 49: obv. 3) – [I.dšul-g]i (Source 49: obv. 20) – [I.dšul-gi] (Source 49: rev. 3’) Šu-Sîn of Ur – Išu-den.zu-na (Source 35: 74) Tudḫul(y)a (Tudḫaliya I of Ḫatti?) – ITU-UD-ḪUL-A (Source 72: obv. 13’) Tukultī-Ninurta I of Assyria – Itukul-ti-dmaš (Source 71: IV 7, 9b) – [ Itukul]-⌈ti⌉-dmaš (Source 71: IV 3)

– [Itukul-ti-dmaš] (Source 71: IV 1) – Ibàd-maḫ-dmaš (Source 72: obv. 9’) Ur-Namma of Ur – ur-dnamma (Source 35: 70 + var. I ur-dnam[ma], d⌈ur-d⌉namma, urd namma-ke4) – Iur-dnamma (Source 48: rev. 5) (Source 49: obv. 2, 3) Ur-Zababa of Kiš – Iur-dza-ba4-ba4 (Source 35: 56 + var. ⌈ur⌉-dza-ba4-ba4) Utu-ḫeĝal of Uruk – I.dutu-ḫé-ĝál (Source 30 + var. ‹I.dutu›-ḫe-ĝál, dutu-ḫé-ĝál, I.dutuḫé!(i)-ĝál) – dutu-ḫé-ĝál (Source 35: 65, 68 + var. I.d utu-ḫé-ĝál, 69) – I.dutu-ḫé-en-ĝál (Source 49: obv. 10) Xerxes (Ḫišiʾaršu) – ⌈ḫi-ši⌉-ár-šú (Source 73) Zababa-šuma-iddina of Babylon – [dza-ba4-ba4-m]u-sum-na (Source 33: obv. 2’)

Geographical and Ethnographical Names Akkade/Akkadûm – a-kà-dèki (Source 11) (Source 35: 60) (Source 44: obv. 19) (Source 45: 10) – a-kà-[dèki] (Source 35: 58 S) – ⌈a⌉-k[à-dèki] (Source 35: 60 D) – [a]-⌈kà⌉-[dèki] (Source 45: 9) – a-⌈ka⌉-di-⌈im⌉ (Source 23: B) See also māt Akkadî. Akšak – akšakki (Source 35: 48) Anšan – an-ša-né (Source 5: 1’) – an-ša-anki-ta (Source 10: A I 9) – a[n-ša-anki-na-šè] (Source 10: B II 5) – an-ša4-anki-e (Source 4: E4 491) – an-ša4-anki-na-ka (Source 4: E4 490) – an-ša4-anki-na-šè (Source 4: A 36 + var. an-ša4-anki-šè)

– [an-ša4-anki-na-š]è (Source 6: A 2a.4) – an-ša-anki (Source 54: 5 + var. ‹an›šá-anki, an-ša4-an‹ki›, ‹an›-ša4-‹anki›) – a[n-ša4-anki] (Source 65) Aramu(/-û) “the Aramean(s)” – lúa-ra-mu (Source 37: III 4’b, 7’) – [lúa-ra-mu] (Source 37: IV 8’ = I 1) Arinnu – a-ri-na (Source 31: 46b) Aššur (see also Baltil) – aš-šur (Source 31: 52) Assyria see māt Aššur Bābil (see also Eridu) – ba-bi-lim (Source 35: 59 + var. tintirki, [k]á-diĝir-raki) – eki (Source 72: obv. 10’, 14’) – ⌈eki⌉ (Source 35: 1)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

– ká-diĝir-raki (Source 34: B 4, C 12, D 12) (Source 35: 60 + var. tin-tirki, 62 + var. ká-diĝir⌈ki⌉-ra) (Source 36: 1, 13) (Source 37: II 13) (Source 44: obv. 18, 19) (Source 59: 8, 9, 15 + var. eki, 16) (Source 74: D 2, E 1) – [k]á-diĝir-raki (Source 34: B 7) (Source 74: D 4) – [ká]-diĝir-raki (Source 45: 8) – ká-[diĝir-raki] (Source 74: B2 7) – k[á-diĝir-r]aki (Source 45: 10) – [ká-diĝir-r]aki (Source 34: B 5) – ⌈ká⌉-[diĝir-raki] (Source 77: 10 + var. ba-bi-l[u]ki) – [ká-diĝir-ra]ki (Source 34: B 8) – [ká-diĝir-raki] (Source 34: B 6, 12) – ká-diĝir-raki-ma (Source 34: C 14) – ká-diĝir-raki-m[a] (Source 34: D 14) – [ká-diĝir-raki-ma] (Source 34: B 13) – [šu-a]n-na (Source 35: 46) – tin-tirki (Source 35: 18) (Source 36: 8, 21) (Source 37: I 8, II 22, III 5’) (Source 38: 23) (Source 46: 46) (Source 48: rev. 6) (Source 49: obv. 7) (Source 71: IV 3, 4 = 2×, 5, 9b) (Source 75: III 28) – tin-t[irki] (Source 38: 26) – [tin]-tirki (Source 35: 20) – [tin-t]irki (Source 71: IV 13) – 1ki (Source 34: C 14) – 1[ki] (Source 34: D 15) – [1ki] (Source 34: B 14) Babylonia see māt Akkadî and (māt) Karanduniyaš Baltil (= Aššur), see also Ekur-Baltil – bal-ti-il5 (Source 34: C 1) Barsipa (Borsippa) – [bár]-sipaki (Source 36: 27) Bīt-Albadā – é-al-ba-da-a (Source 36: 7) Chaldea see (māt) Kaldi Dēr – bàd-anki (Source 36: 4, 31) Dilbat – dil-batki (Source 36: 29)

627

Elam(tu)/Elam(m)at – e-la-am-tam (Source 16: 6) – e-lam-ti (Source 74: C 12) – e-lam-mat (Source 72: rev. 1) – elam (Source 75: III 30) – elamki (Source 4: A 33) (Source 7: 244 + var. elam‹ki›) (Source 8: B 10) (Source 14) (Source 15: 2×) – elamki-ma-šè (Source 4: A 35) – elam-maki (Source 34: D 3) (Source 53) (Source 58: 4) (Source 63) (Source 74: A 6, E 3) – ela[m-maki] (Source 74: B2 8) – [elam-maki] (Source 64) Elamû “Elamite” – e-la-mu-ú (Source 32: 23 + var. ⌈e⌉la-mu-u) *lú Elam+ak “Elamite” (Sum.) – elam-maki (Source 32: 23) Eridu – nunki (Source 48: rev. 5) (“New”) Eridu (= Babylon) – eri-du10 (Source 57: 4); see also Source 35, l. 20 and Source 48. E-Ursaĝ – é-dur-saĝ (Source 37: I 14) Ĝiša(-Umma) – ĝišKÚŠU ki-a (Source 9: A 230 + var. ĝiš KÚŠU ‹ki›-‹a›) Gutiʾum / Qutû “Gutium / Gutians” – gu-ti-umki (Source 4: E1 75, E3 146) (Source 6: B 4.20) – [gu]-ti-umki (Source 4: E2 230) – gu-ti-umki-ma-ka (Source 4: E4 489) – gu-ti-um (Source 6: B 4.11) – gu-ti-⌈um⌉ (Source 35: 67 + var. qutu-ú) – qu-te-ú (Source 35: 64) Ummān Qutî “the troops of the (barbarian) Gutians > the horde of the Gutians” (see p. 241) – érin gu-ti-um (Source 35: 62 + var. érin qu-ti-[i], [éri]nmeš gu-ti-iki, [u]mma-an gu-ti-um) – érin-an qu-ti-i (Source 35: 68 + var. éri[n gu-ti-um])

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

628

Ummān Qutî + var. without ummān: – érin gu-ti-um (Source 35: 63 + var. um-⌈ma⌉-an qu-ti-i, [gu-ti-ik]i, gu-tiumki, gu+ti-[i]) Ḫaltemaš – ḫal-te-ma-áš (Source 47: VI 96) Ḫamazi – ḫa-ma-ziki-ta (Source 2: 9) Ḫatti – ḫat-ti (Source 34: B 1) Ḫattû “Hittites” – ḫat-ti-i (Source 34: B 1) Isin – ì-si-inki (Source 2: 11) (Source 9: B 236) – ì-si-inki-na-ka (Source 2: 18) – ì-si-in!-naki (Source 5: 3’) – pa-šeki-ma (Source 35: 1) (Māt) Kaldi “Chaldea” – kur kal-di (Source 36: 19, 32) (Māt) Karanduniyaš “Babylonia” – kar-an-dun-ía-àš (Source 71: IV 7) – kur kar-an-dun-ía-àš (Source 71: IV 7, 8) Kār-Bēl-mātāti – kar-en-kur-kur (Source 37: III 7’) Kār-Tukultī-Ninurta – kar-tukul-ti-dmaš (Source 71: IV 11) Kiʾengi “Sumer” – ki-en-gi (Source 1: B1 13; B2 18) – ki-en-gi-ra (Source 1: B1 16; B2 21) (Source 6: B 4.22) – [ki-en-g]i-ra (Source 6: A 2a.3) See also māt Šumeri sub māt Akkadî. Kirû-samānītu “Eighth-Orchard” (on the western bank of Babylon) – ĝiškiri6–8-ni-tu4 (Source 37: III 12’) – ⌈ĝiškiri6–8-ni-tu4⌉ (Source 37: III 2’) Madaktu – ma-dak-tú (Source 47: VI 96) Magan – má-ganki-na-šè (Source 2: 9 + var. má-gan-naki-ta)

Māt Akkadî “the land of Akkad” (= Babylonia, literally “the land of the city of Akkade”, see p. 492) – kur uriki (Source 33: obv. 5’, 8’) (Source 36: 1, 13, 34) (Source 70: A 2 + var. kur a[k-k]a-di-i, B 5) (Source 71: IV 8) (Source 72: rev. 2) – [kur uriki] (Source 33: obv. 7’) Orthographically abbreviated, without kur, in the royal title: – lugal uriki (Source 56: 4) (Source 60) Māt Šumeri u Akkadî “the land of Sumer and Akkad” – kur šu-me-ri u uriki (Source 35: 18) – kur šu-me-ri u uri[(ki)] (Source 35: 12) – [kur] šu-me-ri u uriki (Source 33: obv. 11’) – kur eme-gi7 u (var. ù) uriki (Source 74: A 1) See also (māt) Karanduniyaš. Māt Aššur “Assyria” – ⌈kur⌉ aš (Source 76: obv. 3) – kur aš-šurki (Source 71: IV 6, 10, 12) – [kur aš-šurki] (Source 71: IV 1) – kur aš-šur (Source 34: C 9) (Source 75: II 19’) – kur an-šárki (Source 47: VI 98) Māt Šumeri see sub māt Akkadî and Kiʾengi Māt tâmti “Sealand” – kur tam-t[ì] (Source 75: II 18’) – kur a-ab-ba (Source 38: 24) Nippur – nibruki (Source 34: B 5) (Source 36: 12) – [nib]ruki (Source 36: 28) pīḫāt Nippur “district of Nippur” – nam nibru⌈ki⌉ (Source 37: I 14) Raqqat Katuna “Meadow of (the goddess) Katuna” (at Babylon) – sal-la ‹d›ká-tùn-na (Source 45: 9) Sippar (/ Sippir) – ud-⌈kib⌉-nunki (Source 34: B 5)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Glossary

Subir (Subartu) – su-bir4ki (Source 49: obv. 5) – su-bir4ki-e (Source 6: B 4.22, 5.20) (Source 8: A 21) Šimaški – LÚ-SUki (Source 4: A 33 + var. LÚ×KÁRki SU ) (Source 7: 244) – LÚ- SU ki (Source 8: B 10) Šūšan (/ Šūšin) – šu-šá-an (Source 47: VI 96) – [šuši]n? ki (Source 75: III 29) Tidnum “Tidnum-bedouins” – ti-id-nu-um (Source 9: A 231 + var. tidnum) – ti-id-nu-umki-ma-ka (Source 4: E4 488) Ṭaban – ṭa-ban (Source 36: 5) Umma see Ĝiša Ummān-Manda – érin-man-da (Source 58: 2) – [ér]in-man- da (Source 35: 42) Uri(m), Urum – ú-ra-am (Source 14) – ù-ri-im (Source 55: 2)

629

– úriki (Source 1: A 7) (Source 49: obv. 3, 8, 9 = 2×, 15) (Source 54: 4) (Source 56: 1c, 5) (Source 59: 15, 16) – úri ki (Source 62) – [úrik]i (Source 49: obv. 2) – uri5ki (Source 4: D 374 + var. úri ki ) – [uri5ki] (Source 6: A 2a.3) – uri5ki-ma (Source 4: D 377 + var. úriki-ma) – [uri5ki-ma] (Source 10: B II 1) – uri5ki-šè (Source 10: A I 10) – u[ri5ki-ta] (Source 10: B II 3) Uruk – unugki (Source 35: 42) (Source 75: III 29 = 2×) – unugk[i] (Source 49: obv. 10) – unug[ki] (Source 49: obv. 13) – [unug]ki (Source 49: rev. 9’) – [unugki] (Source 49: rev. 10’) Urukû “Urukean” – unugki-ú (Source 49: rev. 7’) Zabu (mountain) – za-bu (Source 4: A 36) Unclear Geographical Name: – BÚRU?.BÀDki (Source 5: 3’)

City Gates Abul-Ištar “Ištar Gate” (Babylon) – abul-d15 (Source 37: II 21) Abul-Uraš “Uraš Gate” (Babylon) – abul- duraš (Source 37: II 19)

– abul-duraš (Source 36: 18) (Source 37: II 7) Abul-maḫīri “Market Gate” (Babylon) – abul-ki-lam (Source 37: I 13) Rivers and Canals

Abgal – ídabgal (Source 2: 7) Buranun “Euphrates” – ídburanun-na (Source 2: 7) Idigna/Idiqlat “Tigris” – ídidigna (Source 2: 7)

– íd idigna (Source 37: I 11) Me-Enlila – ídme-den-líl-lá (Source 2: 7) Nār-šanî – íd šá-a-ni (Source 36: 20)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

List of Figures Fig.

1

(p. 36):

Fig.

2

(p. 103):

Fig. Fig.

3 4

(p. 104): (p. 105):

Fig. Fig. Fig. Fig.

5 6 7 8

(p. 105): (p. 106): (p. 107): (p. 108):

Fig.

9

(p. 116):

Fig. 10 Fig. 11

(p. 163): (p. 167):

Fig. 12

(p. 181):

Fig. 13

(p. 185):

Fig. 14

(p. 211):

Fig. 15

(p. 224):

Fig. 16

(p. 290):

Fig. 17

(p. 291):

Fig. 18

(p. 292):

Fig. 19

(p. 293):

Fig. 20

(p. 294):

Fig. 21 Fig. 22 Fig. 23

(p. 354): (p. 400): (p. 445):

Royal Gift Seal, presented to the official Ur-niĝar by his lord, king Ibbi-Sîn (Mayr & Owen 2004, pp. 159, 162, 168, no. 24). Temple at Kiš (1st mill. BCE), opening its gates towards the four winds (after Heinrich 1982, fig. 380). Layout of Dūr-Šarrukīn (after Loud & Altman 1938, pl. 69). Layout of the city of Babylon in the Late Babylonian period, in the 6th cent. BCE (after Heinrich 1982, fig. 382). Detail from the Babylonian Map of the World (after CT 22, pl. 48). The four cardinal points and the four winds. Model of a Neo-Babylonian temple opening to the four winds. Model of the ideal temple at Jerusalem, opening towards the four cardinal points; according to the Temple Scroll from Qumran (after Yadin 1983, p. 252, fig. 14). Assyrian soldiers chop up the statue of a human king or warrior. Detail from a Neo-Assyrian relief depicting the destruction of Muṣaṣir by Sargon II (Botta & Flandin 1849 II, pl. 140). The nikip-nišik equivalence. Eridu, temple of phase VII, Late Ubaid (Ubaid 4, ca. 4000 BCE; after Heinrich 1982, fig. 67; Sumer 3, 1947, fig. 3, after p. 235 in Arabic). Seal of Adad-of-Esaĝil with a ziqqurrat on his chest (Weissbach 1903, p. 17, fig. 2). The tower of Babel destroyed by God’s flashing light and lightning (Cornelis Anthonisz, Amsterdam 1547; after Babylon: Mythos, p. 128, no. 75). Processional statue of Marduk; from a cylinder seal, dedicated by the Babylonian king Marduk-zākir-šumi (9th cent. BCE; Weissbach 1903, p. 16, fig. 1). Introduction scene on the Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina (ca. 888–855 BCE; detail from V R 60). Sketches of “Mari liver model no. 4”. Rutten 1938, pl. 2, no. 4; Meyer 1987, p. 192. Sketches of “Mari liver model no. 6”. Rutten 1938, pl. 3, no. 6; Meyer 1987, p. 193. Sketches of “Mari liver model no. 7”. Rutten 1938, pl. 4, no. 7; Meyer 1987, p. 194. Sketches of “Mari liver model no. 8”. Rutten 1938, pl. 4, no. 8; Meyer 1987, p. 195. Sketches of “Mari liver model no. 9”. Rutten 1938, pl. 5, no. 9; Meyer 1987, p. 195. Copy of BM 47679 (Esaĝil Chronicle, text F). Copy of Sm 1918 (Book of Prodigies, text C). Collation of K 7530 + Rm 2, 483, obv. 28–30.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Abbreviations [] ⌈⌉ {} ‹› act. adv. ASO cent. cf. col(s). com. conj. cont. DN DNf DNm ed(s). esp. f(f). fig(s). GN IEO ISO KBO lit. l(l). no(s). obj. o(b)v. p(p). pass. pl(s). prep. prov. ptc. r(e)v. stat. sth. subst. s.v. unpubl. vol(s).

sign broken (in transliterations) sign partially broken sign to be cancelled sign to be restored active adverb Amar-Sîn omen century confer column(s) commentary conjunction (subjunction) content Divine name Divine name, feminine Divine name, masculine editor(s) especially following (lines, pages) figure(s) Geographical name Išbi-Erra omen Ibbi-Sîn omen Ku-Baʾu omen literally, literature line(s) number(s) object obverse page(s) passive plural; plate(s) preposition provenance participle reverse stative something substantive sub voce unpublished volume(s)

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography ABL: R.F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian letters belonging to the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. Vols. I–XIV (London 1892–1914). Abusch 2016: Tz. Abusch, The Magical Ceremony Maqlû: A Critical Edition. Ancient Magic and Divination 10 (Leiden 2016). ACh: Ch. Virolleaud, L’Astrologie chaldéenne. Le livre intitulé “enuma (Anu) iluBêl”. Sin, Shamash, Ishtar, Adad, et supplements I–II (Paris 1908–1912). Ackroyd 1958: P.R. Ackroyd, “Two Old Testament Historical Problems of the Early Persian Period”, in: JNES 17, 1958, pp. 13–27. Adalı 2009: S.F. Adalı, Ummān-manda and its Significance in the First Millennium B.C. (PhD. University of Sydney, 2009, http://hdl.handle.net/2123/4890). — 2011: S.F. Adalı, The Scourge of God. The Umman-manda and its Significance in the First Millennium BC. SAAS 20 (Helsinki 2011). ADFU: Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka. Adler 1907: M.N. Adler, The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (New York 1907). Africa 1982: Th. Africa, “Worms and the Death of Kings: A Cautionary Note on Disease and History”, in: Classical Antiquity 1, 1982, pp. 1–17. AfO (Bh.): Archiv für Orientforschung (Beiheft). AHw: W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch. Vols. 2I–III (Wiesbaden 1972–1985). Albertz 2001: R. Albertz, Die Exilszeit. 6. Jahrhundert v.Chr. Biblische Enzyklopädie 7 (Stuttgart 2001). — 2003: R. Albertz, Israel in Exile. The History and Literature of the Sixth Century B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature, Studies in Biblical Literature 3 (Atlanta 2003). Albrektson 1967: B. Albrektson, History and the Gods. An Essay on the Idea of Historical Events as Divine Manifestations in the Ancient Near East and in Israel. Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 1 (Lund 1967). Ali 1964: F.A. Ali, Sumerian Letters. Two Collections from the Old Babylonian Schools (PhD. University of Pennsylvania, 1964, Univ. Microfilms). Allinger-Csollich 1991: W. Allinger-Csollich, “Birs Nimrud I. Die Baukörper der Ziqqurrat von Borsippa”, in: BagM 22, 1991, pp. 383–499. — 2008: W. Allinger-Csollich, “Der Turm von Babel – Idee und Nachleben”, in: J. Marzahn und G. Schauerte (eds.), Babylon: Wahrheit (München 2008), pp. 567–581. Alliot 1949: M. Alliot, Le culte d’Horus à Edfou au temps des Ptolemées. Bibliothèque d’étude 20/1 (Le Caire 1949). Al-Mutawalli 1999: N. al-Mutawalli, “A New Foundation Cylinder from the Temple of Nabû ša ḫarê”, in: Iraq 61, 1999, pp. 191–194. Al-Rawi 1985: F.N.H. Al-Rawi, “Nabopolassar’s Restoration Work on the Wall Imgur-Enlil at Babylon”, in: Iraq 47, 1985, pp. 1–13. — 1990: F.N.H. Al-Rawi, “Tablets from the Sippar Library, I. The ‘Weidner Chronicle’: A Supposititious Royal Letter concerning a Vision”, in: Iraq 52, 1990, pp. 1–13. — 1994: F.N.H. Al-Rawi, “Texts from Tell Haddad and elsewhere”, in: Iraq 56, 1994, pp. 35– 43. Al-Rawi & Black 1989: F.N.H. Al-Rawi and J.A. Black, “The Second Tablet of Išum and Erra”, in: Iraq 51, 1989, pp. 111–122. Al-Rawi & George 1994: F.N.H. Al-Rawi and A.R. George, “Tablets from the Sippar Library III. Two royal counterfeits”, in: Iraq 56, 1994, pp. 135–148. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

633

Alster 1986: B. Alster, “Edin-na ú-sag-gá: Reconstruction, history, and interpretation of a Sumerian cultic lament”, in: K. Hecker und W. Sommerfeld (eds.), Keilschriftliche Literaturen. Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, 8.–12. 7. 1985. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 6 (Berlin 1986), pp. 19–31. — 1987: B. Alster, “A Note on the Uriah Letter in the Sumerian Sargon Legend”, in: ZA 77, 1987, pp. 169–173. — 1997/I–II: B. Alster, Proverbs of Ancient Sumer. The World’s Earliest Proverb Collections. Vols. I–II (Bethesda 1997). — 2004: B. Alster, “Exit Ašimbabbar? The Reading of dAŠ/dili-ím-barbar”, in: JCS 56, 2004, pp. 1–3. — 2005: B. Alster, “Nanše and Her Fish”, in: Y. Sefati (ed.), An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda 2005), pp. 1–18. Alster & Westenholz 1994: B. Alster and A. Westenholz, “The Barton Cylinder”, in: ASJ 16, 1994, pp. 15–46. Ambos 2004: C. Ambos, Mesopotamische Baurituale aus dem 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. (Dresden 2004). — 2007: C. Ambos, “Types of Ritual Failure and Mistakes in Ritual in Cuneiform Sources”, in U. Hüsken (ed.), When Rituals go Wrong: Mistakes, Failure, and the Dynamics of Ritual (Leiden 2007), pp. 25–47. — 2009: C. Ambos, “Eunuchen als Thronprätendenten und Herrscher im alten Orient”, in: M. Luukko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila (eds.), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola. Studia Orientalia 106 (Helsinki 2009), pp. 1–7. — 2017: C. Ambos, “Rituale der Herrschaftslegitimation babylonischer und assyrischer Könige”, in: Ch. Levin und R. Müller (eds.), Herrschaftslegitimation in vorderorientalischen Reichen der Eisenzeit. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 21 (Tübingen 2017), pp. 67– 76. Amiet 1972: P. Amiet, Glyptique susienne, des origines à l’époque des perses achéménides. Cachets, sceaux-cylindres et empreintes antiques découverts à Suse de 1913 à 1967. Vols. I–II. Mémoires de la Délégation Archéologique en Iran 43. Mission de Susiane (Paris 1972). Anbar 2007: M. Anbar, “Ṭēm Addu”, in: NABU 2007, no. 80. Andersson 2012: J. Andersson, Kingship in the Early Mesopotamian Onomasticon 2800–2200 BCE. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 28 (Uppsala 2012). Andrae 1938: W. Andrae, Das wiedererstandene Assur (Leipzig 1938; zweite, durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage, herausgegeben von B. Hrouda, München 1977). AnOr: Analecta Orientalia. Annus 2002: A. Annus, The God Ninurta in the Mythology and Royal Ideology of Ancient Mesopotamia. SAAS 14 (Helsinki 2002). AO: Musée du Louvre, Paris, antiquité orientale, accession number. AOAT(S): Alter Orient und Altes Testament (Sonderreihe). AoF: Altorientalische Forschungen. AOS: American Oriental Series. ARM(T): Archives royales de Mari (traductions). Arnold 1994: B.T. Arnold, “The Weidner Chronicle and the Idea of History in Israel and Mesopotamia”, in: A.R. Millard, J.K. Hoffmeier, and D.W. Baker (eds.), Faith, Tradition, and History. Old Testament Historiography in its Near Eastern Context (Winona Lake 1994) pp. 129–148. — 2006: B.T. Arnold, “The Weidner Chronicle”, in: M.W. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation (Oxford 2006), pp. 165–168. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

634

Bibliography

Aro & Nougayrol 1973: J. Aro et J. Nougayrol, “Trois nouveaux recueils d’haruspicine ancienne”, in: RA 67, 1973, pp. 41–56. AS: Assyriological Studies. Asher-Greve 1985: J.M. Asher-Greve, Frauen in altsumerischer Zeit. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 18 (Malibu 1985). — 2002: J.M. Asher-Greve, “Decisive Sex, Essential Gender”, in: S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Vols. I–II. CRRAI 47, Helsinki 2001 (Helsinki 2002), pp. 11–26. ASJ: Acta Sumerologica (Japonica). Assante 1999: J. Assante, “The kar.kid/ḫarimtu, Prostitute or Single Woman?”, in: UgaritForschungen 30, 1998 (1999), pp. 5–96. — 2007: J. Assante, “What makes a ‘Prostitute’ a Prostitute? Modern Definitions and Ancient Meanings”, in: Historiae 4, 2007, pp. 117–132; review article of Faraone & McClure 2006. Assmann 1991: J. Assmann, “Die Katastrophe des Vergessens. Das Deuteronomium als Paradigma kultureller Mnemotechnik”, in: A. Assmann und D. Harth (eds.), Mnemosyne. Formen und Funktionen der kulturellen Erinnerung (Frankfurt a.M. 1991), pp. 337–355. — 1992: J. Assmann, Das kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen (München 1992). — 2002: J. Assmann, The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaos. Translated by A. Jenkins (New York 2002). Assmann 1999: A. Assmann, Erinnerungsräume. Formen und Wandlungen des kulturellen Gedächntisses (München 1999); English translation: Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Memory, Archives (New York 2011). Astour 1966: M.C. Astour, “Political and Cosmic Symbolism in Genesis 14 and in Its Babylonian Sources”, in: A. Altmann (ed.), Biblical Motifs: Origins and Transformations (Cambridge, Mass. 1966), pp. 65–112. — 1992a: M.C. Astour, “Chedorlaomer”, in: D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 1 (New York 1992), pp. 893–895. — 1992b: M.C. Astour, “Tidal”, in: D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 6 (New York 1992), pp. 551–552. — 1996: M.C. Astour, “Who was the King of the Hurrian Troops at the Siege of Emar?”, in: M.W. Chavalas (ed.), Emar: The History, Religion, and Culture of a Syrian Town in the Late Bronze Age (Bethesda 1996), pp. 25–56. Attinger 1998: P. Attinger, “Inana et Ebiḫ”, in: ZA 88, 1998, pp. 164–195. — 2005: P. Attinger, “À propos de AK ‘faire’ (I)”, in: ZA 95, 2005, pp. 46–64. — 2012a: P. Attinger, “Une nouvelle édition de la correspondance royale d’Ur”, in: OrNS 81, 2012, pp. 355–385; review of Michalowski 2011. — 2012b: P. Attinger, “CKU 23: Puzur-Numushda-Ibbi-Sîn 1”, published on the home page of Pascal Attinger at the Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Abteilung Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Universität Bern. — 2012c: P. Attinger, “CKU 24: Ibbi-Sîn-Puzur-Numushda 1, version courte”, published on the home page of Pascal Attinger at the Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Abteilung Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Universität Bern. — 2012d: P. Attinger, “CKU 24: Ibbi-Sîn-Puzur-Shulgi 1, version longue”, published on the home page of Pascal Attinger at the Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Abteilung Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Universität Bern.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

635

— 2015: P. Attinger, “La lamentation sur Sumer et Ur”, published on the home page of Pascal Attinger at the Institut für Archäologische Wissenschaften, Abteilung Vorderasiatische Archäologie der Universität Bern. BA: Beiträge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Babylon: Mythos: M. Wullen und G. Schauerte (eds.), Babylon: Mythos (München 2008). Babylon: Wahrheit: J. Marzahn und G. Schauerte (eds.), Babylon: Wahrheit (München 2008). BagM (Bh.): Baghdader Mitteilungen (Beiheft). Baker 2008: Heather D. Baker, “Babylon in 484 BC: the Excavated Archival Tablets as a Source of Urban History”, in: ZA 98, 2008, pp. 100–116. Bauer 1975–1976: J. Bauer, “Zum /dr/-Phonem des Sumerischen”, in: WO 8, 1975–1976, pp. 1–9. — 1998: J. Bauer, “Der vorsargonische Abschnitt der mesopotamischen Geschichte”, in: J. Bauer, R.K. Englund und M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Annäherungen 1, herausgegeben von P. Attinger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/1 (Fribourg 1998), pp. 431–585. Beaulieu 1989: P.-A. Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556–539 B.C. Yale Near Eastern Researches 10 (New Haven 1989). — 1990: P.-A. Beaulieu, “Cuts of Meat for King Nebuchadnezzar”, in: NABU 1990, no. 93. — 1991: P.-A. Beaulieu, “UBARA (EZEN×KASKAL)ki = Udannu”, in: ASJ 13, 1991, pp. 97–109. — 1992: P.-A. Beaulieu, “Antiquarian Theology in Seleucid Uruk”, in: ASJ 14, 1992, pp. 47– 75. — 1993a: P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Historical Background of the Uruk Prophecy”, in: Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda 1993), pp. 41–52. — 1993b: P.-A. Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians”, in: JNES 52, 1993, pp. 241–261. — 1994: P.–A. Beaulieu, “Antiquarianism and the Concern for the Past in the Neo– Babylonian Period”, in: The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies Bulletin 28, Nov. 1994, pp. 37–42. — 1995: P.-A. Beaulieu, “An Excerpt from a Menology with Reverse Writing”, in: ASJ 17, 1995, pp. 1–14. — 2000a: P.-A. Beaulieu, “A Land Grant on a Cylinder Seal and Assurbanipal’s Babylonian Policy”, in: S. Graziani et al. (eds.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Vol. I. Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series Minor LXI (Napoli 2000), pp. 25–45. — 2000b: P.-A. Beaulieu, “Les animaux dans la divination en Mésopotamie”, in: Topoi. Orient – Occident. Supplément 2. Les animaux et les hommes dans le monde syro-mésopotamien aux époques historiques (Lyon 2000), pp. 351–365. — 2001: P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Abduction of Ištar from the Eanna Temple: The Changing Memories of an Event”, in: T. Abusch et al. (eds.), Historiography in the Cuneiform World. CRRAI 45. Part I: Harvard University (Bethesda 2001), pp. 29–40. — 2003: P.-A. Beaulieu, The Pantheon of Uruk During the Neo-Babylonian Period. CM 23 (Leiden 2003). — 2007: P.-A. Beaulieu, “Nabonidus the Mad King: A Reconsideration of his Steles from Harran and Babylon”, in: M. Heinz and M.H. Feldman (eds.), Representations of Political Power: Case Histories from Times of Change and Dissolving Order in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, 2007), pp. 137–66.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

636

Bibliography

— 2009: P.-A. Beaulieu, “The Babylonian Background of the Motif of the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3”, in: Journal of Biblical Literature 128, 2009, pp. 273–290. — 2013: P.–A. Beaulieu, “Mesopotamian Antiquarianism from Sumer to Babylon”, in: A. Schnapp et al. (eds.), World Antiquarianism – Comparative Perspectives. Getty Research Institute, Issues and Debates (Los Angeles 2013), pp. 121–139. Becke 1987: M. Becke in: H. Trenkwalder, F. Purtscheller, W. Lukas, H. Seidl (eds.), Interdisziplinäres Gespräch Geisteswissenschaft, Naturwissenschaft, Technik anhand Konkreter Projekte, Innsbruck 1986 (Innsbruck 1987), pp. 245–257. Becking 1990: B. Becking, “‘Wie Töpfe Sollst Du Sie Zerschmeißen.’ Mesopotamische Parallelen zu Psalm 2,9b”, in: ZAW 102, 1990, pp. 59–79. Beckman 2006: G. Beckman, “Annals of Ḫattušili I”, in: M.W. Chavalas (ed.), The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation (Oxford 2006), pp. 219–222. Bedford 2001: P.R. Bedford, Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Journal for the Study of Judaism. Supplements 65 (Leiden 2001). Benito 1969: C.A. Benito, “Enki and Ninmah” and “Enki and the World Order” (PhD. University of Pennsylvania, 1969, Univ. Microfilms). Berger 1973: P.-R. Berger, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. Königsinschriften des ausgehenden babylonischen Reiches (626–539 a. Chr.). AOAT 4/1 (Kevelaer 1973). Berlejung 2002: A. Berlejung, “Notlösungen – Altorientalische Nachrichten über den Tempelkult in Nachkriegszeiten”, in: U. Hübner und E.A. Knauf (eds.): Kein Land für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag. OBO 186 (Fribourg 2002), pp. 196–230. — 2007: A. Berlejung,“Die Reduktion von Komplexität. Das theologische Profil einer Gottheit und seine Umsetzung in der Ikonographie am Beispiel des Gottes Aššur im Assyrien des 1. Jt. v.Chr.”; in: B. Groneberg und H. Spieckermann (eds.): Die Welt der Götterbilder. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 376 (Berlin 2007), pp. 9–56. Bezold 1921: C. Bezold, “Allerlei versprengte Keilinschriften”, in: K. Regling und H. Reich (eds.), Festschrift zu C.F. Lehmann-Haupts sechzigstem Geburtstage. Janus 1 (Wien 1921), pp. 115–118. Biggs 1985: R.D. Biggs, “The Babylonian Prophecies and the Astrological Traditions of Mesopotamia”, in: JCS 37, 1985, pp. 86–90. — 1987: R.D. Biggs, “Babylonian Prophecies, Astrology, and a New Source for ‘Prophecy Text B’”, in: F. Rochberg-Halton (ed.), Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. AOS 67 (New Haven 1987), pp. 1–14. BIN: Babylonian Inscriptions in the Collection of James B. Nies, Yale University. — 7: J.B. Alexander, Early Babylonian Letters and Economic Texts. BIN 7 (New Haven 1943). — 9: V.E. Crawford, Sumerian Economic Texts from the First Dynasty of Isin. BIN 9 (New Haven 1954). — 10: M. Van de Mieroop, Sumerian Administrative Documents from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šū-ilišu. BIN 10 (New Haven 1987). BiOr: Bibliotheca Orientalis. Blanco Wissmann 2008: F. Blanco Wissmann, “Er tat das Rechte …”. Beurteilungskriterien und Deuteronomismus in 1Kön 12 – 2Kön 25. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments 93 (Zürich 2008).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

637

Bloch 2010: Y. Bloch, “Setting the Dates. Re-evaluation of the Chronology of Babylonia in the 14th–11th Centuries B.C.E. and Its Implications for the Reigns of Ramesses II and Ḫattušili III”, in: Ugarit-Forschungen 42, 2010, pp. 41–95. — 2012: Y. Bloch, “Middle Assyrian Lunar Calendar and Chronology”, in: J. Ben-Dov, W. Horowitz and J.M. Steele, Living the Lunar Calendar (Oxford 2012), pp. 19–61. BM: British Museum, London, accession number. Bodi 1991: D. Bodi, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra. OBO 104 (Fribourg 1991). Böck 1996: B. Böck, “‘Wenn du zu Nintinuga gesprochen hast, …’. Untersuchungen zu Aufbau, Inhalt, Sitz-im-Leben und Funktion sumerischer Gottesbriefe”, in: AoF 23, 1996, pp. 3–23. — 2000: B. Böck, Die babylonisch-assyrische Morphoskopie. AfO Bh. 27 (Horn 2000). Böhl 1937: Franz M.Th. Böhl, Der babylonische Fürstenspiegel. MAOG 11/3 (Leipzig 1937). Boese & Wilhelm 1979: J. Boese und G. Wilhelm, “Aššur-dān I., Ninurta-apil-Ekur und die mittelassyrische Chronologie”, in: WZKM 71, 1979, pp. 19–38. Boissier 1905: A. Boissier, Choix de Textes relatifs a la Divination Assyro-Babylonienne. [Vol. I] (Genève 1905). — 1906: A. Boissier, Choix de Textes relatifs a la Divination Assyro-Babylonienne. Vol. II (Genève 1906). — 1926: A. Boissier, “Fragment de chronique en charactères néo-babyloniens”, in: Babyloniaca 9, 1926, pp. 23–26. Boiy 2010: T. Boiy, “TU 38, Its Scribe and His Family”, in: RA 104, 2010, pp. 169–178. Bongenaar 1997: A.C.V.M. Bongenaar, The Neo-Babylonian Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: Its Administration and its Prosopography. PIHANS 80 (Leiden 1997). Borger, Asarh.: R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Königs von Assyrien. AfO Bh. 9 (Graz 1956). — 1957–1958: R. Borger, “Die Inschriften Asarhaddons (AfO Beiheft 9). Nachträge und Verbesserungen”, in: AfO 18, 1957–1958, pp. 113–118. — 1959: R. Borger, “An Additional Remark on P.R. Ackroyd, JNES XVII, 23–27”, in: JNES 18, 1959, p. 74. — 1964: R. Borger, “Zu den Asarhaddon-Texten aus Babel”, in: BiOr 21, 1964, pp. 143–148. — 1971: R. Borger, “Gott Marduk und Gott-König Šulgi als Propheten: Zwei prophetische Texte”, in: BiOr 28, 1971, pp. 3–24. — 1974: R. Borger, “Die Beschwörungsserie Bīt mēseri und die Himmelfahrt Henochs”, in: JNES 33, 1974, pp. 183–196. — 1996: R. Borger, Beiträge zum Inschriftenwerk Assurbanipals: Die Prismenklassen A, B, C=K, D, E, F, G, H, J und T sowie andere Inschriften. Mit einem Beitrag von Andreas Fuchs (Wiesbaden 1996). Boson 1936: G. Boson, Tavolette cuneiformi sumere, degli archivi di Drehem e di Djoha, dell’ultima dinastia di Ur. Pubblicazioni della Università Cattolica del Sacre Cuore. Serie XII, Scienze orientali 2 (Milano 1936). Bosworth 1999: C.E. Bosworth, The History of al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh al-rusul waʾl-mulūk). Volume V: The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen (New York 1999). Botta & Flandin 1849 II: P.E. Botta et E. Flandin, Monument de Ninive. Tome II: Architecture et Sculpture (Paris 1849). Bottéro 1957: J. Bottéro, Textes économiques et administratifs. ARMT 7 (Paris 1957).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

638

Bibliography

Brandes 1970: M.A. Brandes, “La salle dite ‘G’ du palais d’Assurnasirpal II a Kalakh, lieu de ceremonie rituelle”, in: A. Finet (ed.), Actes de la 17e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Bruxelles 1969 (Ham-sur-Heure 1970), pp. 147–154. — 1980: M.A. Brandes, “Destruction et mutilation des statues en Mésopotamie”, in: Akkadica 16, 1980, pp. 28–41. Braun-Holzinger 1991: E.A. Braun-Holzinger, Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit. HSAO 3 (Heidelberg 1991). Brinkman 1968: J.A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C. AnOr 43 (Roma 1968). — 1974: J.A. Brinkman, “The Early Neo-Babylonian Monarchy”, in: P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté (archéologie et civilisation). CRRAI 19, organisée par le groupe François ThureauDangin, Paris 29 juin – 2 juillet 1971 (Paris 1974), pp. 409–415. — 1976: J.A. Brinkman, Materials and Studies for Kassite History Vol. I. A Catalogue of Cuneiform Sources Pertaining to Specific Monarchs of the Kassite Dynasty (Chicago 1976). — 1976–1980: J.A. Brinkman, “Isin. B. II. Dynastie”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 183–189. — 1983: J.A. Brinkman, “Through a Glass Darkly: Esarhaddon’s Retrospects on the Downfall of Babylon”, in: JAOS 103/1, 1983, pp. 35–42. — 1987–1990: J.A. Brinkman, “Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu”, in: RlA 7, 1987–1990, pp. 376–377. — 1993–1997: J.A. Brinkman, “Meerland (Sealand)”, in: RlA 8, 1993–1997, pp. 6–10. — 1998–2001: J.A. Brinkman, “Nebukadnezar I.”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 192–194. Brisch 2006: N. Brisch, “The Priestess and the King: The Divine Kingship of Šū-Sîn of Ur”, in: JAOS 126, 2006, pp. 161–176. — 2007: N.M. Brisch, Tradition and the Poetics of Innovation. Sumerian Court Literature of the Larsa Dynasty (c. 2003–1763 BCE). AOAT 339 (Münster 2007). — 2008: N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power. Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Insitute Seminars 4 (Chicago 2008). — 2011: N. Brisch, “Changing Images of Kingship in Sumerian Literature”, in: K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford 2011), pp. 706–724. Brown 2000: D. Brown, Mesopotamian Planetarian Astronomy-Astrology. CM 18 (Groningen 2000). Broyde 2011: M. Broyde, “Middah ke-neged middah”, in: A. Berlin (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion (Oxford, 2nd ed. 2011), p. 492. Bryce 1998: T. Bryce, The Kingdom of the Hittites (Oxford 1998). BSOAS: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Buccellati 1966: G. Buccellati, The Amorites of the Ur III Period (Napoli 1966). Burstein 1978: S.M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from the Ancient Near East Vol. 1, Fasc. 5 (Malibu 1978). Busink 1970: Th.A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes. Eine archäologischhistorische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus. I. Band: Der Tempel Salomos. Studia Francisci Scholten memoriae dicata. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten 3 (Leiden 1970). — 1980: Th.A. Busink, Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes. Eine archäologischhistorische Studie unter Berücksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus. 2. Band: Von Ezechiel bis Middot (Leiden 1980). Butler 1998: S.A.L. Butler, Mesopotamian Conceptions of Dreams and Dream Rituals. AOAT 258 (Münster 1998).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

639

CAD: The Assyrian Dictionary of The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago (Chicago / Glückstadt 1956–2010). Cagni 1969: L. Cagni, L’Epopea di Erra. Studi Semitici 34 (Roma 1969). Cameron 1936: G.G. Cameron, History of Early Iran (Chicago 1936). Canaan 1914: T. Canaan, Aberglaube und Volksmedizin im Lande der Bibel. Abhandlungen des Hamburgischen Kolonialinstituts, Band 20. Reihe B. Völkerkunde, Kulturgeschichte und Sprachen Band 12 (Hamburg 1914). Cancik-Kirschbaum 1995: E. Cancik-Kirschbaum, “Konzeption und Legitimation von Herrschaft in neuassyrischer Zeit. Mythos und Ritual in VS 24, 92”, in: WO 26, 1995, pp. 5–20. Cardascia 1975: G. Cardascia, “La malédiction par le sel dans les droits du proche-orient ancien”, in: H. Hübner, E. Klingmüller and A. Wacke (eds.), Festschrift für Erwin Seidl zum 70. Geburtstag (Köln 1975), pp. 27–34. — 1979: G. Cardascia, “La place du talion dans l’histoire du droit pénal à la lumière des droits du Proche-Orient ancien”, in: Mélanges offerts à Jean Dauvillier. Université des Sciences Sociales de Toulouse (Toulouse 1979), pp. 169–183. Carter 1994: E. Carter, “Bridging the Gap between the Elamites and the Persians in Southeastern Khuzistan”, in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt and M. Cool Root (eds.), Continuity and Change. Proceedings of the Last Achaemenid History Workshop, April 6–8, 1990 – Ann Arbor, Michigan. Achaemenid History VIII (Leiden 1994), pp. 65–95. Carter & Stolper 1984: E. Carter and M.W. Stolper, Elam. Surveys of Political History and Archaeology. University of California Publications: Near Eastern Studies 25 (Berkeley 1984). Casaburi 2000: M.C. Casaburi, “Il testo LBAT 1526 e la continuità della tradizione astromantica in Mesopotamia”, in: S. Graziani et al. (eds.), Studi sul Vicino Oriente Antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni. Vol. I. Istituto Universitario Orientale. Dipartimento di Studi Asiatici. Series Minor LXI (Napoli 2000), pp. 85–99. Castellino 1972: G.R. Castellino, Two Šulgi Hymns (BC). Studi Semitici 42 (Roma 1972). Cavigneaux 1996: A. Cavigneaux, Uruk. Altbabylonische Texte aus dem Planquadrat Pe XVI–4/5. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte 23 (Mainz 1996). — 2005: A. Cavigneaux, “Shulgi, Nabonide, et les Grecs”, in: Y. Sefati (ed.), An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda 2005), pp. 63–72. Cavigneaux & Al-Rawi 1994: A. Cavigneaux et F.N.H. Al-Rawi, “Charmes de Sippar et de Nippur”, in: H. Gasche (ed.), Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient Ancien, offertes en hommage à Léon De Meyer. Mesopotamian History and Enviroment, Occasional Publications 2 (Leuven 1994), pp.73–89. — 1995: A. Cavigneaux et F.N.H. Al-Rawi, “Textes Magiques de Tell Haddad (Textes de Tell Haddad II). Troisième partie”, in: ZA 85, 1995, pp. 169–220. Cavigneaux & Krebernik 1998–2001a: A. Cavigneaux und M. Krebernik, “Nēberu”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 191–192. — 1998–2001b: A. Cavigneaux und M. Krebernik, “Nīru”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, p. 575. CBT VI: E. Leichty, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Volume VI: Tablets from Sippar 1 (London 1986). CBT VII: E. Leichty and A.K. Grayson, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Volume VII: Tablets from Sippar 2 (London 1987). CDLI: Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative (www.cdli.ucla.edu).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

640

Bibliography

— Geers’ Copy: Handcopies of cuneiform texts made by F.W. Geers (1885–1955), available online on CDLI (www.cdli.ucla.edu/?q=downloads). — Sigrist & Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI: M. Sigrist and P. Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names. Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date Formulae (www.cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yn_index.html). CH = Codex Hammurapi: Quoted after E. Bergmann, Codex Ḫammurabi, textus primigenius, editio tertia (Roma 1953). Charpin 1986: D. Charpin, Le Clergé d’Ur au siècle d’Hammurabi (XIXe–XVIIIe siècles av. J.-C.). École Pratique des Hautes Études, IVe Section, Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, II: Hautes études orientales 22 (Genève 1986). — 2004: D. Charpin, “Histoire politique du Proche-Orient amorrite (2002–1595)”, in: D. Charpin, D.O. Edzard, und M. Stol, Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit. Annäherungen 4, herausgegeben von P. Attinger, W. Sallaberger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/4 (Fribourg 2004), pp. 23–480. — 2015: D. Charpin, “La défaite, conséquence de la colère divine. La théologie de l’histoire à Alep d’après les archives royales de Mari”, in: J.-M. Durand, L. Marti et Th. Römer (eds.), Colères et repentirs divins. Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 24 et 25 avril 2013. OBO 278 (Fribourg 2015), pp. 1–11. Charpin & Durand 1994: D. Charpin et J.-M. Durand, “Un roi élamite parlant sumérien?”, in: NABU 1994, no. 101. Civil 1961: M. Civil, “The Home of the Fish: A new Sumerian Literary Composition”, in: Iraq 23, 1961, pp. 154–175. — 1964: M. Civil, “A Hymn to the Beer Goddess and a Drinking Song”, in: R.D. Biggs (ed.), Studies Presented to Leo Oppenheim (Chicago 1964), pp. 67–89. — 2013: M. Civil, “Remarks on AD-GI4 (a.k.a. ‘Archaic Word List C’ or ‘Tribute’)”, in: JCS 65, 2013, pp. 13–67. CKU: The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur, see Ali 1964; Michalowski 1976 & 2011. CM: Cuneiform Monographs. Cogan 1974: M. Cogan, Imperialism and Religion: Assyria, Judah and Israel in the Eighth and Seventh Centuries B.C.E. Society of Biblical Literature, Monograph Series 19 (Missoula 1974). — 2009: M. Cogan, “Sennacherib and the Angry Gods of Babylon and Israel”, in: Israel Exploration Journal 59, 2009, pp. 164–174. Cohen 1976: M.E. Cohen, “Literary Texts from the Andrews University Archaeological Museum”, in: RA 70, 1976, pp. 129–144. — 1988/I–II: M.E. Cohen, The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia. Vols. I–II (Potomac 1988). — 1996: M.E. Cohen, “The Sun, the Moon, and the City of Ur”, in: A. Berlin (ed.), Religion and Politics in the Ancient Near East (Bethesda 1996), pp. 7–20. Cohen 2001: Y. Cohen, “The Image of the ‘Other’ and Hittite Historiography”, in: T. Abusch et al. (eds.), Historiography in the Cuneiform World. CRRAI 45. Part I: Harvard University (Bethesda 2001), pp. 113–129. Cole 1994: S.W. Cole, “The Crimes and Sacrileges of Nabû-šuma-iškun”, in: ZA 84, 1994, pp. 220–252. — 1996: S.W. Cole, The Early Neo-Babylonian Governor’s Archive from Nippur. OIP 114 (Chicago 1996).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

641

— 1998: S.W. Cole, “Chapter 3: The Textual Evidence”, in: H. Gasche, J.A. Armstrong, S.W. Cole and V.G. Gurzadyan, Dating the Fall of Babylon. A Reappraisal of Second-Millennium Chronology (A Joint Ghent-Chicago-Harvard Project). Mesopotamian History and Environment. Series II, Memoirs IV (Ghent 1998), pp. 47–69. Cole & Machinist 1998: S.W. Cole and P. Machinist, Letters from Priests to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. SAA 13 (Helsinki 1998). Conybeare 1910: F.C. Conybeare, “Antiochus Strategos’ Account of the Sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 614”, in: The English Historical Review, vol. 25, no. 99, July 1910, pp. 502–517. Cooper 1980: J.S. Cooper, “Apodotic Death and the Historicity of ‘Historical’ Omens”, in: B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 26e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Copenhagen 1979. Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen 1980), pp. 99–105. — 1983: J.S. Cooper, The Curse of Agade (Baltimore 1983). — 1993: J.S. Cooper, “Paradigm and Propaganda. The Dynasty of Akkade in the 21st Century”, in: M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire (Padova 1993), pp. 11–23. — 2006–2008: J. Cooper, “Prostitution”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 12–21. Cooper & Heimpel 1983: J.S. Cooper and W. Heimpel, “The Sumerian Sargon Legend”, in: JAOS 103/1, 1983, pp. 67–82. Couto 2007: É. Couto, “Conceptos de transmisión de la enfermedad en Mesopotamia: algunas reflexiones”, in: Historiae 4, 2007, pp. 1–23. Coward 2004: M. Coward, “Urbicide in Bosnia”, in: St. Graham (ed.), Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics (Oxford 2004), pp. 154–171. — 2009: M. Coward, Urbicide. The politics of urban destruction (Abingdon 2009). Craig, AAT: J.A. Craig, Astrological-Astronomical Texts. Assyriologische Bibliothek 14 (Leipzig 1899). CRRAI: Compte(s) rendu(s) de la Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. CRRAI 19: P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté (archéologie et civilisation). CRRAI 19, organisée par le groupe François Thureau-Dangin, Paris 29 juin – 2 juillet 1971 (Paris 1974). CT: Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. CTH: E. Laroche, Catalogue des textes hittites (Paris 1971). CTMMA 2: I. Spar and W.G. Lambert (eds.): Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2 (New York 2005). CTMMA 4: I. Spar and M. Jursa (eds.), Cuneiform Texts in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Volume IV: The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to the First Millennium B.C. (New York 2014). CUSAS: Cornell University Studies in Assyriology and Sumerology. Dahl 2007: J.L. Dahl, The Ruling Family of Ur III Umma. A Prosopographical Analysis of an Elite Family in Southern Iraq 4000 Years Ago. PIHANS 108 (Leiden 2007). Dallet 1982: J.M. Dallet, Dictionnaire Kabyle-français (Paris 1982). Dalley 1997: S. Dalley, “Statues of Marduk and the Date of Enūma eliš”, in: AoF 24, 1997, pp. 163–171. Dandamaev 1977: M.A. Dandamaev, “Zur Sklaverei im Neubabylonischen Reich: Gimillu, ein Tempelsklave von Eanna in Uruk”, in: Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1977/3, pp. 155– 167. Danti & Zettler 1997: M.D. Danti and R.L. Zettler, “Eridu”, in: E.M. Meyers (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. Vol. 2 (Oxford 1997), pp. 258–260. Da Riva 2012: R. Da Riva, The Twin Inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar at Brisa (Wadi Esh-Sharbin, Lebanon): A Historical and Philological Study. AfO Bh. 32 (Wien 2012). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

642

Bibliography

— 2013: R. Da Riva, The Inscriptions of Nabopolassar, Amēl-Marduk and Neriglissar. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 3 (Berlin 2013). Deimel, ŠL II/1–4: A. Deimel, Šumerisches Lexikon. II. Teil: Vollständige Ideogramm-Sammlung. Bände 1–4 (Roma 1928–1933). Deller 1999: K. Deller, “The Assyrian Eunuchs and Their Predecessors”, in: K. Watanabe, (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 Centre in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996 (Heidelberg 1999), pp. 303–311. Delnero 2017: P. Delnero, “A Land with No Borders: A New Interpretation of the Babylonian ‘Map of the World’”, in: Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 4, 2017, pp. 19–37. Démare-Lafont 2011–2013: S. Démare-Lafont, “Talion”, in: RlA 13 (2011–2013), pp. 421–422. De Zorzi 2014: N. De Zorzi, La serie teratomantica Šumma izbu. Testo, tradizione, orizzonti culturali. History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs 15. Vols. I–II (Padova 2014). — 2016: N. De Zorzi, “The Death of Utu-ḫegal and Other Historical Omens”, in: JCS 68, 2016, pp. 129–151. Diakonoff 1965: I.M. Diakonoff, “A Babylonian Political Pamphlet from about 700 B.C.”, in: Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fith Birthday April 21, 1965. AS 16 (Chicago 1965), pp. 343–349. Diakonoff & Kashkai 1981: I. Diakonoff and S.M. Kashkai, Geographical Names According to Urartian Texts. RGTC 9 (Wiesbaden 1981). Dick 1999: M.B. Dick (ed.), Born in Heaven Made on Earth. The Making of the Cult Image in the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake 1999). Dietler & Hayden 2001: M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Feasts. Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power (Washington 2001). Dietrich 2010: J. Dietrich, Kollektive Schuld und Haftung. Religions- und rechtsgeschichtliche Studien zum Sündenkuhritus des Deuteronomiums und zu verwandten Texten. Orientalische Religionen in der Antike 4 (Tübingen 2010). Dietrich 1967–1968: M. Dietrich, “Neue Quellen zur Geschichte Babyloniens (I–II)”, in: WO 4, 1967–1968, pp. 61–103, 183–251. — 2001: M. Dietrich, “‘Ich habe die Ordnungen von Himmel und Erde aufgelöst.’ Eschatologische Vorstellungen in der babylonischen Mythologie”, in: M. Dietrich (ed.), Endzeiterwartungen und Endzeitvorstellungen in den verschiedenen Religionen. Akten des Vierten Gemeinsamen Symposiums der Evangelisch-Theologischen Fakultät der Universität Tartu und der Deutschen Religionswissenschaftlichen Studien-gesellschaft am 5. und 6. November 1999 zu Tartu/Estland. Forschungen zur Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte 34 (Münster 2001), pp. 15–41. — 2003: M. Dietrich, The Babylonian Correspondence of Sargon and Sennacherib. SAA 17 (Helsinki 2003). Dietrich & Dietrich 1998: M. Dietrich und W. Dietrich, “Zwischen Gott und Volk. Einführung des Königtums und Auswahl des Königs nach mesopotamischer und israelitischer Anschauung”, in: “Und Mose schrieb dieses Lied auf”. Studien zum Alten Testament und zum Alten Orient. Festschrift für Oswald Loretz zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres mit Beiträgen von Freunden, Schülern und Kollegen. Unter Mitwirkung von H. Schaudig herausgegeben von M. Dietrich und I. Kottsieper. AOAT 250 (Münster 1998), pp. 215–264. Dobbs-Allsopp 1993: F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Weep, O Daughter of Zion: A Study of the City-Lament Genre in the Hebrew Bible. Biblica et Orientalia 44 (Roma 1993). Dowsett 1961: C.J.F. Dowsett, The History of the Caucasian Albanians by Movsēs Dasxuranc̣i. London Oriental Series 8 (London 1961). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

643

Drews 1975: R. Drews, “The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus”, in: Iraq 37, 1975, pp. 39–55. Dunand & Zivie-Coche 2004: F. Dunand and Ch. Zivie-Coche, Gods and Men in Egypt: 3000 BCE to 395 CE. Translated from the French by D. Lorton (Ithaca 2004). Dunham 1985: S. Dunham, “The Monkey in the Middle”, in: ZA 75, 1985, pp. 234–264. Durand 1985: J.-M. Durand, “La situation historique des Šakkanakku: nouvelle approche”, in: Mari – annales de recherches interdisciplinaires 4 (Paris 1985), pp. 147–172. — 1988: J.-M. Durand, Archives épistolaires de Mari I/1. Archives royales de Mari 26/1 (Paris 1988). — 1997: J.-M. Durand, Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari. Tome I. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 16 (Paris 1997). — 2002: J.-M. Durand, Le Culte d’Addu d’Alep et l’affaire d’Alahtum. Florilegium Marianum VII. Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 8 (Paris 2002). — 2006–2008: J.-M. Durand, “Šakkanakku. A. Philologisch”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 560– 563. Dyckhoff 1999/I–II: Ch. Dyckhoff, Das Haushaltsbuch des Balamunamḫe. Band 1: Darstellung. Band 2: Belegmaterial (PhD. University of München, 1999). Ebeling, KAR: E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. Vols. I–II (Leipzig 1919–23). — 1930–1934: E. Ebeling, Neubabylonische Briefe aus Uruk (Berlin 1930–1934). — 1957–1971: E. Ebeling, “Fisch”, in: RlA 3, 1957–1971, pp. 66–67. Eckhardt 2008: B. Eckhardt, “Herodes der Grosse als Antiochus redivivus in apokrypher und josephischer Deutung. Mit einem Ausblick auf eine konstruktivistische Herodesforschung”, in: Klio 90, 2008, pp. 360–373. Edzard 1957: D.O. Edzard, Die “Zweite Zwischenzeit” Babyloniens (Wiesbaden 1957). — 1959: D.O. Edzard, “Enmebaragesi von Kiš”, in: ZA 53, 1959, pp. 9–26. — 1972–1975: D.O. Edzard, “Herrscher. A. Philologisch (§§ 1–6)”, in: RlA 4, 1972–1975, pp. 335–342. — 1975: D.O. Edzard, “Zum sumerischen Eid”, in: S.J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological Studies in Honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on his Seventieth Birthday June 7, 1974. AS 20 (Chicago 1975), pp. 63–98. — 1976–1980a: D.O. Edzard, “IMki”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 63–65. — 1976–1980b: D.O. Edzard, “Išbi-Erra”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 174–175. — 1976–1980c: D.O. Edzard, “Išme-Dagān”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 194–195. — 1976–1980d: D.O. Edzard, “Kabti-ilī-Marduk”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, p. 284. — 1980–1983a: D.O. Edzard, “Königslisten und Chroniken. A. Sumerisch”, in: RlA 6, 1980– 1983, pp. 77–86. — 1980–1983b: D.O. Edzard, “Ku(g)-Baba”, in: RlA 6, 1980–1983, p. 299. — 1989: D.O. Edzard, “Das ‘Wort im Ekur’ oder die Peripetie in ‘Fluch über Akkade’”, in: H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjöberg. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11 (Philadelphia 1989), pp. 99–105. — 1987–1990: D.O. Edzard, “ME-barage-si (ergänzend zu Enme(n)baragesi)”, in: RlA 7, 1987– 1990, p. 614. — RIME 3/1: D.O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/1 (Toronto 1997). — 2003a: D.O. Edzard, Sumerian Grammar. Handbuch der Orientalistik I/71 (Leiden 2003). — 2003b: D.O. Edzard, “Enlil, Vater der Götter”, in: Semitic and Assyriological Studies Presented to Pelio Fronzaroli by Pupils and Colleagues (Wiesbaden 2003), pp. 173–184. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

644

Bibliography

— 2004: D.O. Edzard, “Altbabylonische Literatur und Religion”, in: D. Charpin, D.O. Edzard, und M. Stol, Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit. Annäherungen 4, herausgegeben von P. Attinger, W. Sallaberger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/4 (Fribourg 2004), pp. 481–640. Edzard & Röllig 1976–1980: D.O. Edzard und W. Röllig, “Kimaš”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, p. 593. Ee = Enūma elîš. Editions: Talon 2005; Kämmerer & Metzler 2012; Lambert 2013. Translation: Lambert 1994a. Eickhoff 1985: T. Eickhoff, Kār Tukulti Ninurta. Eine mittelassyrische KuIt- und Residenzstadt. Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 21 (Berlin 1985). Eidem & Læssøe 2001: J. Eidem and J. Læssøe, The Shemshara Archives 1. The Letters. Historiskfilosofiske Skrifter 23 (Copenhagen 2001). Eisenberg 1998: J.M. Eisenberg, “Glyptic Art of the Ancient Near East – Part II”, in: Minerva. The International Review of Ancient Art and Archaeology, Vol. 9, no. 4 (July-August 1998), pp. 8–17. Ellis 1968: R.S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. Yale Near Eastern Researches 2 (New Haven 1968). Emerton 1971: J.A. Emerton, “Some false clues in the study of Genesis XIV”, in: VT 21, 1971, pp. 24–47. Englund 1990: R.K. Englund, Organisation und Verwaltung der Ur III-Fischerei. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 10 (Berlin 1990). — 1998: R.K. Englund, “Texts from the Late Uruk Period”, in: J. Bauer, R.K. Englund und M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Annäherungen 1, herausgegeben von P. Attinger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/1 (Fribourg 1998), pp. 15–233. Enūma elîš: See Ee. Ephʿal 1982: I. Ephʿal, The Ancient Arabs. Nomads on the Borders of the Fertile Crescent, 9th–5th Centuries B.C. (Jerusalem 1982). Erkens 2002: F.-R. Erkens (ed.), Die Sakralität von Herrschaft. Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume. Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einem weltweiten und epochenübergreifenden Phänomen (Berlin 2002). ETCSL: The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature (www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk). Evans 1983: C.D. Evans, “Naram-Sin and Jeroboam: The Archetypal Unheilsherrscher in Mesopotamian and Biblical Historiography”, in: W.W. Hallo et al. (eds.), More Essays on the Comparative Method. Scripture in Context II (Winona Lake 1983), pp. 97–125. Fadhil 1993: A. Fadhil, “Erdbeben im Alten Orient”, in: BagM 24, 1993, pp. 271–278. Falkenstein, LKU: A. Falkenstein, Literarische Keilschrifttexte aus Uruk (Berlin 1931). — 1950a: A. Falkenstein, “Ibbīsîn – Išbi’erra”, in: ZA 49, 1950, pp. 59–79. — 1950b: A. Falkenstein, “Die Ibbīsîn-Klage”, in: WO 1/5, 1950, pp. 377–384. — 1966: A. Falkenstein, Die Inschriften Gudeas von Lagaš. I: Einleitung. AnOr 30 (Roma 1966). Faraone & McClure 2006: C.A. Faraone and L.K. McClure (eds.), Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (Madison 2006). Farber 1999: G. Farber, “Kleiner Leitfaden zum Silbenvokabular A”, in: B. Böck, E. CancikKirschbaum und Th. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger. AOAT 267 (Münster 1999), pp. 117–133. Figulla 1951: H.H. Figulla, “Lawsuit concerning a Sacrilegious Theft at Erech”, in: Iraq 13, 1951, pp. 95–101. Figulla & Martin, UET 5: H.H. Figulla and W.J. Martin, Letters and Documents of the OldBabylonian Period. UET 5 (London 1953). Finkel 1980: I.L. Finkel, “Bilingual Chronicle Fragments”, in: JCS 32, 1980, pp. 65–80. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

645

— 2013a: I. Finkel, “The Cyrus Cylinder: the Babylonian perspective”, in: I. Finkel (ed.), The Cyrus Cylinder. The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon (London 2013), pp. 4– 34. — 2013b: I. Finkel, “Appendix: Transliteration of the Cyrus Cylinder text”, in: I. Finkel (ed.), The Cyrus Cylinder. The King of Persia’s Proclamation from Ancient Babylon (London 2013), pp. 129–135. Finkelstein 1963: J.J. Finkelstein, “Mesopotamian Historiography”, in: Cuneiform Studies and the History of Civilization. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107/6, 1963, pp. 461–472. — 1966: J.J. Finkelstein, “The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty”, in: JCS 20, 1966, pp. 95–118. Flückiger-Hawker 1999: E. Flückiger-Hawker, Urnamma of Ur in Sumerian Literary Tradition. OBO 166 (Fribourg 1999). Foster 2005: B. Foster, Before the Muses. An Anthology of Akkadian Literature (Bethesda, 3rd ed. 2005). Fotheringham 1920–1921: J.K. Fotheringham, “A Solution of Ancient Eclipses of the Sun”, in: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 81/2, 1920, pp.104–126. Frahm 1997: E. Frahm, Einleitung in die Sanherib-Inschriften. AfO Bh. 26 (Wien 1997). — 2006: E. Frahm, “Šulgi Sieger über Assur und die Skythen?”, in: NABU 2006, no. 25. — 2009: E. Frahm, “Assurbanipal at Der”, in: M. Luukko, S. Svärd, and R. Mattila (eds.), Of God(s), Trees, Kings, and Scholars. Neo-Assyrian and Related Studies in Honour of Simo Parpola. Studia Orientalia 106 (Helsinki 2009), pp. 51–64. — 2010: E. Frahm, “Counter-texts, Commentaries, and Adaptations: Politically Motivated Responses to the Babylonian Epic of Creation in Mesopotamia, the Biblical World, and Elsewhere”, in: Orient 45, 2010, pp. 3–33. — 2011: E. Frahm, Babylonian and Assyrian Text Commentaries. Origins of Interpretation. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 5 (Münster 2011). Frame 1992: G. Frame, Babylonia 689–627 B.C. A Political History. PIHANS 69 (Leiden 1992). — RIMB 2: G. Frame, 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 2 (Toronto 1995). Frank 1914: C. Frank, “Rm. 155”, in: ZDMG 68, 1914, pp. 157–162. Frank 1956: E. Frank, Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology. The System of Counting Years in Jewish Literature (New York 1956). Franke 2014: S. Franke, “Der Zorn Marduks, Erras and Sanheribs. Zu Datierung und Funktion von ‘Erra und Išum’”, in: H. Neumann et al. (eds.), Krieg und Frieden im Alten Vorderasien. 52e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, International Congress of Assyriology and Near Eastern Archaeology, Münster, 17.–21. Juli 2006. AOAT 401 (Münster 2014), pp. 315–327. Frankena 1957–1971: R. Frankena, “Girra und Gibil”, in: RlA 3, 1957–1971, pp. 383–385. Frankfort 1943: H. Frankfort, More Sculpture from the Diyala Region. OIP 60 (Chicago 1943). Frayne, RIME 4: D.R. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 4 (Toronto 1990). — RIME 2: D.R. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 2 (Toronto 1993). — RIME 3/2: D.R. Frayne, Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2 (Toronto 1997). — 1998–2001: D.R. Frayne, “Narām-Sîn. A”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 169–174. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

646

Bibliography

— RIME 1: D.R. Frayne, Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 1 (Toronto 2008). Freedman 1998: S.M. Freedman, If a City Is Set on a Height. The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Ālu ina Mēlê Šakin. Volume 1: Tablets 1–21. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 20 (Philadelphia 1998). — 2017: S.M. Freedman, If a City Is Set on a Height. The Akkadian Omen Series Šumma Ālu ina Mēlê Šakin. Volume 3: Tablets 41–63. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 17 (Winona Lake 2017). Freydank 1991: H. Freydank, Beiträge zur mittelassyrischen Chronologie und Geschichte. Schriften zur Geschichte und Kultur des Alten Orients 21 (Berlin 1991). — 2011: H. Freydank, “Ein mittelassyrisches Wirtschaftsarchiv des Aššur-Tempels”, in: J. Renger (ed.), Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land. 5. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft, 18.–21. Februar 2004 in Berlin (Wiesbaden 2011), pp. 431–440. — 2016: H. Freydank, Assyrische Jahresbeamte des 12. Jh. v.Chr. Eponymen von Tukultī-Ninurta I. bis Tukultī-apil-ešarra I. AOAT 429 (Münster 2016). Fritz 2003: M.M. Fritz, “… und weinten um Tammuz”. Die Götter Dumuzi-Amaʾušumgalʾanna und Damu. AOAT 307 (Münster 2003). Fuchs 1994: A. Fuchs, Die Inschriften Sargons II. aus Khorsabad (Göttingen 1994). — 2009–2011: A. Fuchs, “Sargon II. König von Assyrien”, in: RlA 12, 2009–2011, pp. 51–61. — 2011: A. Fuchs, „Das Osttigrisgebiet von Agum II. bis zu Darius I. (ca. 1500 bis 500 v.Chr.)“, in: P.A. Miglus and S. Mühl (eds.), Between the Cultures. The Central Tigris Region from the 3rd to the 1st Millennium BC. Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 14 (Heidelberg 2011), pp. 229–320. Fuchs & Parpola 2001: A. Fuchs and S. Parpola, The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part III. Letters from Babylonia and the Eastern Provinces. SAA 15 (Helsinki 2001). Gadd 1921: C.J. Gadd, The Early Dynasties of Sumer and Akkad (London 1921). — 1971: C.J. Gadd, “Chapter XXII: Babylonia c. 2120–1800 B.C.”, in: The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. I/2 (3rd ed., Cambridge 1971), pp. 595–643. Gadd & Kramer, UET 6/1: C.J. Gadd and S.N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts. First Part. UET 6/1 (London 1963). — UET 6/2: C.J. Gadd and S.N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts. Second Part. UET 6/2 (London 1966). Gadd & Legrain, UET 1: C.J. Gadd and L. Legrain, Royal Inscriptions. UET 1 (London 1928). Gadotti 2014: A. Gadotti, ‘Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Netherworld’ and the Sumerian Gilgamesh Cycle. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10 (Berlin 2014). Gallagher 1999: W.R. Gallagher, Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah. New Studies. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East 18 (Leiden 1999). Galter 1984: H.D. Galter, “Die Zerstörung Babylons durch Sanherib”, in: Studia Orientalia (Memoriae Jussi Aro dedicata) 55 (Helsinki 1984), pp. 161–173. — 2006: H.D. Galter, “Sargon der Zweite. Über die Wiederinszenierung von Geschichte”, in: R. Rollinger und B. Truschnegg (eds.), Altertum und Mittelmeerraum: Die antike Welt diesseits und jenseits der Levante. Festschrift für Peter W. Haider zum 60. Geburtstag. Oriens et Occidens 12 (Stuttgart 2006), pp. 279–302. Garelli 1979: P. Garelli, “L’État et la légitimité royale sous l’empire assyrien”, in: M.T. Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda. A Sympsosium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia 7 (Copenhagen 1979), pp. 319–328.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

647

Garitte 1960: G. Garitte, La prise de Jérusalem par les Perses en 614. Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium, vol. 203. Scriptores Iberici, tomus 12 (Louvain 1960). Gaspa 2012: S. Gaspa, 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 2012). Geers’ Copy: Handcopies of cuneiform texts made by F.W. Geers (1885–1955), available online on CDLI (www.cdli.ucla.edu/?q=downloads). Gehrke 2001: H.-J. Gehrke, “Myth, History, and Collective Identity: Uses of the Past in Ancient Greece and Beyond,” in: N. Luraghi (ed.), The Historian’s Craft in the Age of Herodotus (Oxford 2001), pp. 286–313. — 2004: H.-J. Gehrke, “Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man intentionale Geschichte? Marathon und Troja als fundierende Mythen”, in: G. Melville und K.-S. Rehberg (eds.), Gründungsmythen – Genealogien – Memorialzeichen. Beiträge zur institutionellen Konstruktion von Kontinuität (Köln 2004), pp. 21–36. — 2005: H.-J. Gehrke, “Die Bedeutung der (antiken) Historiographie für die Entwicklung des Geschichtsbewußtseins”, in: E.-M. Becker, Die antike Historiographie und die Anfänge der christlichen Geschichtsschreibung. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der älteren Kirche 129 (Berlin 2005), pp. 29–51. — 2010: H.-J. Gehrke, “Greek Representations of the Past”, in: L. Foxhall, H.-J. Gehrke and N. Luraghi (eds.), Intentional History. Spinning Time in Ancient Greece (Stuttgart 2010), pp. 15–33. Gelb 1936: I.J. Gelb, “Additional Akkadian Values”, in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 53/1, 1936, pp. 34–44. — 1970: I.J. Gelb, Sargonic Texts in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Materials for the Assyrian Dictionary 5 (Chicago 1970). Gelb & Kienast 1990: I.J. Gelb (†) und B. Kienast, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v.Chr. Freiburger altorientalische Studien 7 (Stuttgart 1990). de Genouillac, PRAK 2: H. de Genouillac, Premières Recherches Archéologiques à Kich. Tome second (Paris 1925). George 1986: A.R. George, “Sennacherib and the Tablet of Destinies”, in: Iraq 48, 1986, pp. 133–146. — 1987: A.R. George, “A Neo-Assyrian Literary Text”, in: SAAB 1, 1987, pp. 31–41. — 1992: A.R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts. OLA 40 (Leuven 1992). — 1993: A.R. George, House Most High: The Temples of Ancient Mesopotamia. MC 5 (Winona Lake 1993). — 1995: A.R. George, “The Bricks of E-sagil”, in: Iraq 57, 1995, pp. 173–197. — 1997a: A.R. George, “Marduk and the Cult of the Gods of Nippur at Babylon”, in: OrNS 66, 1997, pp. 65–70. — 1997b: A.R. George, “The quarters of Babylon in the astronomical diaries”, in: NABU 1997, no. 18. — 1997c: A.R. George, “‘Bond of the Lands’: Babylon, the Cosmic Capital”, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch. 1. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 9.–10. Mai 1996 in Halle / Saale (Saarbrücken 1997), pp. 125– 145. — 1999: A.R. George, The Epic of Gilgamesh. A new Translation (London 1999). — 2003/I–II: A.R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic. Introduction, Critical Edition and Cuneiform Texts. Vols. I–II (London 2003).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

648

Bibliography

— 2005–2006: A.R. George, “The Tower of Babel: Archaeology, History, and Cuneiform Texts”, in: AfO 51, 2005–2006, pp. 75–95. — 2010: A.R. George, “The Sign of the Flood and the Language of Signs in Babylonian Omen Literature”, in: L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko (eds.), Language in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Vol. 1, Part 1. Babel und Bibel 4/1 (Winona Lake, 2010), pp. 323–335. — 2011a: A.R. George, “A Stele of Nebuchadnezzar II”, in: A.R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 17 (Bethesda 2011), pp. 153– 169, pls. 58–67. — 2011b: A.R. George, “A List of Reigns of Kings of Ur and Isin”, in: A.R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 17 (Bethesda 2011), pp. 206–207. — 2013: A.R. George, Babylonian Divinatory Texts Chiefly in the Schøyen Collection, with an appendix of material from the papers of W. G. Lambert. CUSAS 18 (Bethesda 2013). Gerardi 1986: P. Gerardi, “Declaring War in Mesopotamia”, in: AfO 33, 1986, pp. 30–38. Gershevitch 1957: I. Gershevitch, “Sissoo at Susa (OPers. yakā- = Dalbergia Sissoo Roxb.)”, in: BSOAS 19, 1957, pp. 317–320. Gesche 2000: P.D. Gesche, Schulunterricht in Babylonien im ersten Jahrtausend v.Chr. AOAT 275 (Münster 2000). Gibson 1982: J.C.L. Gibson, Textbook of Syrian Semitic Inscriptions. Vol. III: Phoenician Inscriptions (Oxford 1982). Gilan 2014: A. Gilan, “The End of God-Napping and the Religious Foundations of the New Hittite Empire”, in: ZA 104, 2014, pp. 195–205. Ginzberg 1946/VI: L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews. Volume VI: Notes to Volumes III and IV. From Moses in the Wilderness to Esther (3rd impr., Philadelphia 5706/1946). — 1947/IV: L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews. Volume IV: Bible Times and Characters from Joshua to Esther (5th impr., Philadelphia 5707/1947). Glassner 1983: J.-J. Glassner, “Narām-Sîn poliocrète. Les avatars d’une sentence divinatoire”, in: RA 77, 1983, pp. 3–10. — 1984: J.-J. Glassner, “Pour un lexique des termes et figures analogiques en usage dans la divination mésopotamienne”, in: Journal Asiatique 272, 1984, pp. 15–46. — 1986: J.-J. Glassner, La chute d’Akkadé. L’événement et sa mémoire. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 5 (Berlin 1986). — 1993a: J.-J. Glassner, Chroniques Mésopotamiennes (Paris 1993). — 1993b: J.-J. Glassner, “Chronologie élamite et chroniques mésopotamiennes”, in: NABU 1993, p. 29, no. 38. — 2002a: J.-J. Glassner, “L’Etemenanki, armature du cosmos”, in: NABU 2002, no. 32. — 2002b: J.-J. Glassner, “Polygynie ou prostitution: une approche comparative de la sexualité masculine”, in: S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Vols. I–II. CRRAI 47, Helsinki 2001 (Helsinki 2002), pp. 151–164. — 2005a: J.-J. Glassner, Mesopotamian Chronicles. Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 19 (Leiden 2005). — 2005b: J.-J. Glassner, “L’aruspicine paléo-babylonienne et le témoignage des sources de Mari”, in: ZA 95, 2005, pp. 276–300. — 2015: J.-J. Glassner, “The Diviner as Historian”, in: Studia Mesopotamica 2, 2015, pp. 131– 147.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

649

— 2018: J.-J. Glassner, “L’abdication de Šulgi”, in: K. Kleber, G. Neumann und Susanne Paulus, unter Mitarbeit von Ch. Möllenbeck (eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Hans Neumann zum 65. Geburtstag am 9. Mai 2018. dubsar 5 (Münster 2018), pp. 245–265. Goeje 1882: M.J. de Goeje et. al. (eds.), Annales quos scripsit Abu Djafar Mohammed Ibn Djarir atTabari. Series I/2 (Leiden 1882). Goetze 1947: A. Goetze, “Historical Allusions in Old Babylonian Omen Texts”, in: JCS 1, 1947, pp. 253–266. Gomi 1984: T. Gomi, “On the critical economic situation at Ur early in the reign of Ibbi-Sîn”, in: JCS 36, 1984, pp. 211–242. Gong 2000: Y. Gong, Die Namen der Keilschriftzeichen. AOAT 268 (Münster 2000). Goodnick Westenholz 1993: J. Goodnick Westenholz, “Writing for Posterity: Naram-Sin and Enmerkar”, in: A.F. Rainey (ed.), Kinattūtu ša dārâti: Raphael Kutscher Memorial Volume. Tel Aviv, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, Occasional Publications no. 1 (Tel Aviv 1993), pp. 205–218. — 1997a: J. Goodnick Westenholz, Legends of the Kings of Akkade: The Texts. MC 7 (Winona Lake 1997). — 1997b: J. Goodnick Westenholz, “Nanaya: Lady of Mystery”, in: I.L. Finkel and M.J. Geller (eds.), Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. CM 7 (Groningen 1997) pp. 57–84. — 1998: J. Goodnick Westenholz, “The Theological Foundation of the City, the Capital City and Babylon”, in: J. Goodnick Westenholz (ed.), Capital Cities: Urban Planning and Spiritual Dimensions. Proceedings of the Symposium held on May 27–29, 1996, Jerusalem, Israel (Jerusalem 1998), pp. 43–54. Goodnick Westenholz & Sigrist 2006: J. Goodnick Westenholz and M. Sigrist, “The Brain, the Marrow and the Seat of Cognition in Mesopotamian Tradition”, in: Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes 7, 2006, pp. 1–10. Gragg 1973: G. Gragg, Sumerian Dimensional Infixes. AOATS 5 (Kevelaer 1973). Grayson 1966: A.K. Grayson, “Divination and the Babylonian Chronicles”, in: La divination en Mésopotamie ancienne et dans les régions voisines. 14e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Strasbourg 1965 (Paris 1966), pp. 69–76. — 1975a: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles. TCS 5 (Locust Valley 1975). — 1975b: A.K. Grayson, Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto 1975). — 1980: A.K. Grayson, “Histories and Historians of the Ancient Near East: Assyria and Babylonia”, in: OrNS 49, 1980, pp. 140–194. — 1980–1983: A.K. Grayson, “Königslisten und Chroniken. B. Akkadisch”, in: RlA 6, 1980– 1983, pp. 86–135. — RIMA 1: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 1 (Toronto 1987). — RIMA 2: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (1114–859 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2 (Toronto 1991). — RIMA 3: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, II (858–745 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 3 (Toronto 1996). — 1998–2001: A.K. Grayson, “Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, p. 527. Grayson & Lambert 1964: A.K. Grayson and W.G. Lambert, “Akkadian Prophecies”, in: JCS 18, 1964, pp. 7–30.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

650

Bibliography

Grayson & Novotny, RINAP 3/1: A.K. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1 (Winona Lake 2014). — RINAP 3/2: A.K. Grayson and J. Novotny, 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 2014). Greaves 2000: S.W. Greaves, “Ominous Homophony and Portentous Puns in Akkadian Omens”, in: S.B. Noegel (ed.), Puns and Pundits. Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Bethesda 2000), pp. 103–113. Green 1975: M.W. Green, Eridu in Sumerian Literature (PhD. University of Chicago, 1975, Univ. Microfilms). — 1978: M.W. Green, “The Eridu Lament”, in: JCS 30, 1978, pp. 127–167. — 1984: M.W. Green, “The Uruk Lament”, in: JAOS 104, 1984, pp. 253–279. Green 1993–1997: A. Green, “Mischwesen. B. Archäologie. Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 8, 1993– 1997, pp. 246–264. Groneberg 1980: B. Groneberg, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der altbabylonischen Zeit. RGTC 3 (Wiesbaden 1980). — 2007: B. Groneberg, “Liebes- und Hundebeschwörungen im Kontext”, in: M.T. Roth, W. Farber, M.W. Stolper, and P. von Bechtolsheim (eds.), Studies Presented to Robert D. Biggs – June 4, 2004. From the Workshop of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Vol. 2. AS 27 (Chicago 2007), pp. 91–107. Günther 1975: H. Günther, “IV. Historisches Denken in der frühen Neuzeit”, in: O. Brunner, W. Conze und R. Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-souialen Sprache in Deutschland. Band 2 (E–G) (Stuttgart 1975), pp. 625–647. Guidi 1903: I. Guidi, Chronica minora. Corpus scriptorum Christianorum orientalium. Scriptores Syri, versio. Series tertia, tomus IV (Paris 1903). Guillaume 1955: A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad. A Translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Oxford 1955). Guinan 1998: A. Kessler Guinan, “Auguries of Hegemony: The Sex Omens of Mesopotamia”, in: M. Wyke (ed.), Gender and the Body in the Ancient Mediterranean (Oxford 1998), pp. 38– 55. — 2002: A. Kessler Guinan, “A Severed Head Laughed: Stories of Divinatory Interpretation”, in: L. Ciraolo and J. Seidel, Magic and Divination in the Ancient World. Ancient Magic and Divination 2 (Leiden 2002), pp. 7–40. Gurney 1973: O.R. Gurney, “Anatolia c. 1750–1600 B.C.”, in: The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. II/1 (3rd ed., Cambridge 1973), pp. 228–255. — OECT 11: O.R. Gurney, Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. OECT 11 (Oxford 1989). — UET 7: O.R. Gurney, Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts. UET 7 (London 1974). Gurney & Finkelstein, STT 1: O.R. Gurney and J.J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets I (London 1957). Gurney & Hulin, STT 2: O.R. Gurney and P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets II (London 1964). Gurney & Kramer, OECT 5: O.R. Gurney and S.N. Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 5 (Oxford 1976). Gutbub 1973: A. Gutbub, Textes fondamentaux de la théologie de Kom Ombo. Bibliothèque d’étude 47/1–2 (Le Caire 1973).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

651

Güterbock 1934: H.G. Güterbock, “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200. Erster Teil: Babylonier”, in: ZA 42, 1934, pp. 1– 91. — 1938: H.G. Güterbock, “Die historische Tradition und ihre literarische Gestaltung bei Babyloniern und Hethitern bis 1200. Zweiter Teil: Hethiter”, in: ZA 44, 1938, pp. 45–149. — 1954: H.G. Güterbock, “The Hurrian Element in the Hittite Empire”, in: Cahiers d'histoire mondiale / Journal of World History / Cuadernos de historia mundial 2, 1954, pp. 383–394. Haas 1993: V. Haas, “Eine hethitische Weltreichsidee. Betrachtungen zum historischen Bewußtsein und politischen Denken in althethitischer Zeit”, in: K. Raaflaub (ed.), Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 24 (München 1993), pp. 135–144. — 1994: V. Haas, Geschichte der hethitischen Religion. Handbuch der Orientalistik I/15 (Leiden 1994). Haase 1997: R. Haase, “Talion und spiegelnde Strafe in den keilschriftlichen Textcorpora”, in: ZAR 3, 1997, pp. 195–201. Hahn 1962: I. Hahn, “Zwei dunkle Stellen in Josephus (Bellum Judaicum VI, § 311 und II § 142)”, in: Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 14, 1962, pp. 131–138. Halbwachs 1925: M. Halbwachs, Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire (Paris 1925). — 1950: M. Halbwachs, La mémoire collective. Ouvrage posthume, publié par Mme Jeanne Alexandre née Halbwachs (Paris 1950). Hallo 1957–1971: W.W. Hallo, “Gutium (Qutium)”, in: RlA 3, 1957–1971, pp. 708–720. — 1960: W.W. Hallo, “A Sumerian Ampictyony”, in: JCS 14, 1960, pp. 88–114. — 1976: W.W. Hallo, “Women of Sumer”, in: D. Schmandt-Besserat, The Legacy of Sumer. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 4 (Malibu 1976), pp. 23–40. — 1978: W.W. Hallo, “Simurrum and the Hurrian Frontier”, in: Revue Hittite et Asianique 36 (Actes de la 24e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 1977), 1978, pp. 71–83. — 1991: W.W. Hallo, “The Death of Kings: Traditional Historiography in Contextual Perspective”, in: M. Cogan and I. Ephʿal (eds.), Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography presented to Hayim Tadmor. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33 (Jerusalem 1991), pp. 148–165. — 1998: W.W. Hallo, “New Directions in Historiography (Mesopotamia and Israel)”, in: M. Dietrich und O. Loretz (eds.), Dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik, Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres. AOAT 253 (Münster 1998), pp. 109–128. — 2006: W.W. Hallo, “A Sumerian Apocryphon? The Royal Correspondence of Ur Reconsidered”, in: P. Michalowski and N. Veldhuis (eds.), Approaches to Sumerian Literature: Studies in Honour of Stip (H.L.J Vanstiphout). CM 35 (Leiden 2006), pp. 85–104. Hansen 1980–1983: D.P. Hansen, “Lagaš. B. Archäologisch”, in: RlA 6, 1980–1983, pp. 422–430. Harper, ABL: R.F. Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian letters belonging to the Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. Vols. I–XIV (London 1892–1914). Haul 2000: M. Haul, Das Etana-Epos. Ein Mythos von der Himmelfahrt des Königs von Kiš. Göttinger Arbeitshefte zur altorientalischen Literatur (Göttingen 2000). Hawkins 1972–1975: J.D. Hawkins, “Ḫatti: the 1st millennium B.C.”, in: RlA 4, 1972–1975, pp. 152–159. — 1974: J.D. Hawkins, “Assyrians and Hittites”, in: Iraq 36, 1974, pp. 67–83. Hecker 1968: K. Hecker, Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte. AnOr 44 (Roma 1968).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

652

Bibliography

— 1986: K. Hecker, “Die Marduk-Prophetie”, in: O. Kaiser (ed.), Religiöse Texte. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Band II, Lieferung 1 (Gütersloh 1986), pp. 65–68. Heeßel 2000: N.P. Heeßel, Babylonisch-assyrische Diagnostik. AOAT 43 (Münster 2000). — 2007a: N.P. Heeßel, Divinatorische Texte I. Terrestrische, teratologische, physiognomische und oneiromantische Omina. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 1. WVDOG 116 (Wiesbaden 2007). — 2007b: N.P. Heeßel, “The Hands of the Gods: Disease Names, and Divine Anger”, in: I.L. Finkel and M.J. Geller, Disease in Babylonia. CM 36 (Leiden 2007), pp. 120–130. — 2008: N.P. Heeßel, “Neue Texte zum Kapitel Šumma multābiltu der Opferschau-Serie bārûtu”, in: RA 102, 2008, pp. 119–148. — 2012: N.P. Heeßel, Divinatorische Texte II: Opferschau-Omina. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur literarischen Inhalts 5. WVDOG 139 (Wiesbaden 2012). — 2016: N.P. Heeßel, “Būr-Sîn or Amar-Suʾena: Was There a ‘Historical Omen’ of Būr-Sîn of Isin?”, in: JCS 68, 2016, pp. 99–105. Heimpel 1972: W. Heimpel, “Der Tod der Göttin Baba von Lagaš. Eine Beobachtung zum sumerischen Götterglauben”, in: Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel zum 70. Geburtstag am 19. September 1971. Herausgegeben von den Mitarbeitern des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte, Dritter Band. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 36/III (Göttingen 1972), pp. 661–667. — 1992: W. Heimpel, “Herrentum und Königtum im vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Alten Orient”, in: ZA 82, 1992, pp. 4–21. — 1998–2001: W. Heimpel, “Nanše. A. Philologisch”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 152–160. — 2009: W. Heimpel, Workers and Construction Work at Garšana. CUSAS 5 (Bethesda 2009). Heinrich 1982: E. Heinrich, Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im Alten Mesopotamien. Typologie, Morphologie und Geschichte. Unter Mitarbeit von Ursula Seidl. Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Denkmäler antiker Architektur 14 (Berlin 1982). Helle 2018: S. Helle, “The Role of Authors in the ‘Uruk List of Kings and Sages’: Canonization and Cultural Contact”, in: JNES 77, 2018, pp. 219–234. Heller 2010: A. Heller, Das Babylonien der Spätzeit (7.–4. Jh.) in den klassischen und keilschriftlichen Quellen. Oikumene 7 (Berlin 2010). Henkelman 2003: W. Henkelman, “Persians, Medes and Elamites: Acculturation in the NeoElamite Period”, in: G.B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf and R. Rollinger (eds.), Continuity of Empires (?): Assyria, Media, Persia. History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs 5 (Padua 2003), pp. 181–231. — 2011–2013: W.F.M. Henkelman, “Šutruk-Nahhunte”, in: RlA 13, 2011–2013, pp. 369–372. Henkelman et al. 2011: W.F.M. Henkelman, A. Kuhrt, R. Rollinger and J. Wiesehöfer, “Herodotus and Babylon Reconsidered”, in: R. Rollinger, B. Truschnegg und R. Bichler (eds.), Herodot und das persische Weltreich. Herodotus and the Persian Empire. Akten des 3. Internationalen Kolloquiums zum Thema “Vorderasien im Spannungsfeld klassischer und altorientalischer Überlieferungen”. Innsbruck, 24.–28. November 2008. Classica et Orientalia 3 (Wiesbaden 2011), pp. 449–470. Herrmann 2010: S. Herrmann, Vogel und Fisch – Ein sumerisches Rangstreitgespräch. Textedition und Kommentar. Philologia. Sprachwissenschaftliche Forschungs-ergebnisse 145 (Hamburg 2010). Hilgert 2002a: M. Hilgert, Akkadisch in der Ur III Zeit. Imgula 5 (Münster 2002). — 2002b: M. Hilgert, “Herrscherideal und Namengebung. Zum akkadischen Wortschatz kyriophorer Eigennamen in der Ur III-Zeit”, in: N. Nebes (ed.), Neue Beiträge zur

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

653

Semitistik. Erstes Arbeitstreffen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Semitistik in der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft vom 11. bis 13. September 2000 an der Friedrich-SchillerUniversität Jena. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 5 (Wiesbaden 2002), pp. 39–76. Hinz 1964: W. Hinz, Das Reich Elam (Stuttgart 1964). — 1971: W. Hinz, “Chapter XXIII: Persia c. 2400–1800 B.C.”, in: The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. I/2 (3rd ed., Cambridge 1971), pp. 644–680. — 1972–1975: W. Hinz, “Hutran-tempt”, in: RlA 4, 1972–1975, p. 527. — 1973: W. Hinz, “Persia c. 1800–1550 B.C.”, in: The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. II/1 (3rd ed., Cambridge 1973), pp. 256–288. — 1976–1980: W. Hinz, “Kindattu”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, p. 598. — 1980–1983a: W. Hinz, “Kuter-Nahhunte”, in: RlA 6, 1980–1983, pp. 383–384. — 1980–1983b: W. Hinz, “Kutir-Nahhunte”, in: RlA 6, 1980–1983, pp. 388–389. Hirsch 1963: H. Hirsch, “Die Inschriften der Könige von Agade”, in: AfO 20, 1963, pp. 1–82. — 1967: H. Hirsch, “Die ‘Sünde’ Lugalzagesis”, in: G. Wiessner (ed.), Festschrift für Wilhelm Eilers: Ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966 (Wiesbaden 1967), pp. 99–106. Höffken 2005: P. Höffken, “Xerxes und (k)eine Marduk-Statue. Überlegungen zu einem Randthema Alttestamentlicher Prophetenexegese”, in: VT 55, 2005, pp. 477–485. Hoffmann 1984: I. Hoffmann, Der Erlass Telipinus. Texte der Hethiter 11 (Heidelberg 1984). Hoffner 1975: H.A. Hoffner, “Propaganda and Political Justification in Hittite Historiography”, in: H. Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts (eds.), Unity and Diversity. Essays in the History, Literature, and Religion of the Ancient Near East (Baltimore 1975), pp. 49–62. Holloway 2002: S.W. Holloway, 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 2002). Holm 2008: T.L. Holm, “The Fiery Furnace in the Book of Daniel and the Ancient Near East”, in: JAOS 128, 2008, pp. 85–104. — 2014: T.L. Holm, “Memories of Sennacherib in Aramaic Tradition”, in: I. Kalimi and S. Richardson (eds.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem. Story, History and Historiography. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 71 (Leiden 2014), pp. 296–323. Hommel 1907: F. Hommel, “Der sechsköpfige Drache von Jamutbal”, in: Babyloniaca 2, 1907, pp. 60–61. Horowitz 1988: W. Horowitz, “The Babylonian Map of the World”, in: Iraq 50, 1988, pp. 147– 165, pl. 10. — 1998: W. Horowitz, Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography. MC 8 (Winona Lake 1998; 2nd edition 2011). Howard-Johnston 2006: J. Howard-Johnston, East Rome, Sasanian Persia and the End of Antiquity. Historiographical and Historical Studies (Aldershot 2006), no. IX (pp. 93–113): “Pride and fall: Khusro II and his regime, 626–628” (reprint from: La Persia e Bisanzio. Atti dei Convegni Lincei 201, ed. G. Gnoli. Rome: Accademia Nationale dei Lincei, 2004, pp. 93–113). Hrouda 1965: B. Hrouda, Die Kulturgeschichte des assyrischen Flachbildes. Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 2 (Bonn 1965). Hrůša 2010: I. Hrůša, Die akkadische Synonymenliste malku = šarru. Eine Textedition mit Übersetzung und Kommentar. AOAT 50 (Münster 2010). — 2015: I. Hrůša, Ancient Mesopotamian Religion: A Descriptive Introduction. Translated from Italian by Michael Tait (Münster 2015). HSAO: Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

654

Bibliography

Huber 2001: F. Huber, “La Correspondance Royale d’Ur, un corpus apocryphe”, in: ZA 91, 2001, pp. 169–206. Huber Vulliet 2011: F. Huber Vulliet, “Letters as Correspondence, Letters as Literature”, in: K. Radner and E. Robson (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cuneiform Culture (Oxford 2011), pp. 486–507. Hug 1993: V. Hug, Altaramäische Grammatik der Texte des 7. und 6. Jh.s v.Chr. HSAO 4 (Heidelberg 1993). Huizinga 1936: J. Huizinga, “A Definition of the Concept of History”, in: R. Klibansky and H.J. Paton (eds.), Philosophy and History. Essays presented to Ernst Cassirer (Oxford 1936, reprint 1963, 1975), pp. 1–10. Hunger 1968: H. Hunger, Babylonische und assyrische Kolophone. AOAT 2 (Kevelaer 1968). — 1976: H. Hunger, Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil I. ADFU 9 (Berlin 1976). — 1992: H. Hunger, Astrological Reports to Assyrian Kings. SAA 8 (Helsinki 1992). — 1993–1997a: H. Hunger, “Mond. A. Astronomisch”, in: RlA 8, 1993–1997, pp. 354–356. — 1993–1997b: H. Hunger, “Mondfinsternis”, in: RlA 8, 1993–1997, pp. 358–359. — 2001: H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Volume V: Lunar and Planetary Texts. Including Materials by Abraham J. Sachs, with an Appendix by John M. Steele (Wien 2001). — 2002: H. Hunger, “Über die Bedeutungslosigkeit der Finsternisse in Enūma Anu Enlil für die Chronologie”, in: O. Loretz, K.A. Metzler und H. Schaudig (eds.): Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. AOAT 281 (Münster 2002), pp. 171–176. Hunger & Pingree 1989: H. Hunger and D. Pingree, Mul.Apin. An Astronomical Compendium in Cuneiform. AfO Bh. 24 (Horn 1989). — 1999: H. Hunger and D. Pingree, Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia. Handbuch der Orientalistik I/44 (Leiden 1999). Hurowitz 1997: V.A. Hurowitz, “Reading a Votive Inscription: Simbar-Shipak and the Ellilification of Marduk”, in: RA 91, 1997, pp. 39–47. — 1998: V.A. Hurowitz, “Advice to a Prince: A Message from Ea”, in: SAAB 12/1, 1998, pp. 39–53. — 2000: V.A. Hurowitz, “Alliterative Allusions, Rebus Writing, and Paronomastic Punishment: Some Aspects of Word Play in Akkadian Literature”, in: S.B. Noegel (ed.), Puns and Pundits. Word Play in the Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Bethesda 2000), pp. 63–87. — 2010: V.A. Hurowitz, “Solomon Built the Temple and Completed It”, in: Mark J. Boda and Jamie R. Novotny (eds.), From the Foundations to the Crenellations: Essays on Temple Building in the Ancient Near East and Hebrew Bible. AOAT 366 (Münster 2010), pp. 281–302. — 2012: V.A. Hurowitz, “What Can Go Wrong with an Idol?”, in: N.N. May (ed.), Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 8 (Chicago 2012), pp. 259–310. Hüsken 2007: U. Hüsken (ed.), When Rituals go Wrong: Mistakes, Failure, and the Dynamics of Ritual (Leiden 2007). IM: Iraq Museum, Baghdad, accession number. Izre’el 2001: Sh. Izre’el, Adapa and the South Wind. Language has the Power of Life and Death. MC 10 (Winona Lake 2001). Jacobs 2013: S. Jacobs, “Natural Law, Poetic Justice and the Talionic Formulation”, in: Political Theology 14, 2013, pp. 661–669. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

655

— 2014: S. Jacobs, The Body as Property: Physical Disfigurement in Biblical Law (London 2014). Jacobsen 1939: Th. Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List. AS 11 (Chicago 1939). — 1941: Th. Jacobsen, Review of S.N. Kramer, Lamentation Over the Destruction of Ur. Assyriological Studies 12 (Chicago 1940), in: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58, 1941, pp. 219–224. — 1953: Th. Jacobsen, “The Reign of Ibbī-Suen”, in: JCS 7, 1953, pp. 36–47. — 1957: Th. Jacobsen, “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia”, in: ZA 52, 1957, pp. 91–140. — 1976: Th. Jacobsen, The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion (New Haven 1976). Jacoby, FGrHist: F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin/Leiden 1923–). Jakob 2003: S. Jakob, Mittelassyrische Verwaltung und Sozialstruktur. Untersuchungen. CM 29 (Leiden 2003). — 2013: S. Jakob, “Sag mir quando, sag mir wann …”, in: L. Feliu, J. Llop, A. Millet Albà, and J. Sanmartín (eds.), Time and History in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 56th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Barcelona, 26–30 July 2010 (Winona Lake 2013), pp. 509–523. — 2017: S. Jakob, “Die Kehrseite des Sieges”, in: D. Kertai and O. Nieuwenhuyse (eds.), From the Four Corners of the Earth. Studies in Iconography and Cultures of the Ancient Near East in Honour of F.A.M. Wiggermann. AOAT 441 (Münster 2017), pp. 91–105. Jakob-Rost 1962: L. Jakob-Rost, “Ein babylonisches Omen aus dem Jahre 592 v.u.Z.”, in: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Forschungen und Berichte 5, 1962, pp. 31–33. JANER: Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions. Janssen 2012: T. Janssen, “Die mittel- und spätkassitische Chronologie in internationalen Kontext: eine Revision”, in: Akkadica 133, 2012, pp. 123–145. JAOS: Journal of the American Oriental Society. JCS: Journal of Cuneiform Studies. Jean 2006: C. Jean, “Points cardinaux et vents dans la magie néo-assyrienne”, in: L. Denooz et X. Luffin (eds.), Autour de la géographie orientale … et au-delà, en l’honneur de J. Thiry (Leuven 2006), pp. 5–18. Jeffers 2013: J.A. Jeffers, Tiglath-pileser I: A Light in a “Dark Age” (PhD. University of Pennsylvania, 2013, http://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations/AAI3594810). — 2017: J.A. Jeffers: “The Nonintercalated Lunar Calendar of the Middle Assyrian Period”, in: JCS 69, 2017, pp. 151–191. Jensen 1900: P. Jensen, Assyrisch-babylonische Mythen und Epen. Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek 6/1 (Berlin 1900). Jeremias 1917: A. Jeremias, “Die sogenannten Kedorlaomer-Texte”, in: MVAG 21, (1916) 1917, pp. 69–97. JESHO: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. Jeyes 1978: U. Jeyes, “The ‘Palace Gate’ of the Liver. A Study of Terminology and Methods in Babylonian Extispicy”, in: JCS 30, 1978, pp. 209–233. — 1980: U. Jeyes, “The Act of Extispicy in Ancient Mesopotamia: An Outline”, in: Assyriological Miscellanies 1, 1980, pp. 13–32. — 1989: U. Jeyes, Old Babylonian Extispicy. Omen Texts in the British Museum. PIHANS 64 (Leiden 1989). Jiménez 2013: E. Jiménez, “The ‘Creation of the King’: A Reappraisal”, in: Kaskal. Rivista di storia, ambienti e culture del Vicino Oriente Antico 10, 2013, pp. 235–254.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

656

Bibliography

Jiménez-Sánchez (forthcoming): E. Jiménez-Sánchez, The Image of the Winds in Babylonian Literature (La imagen de los vientos en la literatura babilónica, PhD. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de Filología, Departamento de Estudios Hebreos y Arameos, 2013). JNES: Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Joannès 2000: F. Joannès, “Une chronique judiciaire d’époque hellénistique et le châtiment des sacrilèges à Babylone”, in: J. Marzahn und H. Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997. AOAT 252 (Münster 2000), pp. 193–211. Johandi 2016: A. Johandi, “The Motif of Divine Abandonment in Some Mesopotamian Texts Featuring the God Marduk”, in: Th.R. Kämmerer, M. Kõiv and V. Sazonov (eds.), Kings, Gods and People. Establishing Monarchies in the Ancient World. Acta Antiqua Mediterranea et Orientalia 4. AOAT 390/4 (Münster 2016), pp. 135–186. Johnson 2011: E.D. Johnson, Stealing the Enemy’s Gods: An Exploration of the Phenomenon of Godnap in Ancient Western Asia (PhD. University of Birmingham, 2011, http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/3187). Jonker 1995: G. Jonker, The Topography of Remembrance. The Dead, Tradition and Collective Memory in Mesopotamia. Studies in the History of Religions 68 (Leiden 1995). Jursa 1999: M. Jursa, Das Archiv des Bēl-rēmanni. PIHANS 86 (Leiden 1999). — 2013: M. Jursa, “Die babylonische Priesterschaft im ersten Jahrtausend v.Chr.”, in: K. Kaniuth et al. (eds.), Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 11.–13. Oktober 2009, München. Colloquien der Deutschen OrientGesellschaft 7 (Wiesbaden 2013), pp. 151–165. — 2017: M. Jursa with contribitions by C. Debourse, “A Babylonian Priestly Martyr, a Kinglike Priest, and the Nature of Late Babylonian Priestly Literature”, in: WZKM 107, 2017, pp. 77–98. Kämmerer & Metzler 2012: Th.R. Kämmerer und K.A. Metzler, Das babylonische Weltschöpfungsepos Enūma elîš. AOAT 375 (Münster 2012). Kaizer 2005: T. Kaizer, “Kingly Priests in the Roman Near East?”, in: O. Hekster and R. Fowler (eds.), Imaginary Kings. Royal Images in the Ancient Near East, Greece and Rome. Oriens et Occidens 11 (München 2005), pp. 177–192. Kalimi 2014: I. Kalimi, “Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah: Sources and Research Stands”, in: I. Kalimi and S. Richardson (eds.), Sennacherib at the Gates of Jerusalem. Story, History and Historiography. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 71 (Leiden 2014), pp. 11–50. Kantorowicz 1966: E. Kantorowicz, The King’s two bodies. A Study in mediaeval political Theology (2nd ed., Princeton 1966). KAH II: O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts, Zweites Heft. WVDOG 37 (Leipzig 1922). KAR: E. Ebeling, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur religiösen Inhalts. Vols. I–II (Leipzig 1919–23). KAV: O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. WVDOG 35 (Leipzig 1920). Katz 1993: D. Katz, Gilgamesh and Akka. Library of oriental texts, Vol. 1. First Series: Ancient Mesopotamian texts (Groningen 1993). — 2017: D. Katz, “Ups and Downs in the Career of Enmerkar, King of Uruk”, in: O. Drewnowska and M. Sandowicz (eds.), Fortune and Misfortune in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 60th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Warsaw, 21–25 July 2014 (Winona Lake 2017), pp. 201–210. KBo: Keilschrifttexte aus Boghazköi.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

657

Kent 1950: R.G. Kent, Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. AOS 33 (New Haven 1950). Kertai 2013: D. Kertai, “The Queens of the Neo-Assyrian Empire”, in: AoF 40, 2013, pp. 108– 124. — 2015: D. Kertai, The Architecture of Late Assyrian Royal Palaces (Oxford 2015). Kessler 2004: K. Kessler, “Urukäische Familien versus babylonische Familien. Die Namengebung in Uruk, die Degradierung der Kulte von Eanna und der Aufstieg des Gottes Anu”, in: AoF 31, 2004, pp. 237–262. King 1898: L.W. King, The Letters and Inscriptions of Ḫammurabi. Vol. I (London 1898). — 1904: L.W. King, Records of the Reign of Tukulti-Ninib I, King of Assyria, about B.C. 1275 (London 1904). — 1907/I–II: L.W. King, Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings, including Records of the early history of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea. Vols. I–II (London 1907). — 1910: L.W. King, A History of Sumer and Akkad. An Account of the Early Races of Babylonia from Prehistoric Times to the Foundation of the Babylonian Monarchy (London 1910). — 1912: L.W. King, Babylonian Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets in the British Museum (London 1912). Kleber 2008: K. Kleber, Tempel und Palast. Die Beziehungen zwischen dem König und dem EannaTempel im spätbabylonischen Uruk. AOAT 358 (Münster 2008). Klein 1979: J. Klein, “The Reading and Pronunciation of the Sumerian Word for ‘Monkey’”, in: JCS 31, 1979, pp. 149–160. — 1991: J. Klein, “The Coronation and Consecration of Šulgi in the Ekur (Šulgi G)”, in: M. Cogan and I. Ephʿal (eds.), Ah, Assyria… Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography presented to Hayim Tadmor. Scripta Hierosolymitana 33 (Jerusalem 1991), pp. 292–313. — 2002: J. Klein, “A New Look at the ‘Oppression of Uruk’ Episode in the Gilgameš Epic”, in: Tz. Abusch (ed.), Riches Hidden in Secret Places. Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen (Winona Lake 2002), pp. 187–201. — 2008: J. Klein, “The Brockmon Collection Duplicate of the Sumerian King List (BT 14)”, in: P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur: Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. JCS, Supplemental Series 1 (Boston 2008), pp. 77–91. Klengel 1999: H. Klengel, Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches. Handbuch der Orientalistik I/34 (Leiden 1999). Klinger 2007: J. Klinger, Die Hethiter (München 2007). — 2012: J. Klinger, “Krankheit und Krieg im Spannungsfeld zwischen mythischer und realer Katastrophe”, in: A. Berlejung (ed.), Disaster and Relief Management in Ancient Israel, Egypt and the Ancient Near East. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 81 (Tübingen 2012), pp. 471–497. Koch 2008: J. Koch, “Neues vom Ibbi-Sin-Omen”, in: NABU 2008, no. 66. Koch(-Westenholz) 2000: U. Koch-Westenholz, Babylonian Liver Omens. The Chapters Manzāzu, Padānu and Pān tākalti of the Babylonian Extispicy Series mainly from Aššurbanipal’s library. Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications 25 (Copenhagen 2000). — 2005: U.S. Koch, Secrets of Extispicy. The Chapter Multābiltu of the Babylonian Extispicy Series and Niṣirti bārûti Texts mainly from Aššurbanipal’s Library. AOAT 326 (Münster 2005). — 2015: U.S. Koch, Mesopotamian Divination Texts: Conversing with the Gods. Sources from the First Millennium BCE. Guides to the Mesopotamian Textual Record 7 (Münster 2015). Köcher, BAM 3: F. Köcher, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. Band 3 (Berlin 1964). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

658

Bibliography

— BAM 4: F. Köcher, Die babylonisch-assyrische Medizin in Texten und Untersuchungen. Band 4 (Berlin 1971). Koenen 2015: K. Koenen, Klagelieder (Threni). Biblischer Kommentar – Altes Testament 20 (Neukirchen-Vluyn 2015). König 1972: F.W. König, Die Persika des Ktesias von Knidos. AfO Bh. 18 (Graz 1972). — 1977: F.W. König, Die elamischen Königsinschriften. AfO Bh. 16 (Graz 1965, reprint Osnabrück 1977). Komoróczy 1977: G. Komoróczy, “Ummān-Manda” in: Acta Antiqua Academiae Hungaricae 25 (Studies in Honour of J. Harmatta), 1977, pp. 43–67. Koselleck 1979: R. Koselleck, Vergangene Zukunft: Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeiten (Frankfurt a.M. 1979). — 2004: R. Koselleck, Futures Past: On the Semantics of Historical Time. Translated and with an Introduction by K. Tribe (New York 2004). Kouwenberg 1997: N.J.C. Kouwenberg, Gemination in the Akkadian Verb. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 32 (Assen 1997). Kozuh 2014: M. Kozuh, The Sacrificial Economy. Assessors, Contractors, and Thieves in the Management of Sacrificial Sheep at the Eanna Temple of Uruk (ca. 625–520 B.C.). Explorations in Ancient Near Eastern Civilizations 3 (Winona Lake 2014). Kramer 1938: S.N. Kramer, Gilgamesh and the Ḫuluppu-Tree. A Reconstructed Sumerian Text. AS 10 (Chicago 1938). — 1940: S.N. Kramer, Lamentation Over the Destruction of Ur. AS 12 (Chicago 1940). — 1950: S.N. Kramer, “Letter of King Ibbi-Sin” in: J. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton 1950), pp. 480–481. — 1983: S.N. Kramer, “The Weeping Goddess: Sumerian Prototypes of the Mater Dolorosa”, in: The Biblical Archaeologist 46, 1983, pp. 69–80. — 1986: S.N. Kramer, In the World of Sumer. An Autobiography (Detroit 1986). Kratz 2017: R.G. Kratz, Historisches und biblisches Israel. Drei Überblicke zum Alten Testament (Zweite, durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage, Tübingen 2017). Kratz & Spieckermann 2008: R.G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann (eds.), Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe, Band 33 (Tübingen 2008). Kraus 1935: F.R. Kraus, Die physiognomischen Omina der Babylonier. MVAeG 40/2 (Leipzig 1935). — 1974: F.R. Kraus, “Das altbabylonische Königtum”, in: P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté (archéologie et civilisation). CRRAI 19, organisée par le groupe François Thureau-Dangin, Paris 29 juin – 2 juillet 1971 (Paris 1974), pp. 235–261. — 1976: F.R. Kraus, “Der akkadische Vokativ”, in: Barry L. Eichler (ed.), Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT 25 (1976), pp. 293–297. Kravitz 2010: K.F. Kravitz, “Tukulti-Ninurta I Conquers Babylon: Two Versions”, in: J. Stackert, B. Nevling Porter, and D.P. Wright (eds.), Gazing on the Deep. Ancient Near Eastern and Other Studies in Honor of Tzvi Abusch (Bethesda, Md. 2010), pp. 121–129. Krebernik 1993–1997: M. Krebernik, “Mondgott. A. I. In Mesopotamien”, in RlA 8, 1993–1997, pp. 360–369. — 1998: M. Krebernik, “Die Texte aus Fāra und Tell Abū Ṣalābīḫ”, in: J. Bauer, R.K. Englund und M. Krebernik, Mesopotamien. Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. Annäherungen 1, herausgegeben von P. Attinger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/1 (Fribourg 1998), pp. 237–427.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

659

— 2002: M. Krebernik, “Zur Struktur und Geschichte des älteren sumerischen Onomastikons”, in: M.P. Streck und S. Weninger (eds.), Altorientalische und semitische Onomastik. AOAT 296 (Münster 2002), pp. 1–74. — 2006: M. Krebernik, “Philologische Aspekte elamisch-mesopotamischer Beziehungen im Überblick”, in: Babel und Bibel 3, 2006, pp. 59–99. — 2008: M. Krebernik, “‘Wo einer in Wut ist, kann kein anderer ihm raten’. Zum göttlichen Zorn im Alten Orient”, in: R.G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann (eds.), Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe, Band 33 (Tübingen 2008), pp. 44–66. Krecher 1966: J. Krecher, Sumerische Kultlyrik (Wiesbaden 1966). — 1976–1980: J. Krecher, “Interlinearbilinguen und sonstige Bilinguentypen”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 124–128. — 1995: J. Krecher, “Die marû-Kategorie des sumerischen Verbums”, in: M. Dietrich and O. Loretz (eds.), Vom Alten Orient zum Alten Testament. Festschrift für Wolfram Freiherrn von Soden zum 85. Geburtstag am 19. Juni 1993. AOAT 240 (Kevelaer 1995), pp. 141–200. Kriss & Kriss-Heinrich 1960: R. Kriss und H. Kriss-Heinrich, Volksglaube im Bereich des Islam. Band I: Wallfahrtswesen und Heiligenverehrung (Wiesbaden 1960). KUB: Keilschrifturkunden aus Boghazköi. Kühn 2018: D. Kühn, Die “Zwei Körper des Königs” in den westsemitischen Kulturen. Ugarit, aramäische Königreiche, Phönizien, Ammon, Moab, Israel und Juda. Kasion 4 (Münster 2018). Kühne & Otten 1971: C. Kühne und H. Otten, Der Šaušgamuwa-Vertrag. Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 16 (Wiesbaden 1971). Kuhrt 1982: A. Kuhrt, “Assyrian and Babylonian Traditions in Classical Authors: A Critical Synthesis”, in: H.-J. Nissen und J. Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. XXV. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin, 3. bis 7. Juli 1978. Berliner Beiträge zum Vordern Orient 1/1–2 (Berlin 1982), pp. 539–553. — 2003: A. Kuhrt, “Making History: Sargon of Agade and Cyrus the Great of Persia”, in: W. Henkelman and A. Kuhrt (eds.), A Persian Perspective. Essays in Memory of Heleen SancisiWeerdenburg. Achaemenid History XIII (Leiden 2003), pp. 347–361. — 2010: A. Kuhrt, The Persian Empire. A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period (2nd ed., London 2010). — 2014: A. Kuhrt, “Reassessing the Reign of Xerxes in the Light of New Evidence”, in: M. Kozuh, W.F.M. Henkelman, Ch.E. Jones, and Ch. Woods (eds.), Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68 (Chicago 2014), pp. 163–169. Kuhrt & Sherwin-White 1987: A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White: “Xerxes’ Destruction of Babylonian Temples”, in: H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt (eds.), The Greek Sources. Proceedings of the Groningen 1984 Achaemenid History Workshop. Achaemenid History II (Leiden 1987), pp. 69–78. Kutsko 2000: John F. Kutsko, Between Heaven and Earth. Divine Presence and Absence in the Book of Ezekiel. Biblical and Judaic Studies from the University of California, San Diego, Vol. 7 (Winona Lake 2000). Labat 1933: R. Labat, Commentaires assyro-babyloniens sur les présages (Bordeaux 1933). — 1939: R. Labat, Le charactère religieux de la royauté assyro-babylonienne (Paris 1939). — 1951: R. Labat, Traité akkadien de diagnostics et pronostics médicaux. Tome I: Transcription et traduction. Tome II: Planches (Paris 1951).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

660

Bibliography

— 1965a: R. Labat, Un calendrier babylonien des travaux, des signes et des mois (séries iqqur îpuš) (Paris 1965). — 1965b: R. Labat, “Jeux numériques dans l’idéographie susienne”, in: Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fith Birthday April 21, 1965. AS 16 (Chicago 1965), pp. 257– 260. — 1974: R. Labat, Textes littéraires de Suse, avec la collaboration de D.O. Edzard. Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique en Iran 57 (Paris 1974). — 1975: R. Labat, “I. Shutruk-Nahhunte and Kutir-Nahhunte”, and “II. Shilkhak-InShushinak”, in: The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. II/2 (3rd ed., Cambridge 1975), pp. 482– 488, and pp. 488–497. Lacheman 1937: E.R. Lacheman, “An Omen Text from Nuzi”, in: RA 34, 1937, pp. 1–8. Lafont 1995: B. Lafont, “La chute des rois d’Ur et la fin des archives dans les grands centres administratifs de leur empire”, in: RA 89, 1995, pp. 3–13. — 2003: S. Lafont, “Middle Assyrian Period”, in: Westbrook 2003/I, pp. 521–563. Lambert 1957: W.G. Lambert, “Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity”, in: JCS 11, 1957, pp. 1–14. — 1957–1958: W.G. Lambert, Review of F. Gössmann, Das Era-Epos (Würzburg 1956), in: AfO 18, 1957–1958, pp. 395–401. — 1959: W.G. Lambert, “Divine Love Lyrics from Babylon”, in: Journal of Semitic Studies 4, 1959, pp. 1–15. — 1960a: W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Wisdom Literature (Oxford 1960; reprint Winona Lake 1996). — 1960b: W.G. Lambert, “Gilgameš in Religious, Historical and Omen Texts and the Historicity of Gilgameš”, in: Gilgameš et sa légende. Études recueillies par Paul Garelli à l’occasion de la VIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris 1958). Cahiers du Groupe François-Thureau-Dangin 1 (Paris 1960), pp. 39–56. — 1962: W.G. Lambert, “A Catalogue of Texts and Authors”, in: JCS 16, 1962, pp. 59–77. — 1963: W.G. Lambert, “The Great Battle of the Mesopotamian Religious Year. The Conflict in the Akītu House (A Summary)”, in: Iraq 25, 1963, pp. 189–190. — 1964: W.G. Lambert, “The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I: A Turning Point in the History of Ancient Mesopotamian Religion,” in: W.S. McCullough (ed.), The Seed of Wisdom: Essays in Honour of T.J. Meek (Toronto 1964), pp. 3–13. — 1969: W.G. Lambert, “Enmeduranki and related Matters”, in: JCS 21, 1967 (1969), pp. 126– 138. — 1970: W.G. Lambert, “History and the Gods: A Review Article”, in: OrNS 39, 1970, pp. 170– 177; review of Albrektson 1967. — 1972: W.G. Lambert, “Destiny and Divine Intervention in Babylon and Israel”, in: A.S. van der Woude (ed.), The Witness of Tradition. Papers read at the joint British-Dutch Old Testament Conference held at Woudschoten, 1970. Oudtestamentische Studien 17 (Leiden 1972), pp. 65–72. — 1973: W.G. Lambert, “A New Fragment from a List of Antediluvian Kings and Marduk’s Chariot”, in: M.A. Beek et al. (eds.), Symbolae Biblicae et Mesopotamicae Franscisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl Dedicatae. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Studia Francisci Scholten Memoriae Dicata 4 (Leiden 1973), pp. 271–280. — 1974: W.G. Lambert, “The Seed of Kingship”, in: P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté (archéologie et civilisation). CRRAI 19, organisée par le groupe François Thureau-Dangin, Paris 29 juin – 2 juillet 1971 (Paris 1974), pp. 432–440. — 1976: W.G. Lambert, “Berossus and Babylonian Eschatology”, in: Iraq 38, 1976, pp. 171– 173.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

661

— 1976–1980: W.G. Lambert, “Katuna”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, p. 488. — 1980–1983: W.G. Lambert, “Kosmogonie”, in: RlA 6, 1980–1983, pp. 218–222. — 1986: W.G. Lambert: “Ninurta Mythology in the Babylonian Epic of Creation”, in: K. Hecker und W. Sommerfeld (eds.), Keilschriftliche Literaturen. Ausgewählte Vorträge der XXXII. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Münster, 8. –12. 7. 1985. Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 6 (Berlin 1986), pp. 55–60. — 1987: W.G. Lambert, “Goddesses in the Pantheon: A Reflection of Women in Society?”, in: J.-M. Durand (ed.), La femme dans le proche-orient antique. CRRAI 33, Paris 1986 (Paris 1987), pp. 125–130. — 1990: W.G. Lambert, “Samsu-iluna in later Tradition”, in: Ö. Tunca (ed.), De la Babylonie à la Syrie, en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire (Liège 1990), pp. 27–34. — 1992a: W.G. Lambert, “Prostitution”, in: V. Haas (ed.), Außenseiter und Randgruppen. Beiträge zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Alten Orients. Xenia: Konstanzer Althistorische Vorträge und Forschungen 32 (Konstanz 1992), pp. 127–157. — 1992b: W.G. Lambert, “Nippur in Ancient Ideology”, in: M. de Jong Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial. Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia 1988. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14 (Philadelphia 1992), pp. 119–126. — 1993: W.G. Lambert, “Donations of Food and Drink to the Gods of Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: J. Quaegebeur (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 (Leuven 1993), pp. 191–201. — 1994a: W.G. Lambert, “Enuma Elisch”, in: O. Kaiser (ed.), Mythen und Epen II. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Band III, Lieferung 4 (Gütersloh 1994), pp. 565–602. — 1994b: W.G. Lambert, “The Fall of the Cassite Dynasty to the Elamites: An Historical Epic“, in: H. Gasche (ed.), Cinquante-deux réflexions sur le Proche-Orient Ancien, offertes en hommage à Léon De Meyer. Mesopotamian History and Enviroment, Occasional Publications 2 (Leuven 1994), pp. 67–72. — 1995: W.G. Lambert, “A Sumerian-speaking king of Elam?”, in: NABU 1995, no. 10. — 1997: W.G. Lambert, “Processions to the Akītu House”, in: RA 91, 1997, pp. 49–80. — 1998: W.G. Lambert, “The Qualifications of Babylonian Diviners”, in: S.M. Maul (ed.), Festschrift für Rykle Borger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 24. Mai 1994. tikip santakki mala bašmu … . CM 10 (Groningen 1998), pp. 141–158. — 2004: W.G. Lambert, “The Enigma of Tukulti-Ninurta I”, in: G. Frame (ed.), with the assistance of L. Wilding, From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea. Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A.K. Grayson. PIHANS 101 (Leiden 2004), pp. 197–202. — 2005: W.G. Lambert 2005: “Letter of Sîn-šarra-iškun to Nabopolassar”, in: I. Spar and W.G. Lambert (eds.): Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2 (New York 2005), pp. 203–210. — 2013: W.G. Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths. MC 16 (Winona Lake 2013). Lambert & Millard 1969: W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atra-Ḫasīs. The Babylonian Story of the Flood. With the Sumerian Flood Story by M. Civil (Oxford 1969). Lämmerhirt 2010: K. Lämmerhirt, Wahrheit und Trug. Untersuchungen zur altorientalischen Begriffsgeschichte. AOAT 348 (Münster 2010). Landfester 1972: R. Landfester, Historia Magistra Vitae. Untersuchungen zur humanistischen Geschichtstheorie des 14. bis 16. Jahrhunderts (Genève 1972).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

662

Bibliography

Langdon 1912: S. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften. VAB 4 (Leipzig 1912). Landsberger 1954: B. Landsberger, “Assyrische Königsliste und ‘Dunkles Zeitalter’ (VI–X)”, in: JCS 8, 1954, pp. 47–73. — 1965: B. Landsberger, Brief des Bischofs von Esagila an König Asarhaddon. Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. letterkunde. Nieuwe reeks 28/6 (Amsterdam 1965). — 1967a: B. Landsberger, “Akkadisch-hebräische Wortgleichungen”, in: B. Hartmann et al. (eds.), Hebräische Wortforschung. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 16 (Leiden 1967), pp. 176–204. — 1967b: B. Landsberger, “Über Farben im Sumerisch-Akkadischen”, in: JCS 21, 1967, pp. 139–173. Landsberger, Tadmor & Parpola 1989: B. Landsberger, H. Tadmor and S. Parpola, “The Sin of Sargon and Sennacherib’s Last Will”, in: SAAB 3 (Helsinki 1989), pp. 3–51. Larsen 1987: M.T. Larsen, “The Mesopotamian Lukewarm Mind: Reflections on Science, Divination and Literacy”, in: F. Rochberg-Halton (ed.), Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. AOS 67 (New Haven 1987), pp. 203–225. LBAT: Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts, copied by T.G. Pinches and J.N. Strassmaier, prepared for publication by A.J. Sachs with the co-operation of J. Schaumberger (Providence 1955). Lee 1993: Th.G. Lee, “The Jasper Cylinder Seal of Aššurbanipal and Nabonidus’ making of Sîn’s Statue”, in: RA 87, 1993, pp. 131–136. Legrain, PBS 13: L. Legrain, Historical Fragments. University of Pennsylvania. The University Museum. Publications of the Babylonian Section 13 (Philadelphia 1922). — 1933: L. Legrain, “Quelques tablettes d’Ur”, in: RA 30, 1933, pp. 117–125. — UET 3: L. Legrain, Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. UET 3; Plates (London 1937); Indexes, Vocabulary, Catalogue, Lists (London 1947). Lehmann 1892: C.F. Lehmann, Šamaššumukîn, König von Babylonien 668–648 v.Chr. Inschriftliches Material über den Beginn seiner Regierung. Assyriologische Bibliothek 8 (Leipzig 1892). Leichty 1970: E. Leichty, The Omen Series Šumma Izbu. TCS 4 (Locust Valley 1970). — 2005: E.V. Leichty, “Omens from Abnormal Births”, in: I. Spar and W.G. Lambert (eds.): Literary and Scholastic Texts of the First Millennium B.C. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 2 (New York 2005), pp. 188–192. — RINAP 4: E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4 (Winona Lake 2011). — 2014: E. Leichty, “Neo Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: Esarhaddon”, in: I. Spar and M. Jursa, The Ebabbar Temple Archive and Other Texts from the Fourth to First Millennium B.C. Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art 4 (Winona Lake 2014), pp. 257–270, pls. 120–127 (copies by I. Spar), nos. 157–161. Leichty & Walker 2004: E. Leichty and Ch. Walker, “Three Babylonian Chronicle and Scientific Texts”, in: G. Frame (ed.), with the assistance of L. Wilding, From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea. Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A.K. Grayson. PIHANS 101 (Leiden 2004), pp. 203–212. Leiderer 1990: R. Leiderer, Anatomie der Schafsleber im babylonischen Orakel. Eine makroskopischanalytiche Studie (München 1990). L’Empereur 1633: Constantijn L’Empereur (ed.), Binyāmîn Ben-Yônā (mit-Tudela), Sēfer hammassaʿôt šel Rabbî Binyāmîn. Itinerarivm Doctoris Beniaminis cum versione atque notis

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

663

Constantini L’Emperevr ab Oppyck. Lvgd[unum] Batavorvm, ex officina Elzeviriana, anno 1633 (university library Heidelberg). Lenzi 2008a: A. Lenzi, Secrecy and the Gods. Secret Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia and Biblical Israel. SAAS 19 (Helsinki 2008). — 2008b: A. Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship”, in: JANER 8, 2008, pp. 137–169. Leslau 1938: W. Leslau, Lexique soqotri (sudarabique moderne) avec comparaisons et explications étymologiques (Paris 1938). — 1944: W. Leslau, “Vocabulary common to Akkadian and South-East Semitic (Ethiopic and South-Arabic)”, in: JAOS 64, 1944, pp. 53–58. Leuchter 2004: M. Leuchter, “Jeremiah’s 70-Year Prophecy and the ‫ לב קמי‬/ ‫ ששך‬Atbash Codes”, in: Biblica 85, 2004, pp. 503–522. Lieberman 1974: S. Lieberman, Texts and Studies (New York 1974). — 1977: S.J. Lieberman, “The Names of the Cuneiform Graphemes in Old Babylonian Akkadian”, in: M. de Jong Ellis, Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Memoirs of the Conneticut Academy of Arts and Sciences Vol. 19 (Hamden 1977), pp. 147–154. — 1990: S.J. Lieberman, “Canonical and Official Cuneiform Texts: Towards an Understanding of Assurbanipal’s Personal Tablet Collection”, in: Tz. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Harvard Semitic Studies 37 (Atlanta 1990), pp. 305– 336. Lightfoot 2003: J.L. Lightfoot, Lucian: On The Syrian Goddess (Oxford 2003). Limet 1968: H. Limet, L’Anthroponymie sumerienne dans les documents de la 3e Dynastie d’Ur (Paris 1968). Linssen 2004: M.J.H. Linssen, The Cults of Uruk and Babylon. The Temple Ritual Texts as Evidence for Hellenistic Cult Practice. CM 25 (Leiden 2004). Litke 1998: R.L. Litke, A Reconstruction of the Assyro-Babylonian God-Lists, An: dA-nu-um and An: Anu ša amēli. Texts from the Babylonian Collection 3 (New Haven 1998). Liverani 1973: M. Liverani, “Memorandum on the Approach to Historiographic Texts”, in: OrNS 42, 1973, pp. 178–194. — 1993: M. Liverani, “Model and Actualization: The Kings of Akkad in the Historical Tradition”, in: M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire (Padova 1993), pp. 41–62. — 2004: M. Liverani, Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography. Studies in Egyptology and the Ancient Near East (London 2004). — 2005: M. Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London 2005). — 2010: M. Liverani, “‘Untruthful Steles’: Propaganda and Reliability in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: S.C. Melville and A.L. Slotsky (eds.), Opening the Tablet Box. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Benjamin R. Foster. Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 42 (Leiden 2010), pp. 229–244. — 2017: M. Liverani, Assyria: The Imperial Mission. MC 21 (Winona Lake 2017). Livingstone 1986: A. Livingstone, Mystical and Mythological Explanatory Works of Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars (Oxford 1986). — 1989: A. Livingstone, Court Poetry and Literary Miscellanea. SAA 3 (Helsinki 1989). Llop 2008: J. Llop, “MARV 6, 2 und die Eponymenfolgen des 12. Jahrhunderts”, in: ZA 98, 2008, pp. 20–25.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

664

Bibliography

Llop & George 2001–2002: J. Llop and A.R. George, “Die babylonisch-assyrischen Beziehungen und die innere Lage Assyriens in der Zeit der Auseinandersetzung zwischen Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur und Mutakkil-Nusku nach neuen keilschriftlichen Quellen”, in: AfO 48–49, 2001–2002, pp. 1–23. Lloyd 1974: S. Lloyd, “Abu Shahrein: A Memorandum”, in: Iraq 36, 1974, pp. 129–138. Lloyd & Safar 1947: S. Lloyd and F. Safar, “Eridu. A Preliminary Communication on the First Season’s Excavations”, in: Sumer 3, 1947, pp. 85–111. — 1948: S. Lloyd and F. Safar, “Eridu. A Preliminary Communication on the Second Season’s Excavations”, in: Sumer 4, 1948, pp. 115–125. Löhnert 2011: A. Löhnert, “Motive und Funktionen der Göttinnenklagen im Frühen Mesopotamien”, in: M. Jaques (ed.), Klagetraditionen. Form und Funktion der Klage in den Kulturen der Antike. OBO 251 (Fribourg 2011), pp. 39–62. — 2011–2013: A. Löhnert, “Sünde. A. In Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 13, 2011–2013, pp. 248–253. Longman 1991: T. Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake 1991). — 1997: T. Longman III, “The Marduk Prophecy”, in: W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger (eds.): The Context of Scripture. Vol. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (Leiden 1997), pp. 480–481. Loretz 2003: O. Loretz, Götter – Ahnen – Könige als gerechte Richter. Der “Rechtsfall” des Menschen vor Gott nach altorientalischen und biblischen Texten. AOAT 290 (Münster 2003). Loud & Altman 1938: G. Loud and Ch.B. Altman: Khorsabad. Part 2: The Citadel and the Town. OIP 40 (Chicago 1938). LSU: The Lament for Sumer and Ur, see Michalowski 1989. Luckenbill 1924: D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib. OIP 2 (Chicago 1924). — 1925: D.D. Luckenbill, “The Black Stone of Esarhaddon”, in: American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 41/3, 1925, pp. 165–173. — 1927: D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Vol. II: Historical Records of Assyria from Sargon to the End (Chicago 1927). Luukko 2012: M. Luukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud. SAA 19 (Helsinki 2012). Macgregor 2012: Sh.L. Macgregor, Beyond Hearth and Home. Women in the Public Sphere in NeoAssyrian Society. SAAS 21 (Helsinki 2012). Machinist 1976: P. Machinist, “Literature as Politics”, in: The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38, 1976, pp. 455–482. — 1978: P.B. Machinist, The Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta I. A Study in Middle Assyrian Literature (PhD. University of Yale, 1978, Univ. Microfilms). — 2011: P. Machinist, “Kingship and Divinity in Imperial Assyria”, in: J. Renger (ed.), Assur – Gott, Stadt und Land. 5. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 18.–21. Februar 2004 in Berlin (Wiesbaden 2011), pp. 405–430. Macler 1904: F. Macler, Histoire de Héraclius, par l’évêque Sebèos (Paris 1904). Malamat 1982: A. Malamat, “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels”, in: Vorträge gehalten auf der 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien, 6.– 10. Juli 1981. AfO Bh. 19 (Horn 1982), pp. 215–224. Mango & Scott 1997: C. Mango and R. Scott, The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor. Byzantine and Near Eastern History AD 284–813 (Oxford 1997). MAOG: Mitteilungen der Altorientalischen Gesellschaft. Marchesi 2002: G. Marchesi, “On the Divine Name dBA.Ú”, in: OrNS 71, 2002, pp. 161–172. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

665

— 2004: G. Marchesi, “Who was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic an Textual Data”, in: OrNS 73, 2004, pp. 153–197. — 2010: G. Marchesi, “The Sumerian King List and the Early History of Mesopotamia”, in: M.G. Biga and M. Liverani (eds.), Ana turri gimilli. Studi dedicati al Padre Werner R. Mayer, S.J. da amici e allievi. Vicino Oriente, Quaderno 5 (Roma 2010), pp. 231–248. Marchesi & Marchetti 2011: G. Marchesi and N. Marchetti, Royal Statuary of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia. MC 14 (Winona Lake 2011). Márquez Rowe & Molina 1997: I. Márquez Rowe and M. Molina, “Catálogo de los textos cuneiformes publicados conservados en el Museo de Montserrat”, in: Aula Orientalis 15, 1997, pp. 21–31. Martiny 1932: G. Martiny, Die Kultrichtung in Mesopotamien. Studien zur Bauforschung, Heft 3 (Berlin 1932). — 1933: G. Martiny, “Zur astronomischen Orientation altmesopotamischer Tempel”, in: Architectura 1, 1933, pp. 41–45. Matouš 1956: L. Matouš, “Zu den ältesten ökonomischen Texten aus Isin”, in: BiOr 13, 1956, pp. 135–140. Matsushima 1988: E. Matsushima, “Les Rituels du Marriage Divin dans les Documents Accadiens”, in: ASJ 10, 1988, pp. 95–128. Matuszak 2012: J. Matuszak, “A New Version of the Babylonian Ritual Against the Evil Portended by a Lightning Strike (BM 42273)”, in: WO 42, 2012, pp. 135–152. Maul 1992: S.M. Maul, “Der Kneipenbesuch als Heilverfahren”, in: D. Charpin et F. Joannès (eds.), La circulation des biens, des personnes et des idées dans le Proche-Orient ancien. Actes de la XXXVIIIe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale (Paris, 8–10 juillet 1991) (Paris 1992), pp. 389–396. — 1994: S.M. Maul, Zukunftsbewältigung. Eine Untersuchung altorientalischen Denkens anhand der babylonisch-assyrischen Löserituale (Namburbi). Baghdader Forschungen 18 (Mainz 1994). — 1997: S.M. Maul, “Die altorientalische Hauptsstadt: Abbild und Nabel der Welt”, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch. 1. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 9.–10. Mai 1996 in Halle / Saale (Saarbrücken 1997), pp. 109–124. — 1999: S.M. Maul, “Der assyrische König – Hüter der Weltordnung”, in: K. Watanabe, (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 Centre in Japan (Mitaka, Tokyo) March 22–24, 1996 (Heidelberg 1999), pp. 201–214. — 2000: S.M. Maul, „Die Frühjahrsfeierlichkeiten in Aššur“, in: A.R. George and I.L. Finkel (eds.), Wisdom, Gods and Literature. Studies in Assyriology in Honour of W.G. Lambert (Winona Lake 2000), pp. 389–420. — 2002: S.M. Maul, “Die Heilkunst des Alten Orients”, in: A. Karenberg und C. Leitz (ed.), Heilkunde und Hochkultur II. ‘Magie und Medizin’ und ‘Der alte Mensch’ in den antiken Zivilisationen des Mittelmeerraumes (Münster 2002), pp. 3–19. — 2003–2005: S.M. Maul, “Omina und Orakel. A. Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 10, 2003–2005, pp. 45–88. — 2010: S.M. Maul, “Rituale zur Lösung des ‘Banns’”, in: B. Janowski und D. Schwemer (eds.), Texte zur Heilkunde. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Neue Folge Band 5 (Gütersloh 2010), pp. 135–146. — 2013: S.M. Maul, Die Wahrsagekunst im Alten Orient. Zeichen des Himmels und der Erde (München 2013). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

666

Bibliography

Maxwell-Hyslop 1983: K.R. Maxwell-Hyslop, “Dalbergia Sissoo Roxburgh”, in: Anatolian Studies 33, 1983, pp. 67–72. May 2010: N.N. May, “Decapitation of Statues and Mutilation of the Image’s Facial Features”, in: W. Horowitz, U. Gabbay, F. Vukosavović (eds.), A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 8 (Madrid 2010), pp. 105–118. — 2012: N.N. May, “Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East”, in: N.N. May (ed.), Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 8 (Chicago 2012), pp. 1–32. Mayer 1988: Walter Mayer, “Der babylonische Feldzug Tukultī-Ninurtas I. von Assyrien”, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici 5, 1988, pp. 143–161. — 1995: Walter Mayer, Politik und Kriegskunst der Assyrer. Abhandlungen zur Literatur AltSyrien-Palästinas und Mesopotamiens 9 (Münster 1995). — 2002: Walter Mayer, “Die Zerstörung des Jerusalemer Tempels 587 v.Chr. im Kontext der Praxis von Heiligtumszerstörungen im antiken Vorderen Orient”, in: J. Hahn (ed.), Zerstörungen des Jerusalemer Tempels. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 147 (Tübingen 2002), pp. 1–22. Mayer 1976: Werner R. Mayer, Untersuchungen zur Formensprache der babylonischen “Gebetsbeschwörungen”. Studia Pohl, series maior 5 (Roma 1976). — 1987: Werner R. Mayer, “Ein Mythos von der Erschaffung des Menschen und des Königs”, in OrNS 56, 1987, pp. 55–68. — 1992: Werner R. Mayer, “Das ‘gnomische’ Präteritum” im literarischen Akkadisch, in: OrNS 61, 1992, pp. 373–399. Mayer & Sallaberger 2003–2005: Werner R. Mayer und W. Sallaberger, “Opfer. A. I. Nach schriftlichen Quellen. Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 10, 2003–2005, pp. 93–102. Mayr & Owen 2004: R.H. Mayr and D.I. Owen, “The Royal Gift Seal in the Ur III Period”, in: H. Waetzoldt (ed.), Von Sumer nach Ebla und zurück. Festschrift, Giovanni Pettinato zum 27. September 1999 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. HSAO 9 (Heidelberg 2004), pp. 145–174. MC: Mesopotamian Civilizations. McCaffrey 2008: K. McCaffrey, “The Female Kings of Ur”, in: D. Bolger (ed.), Gender Through Time in the Ancient Near East (Lanham 2008), pp. 173–215. McEwan 1983: G.J.P. McEwan, “Distribution of Meat in Eanna”, in: Iraq 45, 1983, pp. 187–198. McNeil 1970: R. McNeil, The ‘Messenger Texts’ of the Third Ur Dynasty (University of Pennsylvania, Ph.D., 1970). Mead 1929: G.H. Mead, “The Nature of the Past”, in: J. Coss (ed.), Essays in Honor of John Dewey (New York 1929), pp. 235–42. Meinhold 2009: W. Meinhold, Ištar in Aššur. Untersuchung eines Lokalkultes von ca. 2500 bis 614 v.Chr. AOAT 367 (Münster 2009). Meissner 1907: B. Meissner, “Lipit-Ištar”, in: OLZ 10, 1907, cols. 113–115. Meissner & Rost 1898: B. Meissner und P. Rost, “Die Bauinschriften Asarhaddons”, in: BA 3, 1898, pp. 189–362. Melville 1999: S.C. Melville, The Role of Naqia/Zakutu in Sargonid Politics. SAAS 9 (Helsinki 1999). — 2004: S.C. Melville, “Neo-Assyrian Royal Women and Male Identity: Status as a Social Tool”, in: JAOS 124, 2004, pp. 37–57.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

667

Menzel 1981/I–II: B. Menzel, Assyrische Tempel. Studia Pohl: Series Maior 10. Vols. I–II (Roma 1981). Messerschmidt, KAH I: L. Messerschmidt, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts. Erstes Heft. WVDOG 16 (Leipzig 1911). Metzler 2002: K.A. Metzler, Tempora in altbabylonischen literarischen Texten. AOAT 279 (Münster 2002). Meyer 1987: J.-W. Meyer, Untersuchungen zu den Tonlebermodellen aus dem Alten Orient. AOAT 39 (Kevelaer 1987). Meyer-Laurin 2010: V. Meyer-Laurin, “Die marû-Basen der sumerischen Verben túm ‘hin-, wegführen’ und ře6/de6 ‘bringen, liefern’”, in: ZA 100, 2010, pp. 1–14. Michalowski 1975: P. Michalowski, “The Bride of Simanum”, in: JAOS 95, 1975, pp. 716–719. — 1976: P. Michalowski, The Royal Correspondence of Ur (PhD. University of Yale, 1976, Univ. Microfilms). — 1977a: P. Michalowski, “The Death of Šulgi”, in: OrNS 46, 1977, pp. 220–225. — 1977b: P. Michalowski, “Amar-Suʾena and the Historical Tradition”, in: M. de Jong Ellis, Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Memoirs of the Conneticut Academy of Arts and Sciences Vol. 19 (Hamden 1977), pp. 155–157. — 1980–1983: P. Michalowski, “Königsbriefe”, in: RlA 6, 1980–1983, pp. 51–59. — 1982: P. Michalowski, “Royal Women of the Ur III Period – Part III”, in: ASJ 4, 1982, pp. 129–142. — 1983: P. Michalowski, “History as Charter: Some Observations on the Sumerian King List”, in: JAOS 103/1, 1983, pp. 237–248. — 1986: P. Michalowski, “Mental Maps and Ideology: Reflections on Subartu”, in: H. Weiss (ed.), The Origins of Cities in Dry-farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C. (Guilford 1986), pp. 129–156. — 1989: P. Michalowski, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. MC 2 (Winona Lake 1989). — 1990: P. Michalowski, “Presence at the Creation”, in: Tz. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller (eds.), Lingering over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in Honor of William L. Moran. Harvard Semitic Studies 37 (Atlanta 1990), pp. 381–396. — 1993: P. Michalowski, “Memory and Deed: The Historiography of the Political Expansion of the Akkad State”, in: M. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Empire (Padova 1993), pp. 69–90. — 1995: P. Michalowski, “The Men from Mari”, in: K. Van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East. Festschrift E. Lipiński. OLA 65 (Leuven 1995), pp. 181–188. — 1999: P. Michalowski, “Commemoration, Writing, and Genre in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: C. Shuttleworth Kraus (ed.), The Limits of Historiography. Genre and Narrative in Ancient Historical Texts. Mnemosyne Supplementum 191 (Leiden 1999), pp. 69–90. — 2003: P. Michalowski, “A Man Called Enmebaragesi”, in: W. Sallaberger, K. Volk and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14 (Wiesbaden 2003), pp. 195–208. — 2005: P. Michalowski, “Literary Works from the Court of King Ishbi-Erra of Isin”, in: Y. Sefati (ed.), An Experienced Scribe Who Neglects Nothing: Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Jacob Klein (Bethesda 2005), pp. 199–212.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

668

Bibliography

— 2006: P. Michalowski, “How to Read the Liver – In Sumerian”, in: A.K. Guinan (et al., eds.), If a Man Builds a Joyful House. Assyriological Studies in Honor of Erle Verdun Leichty. CM 31 (Leiden 2006), pp. 247–257. — 2006–2008: P. Michalowski: “Puzur-Numušda”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 133–134. — 2008a: P. Michalowski, “The Mortal Kings of Ur: A short Century of Divine Rule in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power. Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Insitute Seminars 4 (Chicago 2008), pp. 33–45. — 2008b: P. Michalowski, “Observations on ‘Elamites’ and ‘Elam’ in Ur III Times”, in: P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1 (Boston 2008), pp. 109–123. — 2009–2011: P. Michalowski: “Šimaški”, in: RlA 12, 2009–2011, pp. 503–505. — 2011: P. Michalowski, The Correspondence of the Kings of Ur. An Epistolary History of an Ancient Mesopotamian Kingdom. MC 15 (Winona Lake 2011). — 2013: P. Michalowski, “Of Bears and Men: Thoughts on the End of Šulgi’s Reign and on the Ensuing Succession”, in: D.S. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature. Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist (Winona Lake 2013), pp. 285–319. — 2016, “The Ur III Literary Footprint and the Historian”, in: G. Bartoloni and M.G. Biga (eds.), with the assistance of A. Bramanti, Not Only History. Proceedings of the Conference in Honor of Mario Liverani, Held in Sapienza–Università di Roma, Dipartimento di Scienze dell’Antichità, 20–21 April 2009 (Winona Lake 2016), pp. 105–126. Michel & Bauernfeind 1969: O. Michel und O. Bauernfeind, De Bello Judaico. Der Jüdische Krieg. II/2 (Darmstadt 1969). Milano 1994: L. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks in the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium held in Rome, May 17–19, 1990. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 6 (Padova 1994). Millard 1994: A. Millard, The Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910–612 BC. SAAS 2 (Helsinki 1994). — 1997: A. Millard, “The Weidner Chonicle”, in: W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger (eds.), The Context of Scripture. Vol. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (Leiden 1997), pp. 468–470. Minkowski 1960: H. Minkowski, Aus dem Nebel der Vergangenheit steigt der Turm zu Babel. Bilder aus 1000 Jahren (Berlin 1960). Miroschedji 1990: P. de Miroschedji, “La fin de l’Elam: Essai d’analyse et d’interpretation”, in: Iranica Antiqua 25, 1990, pp. 47–95. Mittermayer 2005: C. Mittermayer, Die Entwicklung der Tierkopfzeichen. AOAT 319 (Münster 2005). — 2009: C. Mittermayer, Enmerkara und der Herr von Arata. Ein ungleicher Wettstreit. OBO 239 (Fribourg 2009). MM: Museo de Montserrat, Barcelona, accession number. Mofidi Nasrabadi 2005: B. Mofidi Nasrabadi, “Eine Steininschrift des Amar-Suena aus Tappeh Bormi (Iran)”, in: ZA 95, 2005, pp. 161–171. Molina 2011–2013: M. Molina, “Tappan-daraḫ”, in: RlA 13, 2011–2013, p. 452. Molina & Böck 1997: M. Molina and B. Böck, “Textos y fragmentos literarios sumerios”, in: Aula Orientalis 15, 1997, pp. 33–41. Mori 2010: W. Mori, “Notes on the Plural Bases in Sumerian”, in: L. Kogan, N. Koslova, S. Loesov, and S. Tishchenko (eds.), Language in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 53e

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

669

Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Vol. 1, Part 1. Babel und Bibel 4/1 (Winona Lake, 2010), pp. 167–179. MSL: Materialien zum sumerischen Lexikon / Materials for the Sumerian Lexicon. — 3: Das Syllabar A (R.T. Hallock). Das Vokabular Sa (B. Landsberger – R.T. Hallock). Das Vokabular Sb (H.S. Schuster – B. Landsberger). Berichtigungen und Nachträge zu MSL II (B. Landsberger). Indices zu Msl II (A. Sachs – B. Landsberger) (Roma 1955). — 4: Introduction. Part I: Emesal-Vocabulary (Series dimir-dingir-ilum) composed by B. Landsberger with contributions of A. Falkenstein and Th. Jacobsen. Part II: Old Babylonian Grammatical Texts by R. Hallock and B. Landsberger. Part III: Neobabylonian Grammatical Texts by R. Hallock and B. Landsberger. Nachträge zu MSL III (Roma 1956). — 9: The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu. Tablet XV and related texts with additions and corrections to MSL II, III, V and VII by B. Landsberger and M. Civil (Roma 1967). — 11: The Series ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu. Tablets XX–XXIV. Edited by E. Reiner with the collaboration of M. Civil (Roma 1974). — 12: The Series lú = ša and Related Texts edited by M. Civil with the collaboration of R.D. Biggs, H.G. Güterbock, H.J. Nissen, E. Reiner (Roma 1969). — 15: The Series DIRI = (w)atru edited by M. Civil with the assistance of G. Farber and with a contribution by D.A. Kennedy (Roma 2004). — 16: The Series SIG7.ALAN = nabnītu edited by I.L. Finkel with the collaboration of M. Civil (Roma 1982). — 17: The Series Erim-ḫuš = anantu and An-ta-gál = šaqû edited by A. Cavigneaux, H.G. Güterbock and M.T. Roth with the assistance of G. Farber (Roma 1985). Müller 1904: D.H. Müller, “Mehri- und Soqoṭri-Glossen”, in: ZDMG 58, 1904, pp. 780–786. Müller 1937: K.F. Müller, Das assyrische Ritual. Teil 1: Texte zum assyrischen Königsritual. MVAeG 41/3 (Leipzig 1937). Müller 1994: G.G.W. Müller, “Ischum und Erra”, in: O. Kaiser (ed.), Mythen und Epen II. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Band III, Lieferung 4 (Gütersloh 1994), pp. 781– 801. MVA(e)G: Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatisch(-Aegyptisch)en Gesellschaft. Naʾaman 1995: N. Naʾaman, “The Deuteronomist and Voluntary Servitude to Foreign Powers”, in: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 65, 1995, pp. 37–53. — 2006: N. Naʾaman, review of M. Liverani, Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London 2005) [= Liverani 2005], in: Review of Biblical Literature 7, 2006, online: http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5069_5342.pdf. NABU: Nouvelles Assyriologiques Brèves et Utilitaires. Nashef 1982: Kh. Nashef, Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit. RGTC 5 (Wiesbaden 1982). Nelson 1949: H. Nelson, “Certain Reliefs at Karnak and Medinet Habu and the Ritual of Amenophis I”, in: JNES 8, 1949, pp. 201–232, and pp. 310–345. Neu 1974: E. Neu, Der Anitta-Text. Studien zu den Bogazköy-Texten 18 (Wiesbaden 1974). Neugebauer & Weidner 1931–1932: P.V. Neugebauer und E.F. Weidner, “Die Himmelsrichtungen bei den Babyloniern”, in: AfO 7, 1931–1932, 269–271. Neumann 2006: H. Neumann, “Schuld und Sühne. Zu den religiös-weltanschaulichen Grundlagen und Implikationen altmesopotamischer Gesetzgebung und Rechtsprechung”, in: J. Hengstl und U. Sick (eds.), Recht gestern und heute. Festschrift zum 85. Geburtstag von Richard Haase. Philippika 13 (Wiesbaden 2006), pp. 27–43.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

670

Bibliography

Neumann 1977: J. Neumann, “The Winds in the World of the Ancient Mesopotamian Civilizations”, in: Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 58, 1977, pp. 1050–1055. Nielsen 2012: J.P. Nielsen, “Marduk’s Return: Assyrian Imperial Propaganda, Babylonian Cultural Memory, and the akītu Festival of 667 BC”, in: M. Bommas, J. Harrisson and Ph. Roy (eds.), Memory and Urban Religion in the Ancient World. Cultural Memory and History in Antiquity (London 2012), pp. 3–32. – 2018: J.P. Nielsen, The Reign of Nebuchadnezzar I in History and Historical Memory (Abingdon 2018). Nissinen 2000: M. Nissinen, “The Socioreligious Role of the Neo-Assyrian Prophets”, in: M. Nissinen (ed.), Prophecy in its Ancient Near Eastern Context. Mesopotamian, Biblical, and Arabian Perspectives. Society of Biblical Literature, Symposium Series 13 (Atlanta 2000), pp. 89–114. — 2002: M. Nissinen, “Prophets and the Divine Council”, in: U. Hübner und E.A. Knauf (eds.): Kein Land für sich allein. Studien zum Kulturkontakt in Kanaan, Israel/Palästina und Ebirnâri für Manfred Weippert zum 65. Geburtstag. OBO 186 (Fribourg 2002), pp. 4–19. — 2003: M. Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. With contributions by C. L. Seow and R. K. Ritner, edited by P. Machinist. Society for Biblical Literature. Writings from the Ancient World 12 (Atlanta 2003). — 2010: M. Nissinen, “The Exiled Gods of Babylon in Neo Assyrian Prophecy”, in: E. Ben Zvi and Ch. Levin (eds.), The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 404 (Berlin 2010), pp. 27–38. Nissinen & Parpola 2004: M. Nissinen and S. Parpola, “Marduk’s Return and Reconciliation in a Prophetic Letter from Arbela”, in: H. Juusola, J. Launainen and H. Palva (eds.), Verbum et Calamus: Semitic and Related Studies in Honour of the Sixtieth Birthday of Professor Tapani Harviainen. Studia Orientalia 99 (Helsinki 2004), pp. 199–219. Nöldeke 1879: Th. Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden. Aus der arabischen Chronik des Tabari (Leyden 1879). — 1893: Th. Nöldeke, “Die von Guidi herausgegebene syrische Chronik”, in: Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Philosophisch-historische Classe 128, Abhandlung Nr. IX (Wien 1893), pp. 1–48. Nougayrol 1941: J. Nougayrol, “Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre”, section I in: RA 38, 1941, pp. 67–88. — 1945: J. Nougayrol, “Note sur la place des ‘présages historiques’ dans l’extispicine babylonienne”, in: École Pratique des Hautes Études, Section des Sciences Religieuses, Annuaire 1944–1945 (Melun 1945), pp. 5–41. — 1945–1946: J. Nougayrol, “Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre”, section II in: RA 40, 1945–1946, pp. 56–97. — 1950: J. Nougayrol, “Textes hépatoscopiques d’époque ancienne conservés au Musée du Louvre”, section III in: RA 44, 1950, pp. 1–44. — 1969: J. Nougayrol, “Note sur bārûtu, chapitre X, tablette 15”, in: Iraq 31, 1969, pp. 59–63. — 1972: J. Nougayrol, note brève no. 12, in: RA 66, 1972, p. 96. — 1973: J. Nougayrol, note brève no. 4, in: RA 67, 1973, p. 191. Novotny 2015: J. Novotny, “New Proposed Chronological Sequence and Dates of Composition of Esarhaddon’s Babylon Inscriptions”, in: JCS 67, 2015, pp. 145–168. — 2017: J. Novotny, “Esarhaddon’s Babylon E Once Again”, in: A. Baruchi-Unna, T. Forti, Sh. Aḥituv, I. Ephʿal, and J.H. Tigay (eds.), “Now it happened in those days”. Studies in Biblical,

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

671

Assyrian, and Other Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Mordechai Cogan on his 75th Birthday. Vol. 2 (Winona Lake 2017), pp. 443–472. OBO: Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Oded 1992: B. Oded, War, Peace and Empire. Justifications for War in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions (Wiesbaden 1992). OECT: Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts. — 5: O.R. Gurney and S.N. Kramer, Sumerian Literary Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 5 (Oxford 1976). — 11: O.R. Gurney, Literary and Miscellaneous Texts in the Ashmolean Museum. OECT 11 (Oxford 1989). Oelsner 2003: J. Oelsner, “Aus den sumerischen literarischen Texten der HilprechtSammlung Jena: Der Text der Tummal-Chronik”, in: W. Sallaberger, K. Volk and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14 (Wiesbaden 2003), pp. 209–224. Oelsner, Wells & Wunsch 2003: J. Oelsner, B. Wells and C. Wunsch, “Neo-Babylonian Period”, in: Westbrook 2003/II, pp. 911–974. OIM: Oriental Institute Museum, Chicago, accession number. OIP: Oriental Institute Publications. OLA: Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. OLZ: Orientalistische Literatur-Zeitung. Oppenheim 1936: L. Oppenheim, “Zur keilschriftlichen Omenliteratur”, in: OrNS 5, 1936, pp. 199–228. — 1956: A.L. Oppenheim, The Interpretation of Dreams in the Ancient Near East, with a Translation of an Assyrian Dream-Book. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 46/3 (Philadelphia 1956). — 1959: A.L. Oppenheim, “A New Prayer to the ‘Gods of the Night’”, in: Studia Biblica et Orientalia, vol. III: Oriens antiquus. Analecta Biblica 12 (Roma 1959), pp. 282–301. — 1964: A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia. Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago 1964). — 1967: A.L. Oppenheim, Letters from Mesopotamia (Chicago 1967). — 1974: A.L. Oppenheim, “A Babylonian Diviner’s Manual”, in: JNES 33, 1974, pp. 197–220. OrNS: Orientalia, Nova Series. Orr 1956: A. Orr, “The Seventy Years of Babylon”, in: VT 6, 1956, pp. 304–306. Oshima 2010: T. Oshima: “‘Damkianna shall not bring back her burden in the future!’”: A New Mythological Text of Marduk, Enlil and Damkianna”, in: W. Horowitz, U. Gabbay, F. Vukosavović, A Woman of Valor: Jerusalem Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honor of Joan Goodnick Westenholz. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 8 (Madrid 2010), pp. 145– 161. — 2012: T. Oshima, “Another Attempt at Two Kassite Royal Inscriptions: The AgumKakrime Inscription and the Inscription of Kurigalzu the Son of Kadashmanharbe”, in: L. Kogan (ed.), Babel und Bibel 6. Orientalia et classica 43 (Winona Lake 2012), pp. 225–268. Osten-Sacken 2009–2011: E. von der Osten-Sacken, “Schlange. C. In der Bildkunst”, in: RlA 12, 2009–2011, pp. 219–221. Otten 1958: H. Otten, “Die erste Tafel des hethitischen Gilgamesch-Epos”, in: Istanbuler Mitteilungen 8, 1958, pp. 93–125. — 1964: H. Otten, “Der Weg des hethitischen Staates zum Großreich”, in: Saeculum – Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte 15, 1964, pp. 115–124.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

672

Bibliography

Otto 1991: E. Otto, “Die Geschichte der Talion im Alten Orient und Israel”, in: D.R. Daniels, U. Gleßmer und M. Rösel (eds.), Ernten, was man sät: Festschrift für Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991), pp. 101–130. Owen & Mayr 2007: D.I. Owen and R.H. Mayr, The Garšana Archives. CUSAS 3 (Bethesda 2007). Paoletti 2012a: P. Paoletti, Der König und sein Kreis. Das staatliche Schatzarchiv der III. Dynastie von Ur. Biblioteca del Próximo Oriente Antiguo 10 (Madrid 2012). — 2012b: P. Paoletti, “Footwear in the 3rd millennium BC: Varieties and manufacturing techniques”, in: C. Mittermayer und S. Ecklin (eds.), Altorientalische Studien zu Ehren von Pascal Attinger. mu-ni u4 ul-li2-a-aš ĝa2-ĝa2-de3. OBO 256 (Fribourg 2012), pp. 271–290. Parker & Dubberstein 1956: R.A. Parker and W.H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.A.D. 75. Brown University Studies 19 (Providence 1956). Parpola 1970a: S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part I: Texts. AOAT 5/I (Kevelaer 1970). — 1970b: S. Parpola, Neo-Assyrian Toponyms. AOAT 6 (Kevelaer 1970). — 1980: S. Parpola, “The Murderer of Sennacherib”, in: B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 26e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen 1980), pp. 171–182. — 1983: S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars to the Kings Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal. Part II: Commentary and Appendices. AOAT 5/II (Kevelaer 1983). — 1987: S. Parpola, “The Forlorn Scholar”, in: F. Rochberg-Halton (ed.), Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies Presented to Erica Reiner. AOS 67 (New Haven 1987), pp. 257–278. — 1993: S. Parpola, Letters from Assyrian and Babylonian Scholars. SAA 10 (Helsinki 1993). — 1997: S. Parpola, Assyrian Prophecies. SAA 9 (Helsinki 1997). — 2004: S. Parpola, “The Leftovers of God and King. On the Distribution of Meat at the Assyrian and Achaemenid Imperial Courts”, in: C. Grottanelli and L. Milano (eds.), Food and Identity in the Ancient World. History of the Ancient Near East, Studies 9 (Padova 2004), pp. 281–312. — 2017: S. Parpola, Assyrian Royal Rituals and Cultic Texts. SAA 20 (Helsinki 2017). Paulus 2014: S. Paulus, Die babylonischen Kudurru-Inschriften von der kassitischen bis zur frühneubabylonischen Zeit. Untersucht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung gesellschafts- und rechtshistorischer Fragestellungen. AOAT 51 (2014). — 2018: S. Paulus, “Fraud, Forgery, and Fiction: Is There Still Hope for Agum-Kakrime?”, in: JCS 70, 2018, pp. 115–166. Pedersén 1985/1986: O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the City of Assur. A Survey of the Material from the German Excavations. Parts I–II. Acta Universitatis Upsalensis. Studia Semitica Upsaliensia 6, 8 (Uppsala 1985, 1986). — 1998: O. Pedersén, Archives and Libraries in the Ancient Near East, 1500–300 B.C. (Bethesda 1998). — 1999: O. Pedersén, “A Problematic King in the Assyrian King List”, in: B. Böck, E. CancikKirschbaum und Th. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger. AOAT 267 (Münster 1999), pp. 369–373. Perlmann 1987: M. Perlmann, The History of al-Ṭabarī (Taʾrīkh al-rusul waʾl-mulūk). Volume IV: The Ancient Kingdoms (New York 1987). Petschow 1976–1980: H.P.H. Petschow, “Inzest”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 144–150. Petter 2011: D.L. Petter, The Book of Ezekiel and Mesopotamian City Laments. OBO 246 (Fribourg 2011). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

673

Pettinato 1966/I–II: G. Pettinato, Die Ölwahrsagung bei den Babyloniern. Band I: Einleitung. Band II: Texte und Kommentar. Studi Semitici 21–22 (Roma 1966). Picchioni 1981: S.A. Picchioni, Il poemetto di Adapa. Assyriologia 6 (Budapest 1981). Pientka-Hinz 2006–2008a: R. Pientka-Hinz, “Rīm-Sîn I. und II.”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 367–371. — 2006–2008b: R. Pientka-Hinz, “Samsu-ditāna”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 640–642. — 2009–2011: R. Pientka-Hinz, “Schlange. A. In Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 12, 2009–2011, pp. 202–218. PIHANS: Publications de l’Institut Historique-Archéologique Néerlandais à Stamboul. Pinches 1882: T.G. Pinches, Texts in the Babylonian Wedge-Writing. Part I: Texts in the Assyrian Language only, from the Royal Library at Nineveh (London 1882). — 1897: T.G. Pinches, “Certain Inscriptions and Records Referring to Babylonia and Elam and their Rulers, and other Matters”, in: Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 29, 1897, pp. 43–90; pp. 45–90: “II: Chedorlaomer and his Contemporaries”. Pirngruber 2011: R. Pirngruber, “Eunuchen am Königshof. Ktesias und die altorientalische Evidenz”, in: J. Wiesehöfer, R. Rollinger, and G.B. Lanfranchi (eds.), Ktesias’ Welt / Ctesias’ World. Classica et Orientalia 1 (Wiesbaden 2011), pp. 279–312. — 2014: R. Pirngruber, “Plagues and Prices: Locusts”, in: H.D. Baker and M. Jursa (eds.), Documentary Sources in Ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman Economic History. Methodology and Practice (Oxford 2014), pp. 163–186. PNA: S. Parpola (ed. in chief), The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Vols. 1–3/II (Helsinki 1998–2011). Podany 1991–1993: A.H. Podany, “A Middle Babylonian Date for the Ḫana Kingdom”, in: JCS 43–45, 1991–93, pp. 53–62. Poebel, PBS 5: A. Poebel, Historical and Grammatical Texts. University of Pennsylvania. The University Museum. Publications of the Babylonian Section 5 (Philadelphia 1914). Pomponio 1990: F. Pomponio, “Le sventure di Amar-Suena”, in: Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 7, 1990, pp. 3–14. Pongratz-Leisten 1994: B. Pongratz-Leisten, Ina šulmi īrub. Die kulttopographische und ideologische Programmatik der akītu-Prozession in Babylonien und Assyrien im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. Baghdader Forschungen 16 (Mainz 1994). — 1997: B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Das ‘negative Sündenbekenntnis’ des Königs anläßlich des babylonischen Neujahrsfestes und die kidinnūtu von Babylon”, in: J. Assmann und Th. Sundermeier (eds.), Schuld, Gewissen und Person. Studien zur Geschichte des inneren Menschen. Studien zum Verstehen fremder Religionen. Band 9 (Gütersloh 1997), pp. 83– 101. — 1998–2001: B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Neujahr(sfest). B. Nach akkadischen Quellen”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 294–298. — 2001: B. Pongratz-Leisten, “The Other and the Enemy in the Mesopotamian Conception of the World”, in: R.M. Whiting (ed.), Mythology and Mythologies: Methodological Approaches to Intercultural Influences. Proceedings of the Second Annual Symposium of Assyrian and Babylonian Intellectual Heritage Project Held in Paris, France, October 4–7, 1999. Melammu Symposia 2 (Helsinki 2001), pp. 195–231. — 2014: B. Pongratz-Leisten, “Bad Kings in the Literary History of Mesopotamia and the Interface between Law, Divination, and Religion”, in: S. Gaspa et al. (eds.), From Source to History. Studies on Ancient Near Eastern Worlds and Beyond. Dedicated to Giovanni Battista

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

674

Bibliography

Lanfranchi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday one June 23, 2014. AOAT 412 (Münster 2014), pp. 527–548. — 2015: B. Pongratz-Leisten, Religion and Ideology in Assyria. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6 (Berlin 2015). Poo 2005: M. Poo, Enemies of Civilization. Attitudes toward Foreigners in Ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China (Albany 2005). Popko 2009: M. Popko, Arinna. Eine heilige Stadt der Hethiter. Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 50 (Wiesbaden 2009). Porter 1983: P.A. Porter, Metaphors and Monsters. A literary-critical study of Daniel 7 and 8. Coniectanea biblica, Old Testament Series 20 (Lund 1983). Porter 1993: B.N. Porter, Images, Power, and Politics. Figurative Aspects of Esarhaddon’s Babylonian Policy (Philadelphia 1993). Postgate 2003–2005: J.N. Postgate, “Palast. A: V. Mittel- und Neuassyrisch”, in: RlA 10, 2003– 2005, pp. 212–226. Postgate & Mattila 2004: J.N. Postgate and R.A. Mattila, “Il-yadaʾ and Sargon’s Southeast Frontier”, in: in: G. Frame (ed.), with the assistance of L. Wilding, From the Upper Sea to the Lower Sea. Studies on the History of Assyria and Babylonia in Honour of A.K. Grayson. PIHANS 101 (Leiden 2004), pp. 235–254. Potts 1982: Daniel Potts, “The Zagros Frontier and the Problem of Relations between the Iranian Plateau and Southern Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.”, in: in: H.-J. Nissen und J. Renger (eds.), Mesopotamien und seine Nachbarn. Politische und kulturelle Wechselbeziehungen im Alten Vorderasien vom 4. bis 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. XXV. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale Berlin, 3. bis 7. Juli 1978. Berliner Beiträge zum Vordern Orient 1/1–2 (Berlin 1982), pp. 33–55. — 1999: Daniel T. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam. Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State (Cambridge 1999). — 2008: Daniel (T.) Potts: “Puzur-Inšušinak and the Oxus Civilization (BMAC): Reflections on Šimaški and the geo-political landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period”, in: ZA 98, 2008, pp. 165–194. Potts 1994: Timothy (F.) Potts, Mesopotamia and the East. An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations ca. 3400–2000 BC (Oxford 1994). Powell 1978: M.A. Powell, “Ukubi to Mother … The Situation is Desperate”, in: ZA 68, 1978, pp. 163–195. — 1982: M.A. Powell, “On the Verb AK in Sumerian”, in: Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff (Warminster 1982), pp. 314–319. — 1996: M.A. Powell, “The Sin of Lugalzagesi”, in: Festschrift für Hans Hirsch zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. WZKM 86, 1996, pp. 307– 314. — 2000: M.A. Powell, “Gilgamesh’s Elusive Thirty Shekels”, in: J. Marzahn und H. Neumann (eds.), Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner anlässlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997. AOAT 252 (Münster 2000), pp. 343–345. Pruzsinszky 2009: R. Pruzsinszky, Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd Millennium B.C. An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and Related Chronological Issues. Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der Gesamtakademie 56 (Wien 2009). PSBA: Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology. PSD: Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

675

Quack 2002: J.F. Quack, “Zwischen Sonne und Mond – Zeitrechnung im Alten Ägypten”, in: H. Falk (ed.), Vom Herrscher zur Dynastie. Zum Wesen kontinuierlicher Zeitrechnung in Antike und Gegenwart (Bremen 2002), pp. 27–67. RA: Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale. Radau 1900: H. Radau, Early Babylonian History down to the End of the Fourth Dynasty of Ur (New York 1900). Radner 2003: K. Radner, “Neo-Assyrian Period”, in: Westbrook 2003/II, pp. 883–910. — 2004: K. Radner, “Fressen und gefressen werden. Heuschrecken als Katastrophe und Delikatesse im Alten Vorderen Orient”, in: WO 34, 2004, pp. 7–22. — 2005a: K. Radner, Die Macht des Namens. Altorientalische Strategien zur Selbsterhaltung. SANTAG 8 (Wiesbaden 2005). — 2005b: K. Radner, “Kubaba und die Fische. Bemerkungen zur Herrin von Karkemiš”, in: R. Rollinger (ed): Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004. AOAT 325 (Münster 2005), pp. 543–556. — 2006–2008: K. Radner, “Provinz. C. Assyrien”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 42–68. Ranke 1824: L. Ranke, Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1535. Erster Band (Leipzig und Berlin 1824). RCU: The Royal Correspondence of Ur, see Ali 1964; Michalowski 1976 & 2011. Reade 1998–2001: J.E. Reade, “Ninive (Nineveh)”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 388–433. Rebiger & Schäfer 2009: B. Rebiger und P. Schäfer, Sefer ha-Razim I und II. Das Buch der Geheimnisse I und II. Band 1: Edition. Band 2: Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 125 und 132 (Tübingen 2009). Reiner 1958: E. Reiner, Šurpu. A Collection of Sumerian and Akkadian Incantations. AfO Bh. 11 (Graz 1958). — 1961: E. Reiner, “The Etiological Myth of the ‘Seven Sages’”, in: OrNS 30, 1961, pp. 1–11. — 1968: E. Reiner, “Thirty Pieces of Silver”, in: JAOS 88, 1968, pp. 186–190. — 1974: E. Reiner, “New Light on some Historical Omens”, in: K. Bittel (et al., eds.), Anatolian Studies presented to Hans Gustav Güterbock on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday. PIHANS 35 (Istanbul 1974), pp. 257–261. — 1982: E. Reiner, with an Appendix by M. Civil, “The Babylonian Fürstenspiegel in Practice”, in: Societies and Languages of the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honour of I.M. Diakonoff (Warminster 1982), pp. 320–326. — 2006: E. Reiner, “The Reddling of Valerian”, in: Classical Quarterly (New Series) 56/1, May 2006, pp. 325–329. Reisner 1896: G. Reisner, Sumerisch-babylonische Hymnen nach Thontafeln griechischer Zeit. Königliche Museen zu Berlin: Mittheilungen aus den orientalischen Sammlungen, Heft X (Berlin 1896). Renger 1967: J. Renger, “Untersuchungen zum Priestertum in der altbabylonischen Zeit, 1. Teil”, in: ZA 58, 1967, pp. 110–188. Reviv 1988: H. Reviv, “kidinnu: Observations on Privileges of Mesopotamian Cities”, in: JESHO 31, 1988, pp. 286–298. Reynolds 2003: F. Reynolds, The Babylonian Correspondence of Esarhaddon. SAA 18 (Helsinki 2003). RGTC: W. Röllig (ed.), Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes. Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe B (Geisteswissenschaften) Nr. 7. Rhodokanakis 1911: N. Rhodokanakis, Der vulgärarabische Dialekt im Ḏofâr (Ẓfâr) II. Südarabische Expedition Band 10 (Wien 1911). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

676

Bibliography

Richter 2004: Th. Richter, Untersuchungen zu den lokalen Panthea Süd- und Mittelbabyloniens in altbabylonischer Zeit (2., verbesserte und erweiterte Auflage). AOAT 257 (Münster 2004). RIMA: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods. — RIMA 1: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 1 (Toronto 1987). — RIMA 2: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, I (1114–859 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2 (Toronto 1991). — RIMA 3: A.K. Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC, II (858–745 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 3 (Toronto 1996). RIMB: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Babylonian Periods. — RIMB 2: G. Frame, 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 2 (Toronto 1995). RIME: The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods. — RIME 1: D.R. Frayne, Presargonic Period (2700–2350 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 1 (Toronto 2008). — RIME 2: D.R. Frayne, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334–2113 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 2 (Toronto 1993). — RIME 3/1: D.O. Edzard, Gudea and His Dynasty. The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/1 (Toronto 1997). — RIME 3/2: D.R. Frayne, Ur III Period (2112–2004 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 3/2 (Toronto 1997). — RIME 4: D.R. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003–1595 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Early Periods 4 (Toronto 1990). RlA: Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie. RINAP: The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period. — RINAP 3/1: A.K. Grayson and J. Novotny, The Royal Inscriptions of Sennacherib, King of Assyria (704–681 BC), Part 1. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 3/1 (Winona Lake 2014). — RINAP 3/2: A.K. Grayson and J. Novotny, 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 2014). — RINAP 4: E. Leichty, The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680–669 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 4 (Winona Lake 2011). Roaf & Zgoll 2001: M. Roaf and A. Zgoll: “Assyrian Astroglyphs: Lord Aberdeen’s Black Stone and the Prisms of Esarhaddon”, in: ZA 91, 2001, pp. 264–295. Roberts 1977: J.J.M. Roberts, “Nebuchadnezzar I’s Elamite Crisis in Theological Perspective”, in: M. de Jong Ellis, Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of Jacob Joel Finkelstein. Memoirs of the Conneticut Academy of Arts and Sciences Vol. 19 (Hamden 1977), pp. 183–187. Robertson 1992: J.F. Robertson, “The Temple Economy of Old Babylonian Nippur: The Evidence for Centralized Management”, in: M. de Jong Ellis (ed.), Nippur at the Centennial. Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia 1988. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 14 (Philadelphia 1992), pp. 177–188. Robson 2002: E. Robson, “More than Metrology: Mathematics Education in an Old Babylonian Scribal School”, in: J.M. Steele and A. Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky:

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

677

Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East. AOAT 297 (Münster 2002), pp. 325– 365. Rochberg(-Halton) 1988: F. Rochberg-Halton, Aspects of Babylonian Celestial Divination: The Lunar Eclipse Tablets of Enūma Anu Enlil. AfO Bh. 22 (Horn 1988). — 2007: F Rochberg, “Marduk in Heaven”, in: Festschrift für Hermann Hunger zum 65. Geburtstag gewidmet von seinen Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. WZKM 97, 2007, pp. 433– 442. — 2010: F. Rochberg, In the Path of the Moon. Babylonian Celestial Divination and Its Legacy. Studies in Ancient Magic and Divination 6 (Leiden 2010). — 2012: F. Rochberg, “The Expression of Terrestrial and Celestial Order in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: R.J.A. Talbert (ed.), Ancient Perspectives. Maps and Their Place in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece & Rome (Chicago 2012), pp. 9–46. Röllig 1967: W. Röllig, “Die Glaubwürdigkeit der Chronik P”, in: D.O. Edzard (ed.), Heidelberger Studien zum alten Orient, Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966 (Wiesbaden 1967), pp. 173–184. Römer 1980: W.H.Ph. Römer, Das sumerische Kurzepos ‘Bilgameš und Akka’. AOAT 209/1 (Kevelaer 1980). — 1984: W.H.Ph. Römer, “Literarische Königsbriefe historischen Inhalts”, in: O. Kaiser (ed.), Rechts- und Wirtschaftsurkunden. Historisch-chronologische Texte I. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Band I, Lieferung 4 (Gütersloh 1984), pp. 343–353. — 2004: W.H.Ph. Römer, Die Klage über die Zerstörung von Ur. AOAT 309 (Münster 2004). Rollinger 1998: R. Rollinger, “Überlegungen zu Herodot, Xerxes und dessen angeblicher Zerstörung Babylons”, in: AoF 25, 1998, pp. 339–373. Roth 1997: M.T. Roth, Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 6 (Atlanta, 2nd ed. 1997). — 1999: M.T. Roth, “The Priestess and the Tavern: LH § 110”, in: B. Böck, E. CancikKirschbaum und Th. Richter (eds.), Munuscula Mesopotamica. Festschrift für Johannes Renger. AOAT 267 (Münster 1999), pp. 445–464. — 2006: M.T. Roth, “Marriage, Divorce, and the Prostitute in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: C.A. Faraone and L.K. McClure (eds.), Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World (Madison 2006), pp. 21–39. Rowton 1946: M.B. Rowton, “Mesopotamian Chronology and the ‘Era of Menophres’”, in: Iraq 8, 1946, pp. 94–110. Rubio 2010: G. Rubio, “Reading Sumerian Names, I: Ensuhkešdanna and Baba”, in: JCS 62, 2010, pp. 29–43. Russell 1998: J.M. Russell, “The Program of the Palace of Assurnasirpal II at Nimrud: Issues in the Research and Presentation of Assyrian Art”, in: American Journal of Archaeology 102, 1998, pp. 655–715. Rutten 1938: M. Rutten, “Trente-deux modèles de foies en argile inscrits provenant de TellHariri (Mari)”, in: RA 35, 1938, pp. 36–70. SAA(B/CT/S): State Archives of Assyria, (Bulletin/Cuneiform Texts/Studies). Sachau 1867: E. Sachau, Ǵawâlîḳî’s Almuʿarrab, nach der Leydener Handschrift (Leipzig 1867). — 1878: C.E. Sachau (ed.), Chronologie orientalischer Völker von Albêrûnî (Leipzig 1878) [= alBīrūnī, Kitāb al-āṯār al-bāqīya ʿan-il-qurūn al-ḫālīya]. — 1879: C.E. Sachau, The Chronology of Ancient Nations. An English Version of the Arabic Text of the Athâr-ul-bâkiya of Albîrûnî or “Vestiges of the Past”. Collected and Reduced to Writing by the Author in A.H. 390–1, A.D. 1000 (London 1879).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

678

Bibliography

Sachs & Hunger 1988: A.J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia. Volume I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. (Wien 1988). Sack 1982: R.H. Sack, “Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus in Folklore and History”, in: Mesopotamia 17, 1982, pp. 67–131. — 1991: R.H. Sack, Images of Nebuchadnezzar. The Emergence of a Legend (Selinsgrove 1991). Saggs 1975: H.W.F. Saggs, “Historical Texts and Fragments of Sargon II of Assyria: (I) The ‘Aššur Charter’”, in: Iraq 37, 1975, pp. 11–20. Sallaberger 1993/I–II: W. Sallaberger, Der kultische Kalender der Ur III-Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7/I–II (Berlin 1993). — 1996: W. Sallaberger, Der babylonische Töpfer und seine Gefässe. Nach Urkunden altsumerischer bis altbabylonischer Zeit sowie lexikalischen und literarischen Zeugnissen. ḪARra = ḫubullu: Tablet X dug = karpatu by Miguel Civil. Mesopotamian History and Environment. Series II, Memoirs III (Ghent 1996). — 1999: W. Sallaberger, “Ur III-Zeit”, in: W. Sallaberger und A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Annäherungen 3, herausgegeben von P. Attinger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/3 (Fribourg 1999), pp. 119–390. — 2000: W. Sallaberger, “Das Erscheinen Marduks als Vorzeichen: Kultstatue und Neujahrsfest in der Omenserie Šumma ālu”, in: ZA 90, 2000, pp. 227–262. — 2002: W. Sallaberger, “Den Göttern nahe – und fern den Menschen? Formen der Sakralität des altmesopotamischen Herrschers”, in: F.-R. Erkens (ed.), Die Sakralität von Herrschaft. Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume. Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einem weltweiten und epochenübergreifenden Phänomen (Berlin 2002), pp. 85–98. — 2004: W. Sallaberger, “bringen” im Sumerischen. Lesung und Bedeutung von de6(DU) und tum2(DU), in: R. Rollinger (ed): Von Sumer bis Homer. Festschrift für Manfred Schretter zum 60. Geburtstag am 25. Februar 2004. AOAT 325 (Münster 2005), pp. 557–576. — 2007: W. Sallaberger, “From Urban Culture to Nomadism : A History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Late Third Millennium”, in: C. Kuzucuoglu (ed.), Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: Une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon (5–8 décembre 2005). Varia Anatolica 19 (Istanbul 2007), pp. 417–456. — 2006–2008: W. Sallaberger, “Reinheit. A. Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 295– 299. — 2008: W. Sallaberger, Das Gilgamesch-Epos. Mythos, Werk und Tradition (München 2008). — 2011: W. Sallaberger, “Körperliche Reinheit und soziale Grenzen in Mesopotamien”, in: P. Burschel und Ch. Marx (ed.), Reinheit. Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Historische Anthropologie 12 (Wien 2011), pp. 17–45. Sallaberger & Huber Vulliet 2003–2005: W. Sallaberger and F. Huber Vulliet, “Priester. A. I. Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 10, 2003–2005, pp. 617–640. Sallaberger & Schrakamp 2015: W. Sallaberger and I. Schrakamp (eds.), History & Philology. Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean III (Turnhout 2015). Salonen 1939: A. Salonen, Die Wasserfahrzeuge in Babylonien nach šumerisch-akkadischen Quellen (mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der 4. Tafel der Serie ḪAR-ra = ḫubullu). Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Helsinki 1939). — 1953: A. Salonen, “E2-ku6-nu-ku2 ‘Das Haus, das Fische nicht frisst’”, in: Studia Orientalia 19/2 (1953), pp. 1–3.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

679

— 1969–1970: A. Salonen, “šuḫadakku ‘Fischer, der Fische an der Luft dörrt’”, in: Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux” 21, 1969–1970, pp. 143–144. — 1970: A. Salonen, Die Fischerei im alten Mesopotamien nach sumerisch-akkadischen Quellen. Eine lexikalische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung (Helsinki 1970). Salvini 1993–1997: M. Salvini, “Muṣaṣir A. Historisch”, in: RlA 8, 1993–1997, pp. 444–446. Samet 2014: N. Samet, The Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur. MC 18 (Winona Lake 2014). San Nicolò 1932: M. San Nicolò, “Parerga Babylonica VII: Der § 8 des Gesetzbuches Hammurapis in den neubabylonischen Urkunden”, in: Archiv Orientální 4, 1932, pp. 327– 344. — 1933: M. San Nicolò, “Parerga Babylonica IX: Der Monsterprozeß des Gimillu, eines širku von Eanna”, in: Archiv Orientální 5, 1933, pp. 61–77. Santayana 1905: G. Santayana, The Life of Reason. Vol. 1: Introduction and Reason in Common Sense (New York 1905). Schaudig 2001: H. Schaudig, Die Inschriften Nabonids von Babylon und Kyros’ des Grossen samt den in ihrem Umfeld entstandenen Tendenzschriften. Textausgabe und Grammatik. AOAT 256 (Münster 2001). — 2002: H. Schaudig, “Nabonid, der ‘Gelehrte auf dem Königsthron’. Omina, Synkretismen und die Ausdeutung von Tempel- und Götternamen als Mittel zur Wahrheitsfindung spätbabylonischer Religionspolitik”, in: Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux. Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, herausgegeben von O. Loretz, K.A. Metzler und H. Schaudig. AOAT 281 (Münster 2002), pp. 619–645. — 2003: H. Schaudig, “Nabonid, der ‘Archäologe auf dem Königsthron’. Zum Geschichtsbild des ausgehenden neubabylonischen Reiches”, in: G.J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast. AOAT 274 (Münster 2003), pp. 447–497. — 2009: H. Schaudig, “The Colophon of the Sippar Text of the ‘Weidner Chronicle’”, in: NABU 2009, no. 15. — 2010: H. Schaudig, “Cult Centralization in the Ancient Near East? Conceptions of the Ideal Capital in the Ancient Near East”, in: R.G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann (eds.), “One God – One Cult – One Nation”. Archaeological and Biblical Perspectives. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 405 (Berlin 2010), pp. 145–168. — 2012a: H. Schaudig, “Erklärungsmuster von Katastrophen im Alten Orient”, in: A. Berlejung (ed.), Disaster and Relief Management. Katastrophen und ihre Bewältigung. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 81 (Tübingen 2012), pp. 425–443. — 2012b: H. Schaudig, “Death of Statues and Rebirth of Gods”, in: N.N. May (ed.), Iconoclasm and Text Destruction in the Ancient Near East and Beyond. Oriental Institute Seminars 8 (Chicago 2012), pp. 123–149. — 2014: H. Schaudig, “‘Wahnsinn’ im Alten Orient: Zum babylonischen Konzept eines stark von der gesellschaftlichen Norm abweichenden und selbstzerstörerischen Verhaltens”, in: Studia Mesopotamica 1, 2014, pp. 391–423. — 2018: H. Schaudig, “Zum Tempel ‘A’ in Assur: Zeugnis eines Urbizids”, in: K. Kleber, G. Neumann und Susanne Paulus, unter Mitarbeit von Ch. Möllenbeck (eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen. Studien zur Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients. Festschrift für Hans Neumann zum 65. Geburtstag am 9. Mai 2018. dubsar 5 (Münster 2018), pp. 621–635. — 2019a: H. Schaudig, “The Text of the Cyrus Cylinder”, in: M. Rahim Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great: Life and Lore. Ilex Series 21 (Harvard University Press 2019), pp. 16–25. — 2019b: H. Schaudig, “The Magnanimous Heart of Cyrus. The Cyrus Cylinder and its Literary Models”, in: M. Rahim Shayegan (ed.), Cyrus the Great: Life and Lore. Ilex Series 21 (Harvard University Press 2019), pp. 67–91. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

680

Bibliography

Schaumberger 1950: J. Schaumberger, “Die Mondfinsternisse der Dritten Dynastie von Ur”, in: ZA 49, 1950, pp. 50–58. Scheer 2003: T.S. Scheer, “Die geraubte Artemis. Griechen, Perser und die Kultbilder der Götter”, in: M. Witte und S. Alkier (eds.), Die Griechen und der Vordere Orient. Beiträge zum Kultur- und Religionskontakt zwischen Griechenland und dem Vorderen Orient im 1. Jahrtausend v.Chr. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 191 (Fribourg 2003) pp. 59–85. Scheil 1932: V. Scheil, “Kutir Naḥḥunte I”, in: RA 29, 1932, pp. 67–76. Schmandt-Besserat 2001: D. Schmandt-Besserat, “Feasting in the Ancient Near East”, in: M. Dietler and B. Hayden, Feasts. Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power (Washington 2001), pp. 391–403. Schmid 1995: H. Schmid, Der Tempelturm Etemenanki in Babylon. Baghdader Forschungen 17 (Mainz 1995). Schmid 1999: K. Schmid, “Kollektivschuld? Der Gedanke übergreifender Schuldzusammenhänge im Alten Testament und im Alten Orient”, in: ZAR 5, 1999, pp. 193–222. Schmidtke 1947–1952: F. Schmidtke, “Die Fehldatierung Naramsins durch Nabonid”, in: WO 1, 1947–52, pp. 51–56. Schrakamp 2015: I. Schrakamp, “Urukagina und die Geschichte von Lagaš am Ende der präsargonischen Zeit”, in: R. Dittmann and G.J. Selz, in collaboration with E. Rehm (eds.), It’s a Long Way to a Historiography of the Early Dynastic Period(s). Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 15 (Münster 2015), pp. 303–386. Schretter 1990: M.K. Schretter, Emesal-Studien. Sprach- und literaturgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur sogenannten Frauensprache des Sumerischen. Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 69 (Innsbruck 1990). Schroeder 2001: Ch.O. Schroeder, History, Justice, and the Agency of God. A Hermeneutical and Exegetical Investigation on Isaiah and Psalms. Biblical Interpretation Series 52 (Leiden 2001). Schroeder, KAH II: O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts, Zweites Heft. WVDOG 37 (Leipzig 1922). — KAV: O. Schroeder, Keilschrifttexte aus Assur verschiedenen Inhalts. WVDOG 35 (Leipzig 1920). Schwemer 2001: D. Schwemer, Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen (Wiesbaden 2001). — 2008: D. Schwemer, “Fremde Götter in Ḫatti. Die hethitische Religion im Spannungsfeld von Synkretismus und Abgrenzung”, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Ḫattuša – Boğazköy. Das Hethiterreich im Spannungsfeld des Alten Orients. 6. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, 22.–24. März 2006, Würzburg (Wiesbaden 2008), pp. 137–157. Scurlock 2012: J. Scurlock, “Marduk and His Enemies: City Rivalries in Southern Mesopotamia”, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008 (Winona Lake 2012), pp. 369–376. Scurlock & Andersen 2005: J. Scurlock and B.R. Andersen, Diagnoses in Assyrian and Babylonian Medicine. Ancient Sources, Translations, and Modern Medical Analyses (Urbana 2005). Segert 1975: S. Segert, Altaramäische Grammatik (Leipzig 1975). Seidl 1998: U. Seidl, “Das Flut-Ungeheuer abūbu”, in: ZA 88, 1998, pp. 100–113. Selz 1991: G.J. Selz, “‘Elam’ und ‘Sumer’ – Skizze einer Nachbarschaft nach inschriftlichen Quellen der vorsargonischen Zeit”, in: L. De Meyer and H. Gasche (eds.), Mesopotamian History and Environment, Occasional Publications Vol. I: Mesopotamie et Elam, Actes de la

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

681

XXXVIème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, 10–14 juillet 1989 (Ghent 1991), pp. 27–43. — 1992: G.J. Selz, “Eine Kultstatue der Herrschergemahlin Šaša: Ein Beitrag zum Problem der Vergöttlichung”, in: ASJ 14, 1992, pp. 245–268. — 1993: G.J. Selz, Altsumerische Wirtschaftsurkunden aus amerikanischen Sammlungen. 1. Abschnitt: Einleitung; Texte aus dem Harvard Semitic Museum. Freiburger altorientalische Studien 15/2, 1. Abschnitt (Stuttgart 1993). — 1995: G.J. Selz, Untersuchungen zur Götterwelt des altsumerischen Stadtstaates von Lagaš. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 13 (Philadelphia 1995). — 1998: G.J. Selz, “Über Mesopotamische Herrschaftskonzepte. Zu den Ursprüngen mesopotamischer Herrscherideologie im 3. Jahrtausend”, in: M. Dietrich und O. Loretz (eds.), Dubsar anta-men. Studien zur Altorientalistik, Festschrift für Willem H.Ph. Römer zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres. AOAT 253 (Münster 1998), pp. 281–344. — 2003: G.J. Selz, “Who is Who? Aka, König von Ĝiš(š)a: zur Historizität eines Königs und seiner möglichen Identität mit Aka, König von Kiš(i)”, in: G.J. Selz (ed.), Festschrift für Burkhart Kienast. AOAT 274 (Münster 2003), pp. 499–518. — 2006: G.J. Selz, “Was bleibt? Der sogenannte ‘Totengeist’ und das Leben der Geschlechter”, in: E. Czerny et al. (eds.), Timelines. Studies in Honour of Manfred Bietak. OLA 149/3 (Leuven 2006), pp. 87–94. — 2008: G.J. Selz, “The Divine Prototypes”, in: N. Brisch (ed.), Religion and Power. Divine Kingship in the Ancient World and Beyond. Oriental Insitute Seminars 4 (Chicago 2008), pp. 13–31. Seow 1989: C.L. Seow, Myth, Drama, and the Politics of David’s Dance. Harvard Semitic Monographs 44 (Atlanta 1989). Seux 1967: M.-J. Seux, Épithètes royales akkadiennes et sumériennes (Paris 1967). — 1976: M.-J. Seux, Hymnes et prières aux dieux de Babylonie et d’Assyrie (Paris 1976). — 1980–1983: M.-J. Seux, “Königtum. B. II und I. Jahrtausend”, in: RlA 6, 1980–1983, pp. 140– 173. Shaw 2004: M. Shaw, “New Wars of the City: Relationships of ‘Urbicide’ and ‘Genocide’”, in: St. Graham (ed.), Cities, War, and Terrorism: Towards an Urban Geopolitics (Oxford 2004), pp. 141–153. Sharlach 2001: T.M. Sharlach, “Beyond Chronology: The Šakkanakkus of Mari and the Kings of Ur”, in: W.W. Hallo and I.J. Winter (eds.), Seals and Seal Impressions. CRRAI 45. Part II: Yale University (Bethesda 2001), pp. 59–70. — 2013: T.M. Sharlach, “The Remembrance of Kings Past: The Persona of King Ibbi-Sîn”, in: D.S. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature. Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist (Winona Lake 2013), pp. 421–431. Shayegan 2011: M.R. Shayegan, Arsacids and Sasanians. Political Ideology in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia (Cambridge 2011). Siddall 2013: L.R. Siddall, The Reign of Adad-nīrārī III. An Historical an Ideological Analysis of An Assyrian King and His Times. CM 45 (Leiden 2013). Sigrist 1988: M. Sigrist, Isin Year Names. Institute of Archaeology Publications. Assyriological Series Volume II (Berrien Springs 1988). Sigrist & Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names on CDLI: M. Sigrist and P. Damerow, Mesopotamian Year Names. Neo-Sumerian and Old Babylonian Date Formulae (www.cdli.ucla.edu/tools/yearnames/yn_index.html).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

682

Bibliography

Singer 2002: I. Singer, Hittite Prayers. Society of Biblical Literature, Writings from the Ancient World 11 (Leiden 2002). Sjöberg 1969: A.W. Sjöberg and E. Bergmann, The Collection of the Sumerian Temple Hymns. And The Keš Temple Hymn, by Gene B. Gragg. TCS 3 (Locust Valley 1969). — 1972: A.W. Sjöberg, “‘He is a Good Seed of a Dog’ and ‘Engardu, the Fool’”, in: JCS 24, 1972, pp. 107–125. — 1993: A.W. Sjöberg, “The Ape from the Mountain who Became the King of Isin”, in: Mark E. Cohen, Daniel C. Snell, and David B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda 1993), pp. 211–220. Smith 1982: J.Z. Smith, Imagining Religion. From Babylon to Jonestown (Chicago 1982). Snell 1974: D.C. Snell, “The Mari Livers and the Omen Tradition”, in: The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University 6, 1974, pp. 117–123. Sollberger 1954: E. Sollberger, “New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin”, in: JCS 8, 1954, pp. 135–136. — 1954–1956: E. Sollberger, “Sur la chronologie des rois d’Ur et quelques problèmes connexes”, in: AfO 17, 1954–1956, pp. 10–48. — CIRPL: E. Sollberger, Corpus des Inscriptions Royales Présargoniques de Lagaš (Genève 1956). — 1962: E. Sollberger, “The Tummal Inscription”, in: JCS 16, 1962, pp. 40–47. — UET 8: E. Sollberger, Royal Inscriptions. Vol. 2. UET 8 (London 1965). — 1966: E. Sollberger, The Business and Administrative Correspondence under the Kings of Ur. TCS 1 (Locust Valley 1966). — 1976–1980: E. Sollberger, “Ibbī-Suen”, in: RlA 5, 1976–1980, pp. 1–8. Sollberger & Kupper 1971: E. Sollberger et J.R. Kupper, Inscriptions royales sumeriennes et akkadiennes. Littératures anciennes du Proche-Orient 3 (Paris 1971). Sommerfeld 1982: W. Sommerfeld, Der Aufstieg Marduks. Die Stellung Marduks in der babylonischen Religion des zweiten Jahrtausends v.Chr. AOAT 213 (Kevelaer 1982). — 1987–1990: W. Sommerfeld, “Marduk. A. Philologisch. I. In Mesopotamien”, in: RlA 7, 1987–1990, pp. 360–370. — 2009–2011: W. Sommerfeld, “Sargon (Śar-ru-GI usw.). Begründer der Dynastie von Akkade”, in: RlA 12, 2009–2011, pp. 44–49. Soysal 1989: O. Soysal, Muršili I. – Eine historische Studie (PhD. University of Würzburg, 1989). — 1998: O. Soysal, “Beiträge zur althethitischen Geschichte (II). Zur Textwiederherstellung und Datierung von KUB XXXI 64+ (CTH 12)”, in: AoF 25, 1998, pp. 5–33. Speiser 1955: E.A. Speiser, “Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: R.C. Dentan (ed.), The Idea of History in the Ancient Near East. AOS 38 (New Haven 1955), pp. 35–76. Sperl 2013: S. Sperl, “’O City Set Up Thy Lament’: Poetic Responses to the Trauma of War”, in: H. Kennedy (ed.), Warfare and Poetry in the Middle East (London 2013), pp. 1–37. Spieckermann 2008: H. Spieckermann, “Wrath and Mercy as Crucial Terms of Theological Hermeneutics”, in: R.G. Kratz and H. Spieckermann (eds.), Divine Wrath and Divine Mercy in the World of Antiquity. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Reihe, Band 33 (Tübingen 2008), pp. 3–16. Stamm 1939: J.J. Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung. MVAeG 44 (Leipzig 1939). Starr 1975: I. Starr, “Notes on some Technical Terms in Extispicy”, in: JCS 27, 1975, pp. 241– 247. — 1977: I. Starr, “Notes on Some Published and Unpublished Historical Omens”, in: JCS 29, 1977, pp. 157–166.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

683

— 1978–1979: I. Starr, “Omen Texts Concerning Holes in the Liver”, in: AfO 26, 1978–1979, pp. 45–55. — 1983: I. Starr, The Rituals of the Diviner. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 12 (Malibu 1983). — 1985: I. Starr, “Historical Omens concerning Ashurbanipal’s War against Elam”, in: AfO 32, 1985, pp. 60–67. — 1986: I. Starr, “The Place of the Historical Omens in the System of Apodoses”, in: BiOr 43, 1986, pp. 628–642. — 1990: I. Star, Queries to the Sungod. Divination and Politics in Sargonid Assyria. SAA 4 (Helsinki 1990). — 1993: I. Starr, “A New Omen Text concerning the ‘Yoke’ (nīru) of the Liver”, in: M.E. Cohen, D.C. Snell, and D.B. Weisberg (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll. Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William W. Hallo (Bethesda 1993), pp. 230–235. Steele & Stephenson 1997–1998: J.M. Steele and F.R. Stephenson, “Canon of Solar and Lunar Eclipses for Babylon: 750 B. C. – A. D. 1”, in AfO 44–45, 1997–1998, pp. 195–209. Stein 2000: P. Stein, Die mittel- und neubabylonischen Königsinschriften bis zum Ende der Assyrerherrschaft. Grammatische Untersuchungen. Jenaer Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 3 (Wiesbaden 2000). Steinert 2012: U. Steinert, Aspekte des Menschseins im Alten Mesopotamien. Eine Studie zu Person und Identität im 2. und 1. Jt. v.Chr. CM 44 (Leiden 2012). Steinkeller 1981: P. Steinkeller, “More on the Ur III Royal Wives”, in: ASJ 3, 1981, pp. 77–92. — 1988: P. Steinkeller, “On the Identity of the Toponym LÚ.SU(.A)”, in: JAOS 108, 1988, pp. 197–202. — 1990: P. Steinkeller, “More on LÚ.SU.(A) = Šimaški”, in: NABU 1990, no. 13. — 1992: P. Steinkeller, “Išbi-Erra’s Himmelfahrt”, in: NABU 1992, no. 4, and no. 56. — 2003: P. Steinkeller, “An Ur III Manuscript of the Sumerian King List”, in: W. Sallaberger, K. Volk and A. Zgoll (eds.), Literatur, Politik und Recht in Mesopotamien. Festschrift für Claus Wilcke. Orientalia Biblica et Christiana 14 (Wiesbaden 2003), pp. 267–292. — 2005: P. Steinkeller, “Of Stars and Men: The Conceptual and Mythological Setup of Babylonian Extispicy”, in: A. Gianto (ed.), Biblical and Oriental Essays in Memory of William L. Moran. Biblica et Orientalia 48 (Roma 2005), pp. 11–47. — 2007: P. Steinkeller, “New Light on Šimaški and Its Rulers”, in: ZA 97, 2007, pp. 215–232. — 2008a: P. Steinkeller, “On Birbirrum, the Alleged Earliest-Documented rabiānum Official, and on the End of Ibbi-Suen’s Reign”, in: NABU 2008, no. 3. — 2008b: P. Steinkeller, “Addenda to ‘New Light on Šimaški and Its Rulers,’ Zeitschrift für Assyriologie 97 (2007) 215–32”, in: NABU 2008, no. 15. — 2011: P. Steinkeller, “Third-Millennium Royal and Votive Inscriptions”, in: A.R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 17 (Bethesda 2011), pp. 1–28. — 2013: P. Steinkeller, “How Did Šulgi and Išbi-Erra Ascend to Heaven?”, in: D.S. Vanderhooft and A. Winitzer (eds.), Literature as Politics, Politics as Literature. Essays on the Ancient Near East in Honor of Peter Machinist (Winona Lake 2013), pp. 459–478. — 2014: P. Steinkeller, “On the Dynasty of Šimaški: Twenty (or so) Years after”, in: M. Kozuh, W.F.M. Henkelman, Ch.E. Jones, and Ch. Woods (eds.), Extraction & Control. Studies in Honor of Matthew W. Stolper. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 68 (Chicago 2014), pp. 287–296. — 2017: P. Steinkeller, History, Texts and Art in Early Babylonia. Three Essays. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 15 (Boston 2017). © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

684

Bibliography

Stephenson 1997: F.R. Stephenson, Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge 1997). Stipp 1999: H.-J. Stipp, “‘Alles Fleisch hatte seinen Wandel auf der Erde verdorben’ (Gen 6,12). Die Mitverantwortung der Tierwelt an der Sintflut nach der Priesterschrift”, in: ZAW 111, 1999, pp. 167–186. Stokholm 1968: N. Stokholm, “Zur Überlieferung von Heliodor, Kuturnaḫḫunte und anderen missglückten Tempelräubern”, in: Studia Theologica 22, 1968, pp. 1–28. Stol 1993: M. Stol, Epilepsy in Babylonia. CM 2 (Groningen 1993). — 1998–2001a: M. Stol, “Nanaja”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 146–151. — 1998–2001b: M. Stol, “Nippur. A. II. Altbabylonisch”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 539–544. — 2000: M. Stol, Birth in Babylonia and the Bible. Its Mediterranean Setting. CM 14 (Groningen 2000). — 2004: M. Stol, “Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in altbabylonischer Zeit”, in: D. Charpin, D.O. Edzard, und M. Stol, Mesopotamien. Die altbabylonische Zeit. Annäherungen 4, herausgegeben von P. Attinger, W. Sallaberger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/4 (Fribourg 2004), pp. 643–975. — 2009: M. Stol, “Insanity in Babylonian Sources”, in: Le Journal des Médecines Cunéiformes 13, 2009, pp. 1–12. — 2014–2016: M. Stol, “Ummān-manda”, in: RlA 14 , 2014–2016, pp. 330–331. Stolper 1982: M.W. Stolper, “On the Dynasty of Šimaški and the Early Sukkalmaḫs”, in: ZA 72, 1982, pp. 42–67. — 1988: M.W. Stolper, “Some ghost facts from Achaemenid Babylonian Texts”, in: Journal of Hellenic Studies 108, 1988, pp. 196–198. Strassmaier, Nabon.: J. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabonidus, König von Babylon (555–538 v.Chr.). Babylonische Texte Heft I–IV (Leipzig 1889). — Nabuch.: J. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabuchodonosor, König von Babylon (604–561 v.Chr.). Babylonische Texte Heft V–VI (Leipzig 1889). Streck 1905: M. Streck, “Assyriologische Miscellen. 3) Assurbanipal’s Rassam-Zylinder col. VI.96–98”, in: OLZ 8, 1905, cols. 463–465. — 1916/I–III: M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s. VAB 7/I–III (Leipzig 1916). Streck 1995: M.P. Streck, Zahl und Zeit. Grammatik der Numeralia und des Verbalsystems im Spätbabylonischen. CM 5 (Groningen 1995). — 2006–2008: M.P. Streck, “Salz, Versalzung. A. Nach Schriftquellen”, in: RlA 11, 2006–2008, pp. 592–599. STT: The Sultantepe Tablets. — 1: O.R. Gurney and J.J. Finkelstein, The Sultantepe Tablets I (London 1957). — 2: O.R. Gurney and P. Hulin, The Sultantepe Tablets II (London 1964). Such-Gutiérrez 2009–2011: M. Such-Gutiérrez, “Simat-dIštarān”, in: RlA 12, 2009–2011, p. 505. Sugie 2014: T. Sugie, “The Reception of the Marduk Prophecy in Seventh Century B.C. Nineveh”, in: Orient 49, 2014, pp. 107-113. Summer 1987–1990: W.M. Summer, “Maljān, Tall-e (Anšan)”, in: RlA 7, 1987–1990, pp. 306– 320. Svärd 2012: S. Svärd, Power and Women in the Neo-Assyrian Palaces (PhD. University of Helsinki, 2012, https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/29538). — 2015: S. Svärd, Women and Power in Neo-Assyrian Palaces. SAAS 23 (Helsinki 2015).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

685

Swartz 2009: M.D. Swartz, “Bubbling Blood and Rolling Bones: Agency and Teleology in Rabbinic Myth”, in: Ue. Dill and Ch. Walde (eds.), Antike Mythen. Medien, Transformationen und Konstruktionen. Fritz Graf zum 65. Geburtstag (Berlin 2009), pp. 432–449. Tacke 2003: N. Tacke, “Das Opferritual des ägyptischen Neuen Reiches”, in: C. MetznerNebelsick (ed.), Rituale in der Vorgeschichte, Antike und Gegenwart. Studien zur Vorderasiatischen, Prähistorischen und Klassischen Archäologie, Ägyptologie, Alten Geschichte, Theologie und Religionswissenschaft. Interdisziplinäre Tagung vom 1.–2. Februar 2002 an der Freien Universität Berlin. Internationale Archäologie. Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Symposium, Tagung, Kongress, Band 4 (Rahden 2003), pp. 27–36. Tadmor 1958: H. Tadmor, “Historical Implications of the Correct Rendering of Akkadian dâku”, in: JNES 17, 1958, pp. 129–141. — 1965: H. Tadmor, “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement”, in: Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fith Birthday April 21, 1965. AS 16 (Chicago 1965), pp. 351–363. — 1994: H. Tadmor, The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III. King of Assyria (Jerusalem 1994, 2nd ed. 2007). — 2002: H. Tadmor, “The Role of the Chief Eunuch and the Place of Eunuchs in the Assyrian Empire”, in: S. Parpola and R.M. Whiting (eds.), Sex and Gender in the Ancient Near East. Vols. I–II. CRRAI 47, Helsinki 2001 (Helsinki 2002), pp. 603–611. Tadmor & Yamada, RINAP 1: H. Tadmor and Sh. Yamada, The Royal Inscriptions of Tiglathpileser III (744–727 BC) and Shalmaneser V (726–722 BC), Kings of Assyria. The Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 1 (Winona Lake 2011). Taggar-Cohen 2006: A. Taggar-Cohen, Hittite Priesthood. Texte der Hethiter 26 (Heidelberg 2006). Tallqvist 1914: K.L. Tallqvist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch zu den Geschäftsurkunden aus der Zeit des Šamaššumukîn bis Xerxes (Helsinki 1914). Talon 2005: Ph. Talon, The Standard Babylonian Creation Myth Enūma Eliš. SAACT 4 (Helsinki 2005). TCL: Textes Cunéiformes (du Louvre). Musée du Louvre, Département des antiquités orientales. TCS: Texts from Cuneiform Sources. Tenney 2016: J.S. Tenney, “The Elevation of Marduk Revisited: Festivals and Sacrifices at Nippur during the High Kassite Period”, in: JCS 68, 2016, pp. 153–180. Thomas 1993: F. Thomas, “Sargon II., der Sohn Tiglat-pilesers III.”, in: M. Dietrich und O. Loretz (eds.), Mesopotamica – Ugaritica – Biblica. Festschrift für Kurt Bergerhof zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres am 7. Mai 1992. AOAT 232 (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1993), pp. 465–470. Thomsen 1975: M.-L. Thomsen, “‘The Home of the Fish’: A new Interpretation”, in: JCS 27, 1975, pp. 197–200. — 1984: M.-L. Thomsen, The Sumerian Language. An Introduction to its History and Grammatical Structure. Mesopotamia 10 (Copenhagen 1984). Thompson, RMA I–II: R.C. Thompson, The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon in the British Museum. Vols. I–II (London 1900). Thomson & Howard-Johnston 1999: R.W. Thomson and J. Howard-Johnston, The Armenian History attributed to Sebeos. Translated Texts for Historians 31, parts 1–2 (Liverpool 1999). Thureau-Dangin 1901: F. Thureau-Dangin, Review of H. Radau, Early Babylonian History down to the End of the Fourth Dynasty of Ur (New York 1900) [= Radau 1900], in ZA 15, 1900–1901, pp. 402–412; dated April 4th, 1901.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

686

Bibliography

— 1921: F. Thureau-Dangin, Rituels accadiens (Paris 1921). Tiemeyer 2013: L.-S. Tiemeyer, “Were the Neo-Assyrian Prophets Intercessors? A Comparative Study of Neo-Assyrian and Hebrew Texts”, in: R.P. Gordon and H.M. Barstad, “Thus Speaks Ishtar of Arbela”. Prophecy in Israel, Assyria, and Egypt in the NeoAssyrian Period (Winona Lake 2013), pp. 253–272. Tigay 1982: J.H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Philadelphia 1982). Tinney 1996: S. Tinney, The Nippur Lament. Royal Rhetoric and Divine Legitimation in the Reign of Išme-Dagan of Isin (1953–1935 B.C.). Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 16 (Philadelphia 1996). Tsukimoto 1985: A. Tsukimoto, Untersuchungen zur Totenpflege (kispum) im alten Mesopotamien. AOAT 216 (Kevelaer 1985). — 1990: A. Tsukimoto, “A New Esarhaddon Prism Fragment Concerning the Restoration of Babylon”, in: Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 8, 1990, pp. 63– 69. Uehlinger 1990: Ch. Uehlinger, Weltreich und “eine Rede”. Eine neue Deutung der sogenannten Turmbauerzählung (Gen 11, 1–9). OBO 101 (Fribourg 1990). UET: Ur Excavations Texts. — 1: C.J. Gadd and L. Legrain, Royal Inscriptions. UET 1 (London 1928). — 3: L. Legrain, Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur. UET 3; Plates (London 1937); Indexes, Vocabulary, Catalogue, Lists (London 1947). — 5: H.H. Figulla and W.J. Martin, Letters and Documents of the Old-Babylonian Period. UET 5 (London 1953). — 6/1: C.J. Gadd and S.N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts. First Part. UET 6/1 (London 1963). — 6/2: C.J. Gadd and S.N. Kramer, Literary and Religious Texts. Second Part. UET 6/2 (London 1966). — 7: O.R. Gurney, Middle Babylonian Legal Documents and Other Texts. UET 7 (London 1974). — 8: E. Sollberger, Royal Inscriptions. Vol. 2. UET 8 (London 1965). Unger 1931: E. Unger, Babylon, die heilige Stadt, nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier (Berlin 1931). — 1938: E. Unger, “Dêr”, in: RlA 2, 1938, pp. 199–201. — 1957–1971: E. Unger, “Farben (Symbolik)”, in: RlA 3, 1957–1971, pp. 24–26. UVB 18: H.J. Lenzen (ed.), XVIII. vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka. Winter 1959/60 (Berlin 1962). VAB: Vorderasiatische Bibliothek. Vacín 2011: L. Vacín, Šulgi of Ur: Life, Deeds, Ideology and Legacy of a Mesopotamian Ruler as Reflected Primarily in Literary Texts (PhD. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 2011, https://uhk.academia.edu/LudekVacin). — 2015: L. Vacín, “Tradition and Innovation in Šulgi’s Concept of Divine Kingship”, in: A. Archi (ed.), Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near East. CRRAI 57, Rome, 4–8 July 2011 (Winona Lake 2015), pp. 179–192. Vallat 1993a: F. Vallat, Les noms géopgraphiques des sources suso-élamites. RGTC 11 (Wiesbaden 1993). — 1993b: F. Vallat, “Le Kutir-Nahhunte d’Assurbanipal”, in: NABU 1993, no. 31. — 1996: F. Vallat, “Šu-ilišu, Iddin-Dagan et Imazu, roi d’Anšan”, in: NABU 1996, no. 87. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

687

van Buren 1948: E.D. van Buren, “Fish-Offerings in Ancient Mesopotamia”, in: Iraq 10, 1948, pp. 101–121. Van de Mieroop 1987a: M. Van de Mieroop, Crafts in the Early Isin Period: A Study of the Isin Craft Archive from the Reigns of Išbi-Erra and Šū-ilišu. OLA 24 (Leuven 1987). — 1987b: M. Van de Mieroop, “The Archive of Balmunamḫe”, in: AfO 34, 1987, pp. 1–29. Vanderkam 1989a: J.C. Vanderkam, The Book of Jubilees. A Critical Text. Scriptores Aethiopici Tomus 87. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 510 (Leuven 1989). — 1989b: J.C. Vanderkam, The Book of Jubilees, translated. Scriptores Aethiopici Tomus 88. Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 511 (Leuven 1989). van der Toorn 1985: K. van der Toorn, Sin and Sanction in Israel and Mesopotamia. A Comparative Study. Studia Semitica Neerlandica 22 (Assen 1985). van Dijk 1964: J. van Dijk, “Le motif cosmique dans la pensée sumérienne”, in: Acta Orientalia (Societates orientales Danica Norvegica Svecica) 28, 1964, pp. 1–59. — 1978: J. van Dijk, “Išbiʾerra, Kindattu, l’homme d’Elam, et la chute de la ville d’Ur”, in: JCS 30, 1978, pp. 189–208. — 1986: J. van Dijk, “Die dynastischen Heiraten zwischen Kassiten und Elamern. Eine verhängnisvolle Politik”, in: OrNS 55, 1986, pp. 159–170. van Dijk & Mayer 1980: J. van Dijk und W.R. Mayer, Texte aus dem Rēš-Heiligtum in Uruk-Warka. BagM Bh. 2 (Berlin 1980). van Gelder 2011: G.J. van Gelder, “A Flood of Bubbling Blood and a Talking Head: John the Baptist in the Islamic Sources”, paper read on the occasion of the “St John The Baptist Conference” at St John’s College, Oxford, on June 24, 2011. van Koppen 2013: F. van Koppen, “Abiešuh, Elam and Ashurbanipal: New Evidence from Old Babylonian Sippar”, in: K. De Graef and J. Tavernier (eds.), Susa and Elam. Archaeological, Philological, Historical and Geographical Perspectives. Proceedings of the International Congress Held at Ghent University, December 14–17, 2009 (Leiden 2013), pp. 377-397. Van Seters 1983: J. Van Seters, In Search of History. Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History (New Haven 1983). Vanstiphout 1974: H.L.J. Vanstiphout, “Was een Pestepidemie de Oorzaak van de Ondergang van het Nieuw-sumerische Rijk?”, in: Phoenix 20, 1974, pp. 351–370. — 1980: H.L.J. Vanstiphout, “The Death of an Era: The Great Mortality in the Sumerian City Laments”, in: B. Alster (ed.), Death in Mesopotamia. Papers read at the 26e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Copenhagen 1979. Mesopotamia 8 (Copenhagen 1980), pp. 83– 89. — 1989–1990: H.L.J. Vanstiphout, “The Man from Elam. A Reconsideration of Ishbi-Erra ‘Hymn B’”, in: Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 31, 1989–1990, pp. 53–62. — 1997: H.L.J. Vanstiphout, “The Disputation between Bird and Fish”, in: W.W. Hallo and K.L. Younger (eds.), The Context of Scripture. Vol. I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (Leiden 1997), pp. 581–584. Vargon 1998: Sh. Vargon, “Isaiah 7:18–25: Prophecy of Rebuke or Consolation?”, in: Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 26, 1998, pp. 107–120. VAT: Vorderasiatisches Museum (Texte), Berlin, accession number. Veenhof 1996: K.R. Veenhof, “An Old Assyrian Incantation Against a Black Dog (kt a/k 611)”, in: WZKM 86 (Festschrift für Hans Hirsch), 1996, pp. 425–433. Veldhuis 2004: N. Veldhuis, Religion, Literature, and Scholarship: The Sumerian Composition “Nanše and the Birds”. CM 22 (Leiden 2004).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

688

Bibliography

Vera Chamaza 2002: G.W. Vera Chamaza, Die Omnipotenz Assurs. Entwicklungen in der AssurTheologie unter den Sargoniden Sargon II., Sanherib und Asarhaddon. AOAT 295 (Münster 2002). Verbrugghe & Wickersham 1996: G.P. Verbrugghe and J.M. Wickersham, Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated. Native Traditions in Ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt (Ann Arbor 1996). Verderame 2002: L. Verderame, Le Tavole I–VI della serie astrologica Enūma Anu Enlil. NISABA 2 (Roma 2002). Vierhaus 1977: R. Vierhaus, “Rankes Begriff der historischen Objektivität”, in: R. Koselleck, W.J. Mommsen und J. Rüsen (eds.), Objektivität und Parteilichkeit in der Geschichtswissenschaft. Theorie der Geschichte. Beiträge zur Historik, Band 1. (München 1977), pp. 63–76. Villard 2001: P. Villard, “Les prophéties à l’époque néo-assyrienne”, in: A. Lemaire, Prophètes et rois. Bible et proche-Orient (Paris 2001) pp. 55–84. Vincente 1995: C.-A. Vincente, “The Tall Leilān Recension of the Sumerian King List”, in: ZA 85, 1995, pp. 234–270. Virolleaud, ACh: Ch. Virolleaud, L’Astrologie chaldéenne. Le livre intitulé “enuma (Anu) iluBêl”. Sin, Shamash, Ishtar, Adad, et supplements I–II (Paris 1908–1912). — 1909: Ch. Virolleaud, “Fragments astrologiques”, in: Babyloniaca 3, 1909, pp. 268–286. Vogelzang 1988: M.E. Vogelzang, Bin šar dadmē. Edition and Analysis of the Akkadian Anzu Poem (Groningen 1988). Volk 1995: K. Volk, Inanna und Šukaletuda. Zur historisch-politischen Deutung eines sumerischen Literaturwerkes. SANTAG 3 (Wiesbaden 1995). — 2011: K. Volk, “Eine neue Inschrift des Königs Sîn-iddinam von Larsa”, in: A.R. George (ed.), Cuneiform Royal Inscriptions and Related Texts in the Schøyen Collection. CUSAS 17 (Bethesda 2011), pp. 153–169, pls. 59–88. von Soden 1958: W. von Soden, “pitrustum”, in: OrNS 27, 1958, pp. 255–257. — 1971: W. von Soden, “Etemenanki vor Asarhaddon nach der Erzählung vom Turmbau zu Babel und dem Erra-Mythos”, in: Ugarit-Forschungen 3, 1971, pp. 253–263. — 1976: W. von Soden, “Bemerkungen zum Adapa-Mythos”, in: Barry L. Eichler (ed.), Kramer Anniversary Volume. Cuneiform Studies in Honor of Samuel Noah Kramer. AOAT 25 (1976), pp. 427–433. — 1990: W. von Soden, “Der babylonische Fürstenspiegel”, O. Kaiser (ed.), Weisheitstexte, Mythen und Epen. WeisheitstexteI. Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments. Band III, Lieferung 1 (Gütersloh 1990), pp. 170–173. — 1995: W. von Soden, Grundriss der akkadischen Grammatik. AnOr 33. Dritte, ergänzte Auflage (Roma 1995). — 1996: W. von Soden, “Die babylonischen Königsinschriften 1157–612 v.Chr. und die Frage nach der Planungszeit und dem Baubeginn von Etemenanki”, in: ZA 86, 1996, pp. 80–88. von Soden & Röllig 1991: W. von Soden und W. Röllig, Das Akkadische Syllabar. AnOr 42, 4., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage (Roma 1991). VS: Vorderasiatische Schriftdenkmäler der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin. VT: Vetus Testamentum. Vycichl 1963: W. Vycichl, “Die Schwarzköpfigen in Nordafrika”, in: AfO 20, 1963, p. 96. Waerden 1952: B.L. van der Waerden, “Das Große Jahr und die ewige Wiederkehr”, in: Hermes: Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie 80, 1952, pp. 129–155. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

689

Waerzeggers 2003–2004: C. Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Revolts Against Xerxes and the ‘End of Archives’ “, in: AfO 50, 2003–2004, pp. 150–173. — 2010: C. Waerzeggers, The Ezida Temple of Borsippa. Priesthood, Cult, Archives. Achaemenid History XV (Leiden 2010). — 2011: C. Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Priesthood in the Long Sixth Century BC,” in: Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies 54/2, 2011, pp. 59–70. — 2012: C. Waerzeggers, “The Babylonian Chronicles: Classification and Provenance”, in: JNES 71, 2012, pp. 285–298. — 2015a: C. Waerzeggers, “The Neo-Babylonian chronicle about Sabium and Apil-Sîn: a copy of the text (BM 29440)”, in: NABU 2015, no. 54. — 2015b: C. Waerzeggers, “Babylonian Kingship in the Persian Period: Performance and Reception,” in: J. Stökl and C. Waerzeggers (eds.), Exile and Return: The Babylonian Context. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 478 (Berlin 2015), pp. 181–222. — 2017: C. Waerzeggers, “The Prayer of Nabonidus in the Light of Hellenistic Babylonian Literature”, in: Ml. Popović, M. Schoonover and M. Vandenberghe (eds.), Jewish Cultural Encounters in the Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern World (Leiden 2017), pp. 64–75. Waerzeggers & Jursa 2008: C. Waerzeggers and M. Jursa: “On the Initiation of Babylonian Priests”, in: Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte 14, 2008, pp. 1–38. Waetzoldt 1970–1971: H. Waetzoldt, “Zwei unveröffentlichte Ur-III-Texte über die Herstellung von Tongefässen”, in: WO 6, 1970–1971, pp. 7–41. — 1972: H. Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumerischen Textilindustrie. Istituto Per L’Oriente. Studi economici e tecnologici 1 (Roma 1972). — 1988: H. Waetzoldt, “Die Situation der Frauen und Kinder anhand ihrer Einkommensverhältnisse zur Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur”, in: AoF 15, 1988, pp. 30–44. — 2008: H. Waetzoldt, “Die Haltung der Schreiber von Umma zu König Šusuen”, in: P. Michalowski (ed.), On the Third Dynasty of Ur. Studies in Honor of Marcel Sigrist. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Supplemental Series 1 (Boston 2008), pp. 245–249. Walker 1982: C.B.F. Walker, “Babylonian Chronicle 25: A Chronicle of the Cassite and Isin II Dynasties”, in: G. van Driel, Th.J.H. Krispijn, M. Stol, and K.R. Veenhof (eds.), Zikir Šumim. Assyriological Studies Presented to F. R. Kraus on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday. Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten. Studia Francisci Scholten Memoriae dicata, vol. 5 (Leiden 1982), pp. 398–417. — 1983: C.B.F. Walker, “Another Babati Inscription”, in: JCS 35, 1983, pp. 91–96. — 1997: C. Walker, “Achaemenid Chronology and the Babylonian Sources”, in: J. Curtis (ed.), Mesopotamia and Iran in the Persian Period: Conquest and Imperialism 539–331 BC (London 1997), pp. 17–25. Wasserman 2003: N. Wasserman, Style and Form in Old-Babylonian Literary Texts. CM 27 (Leiden 2003). Watai 2016: Y. Watai, “Transfer of Statues of Divinities from Babylonia to Elam and their Worship in the First Millennium BC”, in: K. Maekawa (ed.), Ancient Iran: New Perspectives from Archaeology and Cuneiform Studies. Proceedings of the International Colloquium held at the Center for Eurasian Cultural Studies, Kyoto University, December 6–7, 2014. Ancient Text Studies in the National Museum, Vol. 2 (Kyoto 2016), pp. 159–172. Watanabe 1987: K. Watanabe, Die adê-Vereidigung anlässlich der Thronfolgeregelung Asarhaddons. BagM Bh. 3 (Berlin 1987). Waters 2000: M.W. Waters, A Survey of Neo-Elamite History. SAAS 12 (Helsinki 2000).

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

690

Bibliography

Weadock 1975: P.N. Weadock, “The Giparu at Ur”, in: Iraq 37, 1975, pp. 101–128. Weidner 1912: E. Weidner, “Eine vermeintliche Sonnenfinsternis”, in: ZA 27, 1912, pp. 388– 390. — 1921: E. Weidner, Die Könige von Assyrien. Neue chronologische Dokumente aus Assur. MVAeG 26/2 (Leipzig 1921). — 1923: E. Weidner, “Astrologische Texte aus Boghazköi. Ihre sprachliche und kulturhistorische Bedeutung”, in: Archiv für Keilschriftforschung (= AfO) 1, 1923, pp. 1–12. — 1926: E. Weidner, Review of S. Langdon, Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 2, in: AfO 3, 1926, pp. 198–199. — 1928–1929: E. Weidner, “Historisches Material in der babylonischen Omina-Literatur”, in: Altorientalische Studien, Bruno Meissner zum sechzigsten Geburtstag am 25. April 1928 gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern. MAOG 4, 1928–1929, pp. 226–240. — 1939–1941: E. Weidner, “Texte – Wörter – Sachen”, in: AfO 13, 1939–1941, pp. 230–237; pp. 231–233: “Der Erdbeben-Text aus Nuzi” and “Ereškigal als Göttin des Erdbebens”. — 1959: E. Weidner, Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I. und seiner Nachfolger. AfO Bh. 12 (Graz 1959). Weiershäuser 2008: F. Weiershäuser, Die königlichen Frauen der III. Dynastie von Ur. Göttinger Beiträge zum Alten Orient 1 (Göttingen 2008). — 2012: F. Weiershäuser, “Ĝeštinanna und die Mutter des Šulgi”, in: G. Wilhelm (ed.), Organization, Representation, and Symbols of Power in the Ancient Near East. Proceedings of the 54th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Würzburg, 20–25 July 2008 (Winona Lake 2012), pp. 347–355. Weiher 1988: E. von Weiher, Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil III. ADFU 12 (Berlin 1988). Weinfeld 1972: M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford 1972). Weissbach 1903: F.H. Weissbach, Babylonische Miscellen. WVDOG 4 (Leipzig 1903). — 1906: F.H. Weissbach, Die Inschriften Nebukadnezars II im Wadi Brisa und am Nahr El-Kelb. WVDOG 5 (Leipzig 1906). Westbrook 1988: R. Westbrook, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law. Cahiers de la Revue Biblique 26 (Paris 1988). — 2003/I–II: R. Westbrook (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Vols. 1–2. Handbuch der Orientalistik I/72:1–2 (Leiden 2003). Westenholz 1999: A. Westenholz, “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture”, in: W. Sallaberger und A. Westenholz, Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit. Annäherungen 3, herausgegeben von P. Attinger und M. Wäfler. OBO 160/3 (Fribourg 1999), pp. 15–117. Wetzel 1957: F. Wetzel, E. Schmidt und A. Mallwitz, Das Babylon der Spätzeit. WVDOG 62 (Berlin 1957). Whitby 1989: M. Whitby, Chronicon Paschale, 284–628 AD. Translated Texts for Historians 7 (Liverpool 1989). White 1973: H. White, Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe (Baltimore 1973). — 1987: H. White, The Content of the Form. Narrative Discourse and Historical Representation (Baltimore 1987). Whiting 1976: R.M. Whiting, “Tiš-atal of Nineveh and Babati, Uncle of Šu-Sîn”, in: JCS 28, 1976, pp. 173–182. Whitley 1954: C.F. Whitley, “The Term Seventy Years Captivity”, in: VT 4, 1954, pp. 60–72. — 1957: C.F. Whitley, “The Seventy Years Desolation – A Rejoinder”, in: VT 7, 1957, pp. 416– 4 18. © 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

691

Wiggermann 1992: F.A.M. Wiggermann, Mesopotamian Protective Spirits. The Ritual Texts. CM 1 (Groningen 1992). — 1997: F.A.M. Wiggermann, “Transtigridian Snake Gods”, in: I.L. Finkel and M.J. Geller (eds.), Sumerian Gods and Their Representations. CM 7 (Groningen 1997), pp. 33–55. — 1998–2001: F.A.M. Wiggermann, “Niraḫ, Irḫan”, in: RlA 9, 1998–2001, pp. 570–574. Wilcke 1969a: C. Wilcke, Das Lugalbandaepos (Wiesbaden 1969). — 1969b: C. Wilcke, “Zur Geschichte der Amurriter in der Ur-III Zeit”, in: WO 5, 1969, pp. 1– 31. — 1969c: C. Wilcke, “Drei Phasen des Niedergangs des Reiches von Ur III” [résumé], in: ZDMG. Supplement 1 (Wiesbaden 1969), pp. 218–219. — 1970a: C. Wilcke, “Drei Phasen des Niedergangs des Reiches von Ur III”, in: ZA 60, 1970, pp. 54–69. — 1970b: C. Wilcke, “Eine Schicksalsentscheidung für den toten Urnammu”, in: A. Finet (ed.), Actes de la 17e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Bruxelles 1969 (Ham-sur-Heure 1970), pp. 81–92. — 1974: C. Wilcke, “Zum Königtum in der Ur III-Zeit”, in: P. Garelli (ed.), Le palais et la royauté (archéologie et civilisation). CRRAI 19, organisée par le groupe François Thureau-Dangin, Paris 29 juin – 2 juillet 1971 (Paris 1974), pp. 177–232. — 1977: C. Wilcke, “Die Anfänge der akkadischen Epen”, in ZA 67, 1977, pp. 153–216. — 1982: C. Wilcke, Review of H. Hunger, Spätbabylonische Texte aus Uruk. Teil I (= Hunger 1976), in: BiOr 39, 1982, cols. 141–145. — 1985: C. Wilcke, “Neue Quellen aus Isin zur Geschichte der Ur-III-Zeit und der I. Dynastie von Isin”, in: OrNS 54, 1985, pp. 299–318. — 1988a: C. Wilcke, “Die sumerische Königsliste und erzählte Vergangenheit”, in: J. Von Ungern-Sternberg (ed.), Vergangenheit in mündlicher Überlieferung (Stuttgart 1988), pp. 113–140. — 1988b: C. Wilcke, “König Šulgis Himmelfahrt”, in: Festschrift László Vajda. Münchner Beiträge zur Völkerkunde 1 (München 1988), pp. 245–255. — 1989: C. Wilcke, “Genealogical and Geographical Thought in the Sumerian King List”, in: H. Behrens, D. Loding, and M.T. Roth (eds.), DUMU-E2-DUB-BA-A. Studies in Honor of Ake W. Sjöberg. Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund 11 (Philadelphia 1989), pp. 557–571. — 1993: C. Wilcke, “Politik im Spiegel der Literatur, Literatur als Mittel der Politik im älteren Babylonien”, in: K. Raaflaub (ed.), Anfänge politischen Denkens in der Antike. Schriften des Historischen Kollegs. Kolloquien 24 (München 1993), pp. 29–75. — 1999: C. Wilcke, “Weltuntergang als Anfang: Theologische, anthropologische, politischhistorische und ästhetische Ebenen der Interpretation der Sintflutgeschichte im babylonischen Atram-hasīs-Epos”, in: A. Jones (ed.), Weltende. Beiträge zur Kultur- und Religionswissenschaft (Wiesbaden 1999), pp. 63–112. — 2002: C. Wilcke, “Vom göttlichen Wesen des Königtums und seinem Ursprung im Himmel”, in: F.-R. Erkens (ed.), Die Sakralität von Herrschaft. Herrschaftslegitimierung im Wechsel der Zeiten und Räume. Fünfzehn interdisziplinäre Beiträge zu einem weltweiten und epochenübergreifenden Phänomen (Berlin 2002), pp. 63–83. — 2007: C. Wilcke, “Das Recht: Grundlage des sozialen und politischen Diskurses im Alten Orient”, in: C. Wilcke (ed.), Das geistige Erfassen der Welt im Alten Orient. Beiträge zu Sprache, Religion, Kultur und Gesellschaft (Wiesbaden 2007), pp. 209–244. Wilhelm 1993–1997: G. Wilhelm, “Muršili I”, in: RlA 8, 1993–1997, pp. 434–435.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

692

Bibliography

Wickler 1907: H. Winckler, Review of L.W. King, Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings, including Records of the early history of the Kassites and the Country of the Sea. Vols. I–II (London 1907), in: OLZ 11, 1907, col. 574–593. Winitzer 2017: A. Winitzer, Early Mesopotamian Divination Literature. Its Organizational Framework and Generative and Paradigmatic Characteristics. Ancient Magic and Divination 12 (Leiden 2017). Winter 1986: I.J. Winter, “The King and the Cup: Iconography of the Royal Presentation Scene on Ur III Seals”, in: M. Kelly-Buccellati (ed.), Insight through Images. Studies in Honor of Edith Porada. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 21 (Malibu 1986), pp. 253–268. Wiseman 1975: D.J. Wiseman, “The End of the Kassite Domination”, in: The Cambridge Ancient History Vol. II/2 (3rd ed., Cambridge 1975), pp. 443–447. Witzel 1945: M. Witzel, “Die Klage über Ur”, in: OrNS 14, 1945, pp. 185–234. — 1946: M. Witzel, “Die Klage über Ur (Schluß)”, in: OrNS 15, 1946, pp. 46–63. WO: Die Welt des Orients. Woodington 1982: N.R. Woodington, A Grammar of the Neo-Babylonian Letters of the Kuyunjik Collection (Yale University, Ph.D., 1982). Woods 2004: Ch. Woods, “The Sun-God Tablet of Nabû-apla-iddina Revisited”, in: JCS 56, 2004, pp. 23–103. Worthington 2009–2011: M. Worthington, “Schankwirt(in)”, in: RlA 12, 2009–2011, pp. 132– 134. Wright 2010: J.L. “Wright, Commensal Politics in Ancient Western Asia: The Background to Nehemiah’s Feasting (Parts I–II)”, in: ZAW 122, 2010, pp. 212–233, 333–352. — 2015: J.L. Wright, “Urbicide. The Ritualized Killing of Cities in the Ancient Near East”, in: S.M. Olyan (ed.), Ritual Violence in the Hebrew Bible: New Perspectives (Oxford 2015), pp. 147–166. Wu 1994: Yuhong Wu, A Political History of Eshnunna, Mari and Assyria during the early Old Babylonian Period (from the end of Ur III to the Death of Šamši-Adad). Supplement to Journal of Ancient Civilizations No. 1 (Changchun 1994). Wüstenfeld 1858: F. Wüstenfeld, Das Leben Muhammed’s nach Muhammed Ibn Ishâk, bearbeitet von Abd el-Malik Ibn Hischâm. 1. Band: Text (Göttingen 1858). Wunsch 2000/I–II: C. Wunsch, Das Egibi-Archiv. Vols. I–II. CM 20A–B (Groningen 2000). WVDOG: Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. WZKM: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. Yadin 1983: Y. Yadin, The Temple Scroll. Vol. 1: Introduction (Jerusalem 1983). Yamada 1998: Sh. Yamada, “The Assyrian King List and the Murderer of Tukulti-Ninurta I”, in: NABU 1998, no. 23. — 2003a: Sh. Yamada, “Notes on the Genealogical Data of the Assyrian King List”, in: I. Ephʿal et al. (eds.), Hayim and Miriam Tadmor Volume. Eretz-Israel 27 (Jerusalem 2003), pp. 265–275 (English section). — 2003b: Sh. Yamada, “Tukulti-Ninurta I’s Rule over Babylonia and Its Aftermath: A Historical Reconstruction”, in: Orient 38, 2003, pp. 153–177. YOS 10: A. Goetze, Old Babylonian Omen Texts. Yale Oriental Series 10 (New Haven 1947). ZA: Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie. Zabłocka & Berger 1969: J. Zabłocka und P.-R. Berger, “Ein vollständigeres Duplikat zur Nebukadnezar II-Inschrift VAB 4 Nr. 46”, in: OrNS 38, 1969, pp. 122–125, Tab. III–VI.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Bibliography

693

Zach 1986: W. Zach, Poetic Justice. Theorie und Geschichte einer literarischen Doktrin. Begriff – Idee – Komödienkonzeption. Buchreihe der Anglia, Zeitschrift für englische Philologie 26 (Tübingen 1986). Zadok 1985: R. Zadok, Geographical Names According to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts. RGTC 8 (Wiesbaden 1985). Zaia 2015: Sh. Zaia, “State-Sponsored Sacrilege: ‘Godnapping’ and Omission in Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions”, in: Journal of Ancient Near Eastern History 2, 2015, pp. 19–54. ZAR: Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte. ZAW: Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Zawadzki 1988: S. Zawadzki, “Umman-manda: Bedeutung des Terminus und Gründe seiner Anwendung in der Chronik von Nabopolassar”, in: P. Vavroušek and V. Souček (eds.), Šulmu. Papers on the Ancient Near East presented at International Conference of Socialist Countries (Prague, Sept. 30 – Oct. 3, 1986). (Prague 1988), pp. 379–387. ZDMG: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. Zgoll 1997: A. Zgoll, Der Rechtsfall der En-ḫedu-Ana im Lied nin-me-šara. AOAT 246 (Münster 1997). — 2006: A. Zgoll, “Königslauf und Götterrat. Struktur und Deutung des babylonischen Neujahrsfestes”, in: E. Blum and R. Lux (eds.), Festtraditionen in Israel und im Alten Orient. Veröffentlichungen der Wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft für Theologie 28 (Gütersloh 2006), pp. 11–80.

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Indices (For Names and Terms see mainly the Glossary) Divine Names Anu ...................................................... 217 Aššur ................................................... 217 Baʾu, death of ............................... 71, 277 Ea-Nudimmud ................................... 216 Enki...................................................... 166 Enlil ............................................. 215, 217 Enlil, the deceiver ............................. 263 Ereškigal ............................................. 415 Gula ..................................................... 217 Hera (Ištar?) ....................................... 209 Mār-Bīt-kiššat-šamê-u-erṣeti ....... 166, 217, 389 Marduk ......................................... 54, 216 Meršakušu ............................................ 73 Nabû .................................................... 217 Nanše................................................... 168 Nin-Ĝirsu ............................................ 167 Nin-Isina ............................................. 217 Ninkarrak ........................................... 217 Rhea (Erūa)......................................... 209 Ruḫuratir ............................................ 259 Šazu ............................................. 117, 217 Tiʾāmat (dais) ..................................... 211 Zeus (Marduk) ................................... 209 Temple Names é-saĝ-gíl vs. é-saĝ-íl .......................... 388 Etemenanki ................................ 177, 183 é-tuš-a (é-umuš-a) ............................ 380 Personal Names Adad-apla-iddina ...................... 127, 443 Adapa .................................................. 144 Akka ..................................................... 141 Amar-Sîn ............................................ 161 Antiochos IV, death of ..................... 386 Antiochos Strategos ........................... 32 Anu-aḫa-ušabši.................................. 469 Anu-balāssu-iqbi ............................... 469 Apil-Sîn ............................................... 376 Bala-mu-namḫe................................... 83 Bangar ................................. 159, 466, 470

Benyamin of Tudela ..........................182 Būr-Sîn of Isin ........................... 309, 477 Creon....................................................160 Croesus ....................................... 249, 264 Daduša, liver model ............................. 92 Damiq-ilīšu of Isin ..... 53, 114, 138, 375, 376 Damiq-ilīšu of the Sealand ...............377 Ea-mukīn-zēri .....................................426 Ebarat I ..........................................47, 237 Ekur-zākir ...........................................469 Eli, sin of the house of .................... 172f Enlil-nādin-aḫi ...............................66, 67 En-me-barage-si.................................141 Enmerkar ............................................142 Eteocles................................................160 Eʾulmaš-šākin-šumi .................. 426, 438 Gandaš (Gaddaš)................................... 62 Geme-Enlila, wife of Ibbi-Sîn ............. 40 Gilgameš ............................. 141, 144, 165 Ḫantili .................................................... 62 Herod (Antipas).................................... 32 Herod Agrippa, death of ...................386 Ḫu(m)ba(n)-simtī ...............................296 Ḫumban-ḫaldaš I, death of...............553 Ḫumban-ḫaldaš II, death of .............555 Ḫumban-nimena, death of ...............555 Ḫutran-tempt ...............................47, 297 Idattu I ...........................................47, 238 Išbi-Erra .........................................49, 235 *Iskallatu (apkallatu)..........................148 Itti-Marduk-balāṭu ............................518 Joḥanan b. Nappāḥā ..........................182 John the Baptist ................................... 32 Josiah ...................................................133 Kabti-ilī-Marduk ................................448 Kaššû-nādin-aḫḫī...............................426 Khosrau II .............................................. 32 Khosrau II, death of ............................. 34 Kidin-Anu ................................... 469, 474 Kindattu ........................................47, 238 Kindattu, envoys of ...........................289 Ku-Baʾu ....................................... 123, 145

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Indices Kutir-Naḫḫunte I ............................... 530 Kutir-Naḫḫunte II...... 65, 123, 317, 322, 495, 523, 530 Lâbâši ................................................... 398 Libūrniʾāš, daughter of Išbi-Erra .... 296 Lu-[...]-uḫḫan of Anšan ...................... 45 Lugal-zage-si, sin of ............................ 52 Lu-Nanna .................................... 467, 473 Mammētum, daughter of Ibbi-Sîn .... 40 Manasseh ............................127, 132, 249 Manasseh, prayer of.................. 133, 160 Mār-Bīti-apla-uṣur ............................ 426 Marduk-ēṭir ................................ 375, 398 Marduk-kabit-aḫḫēšu ............... 516, 518 Mušēzib-Bēl ................................ 375, 398 Mutakkil-Nusku ......................... 516, 518 Nabopolassar ...................................... 474 Nabû-apla-iddina, Sun-God Tablet ........... .........................................224, 416, 427 Nabû-mukīn-apli ...... 69, 174, 177, 426, 438, 447 Nabû-šumu-libūr ..... 69, 174, 426, 438, 447 Nabû-zuqup-kēnu..............196, 400, 425 Naqīʾa-Zakūtu .................................... 148 Narām-Sîn of Akkade ........................ 155 Nebuchadnezzar I......... 67, 74, 316, 322 Nebuchadnezzar II ... 30, 128, 179, 198, 227, 559 Nebuzaradan ........................................ 31 Ninurta-kudurrī-uṣur I ..................... 426 Ninurta-tukulti-Aššur.........65, 515, 518 Polynices ............................................. 160 Puzur-ilī .............................................. 144 Puzur-Niraḫ ........................................ 389 Puzur-Numušda .................251, 257, 262 Puzur-Sîn ............................................ 389 Rabsisi..................................159, 466, 470 Sābium................................................. 377 Sammu-rāmat/Semiramis ............... 148 Samsu-iluna, fict. letter of ............... 508 Sargon of Akkade....................... 152, 153 Sennacherib (death) ...... 35, 123ff, 526f Shalmaneser I............ 154, 177, 315, 528 Simbar-Šipak ......................426, 427, 438 Suḫāya ......................................... 375, 398 Sumu-la-El .................................. 217, 375

695 Šamgar b. ʿAnat ................................. 394 Širikti-Šuqamuna .............................. 426 Šu-ilīšu of Isin .............................. 51, 285 Šulgi ..................................................... 156 Šulgi-simtī, daughter of Ibbi-Sîn ...... 40 Šuruš-kīn ............................................ 296 Šu-Sîn .................................................. 164 Šutruk-Naḫḫunte I .....65, 238, 317, 322, 495 Tabban-Daraḫ .................................... 472 Tabūʾa .................................................. 148 Teʾelḫunu ........................................... 148 Tiglath-pileser I, library of .............. 312 Tudḫaliya (I) ....................................... 529 Tukultī-Ninurta I ............... 123, 512, 523 Tukultī-Ninurta I, epic of ........... 73, 519 Ur-Namma .................................. 372, 466 Ur-Zababa ........................................... 152 Utu-ḫeĝal .................................... 155, 197 Utu-ḫeĝal, daughter of ............. 467, 473 Uzziah of Judah.................................. 157 Watartum ........................................... 473 Xerxes (death of) .......123, 207, 214, 535 Yatīʾe ................................................... 148 Zababa-šuma-iddina ........................... 67 Zechariah b. Jehoiada ......................... 31 Geographical & Ethnographical Names Amorites .......................38, 235, 284, 285 Anšan............................................. 45, 236 Babylon, centre of the world ....... 104ff Babylon, mountain of life ............... 178f Borsippa, ziqqurrat of ........................ 182 Brisa ..................................................... 559 Elam ..................................................... 236 Gutium ........................................ 155, 239 Ḫuḫnuri .............................................. 259 Šimaški ................................................ 236 Sippar, scribes of ............................... 398 Tidnum..........................38, 235, 284, 285 Ummān-Manda.......................... 144, 239 Wādī aš-šarbīn ................................... 559 Terms aḫû (non-canonical) .......................... 401 apil kalbati ........................................... 385 *er (ḫamṭu pl. of ĝen) ........................ 255

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Indices

696 ḫarimtu ................................................ 150 kī šalmi ......................................... 228, 438 kidinnūtu ............................. 143, 225, 229 lemuttu, qāta ana l. wabāblu .............. 213 lemutta kapādu.................................... 211 lemutta šiteʾʾû ...................................... 213 makkarāniš .......................................... 394 mēsu ............................................. 116, 382 musukkannu ................................ 117, 382 nammaššû ............................................ 230 ṣalmāt qaqqadi..................................... 231 šalmu, kī šalmi ............................. 228, 438 šar kiššati ............................................... 44 ú-a ........................................................ 146 ùšu giĝ4--a5(-k) ................................... 281 zakûtu .................................................. 229 zāninu .................................................. 146 ἀνδριάς (statue) ................................ 207 ἐπιβούλειν .......................................... 211 ‫ מלמד הבקר‬............................................ 394 ‫ מייש‬...................................................... 382 ‫ שׂכר‬....................................................... 534 ‫ ﻣﻴﺲ‬....................................................... 382 Topics admonitions to priests (Egypt) ....... 172 alcoholism .......................................... 337 alewife................................................. 149 analogy ................................................. 89 association (method).......................... 89 beasts (= chaos) ............................... 174ff bestialization, of enemies ....... 236, 239, 243, 245 brothel ................................................ 150 canonical/non-.................................. 401 centre of the world ................... 105, 109 cuneiform sign on the liver ............ 304 death of the goddess Baʾu ......... 71, 277 deification .......................................... 220 deification, disputed ........................ 221 deification, ridiculed .......................... 44 earthquake ......................................... 414 eclipse, lunar ....... 29, 485, 488, 496, 535 eclipse? (sun, Simbar-Šipak 7)......... 440 emblem Nunbi-me-anki ..................... 286 end of the archives ........................... 399 ēn-priestess of Nanna ....................... 261

fish offerings ......................................166 flood ........................................... 176f, 179 four-faced genie/god ........................107 gender ambiguity ..............................151 gender, holders of kingship .............148 goad, smiting people with................394 gods, killed ................................. 115, 277 heaven and earth, shouting .............414 hiring a foreign king .........................534 historia magistra vitae ........................... 21 history, cyclical ......................... 187, 192 history, intentional (Gehrke) ............ 24 history, repeating ................................ 67 history, typified ...........................30, 187 illness ................................................ 553ff impurity ..............................................157 incest....................................................137 kin liability ......................... 130, 131, 159 king, deified ..................................43, 219 king, deified: disputed ......................221 king, deified: ridiculed ........................ 44 king, despotic ....................................... 45 kingship vs. queenship .....................148 kingship, criticism of ............... 219, 226 leftovers ........................................... 170ff leprosy ........................................ 131, 156 lightning (Etemenanki) ....................177 lightning (temple of Aššur)..............177 locusts ......................................... 240, 308 madness................................................. 74 Map of the World ..................................105 monkey (pejorative term) ................244 Negative Confession of Sins ..................225 number 4 .............................................100 number 6 .................................... 417, 501 number 7 ............................ 501, 505, 506 omen, misleading? ............................264 period of wrath, 30/70 years ...........192 personification ...................................243 phthiriasis .............................................386 plague ............................................... 553ff privileges (kidinnūtu)........ 143, 225, 229 prostitution ........................................150 queen ...................................................148 ram with four horns ..........................101 repetition of history............................ 67 revenge, divine ........... 58, 495, 553, 558

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Indices reversion of offerings (Egypt) ......... 172 Royal Corresp. of Ur....... 84, 250, 257, 261 salt, city sown with ................... 316, 463 saros cycle ................................... 191, 535 sexual behaviour, deviant................ 136 sexualization ...................................... 150 sins, collective.................................... 131 sins, of people ......... 74, 76, 79, 317, 536 sins, of priests ........... 79, 117, 171ff, 508 singularization ................................... 243 snakes .......................................... 239, 308 soil of destroyed cities.....315, 458, 459, 462, 463 square temple, oracle (Josephus) ... 110 statue (ἀνδριάς/ἄγαλμα) ................. 208 Sun-God Tablet .....................224, 416, 427 tavern .................................................. 149 thunderstorm, cosmic ...................... 414 tower of Babel ................................. 176ff typification of enemies .................... 243 typification of history ................ 30, 187 urbicide ................................................. 70 year name Ibbi-Sîn 22 ......................... 47 year name Ibbi-Sîn 23 ................. 47, 255 year name Išbi-Erra 16 ............... 47, 295 year name Išbi-Erra 27 .......47, 295, 297 year name Išbi-Erra 30 ..................... 289 year name Šu-ilīšu 2.......................... 287 Cuneiform Texts ABL 1249, ov. 1–13.............................. 555 ACh, Adad no. 17:17–18 ..................... 492 ACh, Ištar no. 21: 12–13 ..................... 480 ACh, Sîn no. 4:21–22........................... 494 ACh, Sîn no. 19: 4–5............................ 480 ACh, Sîn no. 33:79–86 ........................ 488 ACh, Sîn no. 34:59–62 ........................ 485 ACh, Suppl. I, p. 27, no. 27:6’–15’ ...... 496 ACh, Suppl. I, p. 27, no. 28:20’–29’ .... 496 ACh, Suppl. II, p. 28, no. 18: ov. 18–19 ......................................................... 494 ACh, Suppl. II, p. 37, Sîn no. 22a+c, rv. 2’–10’ ............................................... 488 ACh, Suppl. II, p. 95, Ištar no. 67, rv. 10’–15’............................................. 480 ACh, Suppl. II, p. 99, Ištar no. 70:24–25 ......................................................... 492

697 Advice to a Prince......................... 113, 143 AfO 16, pl. 14 (Rm 2, 286) .................. 400 AfO 17, p. 321 (K 5763)....................... 387 AfO 17, pl. 1 (VAT 9419+), I:6’–17’ .... 496 AfO 17, pl. 2 (Uruk 159), 1’f............... 496 Apology of Ḫantili .................................. 62 Asarhaddon, Bab. Ep. 2–8 ................. 536 Aššur Charter ....................................... 143 Bab. Chronicle no. 1, II:4’–5’ ............... 552 Bab. Chronicle no. 1, III:28–31 ........... 552 Babyloniaca 3, p. 270, K 2305+ ........... 485 Babyloniaca 3, p. 276, Sm 1224, l. 5’ ....... ......................................................... 504 Babyloniaca 9, pls. 2–3 ....................... 340 BIN 9, no. 438, ll. 21–24 ..................... 296 BiOr 14, pl. 2 (A 130), ll. 4’–11’ .......... 448 BM 29440............................................. 377 BM 32234, rv. IV’:4’ ........................... 535 BM 35496, ov. 9’ff, 13’ff, rv. 1ff ........ 522 BM 47679............................................. 354 Book of Prodigies .......................... 400, 437 Borger, Asarh., Bab. A–G, Ep. 2–8 .... 536 Cagni 1969, pl. IV, rv. 1’–7’ ............... 448 Chedorlaomer Texts ............................. 522 Chronicle of Early Kings ............... 458, 464 Chronicle of Sābium & Apil-Sîn............ 377 Chronicle P IV:1–13 ............................. 512 CKU no. 22B, ll. 5–10 .......................... 250 CKU no. 23, ll. 6–13, 17–24 ................ 257 CKU no. 24 (short), ll. 13–16 ............. 250 CKU no. 24 (long), ll. 18–21 .............. 250 CKU no. 24 (long), ll. 37–43 .............. 261 Craig, AAT, pl. 21 (K 270), II:24–31 ........ ......................................................... 488 Craig, AAT, pl. 22 (K 270), III:29’–34’ ..... ......................................................... 485 CT 20, pl. 13 (K 6271), rv. 12’ ............ 501 CT 20, pl. 26, ov. 1’–2’ ........................ 476 CT 27, pl. 22, rv. 21 ............................ 507 CT 28, pl. 6 (K 766) ............................. 455 CT 28, pl. 49 (K 3760), rv. 15’ ............ 453 CT 28, pl. 49 (K 6231), ov. 1’ ............. 503 CT 29, pls. 48–49 ................................ 400 CT 30, pl. 1 (K 85, ov. 1–rv.1 ) .......... 305 CT 30, pl. 9 (K 3843+), ov. 7’.............. 478 CT 30, pl. 9 (K 3843+), ov. 20’f .......... 500 CT 30, pl. 10 (K 3843+) rv. 4’ ............. 508

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Indices

698 CT 30, pl. 19 (83–1–18, 458), rv. III:5’ ........................................................ 503 CT 30, pl. 37 (K 12726), l. 6’ .............. 503 CT 51, pl. 40, no. 118, l. 8’ ................. 507 CT 51, pl. 53, no. 152, rv. 16’f ........... 313 CT 51, pl. 53, no. 152, rv. 18’f ........... 312 CT 54, pl. 68, no. 204, ov. 23–30....... 445 CTH 10 ................................................... 62 CTH 19 ................................................... 61 CTH 264 ............................................... 171 CTH 376 ................................................. 61 CTMMA 2, no. 41, ov. 7’ ..................... 507 Cyrus Cylinder ..................................... 143 de Genouillac, PRAK 2, pl. 44, D 41, II:1’–4’............................................. 277 Edict of Telipinu ..................................... 61 Eri-enim-gina 16 ................................. 52 Esaĝil Chronicle.................................... 338 Esaĝil Chronicle, “commentary”....... 387 Falkenstein, LKU, no. 41 (VAT 14515) ........................................................ 340 Geers’ Copy Q 107 (K 4121, l. 13’) ...... 313 Hunger 1976, no. 2 (W 22289) ......... 466 Hunger 2001, pl. 2 ............................. 535 Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 14; rv. IV:3’–7’ ........................................... 480 Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 21; rv. VI:10’–15’ ....................................... 480 Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 23; rv. IV:5–8 ............................................. 480 Hunger & Pingree 1989, pl. 27; rv. IV:28–31 ......................................... 480 III R 60, II:81–88 ................................. 488 III R 61, III:19–22 ................................ 485 Instruct. Temple Personnel .................. 171 Iraq 31, p. 59 (AO 7756), ov. 3’.......... 500 Iraq 31, p. 59 (AO 7756), ov. 7’.......... 456 Iraq 31, p. 60 (AO 7756), ov. 10’f ...... 457 Iraq 31, p. 60 (AO 7756), rv. 7 ........... 503 Iraq 51, p. 113, fig. 1, rv. IV:23’–31’ ........ ........................................................ 448 Iraq 52, pp. 11ff, pl. 1 (IM 124470)... 340 Iraq 56, p. 136 ..................................... 508 JCS 29, pp. 162, 166: D.T. 39, ll. 5’–6’ ...... ........................................................ 476 JCS 29, p. 166 (Rm 2, 553).................. 476 JCS 32, p. 78 (BM 39202) .................... 340

JCS 32, pp. 79f (BM 47733) .................340 JCS 68, p. 139, BM 61665+, rv. 3 ........506 JCS 68, p. 140, BM 61665+, rv. 2 ........313 K 2189, III:1’.........................................503 K 2722+, ov.? 4 .....................................453 K 3670+, rv. 4 .......................................506 K 4004, ov. 10’ .....................................313 K 4012...................................................453 K 4121, 13’ ...........................................313 K 6995, 10’ ...........................................313 K 7530+, ov. 23–30 ..............................445 K 8021, 6’–11’ ......................................485 K 8817...................................................453 K 9589, rv. 10f .....................................313 K 9589, rv. 12.......................................312 KAH II, no. 122, ll. 44b–47 .................462 KAR, no. 169, p. 306, ov. IV:48–50 ....448 KAR, no. 422, obv!. 15 .........................313 KAR, no. 433, l. 9’ ................................313 King 1904, p. 157, IV:1–13 .................512 King 1907/II, p. 115, ov. 18–23 .........458 King 1907/II, p. 117, rv. 5–7 .............464 King 1907/II, p. 129, ov. 7–11 ...........459 King 1907/II, pp. 157–179 .................426 Koch 2005, p. 203, l. 87 ......................500 Koch 2005, p. 258, l. 34 ......................501 Koch 2005, p. 258, l. 38 ......................456 Koch 2005, p. 259, l. 41 ......................457 Koch 2005, p. 260, l. 47 ......................503 Koch 2005, pp. 438f, no. 75 ...............305 Lament f. Eridu, excerpts ....................283 Lament f. Nippur, excerpts .................284 Lament f. Sumer & Ur, excerpts..........269 Lament f. Sumer & Ur, structure ........269 Lament f. Ur, excerpts ........................279 Lament f. Uruk, excerpts ....................278 Langdon 1912, pp. 154–157, Nbk. no. 19, A IV:58–V:18 ............................559 LBAT, no. 1526 rv. 1–3 .......................494 LBAT, p. xxxi, no. 1419 ......................535 Marduk Prophecy ...................... 54, 64, 76 Marduk Prophecy I:7–II:18 ..................325 Mari liver model no. 4.......................289 Mari liver model no. 5.......................160 Mari liver model no. 6.......................291 Mari liver model no. 7.......................292 Mari liver model no. 8.......................293

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Indices Mari liver model no. 9 ...................... 294 Mari liver model no. 10 .................... 295 OECT 11, no. 79, rv. 100 .................... 313 OECT 11, no. 79, rv. 101 .................... 312 OECT 11, no. 95, ll. 3’, 8’ff ................. 213 Plague Prayers of Muršili II .................... 61 Poem of Erra (tab. I:119–123) ............. 135 Poem of Erra (tab. IIc:35–43) .............. 448 RA 35, p. 42, pl. 2, no. 4 ..................... 289 RA 35, p. 42, pl. 3, no. 5. .................... 160 RA 35, p. 42, pl. 3, no. 6 ..................... 291 RA 35, pp. 42f, pl. 4, no. 7 .................. 292 RA 35, p. 43, pl. 4, no. 8 ..................... 293 RA 35, p. 43, pl. 5, no. 9 ............. 294, 295 RA 38, p. 84, AO 7030, rv. 5–6 (= ll. “26– 29”) ................................................. 300 RA 102, p. 141, K 3870+, ov. 35’f ....... 505 RA 102, p. 144, BM 79-7-8, 90; ov. 28 ......................................................... 479 RA 102, p. 145, K 11141, rv. 3’ ........... 503 Religious Chronicle ............................... 426 RIMA 1, A.0.77.1, ll. 46b–53 .............. 315 RIMB 2, B.2.4.6, ll. 2’–13’ ................... 322 RIMB 2, B.2.4.8, ll. 15–24 ................... 316 RIME 4, p. 16, E4.1.2.1, ll. 8–16 ......... 285 RIME 4, pp. 17–18, E4.1.2.2, I:15–II:7, IV:3’–5’............................................ 285 RINAP 3/2, p. 248, no. 168, ll. 44b–47 ......................................................... 462 RINAP 4, no. 104, 1............................. 536 RINAP 4, no. 104, 4............................. 536 RINAP 4, no. 105, 1............................. 536 RINAP 4, no. 105, 2............................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 106, 1............................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 106, 2............................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 106, 5............................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 106, 6............................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 106, 7............................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 108 ................................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 109 ................................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 111 ................................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 113 ................................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 114 ................................. 537 RINAP 4, no. 116 ................................. 536 RINAP 4, no. 117 ................................. 537 Ritual of the kalû, omens .................... 174

699 Rochberg-Halton 1988, pp. 210ff, EAE 20, § XI, A ....................................... 496 Rochberg-Halton 1988, pp. 248f, EAE 21, § XII:1–5 ................................... 488 Rochberg-Halton 1988, pp. 261ff, EAE 22, I § XII:1–5 ................................. 485 Sennacherib, bīt-akīti ll. 44b–47 ...... 462 Sm 1918 ............................................... 400 Sollberger, CIRPL, Ukg. 16 .................. 52 Sp. III, 2 ............................................... 522 Starr 1993, p. 235 (BM 75224, rv. 13) ......................................................... 453 STT 1, no. 18, rv. 5’–8’ ....................... 448 STT 2, no. 357 ..................................... 480 Šulgi Prophecy.............................. 133, 160 TCL 6, no. 1, ov. 25 ............................. 479 TCL 6, no. 1, ov. 35 ............................. 478 TCL 6, no. 1, rv. 18 .............................. 500 Thompson, RMA II, no. 237a ............ 480 UET 1, no. 100, pl. N, I:8–16.............. 285 UET 3, no. 702 ...................................... 38 UET 3, no. 704 ...................................... 38 UET 7, no. 155, rv. V:8–17 ................ 508 UET 8, no. 62, I:15–II:7, IV:3’–5’ ....... 285 Uru-ka-gina 16 ..................................... 52 V R 6, VI:96–98 ................................... 463 VAT 11249, 1’–5’ ................................ 488 Walker 1997, p. 20, fig. 7................... 535 Weidner Chronicle ................................ 338 Weissbach 1906, pp. 17–18............... 559 YOS 10, no. 13, ov. 1 .......................... 307 YOS 10, no. 14, ov. 10–11 .................. 301 YOS 10, no. 18, rv. 61(a-b) ................ 311 YOS 10, no. 22, ov. 11 ........................ 303 YOS 10, no. 22, ov. 12 ........................ 303 YOS 10, no. 24, ov. 10 ........................ 303 YOS 10, no. 24, ov. 11 ........................ 303 YOS 10, no. 25, ov. 32(a-b)................ 311 YOS 10, no. 26, ov. I:21–22................ 303 YOS 10, no. 26, ov. II:51–53 .............. 311 YOS 10, no. 31, rv. XII:45–XIII:5 ...... 307 YOS 10, no. 32, ov. 1–3 ...................... 308 YOS 10, no. 33, rv. IV:28–30 ............. 164 YOS 10, no. 36, ov. I:13–14................ 301 YOS 10, no. 36, ov. I:15–16................ 302 YOS 10, no. 44, rv. 53......................... 240

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)

Indices

700 YOS 10, no. 46, rv. V:4–6 .................. 295 YOS 10, no. 46, rv. V:10–14 .............. 297 YOS 10, no. 47, rv. 63 ........................ 302 YOS 10, no. 47, rv. 64 ........................ 302 YOS 10, no. 56, ov. I:40–41 ............... 306 YOS 10, no. 61, ov. 6a-b .................... 304 YOS 10, no. 61, ov. 7a-b .................... 304 ZA 42, pp. 48f, pls. 1f ......................... 340 Biblical & Jewish Literature Gen 11:7–8 .......................................... 182 Deu 24:16 ............................................ 135 Jud 3:31 ............................................... 394 1 Sam 2:12–36 ................................... 172f Dan 8:3, 5–8 ........................................ 101 Zech 2:10 ............................................. 111 Book of Jubilees 10:26 .......................... 182 Oracles of the Sibyls (3rd book) ........... 182 Talmūd Bavlî/Sanhedrîn 109a ............ 182 Midraš Berēšît rabbah 28:8 ................. 136 Sefer har-Rāzîm I, §§ 43, 51................ 109

Classical Literature (Pseudo-)Berossus, Jacoby, FGrHist, III C1, p. 397, no. 680/21 ...................187 Cicero, De oratore II:36 ......................... 21 Ctesias, Persica ..............................98, 209 Diodorus, Hist. 2:9, 5–6 ......................209 Diodorus, Hist. 2:30, 1 .......................... 98 Diodorus, Hist. 2:30, 5 ........................186 Herodotus, Hist. 1:8–14; 91 ...............249 Herodotus, Hist. 1:53 ..........................264 Herodotus, Hist. 1:91, 4–6..................249 Herodotus, Hist. 1:183, 1–3 ...............208 Herodotus, Hist. 3:151, 2....................206 Herodotus, Hist. 3:153–154, 1 ...........206 Josephus, Antiquities 1:4, 3 ................182 Seneca, Nat. quaest. III:29 ..................186

© 2019, Zaphon, Münster ISBN 978-3-96327-074-1 (Buch) / ISBN 978-3-96327-075-8 (E-Book)